Early
Christian World
Greer
1/9/95:
Lecture
30-180
CE: the time period emphasized in this course.
Questions
in this course: How did Christianity
become a world religion; why did Constantine
embrace it?
Christianity
evolved out of a dialectic between Judaism and Greco-Hellonism Philosophy.
Political
Setting: Judea
in the 1st century
Pre-Roman:
31
BCE: Alexander the Great conquered Palestine .
33 BCE, he died. After a short time, the
Salucids ruled from Antioch . The turned the temple into a place
of idol worship.
The
Apocrypha: in the Septuagint but not in the Hebrew version of Old Testament.
For
example, the Maccabees.
165
BCE Judas Maccabaus-- made Judea an ind. state
until: 63 BCE (Pompey). It was a priest kingdom. Pompey the Great, a Roman,
entered Judea in 165 BCE; made a providence.
The Roman Empire was expanding. Pompey was the Roman general in the
East. Pompey was amazed at the
continuance of Jewish rituals in the midst of the siege. Pompey entered the sanctuary and the Holy of
Holies. He took the gold stuff in it. His violation was short-lived; rituals
cont'd.
Herod
the Great, 40-4 BCE:
Mark
Anthony (J. Caesar had been assassinated.
Augustus was then Emperor) was in control of the Roman East. He organized client kingdoms. He appointed Herod as King of Judea. Jesus born during Herod the Great. Ausgustus and Anthony fought; the latter and
Cleopatra killed themselves. Herod went
to Augustus who supported and maintained him.
Herod was a Jew. He was cruel: he
kill the first-borns. Yet, he restored
the sanctuary. He also built towns such as Caecarea. He tried to bring Judea
into the mainstream in romanizing it. He
tried to bring the Jews into the mainstream of the Roman world. Yet, this policy was not popular with
everyone in Judea . There was domestic
trouble. So, Roman governors were sent
in. Procurators. They were ruthless.
The
procurators:
Pontius
Pilate 26-36. Pilate killed Galilean 'freedom fighters'. He was ruthless.
The
two Jewish revolts:
At
66-70 CE, Titus, the general, destroys the temple. At 132-135 CE., Bar Cochba
('Son of the star'--out of Numbers). The
Hedrianic Revolt. At 135, Jerusalem
was destroyed. So, Judea
was an occupied country with freedom-fighters at the time of Jesus. Political
instability. A Roman Governor sent in to restore peace.
Judaism
in 1st century: Diastrian and Palestinian Judaism. The former was more inclusive of outside
philosophies. Dead Sea Scrolls, however, show a more complex picture. Josephus'
evidence: He saw Judaism as three
philosophies (Sadducees and the zealots(freedom-fighters). But, there were many minor sects, such as
John's baptizing sect. For instance, there were the Sadducees, Pharisees, and
the Essenes (at Qumran , Dead Sea Scrolls)
1/11/95
2.
Judaism in the 1st Century:
Diverse
philosophies then. In the ancient world,
Judiasm and Christianity looked more like philosophies. Judiastic philosophies: Sadducees, Pharisees,
Essenes, and the zealots. There were
other sects too, many of which were baptizing new members. It was a proselytizing religion at that time;
a missionary religion (Mt 23). Even before the temple was destoyed at 70 C.E.,
there were synogogues. Many participated
in the life of the synogogue without becoming full members. Perhaps the first gentile Christians were
such people. The concurrence of Judiasm
and Christianity through Judiasm into a non-missionary stance.
The
Sadducees were the high priest class, opposed to new ideas. For example,
resurrection of the body was not in earlier books in the O.T., but was in the
latter books (e.g. Dan). So,
'resurrection' was a new idea in the latter books of the O.T. before the time
of Jesus. Like the ideas of angels and demons, this idea probably came from Persia .
The idea of resurrection of the dead was opposed by the Sadducees and taught by
the Pharisees.
The Pharisees were the ancestors of
Rabbinic Judiasm. In the passion
narrative, the Sadducees were Jesus' opponents. The passion narrative was
probably written earlier than the main gospel passages where the Pharisees were
the enemy. The pharisees rose in power
after the sadducees, due to the destruction of the temple and the latter's
dependence on it (to do sacrifices). The
Pharisees believed in angels and the resurrection of the dead. They established synogogues and were members
of the sanhadren (the internal government of Judiasm).
The
Essenes has a relatively severe form of discipline. Poverty, celibacy, and fasting. In 1947, Dead
Sea Scrolls were discovered at Qumran ,
which probably belonged to a Essene
community. Many copies of biblical (O.T.) texts were found. These copies
would have been before the Rabbis redacted it. The copy of Isiah is virtually
identical to the copy written in 900. In
some of the texts, a Zoroastrian
Light/darkness element. This element was
in John too. A dualistic pattern of good and evil--connected with blessings and
curses. Good and bad impulses. A dualistic, ethical element. There was also
an eschatological element: how to conduct selves at the final battle of the
world. Messianic expectations. Three messiahs: Royal (kingly, like David or
Moses), Priestly (like Aaron), and Prophetic (who will return at the end of the
age). These notions probably combined in
the understanding of Jesus, messiahship.
The Essenes had a hymn book.
There
are links between the Essenes of the Scrolls and the Christians and the later
Christian Gnostics. Problem: can't tell what were the unique themes to the
Essenes, distinct from the other Jewish sects, in the Scrolls.
Philo
(20 BCE-50 CE). A middle platonist
philosopher who was Jewish. He gives an allegorical commentary on the
Pentitude. Also, exegetes Genesis.
Allegorical interp.s metaphysical or ethical in character. Judiasm was interested in being translated at
that time into the world around it.
3.
Rabbinic Judaism:
Formatiive
time: 70-200 C.E. The school at Jabneh
had canonical work (establishing and systematizing the texts of Judiasm after
the Temple ).
Also, very concerned with the law (the Torah and oral law imp.). The literature: The Tannaim wrote
commentaries who wrote the Midrash. A biblical text commented upon. Not systematic. Not internally consistent. The Amorams wrote the Mishnah (org'd the laws
in orders) and the Gemara. They make up
the Talmud. (i.e. of the law) The
Amorams also helped write the Midrash.
There were also works on the sages and there were homolies as well as
ethical works. But, the primary emphasis
was on the law. The law replaced the Temple .
1/16/95
Writings
of New Testament
Apostolic
Fathers
Didache (Syria , 100)
Ignatius (Asia
Minor , 107)
Papios (Asia
Minor , 100's)
Martyrdom of Polycarp (Asia Minor , 156)
Barnabas (Alexandria , 100)
1 Clement (Rome , 96)
2 Clement (Rome 140)
Shephard of Hermas (Roe 140)
N.T. Apocrypha:
Thomas Lit.
agrapha (sayings of Jesus not in the
canon) But not clear if they are the sayings of Jesus.
1.
The historical Jesus:
Bultman:
The historical Jesus can't be found. (Schwitzer had said that such a quest is
like looking into a deep well). We can't
know who the historical Jesus was. For
Harnock, Jesus was a liberal teacher. For Schwitzer, Jesus was an apocolipic
figure. These scholars used the
scientific method.
Kesler:
There have been different historical Jesus reconstructions, and different
Christs.
2.
Sources for reconstructing the historical Jesus: Limited to the Gospels.
Mt.
and Lk copied Mk and Q.: the traditional theory. So, we may know Jesus by Mk. But, form criticism showed Mk's owing to oral
traditions. Also, Mk.'s own theology
played a role in the book. So, a switch
from source criticsm to form criticism knocked Mk. out of first place as a
source of the historical Jesus. Redaction
criticism, in separating out the aspects of Mk. didn't work either to get at a
historical Jesus. Greer: if this were scientific, a firm conclusion would have
occurred. The last gasp of the German
enlightenment.
Greer:
problems with the historical Jesus as reconstructed today: Jesus' earliest
disciples were those of John (Jn). Jesus
began as one of John the baptist's disciples and split off to form his own
movement. John the baptist says Jesus is the one who came after me. In Jn., a temporal interpretation. But, in Greek, it means in space: one of my
followers will be greater than I. If
so, John the baptist saw Jesus as mighter than he. John
sees Jesus as the judge of fire (from Issiah); Jesus sees himself as a
consoler, healer, or teacher. So,
John sends folks to ask Jesus if he is the one (Mt. 11). Jesus says he is not Elijah who is to come at
the end of the age. Rather, he fulfills
Issaiah's messiah.
The
second crisis is over the zealots. Jesus
feeds the five thousand. Is he to be the
new Moses? Zealots try to make him king. Jesus refuses. So, some of his disciples
leave him. Jn 6 and Lk 4: Zealots fail
in their attempts to make Jesus their leader.
The Roman Gov't assumes Jesus was a zealot. Greer: Jesus refused to become one.
The
third crisis: in the Passion narrative.
The role of the Jewish sanhedren: a trial is only in one of the gospels
(Mk). Mk. probably makes up the trial to
dump on the Jews. In the Talmud, a
capital case can't be tried in a feast. The verdict can't be given in the first
session. If witnesses disagree, all of
them are thrown out. It would not meet
at night. Pilote 'washes his hands'. A
whitewash job on him in Mk. But, the historical Pilote was a brutal man (killed
gallians).
So, to Greer, it was the Roman Gov't which
killed Jesus. Crucifixion was a
civil penalty, rather than a Jewish penalty.
Also, the sign 'king of the Jews' would be from a gentile; Jews would
write 'Messiah of the Jews'.
The problem with the resurrection: some
stories are apologetic: Jesus could eat as well as walk through doors; other
stories are missionary (Mt). Each gospel
has a bent on their resurrection narratives. In O.T., all we have are legends. Yet, another piece of evidence: 1 Cor. 15
written within twenty years of Jesus' death.
This attests that Jesus was killed and buried and then appeared to a list
of people. A sober list. Greer:
there were people who believed that they had encountered Jesus after his death,
so they assumed that he was resurrected. Jesus appeared only to his disciples
(and Paul). Why? Also, they don't
recognize him. Is this claim
trustworthy? The resurrection of the
dead was to come at the end of the world, so why did they think it happened to
him early? Greer: Jn. is right. It can't be demonstrated that Jesus was
raised from the dead. Three
possibilities: it was a lie (but they didn't get their stories together). Greer: faith enables one to believe that
Jesus was resurrected.
Crosson sees Jesus as a moral teacher. The miracle stories imply a different
understanding of Jesus. A healing power
given to his disciples. A third view,
according to Kester: Jesus is an apocoliptic figure. Kester:
the view that wins is that of Jesus who dies and rises. For Paul, Jesus is the dead and risen Lord,
so he omits his teachings and miricles.
Mk., too, views Jesus as the dead
and risen Lord, but he includes the teachings and miricles as well. Mk. uses dramatic irony: the audience knows
more than the characters of the story.
The only people in the story who know who Jesus is are the demons. In Mk, his identity is known only when the centurian
says 'truly this was the Son of God'. In
Mk, Jesus' identity is not fully revealed in his teachings or healing, but in
his death and resurrection. The veil of
the temple conceiled God's presence from the people. When Jesus's identity was known, God was seen
by the people. At the moment of Jesu's
death.
So, although forms of Christianity viewed
Jesus as a teacher or as a healer, the view that dominates by the second
century is that of Jesus as the risen Lord.
Greer: the problem of Jesus's resurrection is central. At the beginning, a diverse picture, out of
which emerges a main-line interpretation of the resurrection that Irenaeus
bears witness to.
1/18/95
Initially,
there was a series of movements with
different views of the historical Jesus within the diverse Judiasm within the
first century. Justin Martyr: many
Christians in the second century in Palestine
regarded themselves as both Jews and Christians. They soon disappeared.
3.
The Gentile Mission sparked the break between the Christians and Jews. The Gentile Mission, in involving the
abolishment of the Mosiac law (circumcision, the Sabbath, dietary laws) as well
as involving claims about Jesus, caused the break with Judiasm. Issue
in the N.T.: did Jesus intend to form a Church? Did he intend his message to be preached to
the gentiles. Greer: why did Jesus appoint twelve apostles? Twelve tribes of Isael? Did Jesus intend a renewed Israel ? In Mt., passages that restrict the minstry to
the Jews. So, some evidence that Jesus
restricted his mission to Israel . Greer:
The apostles, in going to the gentiles, acted on how Jesus showed compassion to
gentiles (healing them). A
beneficent attitude toward them. Here is
the beginning of the gentile mission. Peter was the first to baptize a gentile.
Yet, this ministry is usually associated with Paul. See the Pauline letters.
Paul:
Galatians and Romans. The Galation
Christians had originally been gentiles.
Paul insists that they ought not to obey Jewish law. Galatians saw this as a second-class status,
so they obeyed the law. Paul was heated
against this: that gentiles should even be allowed to obey the Jewish law. Paul's letter to the Romans gives us a complication.
Paul had not been to Rome ,
so he had no authority there. He knew
people there. Why did he write the
letter? Three ideas: he was to go to
Spain and needed the support of the Roman church (he knew that people had been
complaining that his view of Christianity was heretical); written as a summary
of his view of Xnity at the end of his career; or, there is a dispute between
the weak (insisted on observing the Jewish law) and strong (agn. observing the
law). Paul is on the side of the strong
Xns. So, some debate in Rome about whether Xns
ought to follow Jewish law. In the forties,
Jews through out of Rome . Riots in the Jewish quarter over Christ. Claudius expelled the Jews. Paul went to Greece ,
then back to Rome .
Some of the 'weak'. Paul taught that the weak and strong should be allowed to
agree to disagree, even though Paul disagreed with the weak Xns. If so, an unstable situation.
Acts
15: Luke's account of the apostolic council in Jerusalem under James, the brother of the
Lord. Conclusion: recogn. the gentile
mission and require all Xns should not follow Jewish Law. The Jewish Christians must give up the Jewish
law. Noaphite laws, around Noah's
covenant, were geared to all people from the start, so James said the gentile
Christians should follow it. So, easier
for gentiles to become Christians than for Jews. The latter were seen as second-class in
Christianity. Greer: this is where the
problem really started which brought about the split between Judiasm and Xnity.
Gospel
of Jn (in 80's). Story of the blind
man. He was afraid that he would be
thrown out of the synagogue. Were the
Jewish communities refusing to allow Christians to be members in the 80s? Reaction against Jews being second class in
Christianity? Reaction against Jewish
Christians being barred from following Mosiac Law? After 70, no Jew allowed to enter Jerusalem . Justin:
circumcision meant to limit suffering to the Jews. So, Christians should not be
circumcised.
4.
Jewish Reaction:
18
Benedictions--curse on minim: Not sure
who the minims (outcastes) were. Could
have been Jewish Xns. A Rabbinic
reaction to claims of Jesus being God?
Or, to a compromise of monotheism? Or, to the ban on Jewish Christians
agn. observing Mosiac Law? The Jews did
not think equality with God was something for a human to attain. Jesus was called God. No doubt that the Jews were persecuting the
Christians (Paul had such a letter on the road to Dimascus).
5.
The Christian Break with Judaism: Happened simultaneously with the repudiation
of Xnity in Judiasm. According to
Eusebius, the Xns were worned of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 so they fleed before
hand.
If
Christians were going to break from Judiasm, one could argue that an absolute
break with it. The Gnostics and Marcions did so.
6.
The Gnostics and Marcion
a.
Sources: Nas Hammadi texts discovered in 1948.
Much of it is gnostic. Second
century gnostic writings. Justin,
Ireneaus, Clement and Origin also wrote on it.
Gnosticism did not go along with the mainline development. Irenious, writing at 180, refers to them as
being plentiful. Gnostics did not try to
come up with an institutional party-line.
b.
Origin of gnosticism: it can be argued
that due to the Hermes Corpus, Gnosticism was pre-Xn. Clear that gnosticism not limited to
Xnity. Bultman presupposes a pre-Xn
Gnostic redeemer myth. Harnack argues
that this form of Xnity was hellonized.
Some thought of an oriental origin.
Dead Sea Scrolls show that maybe other sources of Jewish gnostics. Yet, no evidence of gnostic unity. Gnostic Xn sects argued against in the second
century developed out of Xnity. The
character of Xn Gnosticism: to turn Christianity into a mystery religion. A complete break with Judiasm, joining
instead to the Greco-Roman culture of the mystery religions.
c.
Character: A text: the Gospel of Truth: Jesus as a savior. Matter created in substitution for the truth.
Something incantational about it. A
knowledge not gained by our natural powers; rather a revealed knowledge that a
gnostic prophet reveals. A knowledge:
you are not who you appear to be; you are not really imprisoned. You are really that spark of the divine; you
came from a place where no matter. Due
to a disruption in the divine plephena, you were imprisoned in flesh. One can, with the right knowledge, return to
it and be freed. The creator God of the O.T. is denied.
Jesus's Father is not the God of the O.T. So, a number of divine eons that make up a
divine plephena. So, no longer
monotheism. God is not one; the true God
is not the creator of this world; rather, the demiurge thought he was the only
God and created the world. The gnostics
reject the O.T., yet they argue from it.
According to the Gnostics, Jesus
revealed a new God. So, a clean
break with Judiasm.
1/20/95:
Seminar
Gnosticism:
According
to Bentley Layton here at Yale, Valentinus combined the Apocraphonic John and
the Gospel of Thomas.
Ptolemy
wrote an esoteric[1]
letter to 'Flora' (Greer: the Roman church).
The 'merely just' god of the O.T. is
rejected; the real God of Jesus transcends justice and is absolutely good
(self-existent light). Yet, the god of
the O.T. is not evil. More extreme
Gnostics said the creator god (of the O.T.) is evil. Then, Ptolemy
distinguished between the law of the O.T. god and that of Moses. The Jewish law written down is human. Greer: the implication here is that the
written law of the O.T. need not be followed by Christians (separation of the
O.T. from the N.T.). Yet, Ptolemy says
gives the symbolism of the ritual/fasting law (a third division of law which we
would think were within Mosaic law) an Christian meaning. For instance, 'Keep the Sabbath' means: don't
sin (rather than that one should rest) on the day that God rests. Also, it
means 'circumcision of the heart'.
By
155, Justin Martyr wrote against the Valentinians. By the time of Irenaeus in 180, there is an
orthodoxy established. Before then, one
can't be sure what was 'in' and 'out'. Peter was 'right-winged', stressing link to
Judaism, Barnabus was in the middle, and Ptolemy was 'left-winged', stressing
the lack of a link to Judaism. Yet, Gnostic themes in Peter and some Judaic
elements in Ptolemy. It was difficult to tell during this period which position
one had. Yet, Paul in 1 Thes. warns of
'false teachers'. In Cor., Paul was
against those who worshipped angels (Gnostics?).
Greer:
Ptolemy seems to be saying that the O.T. is not authoritative. Barnabas
allegorizes O.T. scripture to give it Christian meaning.
In Clement's time (90's), the church of
Rome was not run by monarchical bishop but by a council of presbyters. Others wrote in his name, however, due to his
stature, homilies and recognitions: for instance, homilies of Peter which
included the conflict between Peter and Paul.
It seems Jewish-Christian in character.
Peter argued that an apostle is
one who was with Jesus. Acts 1: an
apostle must have been with Him since His baptism and also resurrection
witness. Paul was thus not an apostle
according to Peter's criterion.
The
use of the feminine for 'matter' goes back to the stoics. So, if one were a Gnostic, one would view the
feminine as inferior. To a Gnostic, all matter is 'feminine', so
all who are redeemed are male. This is used in the Gospel of Thomas. The Gnostics were cosmological dualists
(spirit over matter), so they denied the bodily resurrection.
1/23/95
Valentinian
Gnosticism:
A
middle course: it was not a part of Judaism, but it was not a break with it
either. The Martians, on the other hand,
broke completely with Judaism.
The
Valentinian cosmic schema:
Bathos
and his consort, Sige, were the first pair, representing Depth and Silence,
respectively, of four pairs forming the promal ogdoad. Out of the second pair came ten aeons. Out of the fourth pair came twelve, the last
of which was Sophia. She went to see
Bathos, upsetting the order in the Divine Pleroma and causing her to become
pregnant. Her abortion (not finished), Achamoth, was extruded from the Divine
Pleroma which contained thirty aeons. He generated the four elements and the
Demiurge who fashions the visible creation.
So, matter is evil. Yet, there
are divine seeds from Sophia in some people.
Thus, salvation is by nature.
With secret knowledge imparted by the savior who is solely spirit, such
a person's seed can be freed from material creation and returned to the Divine
Pleroma (an interp. of the N.T.--e.g. 30 aeons: 30 days of J.C.).
Valentinians
were the only gnostic group to form an ecumenical church (beyond a local
assembly) which was in competition with the mainline Xn churchs. Those early churches taught that redemption
was not limited to the reversal of the Fall, but entailed deification as a
larger process whereby the completion of creation is engendered such that
physical incorruption is attained. This
is agn. the gnostic teaching that matter is evil and salvation is attained when
corporeality is lost, rather than deified.
Ireneous
gave an account of this system.
The
Gospel of Truth was probably from Valentinus.
Other Valentinian teachers: Heracleon (wrote the earliest commentary on
John), Theodotus, and Ptolemy (from the West).
Marcion
(Like the Coptics, less inclined toward Judaism than were the Valentianian
Gnostics):
All
we have are the works against him.
Tertullian, in N. Africa , for example,
wrote on him. Marcion was not a gnostic
in that he did not teach of their cosmic cosmology. But, like the gnostics, he rejected the god
of the O.T. (the god of the created order).
That god is evil because it created matter. The O.T. itself admits that the O.T. god
created evil. To Marcion, Christ
revealed a new divinity, the Father, which is distinct from the god of the
O.T.; in fact, another deity which is spiritual in nature. Christ was spiritual rather than corporeal,
reflecting the nature of his Father.
Marcion liked the Gospel of Luke and Paul's writings, though he edited
out the portions therein which referred favourably to the Jews. Greer: Marcion
rejected monotheism, the body, and the god of the O.T.
The
mainline ecumenical church:
Henry
Chadwick called it the 'Great
Church
The 'Great Church
a.
Institutions:
1. The Synogogue: how organized.
2. Jews had baptized converts
3. Liturgy: Christian passover: of
Jesus Christ's death and resurrection. A new
freedom (from death).
4. Practices: fasting and
almsgiving.
5. Certain teachings.
b.
Monotheism
In
the early Church, Jesus Christ was the hero of the N.T. But the implicit
hero
was the God of Jesus Christ. It has been
assumed initially that that
God
was Yahweh. When Xns explained their
God, they therefore used borrowings from Judiasm:
i. 1 Clement (letter from Rome to Coranth) Jewish Prayer.
ii. Paul's address to the Athenians:
God as creator and
judge (even though
in Judaism, Yahweh's mercy on his
own people dominated his judgment).
iii. Shepard of Hermas (140):
Mandates--
Beliefs: God is one (Deut. 6); God is the
creator.
God
made everything from nothing;
God
contains all things but is uncontained (Solomon).
In
the O.T., God is transcendant yet immenant. God is the place of the world, but
the world is not his place. This theme is also found in Philo. That God is transcendant comes from
Plato. It explains His absolute immanence
in the created order.
So, Christian monotheism had initially certain
borrowings from Judaism so as to steer a middle course between the Ebionists
and Gnostics vis a vis the relation between Judaism and Christianity. Later,
this Christian conception of God was revised to get Jesus Christ into the deity
via the doctrine of the trinity, formalized in 381 at Constantinople .
1/25/95
1.
Borrowings from Judaism
a. institutions: synogogue system,
passover festival.
b. monotheism: Jewish apologetic
adopted by Christians, yet platonizing was
added. No Christian doctrine of God until 381.
c. categories for Christ:
Messiah. Both Lord and Christ,
designated as the Messiah by God at his resurrection (Peter's speech in
Acts). Mk: He was really the messiah all
along. Mt and Lk birth narratives: Messiah
from birth. Also, one gospel wrote that
he had been the Messiah since the beginning.
So, not sure when. Jesus rejects
the three temptations: He refused a
Mosaic and Davidic type of messiahship.
Yet, there are other signs elsewhere that he saw himself as in that
line. So, messianic category difficult
to use. Not clear when Jesus saw himself as such and whether he saw that role
for him in the Mosiac or Davidic lines.
Wisdom.
Prov. 8: Wisdom as a poetic way of talking of God as the creator and
revealer. In N.T., this activity is
identified with Jesus. So, in N.T., Wisdom is associated with the pre-existing
logos (Christ). Christ pre-existed,
incarnated as Jesus. By whom all things
were made: the cosmic Christ.
'Name'
is another term in Jewish Christianity used for Jesus Christ. For instance, my name shall dwell in the
temple. God's presence, or name. So, J.C. seen as God's name (His presence
among them). Jesus uses 'I am', which is
the divine name. He said this at his
trial.
Another
category: angel. Michael is the angel
for Isreal. In Rev., Christ is seen as
the cosmic angel.
d.
Moral Teaching:
Way
of light and of darkness. Barnabas wrote
of these two ways. Jewish virtues and
vices, respectively. Passages in O.T.
of the blessing and the curse. Rabbinic Jews believed in good and evil impulses
in people. Christianity borrowed it,
adding angels and demons to them (external forces added).
A
contrast between double and single-minded people. In the letter of James (basically Jewish
moral teaching adopted by Christianity).
Double-minded person: torn in two directions. Not clear if a pattern in
this borrowing. Greer: need a framework
to rationalize it.
2.
Christianizing the Hebrew Scriptures
Greer:
there has been no method for this.
Key
to this task: Christ as interpretive key to the true meaning of the O.T.
Ignatius, Bishop of Syria, subscribed to this view. Judaism: based on Christianity, so Christians
should not practice the Jewish law.
Ignatious criticized the Christians who observed the Mosiac Law. This view is also found in Paul's letter to
the Gallacians. Scripture for the early Christians was the O.T. Some Christians would not do anything that is
not in the O.T. Ignatious stood against this.
To him, the O.T. is not sufficient to determine the meaning of the
O.T. Christian preaching is needed for
this. Jesus' death and resurr: basis of
Xn preaching and the basis of the new humanity.
Christ as the key.
Justin spoke of the O.T. as a prophesy of
Jesus Christ. The fulfillment of the
propheses permit one to see the prophesies.
Greer: the fulfillment needed to see the proof-texts in the O.T. A circle.
Psalm 28 used in how the passion narrative was written (My God, why have
you forsaken me). Greer: a circular argument.
Christ fulfilled the prophesies that would not be discerned without this
post-resurrection interpretation.
For instance, a temporal perspective of the O.T.: the O.T. as a
foreteller of Christ. The prophets
include not just the former and latter prophets, but David and Moses as well. The whole O.T. is a prophesy, fulfilled by
Christ.
Also,
the O.T. can be seen as a typology, showing 'types' which point to what
happened to Christ. Moses holding out
his hands in battle, as if on a cross.
Also, the paschal lamb. Greer:
are the types temporal or allegorical?
Also, the O.T. is divided here into different parts, some fulfilled,
some rejected, and some seen in a higher meaning. Greer: problem with accepting just a part of
the O.T. If it is a sacred canon, one is obliged to include it all. Need to interpret it to get the hard
part(getting around the parts that don't seem to fit). There is a need for a
framework. Irenaeus gives one.
Besides
the impact of the Christian interpretation of the O.T., there was a Greco-Roman
influence on Xnity.
1/27/95:
Seminar
Justin
and Irenaeus:
Justin
was born in Syria and ended
up in Rome . His Apologies were written in Rome at 155 before his
martyrdom. Irenaeus was in Lyon in 177 as bishop.
He wrote Against Heresies in 185.
Irenaeus wrote on the Gnostics, then attacked them. Designed to show that Yahweh is the God of
Jesus Christ. Tertullian at about 200
was the first to write in Latin. Earlier fathers wrote in Greek.
Justin:
Plato
borrowed from the O.T. Using borrowed
material, Plato's work was inferior to that of the O.T. So, the knowledge of
truth was to be sought from the prophets alone.
Justin didn't tend to give much argument for his interpretations of
scripture. Aristotle: first principles
can't be known. He stated the faith
propositions and explained them. Justin
argued that Christians should not follow the Mosaic Law. Greer:
the dispute between the Jews and Christians centered around the status of Jesus
as well as that of the Mosaic Law.
For
the Jew and Christian in this early period, they had to take the whole
thing. 'Can't just pick what you like
and throw it out'. It was assumed that
there are no contradictions in scripture.
Yet, a recognition that there can be several interpretations. Second, an assumption that the details of
scripture matter.
Justin disassociated the N.T. from the
Mosaic Law, yet he interpreted the latter allegorically as prefiguring Christ. Greer: a risk that he would reject the O.T.
god. Irenaeus maintains a closer link
between the scriptures.
Irenaeus:
The god of the O.T. is the Father of
Jesus. An growth in human history: Adam
was an infant; Christ is mature.
God's economies are used to foster this growth. That which is useful at one stage (e.g. in
the O.T.) is not necessarily useful at another.
Some of the former may be (e.g. The Decalogue) while other of it (e.g..
circumcision and the Sabbath) are not.
He repudiates the Oral Torah. He
does not consider it as part of the written O.T. To Irenaeus, Christianity is the proper
development of the written O.T. whereas the oral Torah given by the rabbis (as
their tradition) is not.
Greer:
he divides the O.T. into 1. the Law (natural law: the Decalogue--written in the
heart) which is kept and deepened by Christ, 2. the Mosaic Law (ceremonies and
course of discipline)--he gives this a function: to educate the Jews against
the idolatry. It was no longer needed with the coming of Christ. It was an
instruction and/or punishment (same word in Greek: meant to instruct the
people) which also points beyond itself to Christ. Paul, too, is argued to give laws for the
purpose of instruction. 3. the Prophesy-- as those who instruct the people for
what was to come: Jesus. For each: a
purpose in their own time and a connection to Christ (Israel 's
maturity). A coherent salvation history
pattern. A systematic account of how the
O.T. is fully continuous with Christianity and is discontinuity as well.
Jesus
said he did not come to destroy the law.
Irenaeus: the Decalogue stays and a typological sense of the Mosaic laws
(the spiritual meaning) stays even though the laws themselves should not be
observed.
1/30/95
1.
Political and social setting
The
Roman republic warred with Carthage ,
extending it Westward, in the second century, BCE. Then, it turned eastward. As it expanded, civil wars over took the
republic. At 60, BCE, the first triumvirate was formed: Julius, Pompay and
Cassis. In 49 BCE, Julius gained control
and was assasinated in 44 BCE. This
brought about the second triumvirate.
a.
Roman Revolution
43
BCE: The second triumvirate: Augustus, Anthony, and Lepatus. Anthony went east (met Cleopatra in Alexandria ). He gave
Augustus the task of getting rid of the enemies in Rome .
A blood-bath of the old aristocracy.
Senators were killed. Augustus
consolidated his power. Meanwhile,
Anthony consolidated Roman power in the east.
31 BCE: Battle
of Actium : Augustus defeats Anthony.
27 BCE: Constitutional settlement:
The beginning of the Roman Empire . Civil wars had ended and Augustus formally
reinstated the Senate and the representatives of the Roman people (the
plebians). These ancient forms of the
Roman republic were used by him. He was
actually the dictator, however, because he was named the first person of the
Senate. Also, most of the new Senators
were his clients. Also, the power of the
old tribunes (which represented the popular voice and could veto in the Senate)
was given to Augustus. He was also given
military authority. Augustus saw himself as a citizen ruler; he lived
modestly. His rule was a time of
peace. 14 CE:
Augustus died. He was succeeded
by Tiberius. Claudius in the sixties. Then, Nero.
b.
Early Empire
68/9
CE: Year of four emperors: Nero had been assasinated. Then, the beginning of the militarization of
the emperor. Vestasian established the
frontier system and established new taxes.
c.
Flaviaus and Antonnes, 69-192
Trajan, 98-117 (complaints about the
Xns in Asia Minor )
Hadrian, 117-38
M. Aurelius, 161-80: the beginning
of a change. By the end of his reign, he was a General fighting
barbarians. He was followed by his son
who was assasination. Then, a military
dictatorship (by the end of the second century). Anarchy in the third century.
2.
The Pax Romana or the Romans was seen by the Xns as being due to Xnity. Church-state linkage. Postive attitudes toward the Roman Empire were evident in Christian as early as the
reign of Aurelius. This was before Constantine .
On
the Pax Romana, the frontier was secure.
Anthony had left a system of client kings. Most of the problems were along the Rhine frontier.
Diplomacy was used by Tiberius there.
But, in 43 CE, Claudius conquered England . However, the idea of a Pax Romana was
idealistic. The reality: Free travel
throughout the empire. So, new markets
could be established. A laissez-faire
economy. The empire was really a
federation of cities. So, it was not a
centralized state. Roman roads made the
federation relatively easily traversable.
Stations, like a motel chain, were established on the roads. Ships were used within the empire too. The cities were actually run by a curia, or
councils. In the early empire, the
public works done by the councils (the liturgies: public work) were voluntary
(not out of taxes). In the later empire,
they were done by taxes. The cities
themselves: grid pattern. Life was
public. They lived mostly in the public
spaces. Houses were used for
sleeping. People were crowded. This helps
explains the persecution of the Christians.
Odd people were easily noticed and scapegoated. A class-structured society: the emperor,
Senators, and Knights were the aristocracy.
The local councils were part of it too.
There were also freedman who could be of the aristocracy. Slavery was not like ours was. Conquered peoples, mostly teachers and
doctors, were slaves. They could buy
your way out. So, a more mobil system of
slavary.
2/1/95
3.
Graeco-Roman Religion: A complex of attitudes and practices.
Philosophy
in the ancient world was thought of in a religious sense. So, it was
broader.
Only the Jews and Christians believed that
belonging to one religion barred one from others. So, with Graeco-Roman religions unlike Judiasm and Christianity, it was
a matter of adherence, rather than conversion. The ordinary pagan couldn't understand the
stubbornness in standing out of their religions. So, Christians were executed
for refusing to sacrifice to the gods or for the emperor.
Personal
religion: as Rome
expanded, the gods of the conquered peoples were brought into the civic
cult. Temples were built. A widespread distrust of the civic cult when
prosperity went its way, so personal religion was firm in this period. Yet, it found expression in the civic
religion: various gods brought in.
There
was a local character of paganism. It
had never been organized. Justinian, in
361, tried to do so by supplying a theology as a LCD for the various religions. Polity was local. There was no hierarchy of gods and
goddesses. The myths themselves had
local variants.
On
the general religious attitude of the second and third centuries. See, E.R. Dodds, Pagan and Christians in an Age of Anxiety. In a nutshell, people felt trapped in a
deterministic world; a fatalistic view.
Luck was considered to always be
bad. It was thought that to experience something was to suffer. Anything that caused wonder was thought to
be supernatual. Thus, astrology, oracles,
and magic. Astrology: fate has founded a law for each individual. No importance
to hope. The upshot: give oneself to the
present, rather than hoping for good fortune.
Neither prayer nor sacrifice can effect what is decreed for us. So,
calmly, with self-discipline, people thought to accept the parts given to them,
even if they don't fit us. Outward circumstances were thought to be determined;
it was thought that people could control only their attitude. It was believed that by controlling one's
attitude, one could become master of one's external environment (going
willingly). Astrology functioned to give
one wisdom about that which one has no power of which effects one. The
ancient sterotype of the Jew was the magician: attempting to manipulate external
forces for one's own fortune.
Oracles (see Fox, Pagans and Christians): An oracular revival in the
early third centuries. Theologians behind this revival. On the oracles, the methods differed as well
as did the messages. Magic: Love potions, curses (hexes).
The afterlife: attitudes towards it
varied. Disbelief in any afterlife was
common. Roman burial customs implied
that there was an existance at the grave; that is, life in the grave. Also, ideas about an underworld. A
trend: to locate the dead to the heavens above. For example, to the moon and then to a star.
Cicero.
2/3/95:
Seminar
Lucian:
In
the late 150's, he lived in Asia Minor.
He was a traveling lecturer, geared to entertainment. By 165, he was a writer in Athens. He entered civil service at an old age. He wrote satire. He was a skeptic. He made fun of everything, even the
gods. Had the civic cult gone out of
fashion by then? Was religiosity personal then? Greer: the civic cult may have
been practiced in personal practice.
Passages
on Christians in The Death of Peregrinus
:
There
were Jewish traits, but also sophist traits. Lucian saw Jesus as part of the
sophists. Justin in 160 refers to Christian communities in Palestine which were
Jewish-Christian communities. Yet, the community of which Lucian refers seems
to have had contact with the Churches in
Asia Minor. Christians did not fear
persecution in that Church-Christians visited Proteus at the prison. The Christians scorned possessions, giving
them up to community property. They believed in immortality, and thus were
willing to die. And, they valued solidarity in the community. Their willingness to die for what they
believed was salient. Greer: The
resurrection hope was what constituted the community solidarity. They were not seen as a threat to
non-Christians. So, they were not
actively persecuted. To Lucian, they
were good and simple people. Lucian saw Jesus as a wise teacher (a sage). He noted
that the Christians worshipped him.
During
this period, there was a revival of cynicism, a counter-cultural movement
against social custom. There were also a good many mystery religions. Greer:
did they have more appeal than the civic religion?
2/13/95
Institutional
Loci for Graeco-Roman Religion:
Religion
was becoming personal, rather than at the civic cult. According to Fox's Pagans and Christians, personal religion
was also in the civic cult. So, pagan religion was a viable option when
Christianity was introduced. 'Conversion' was a foreign notion; it was commonly
thought that one could practice more than one religion. Also, religion was local. Different sites had different versions of
myths. Finally, religion was a response
in an age of anxiety. So, escapism from
a deterministic world was in the religions.
1.
Augustus' reforms and imperial cult
Augustus
refurbished paganism by a building campaign of temples. He used this to secure his power. He also
revived the civic games in 17 BCE, which included sacrifices and oracles. Augustus was engineering a religious revival
which was also a civic revival. He also
restored an ancient priesthood college.
The
civic relgion involved feasts, oracles, and rites.
The
imperial cult was a new thing. It
differed in different regions of the empire. The emperor was thought of as a god.
In Rome, divine honours (divinization of the emperor) had been given
only at his death. The imperial cult
extended such honours to his lifetime.
This started in the east, where there was a tradition of divine
kingship--like the Egyptian Pharoh.
Greer:
it is difficult to make generalizations concerning civic religion. How seriously it was taken, for instance, is
not known.
2.
Mystery Religions
Isis, Cybele and Attis, and Mithra
Mystery
religions: a union of the Greek idea of mystery and the oriental idea of a
cult.
Isis: a goddess who revolves around a
myth. She revealed mysteries to people.
She married her brother, Ocyrus. They
were children of heaven and earth. Seth
killed her husband/brother (Ocyrus).
Isis mourned for him. Seth
scatters Ocyrus' body, so Isis can't find it.
But she finds all of it except the genitals. She
became pregnant from her dead husband, Ocyrus, and Horus was born. Ocyrus
was resurrected.
What
did this myth mean? The Nile flood as
the resurrection. Maintaining fertility
is important. There was an aspect of an
afterlife. Isis was associated as the mistress of wild beasts. Patron of ship-building. There was a circumcized priesthood which wore
linen in her cult. Four services a day: showing
her statue or that of her husband. Representations of Isis with her child
Horus influenced how Mary and Jesus were depicted in art. August 12:
lighting of torches. Celebrated her search for her husband. There was also a
practice of incubation: folks would sleep all night in her temple to get
answers from her. The Egyptians identified her with one of their cults.
Cybele
and Attis: Zeus spilled his seed on the ground which became Agdistus whom
Dionesis drugged and tied to a tree. Attis was born from a woman who ate the
fruit of his cut off genitals(He castrated himself). Attis was unfaithful to Cybele and castrated
himself and died. He was resurrected.
Cult
of the great mother and the unic priests. They whipped themselves.
Other
cults: Dioesis, Hercules, etc.
Also,
Mithra: Born from a rock, captured a
bull. The sun(Ahura Mazda) let her see
him. She killed him. The sun got a crown
from her. A covenant enacted.
Zoroastrian
influence from Persia. Also, in Persian
religion, Mithra was of the covenant.
Associated with the military in Graeco-roman world. No priesthood. No women allowed. Greer: not clear if it was a mystery religion. Seems to have been a military cult assured to
assure the soldiers of victory.
There
were also bureal associations. Important
to have a decent bureal.
Philosophy
was the other option.
2/15/95
1.
Philosophy after Plato (429-347 BCE)
Academy:
a school founded by Plato. He lived
after Athens lost in the Pale. Wars. He
was looking for a new form of education that would revive the city-state. He
saw two alternatives that didn't work: the old athenian way and the sophist
way(not based on truth claims, but a relativistic rhetorical method). Plato: something is needed that goes beyond
relativism. So, his philosophy was political.
Yet, it came to be applied in ethics and religion. After Plato, platonists become
skeptical.
Lyceum:
The school of the Peripatetics (Aristotle): developed into natural philosophy:
science. His ideas were taken in by
middle Platonists.
Epicurus
(314-270): disabused folks of fear of the gods.
He outlined an account of reality that had no recourse to religious
ideas. The whole of our world is made up
of atoms that form themselves into objects.
They rain down to form things (they 'swerve'). So, no fear of intervention by the gods. Happiness for humans was his ideal. To be happy was to remove pain. He was thought to teach that pleasure was
good.
2. Stoicism
a.
logic, physics, ethics: Stoa(Stoics)-- Physics (cosmology) and ethics (moral
principles). The stoics wanted
philosophy to move in a cosmopolitan direction: humans belong to the universe. So, a
fundamental human instinct: self-preservation.
Because we are social beings, this included preserving one's family as
well as one's city and the world and the universe as well. So, cosmopolitan. A
universal ethic--a natural law.
The
human mind is a blank slate. Sense impressions leave their mark. So, no knowledge beyond sense
impressions. The issue: how we know
things: epistemology. A problem: how can
there be anything commonly known? Can
lead to solipcism. Thus, the idea of the
common conceptions, certain sense impressions implanted in everyone at their
birth. So, we can agree on what is brown
as well as what is right and wrong. An
instinctive notion of what is right and wrong.
Also, a common conception of the divine.
How
we argue: the stoics reworked Aris.'s logical categories.
Physics:
an active and passive principle. The active: logos, nature, Zeus, etc. The passive: formless matter. So, a use of Aris's distinction between form
and matter. Active thought of as male
and passive thought of as female. The
interaction of these principles creates the macrocosm. God is
the active principle and the matter is the passive principle. Likewise in a
person, the soul is that active principle and the body (matter) is that passive
principle. The active principles
are thought of as a material substance of some kind. So, a materialistic pantheism. God
for the stoics is a material principle that pervades the universe.
The
world is like a big animal, understood organically rather than mechanistically. So, this universe of us will die. It will burn in the confrigration. Left will be a 'moist nature' from which will
come a new world order. Cycles for
ever.
Stoic Ethics: related to physics. The moral life is in accord with the nature
of the universe. Harmonize with the
whole of the universe. Accept the fact
that all outward things happen by necessity (fate: links in a chain). Virtue: accomodation to it. Yet, something in our control: our attitude
toward what happens to us; so, 'better to go willingly' was the attitude. Virtue:
Courage, justice, and prudence in the face of the fate of the universe. But: if an ethic of intent, then does not the
behavior matter? Greer: a situational ethics.
So, the stoics said that certain actions are to be preferred.
The
mind(personality) as the governing principle of the emotions. For example, courage or anger. Also, love or lust. The same emotion differs whether it dominates
or not.
Zeno (335-263)
Cleanthes (331-232)
Chrysippus (280-207)
b.
Middle Stoa-Panaetius, Posidonius:
Cicero
(106-43 BCE): In his 'Dream of Sipio', stoic ideas. He was a pupil of Posidonius. Cicero is the earliest Stoic of whom we have
a full writing.
c.
Roman Stoics:
Seneca
(4 BCE - 65 CE): He was in Spain. Also,
he was a tutor to Nero. In 54 CE, he was Nero's chief adviser. He retired in 62 and was in a
controversy. He committed suicide. His advice: don't be different in
society.
Epictetus
(55-135): He was a slave, and was freed in 89 CE. He taught to obey the gods who rule the
universe.
Marcus
Aurelius (121-180): gloomy meditations.
A tyranny of time. No hope. He
referred to the Christians as stubborn and fanatical.
3.
Middle Platonism: Between Plato and Plotinus.
Plato had developed the idea of forms.
He took two approaches: math. An
ideal circle that transcends those we can draw.
Second, the soul has the ability to transcend the world of sense
impressions. So, a heavenly nature of the soul.
For instance, love enables the soul to ascent to its place of heavenly
origin. Middle Platonism is concerned with the religious quest of the soul for
God.
Antiochus
of Ascalun (85-69 BCE): revived a dogmatic Platonism.
Different
schools: little unanimity between them.
Eclectic ideas
Plutarch
(45-120, CE): the only one of whom we have extensive writings from. His ideas: the soul goes out of the body.
The philosophers saw the deeper truths in
the religions, so they saw them as complimentary to the religions. For example, stoics allegorized Homer. Homer's books were seen as sacred in the
civic religion. So, allegory was used by
the stoics to translate the stories of the gods into ethical ideas. Some Christians, such as Augustine, did the same
thing with the O.T. Augustine liked
Ambrose's allegoricalization of the immoralities of the patriarchs.
2/17/95:
Seminar
Cicero:
A Stoic
Scipio's
Dream: the story was set at 151 BCE, a hundred years before Cicero wrote
it.
Bottom
line: Duty to fostering the security of the state. For such service, the soul returns from the
imprisonment of the body to the stars from whence it came. The should is a portion of the eternal fires
in the stars. In controlling one's body
on earth, the soul, when freed from the body, does not cling to earth but
returns to the stars. A spirit-matter
dualism (Platonic). The soul as the image of God and is immortal. Christians would agree. But unlike
the Christians, the Stoics believed that there was no resurrection of the
body. To them, the body is mortal even
as the soul is immortal.
For early Christians, the resurrection of
the body was of the earthly body, transformed.
Origen, however, taught that a spiritual body is resurrected. The early Christians disagreed. For them, what was important was that Jesus
conquered death--in body as well as soul.
This was the driving force behind Christian belief until Anselm construed
Christ as overcoming sin. Out of this
came a concern with being happy and with social justice. Then, the
Cartesian subject-object separated the personality from the body, portraying
the body as machinery. The following
empiricism related the mechanistic body to this world. So, it is difficult for modern-day Christians
to understand the orientation of the early Christians with overcoming
death.
Unlike the Christians, the stoics did not
distinguish between God and the soul.
For Christians, the soul as well as the body are created. They move where as God does not. There is no idea of creation in Greek
philosophy. Rather, God forms unformed matter which is of a weaker reality than
God. At that level, there is an
order/chaos dualism. Good: order; Evil: chaos. This is a dualistic approach to good and
evil--evil is not the deprivation of
good but is its opposite(chaos is the opposite of order). A monistic view of good and evil: evil is the
deprivation of good.
In the Platonic philosophy, God is being
which is unchanging, eternal, and one.
Thus, it has unity. Yet this
unity is mediated by a multiplicity of 'gods'.
So, being is immovable, timeless,
and undeviating.
Greer: Jesus was related to the sun both in
the O.T. and by Christians. The
latter related him to the Greek Sun God.
Also, Jesus was related to the
unconquered son god of Greek Philosophy. His day was Dec. 25.
2/20/95
1.
Why were Christians persecuted?
The
Roman Empire recognized conquered gods.
So, there was tolerance. But,
only Jews and Christians had a conversion stance (one can only have one
religion). Further, social institutions
were associated with idolitry, so Christians did not attend them (e.g. the
great civic banquets and circuses).
Christians were the 'party-poopers'.
People had little privacy, so Christians easily got this
reputation. So, easily scapegoated.
Tertellian
(197) wrote on the persecution.
Christians had been blamed for an earthquake. According to Tasadus, Nero blamed the fire of
Rome on Christians.
Greer: Christians were perceived as hating
humanity, so no one came to their defense.
So, an alien status as well as
scapegoated (popular prejudice) too.
The
Jews had been presecuted too. In 38 CE,
Philo of Alexandria went to Rome to intercede for the emperor's protection of
the Jews.
Popular
prejudices against the Christians: They
were thought to be atheists (denied Greek and Roman Gods), subversive of the
state, and immoral (canibalism and sexual misconduct).
Greer:
the Eucharist could be misunderstood as canibalism; kiss of peace as sexual
misconduct. But, we don't know the truth
about it.
2.
Role of the state:
Pliny's
Letters to Emperor Trajan III: Pliny was sent to Asia Minor in 111 CE to be the
governor. Pliny did not take the
iniative in persecuting Christians; rather, he responded to it. Christians were denounced to him
anonomously. To Pliny, if Christians are
willing to make sacrifices to the gods and renounce Christ, they would be
released. Some Christians saw this as
merely external and did it. Pliny saw
them as harmless. Trajan wrote back that
anonomous denouncements ought not to be acted upon. So, the
Roman Empire was not systematically persecuting Christians. Rather, it responded to popular prejudice. By the third century, this may have
changed--the government taking a more active stance.
Greer:
read Revelations as the false Jerusalem (people who call themselves Jews but
are not--a rival sect to Christianity that seems Jewish but is not kosher),
rather than the Roman Empire, being the bad guy.
3.
Martyrdoms
Polycarp
156: In Asia Minor (W. coast of Turkey). He was the last of a group of martyrs. The governors tried to convince the
Christians to make the sacrifices so they would not be executed. The mob wanted vengence. For instance, Germanus' martyrdom. Some Christians volunteered for
martyrdom. This was thought by many
Christians to be contrary to the Gospel. For instance, what if immoral
Christians are martyred? Polycarp did
not have a death-wish. He was chased by
a mob. The soldiers arrested him. They were sorry to have to arrest him, but they
do so due to the mob. He was brought
into the city on a donkey (Greer:
martyrdoms were related by the Christian martyrs to that of Jesus). The governor tried to get him to make
sacrifices and curse Christ. Polycarp refuses to do so. But the mob demanded it. He was burned alive. The
Jews aided the persecution of Christians.
Christians were accused of worshipping their martyrs, but in actuality
they simply honoured them.
Justin
165: A professional rivalry with
Crescins.
Pagan
reactions: Fronto, Gaslen, Celsus. See
Robert Wilkin, The Christians as the
Romans Saw Them. Fronto gave a
speech against the Christians in the senate.
Celsus: a Middle Platonist who wrote a book, The True Word (171) against Justin.
Origen later refuted Celsus.
Galen:
the emperor's physician who perceived Christians as being stubborn, basing
their views entirely on faith.
Christians hated death and refrained from fornication. He saw in them self-control and a sense of
justice. So, he gave them some credit,
but did not like them.
Lyons
and Vienne 177: Eusebius wrote on this.
Iranaeus succeeded the martyrs.
Scillitian
martyrs 180
Greer: persecution was sporatic; the
exception. In 250 in Carthage, most of
the Christians were not martyrs. The
alien character was evident, though.
2/22/95
Lyons
and Vienne 177: Eusebius wrote on this.
Iranaeus succeeded the martyrs.
Nothing said by him of the Roman government being behind the persecution. The mob pressed the Roman government to
oblige them. Themes used by the
Christian martyrs: the martyrs are victorious over satin just as Jesus was. The martyrs were following Jesus in his fate.
Greer:
persecution was sporatic; the exception.
In 250 in Carthage, most of the Christians were not martyrs. The alien character of the Christians shows
though. Not only was there alientation
from the surrounding culture, there were also efforts to fit in by explaining
themselves. The Jews were defending themselves because they wanted to gain
members. The Christians copied this
strategy: the Christians considered the god of Israel to be their God too.
2.
The Apologists
Quadratus:
123-4 or 129 (Hadrian): He petitioned
the emperor Hadrian, according to Eusebius.
Aristides of Athens, a Christian, wrote
to Hadrian. Fragments remain. A
claim for the superiority of his belief.
God as creator in the only begotton Son in the only Spirit. Resurrection of the dead. No fornication, no covetting of goods, and no
worshipping of idols in the form of man.
Golden rule(rabbinic background).
Humility, kindness, compassion, love, and generosity are to be valued. The appeal moves rather quickly from beliefs
to practices. In a nutshell, the
apologetic message is that the Christians are good people.
Justin
(155) (Antoninus Pius): We have two
apologies from him. He gave a
theoretical basis for it.
His
Petitions: one to the emperor and another to the senate. The first is addressed to Antoninus
Pius. It contained an appeal away from
popular views to that of the ruler.
Justin requested that the charges against the Christians be
investigated. Christians are not by
definition criminals, he maintained. He
refuted the charge that the Christians were immoral (canabals and
fornicators). Justin: Jesus is our
teacher. The effect of his teaching on
Christians does not involve such immoralities.
From the common practices of fornication, living in ethnic divisions,
and private property, the Christians valued morality, open living, and common
property(Keck denies the latter). See:
John Boswell, The Kindness of Strangers. He then turns to the teaching of Christ: that
fornication is a lust. Jesus also taught
against marrying a divorced woman. Some
Christians practiced celebacy. The ideal
of virginity. Greer: possible that came
out of Greek influences in a world in which fornication was prevalent. But, Paul wrote that in Christ there is
neither male nor female. Jesus said that
in the resurrection there is no marriage.
So, also a Christian value coming from within--owing to its orientation
to the age to come. If this is a norm in
the age to come, how can one deal with it now?
Paul: marriage as well as celibacy are ways to deal with it. Paul redefines marriage as equality of the
partners. Nicea did not require celibacy
of clergy.
So, Justin started his apologetic with Jesus's
teaching about chastity. He went on to
Jesus' teaching to be compassionate, and against idol worship, yet while
rendering onto Caecar what is his. Jesus' moral teachings are said by him to be
superior to other moral teachings. So,
he admits that Christians are atheists vis a vis Graeco-Roman gods but not vis
a vis the Christian God. Justin also
points out that folks such as Lucian who poke fun at the Graeco-Roman gods are
valued by the emperors, so why, he asked, are the Christians being persecuted
for merely not believing in them.
Justin's
larger purpose: on the relation between pagan and Christian truth, to show that Christians are not so
alien. For instance, a bridge could be
made between Christian and Greek philosophical truth. Parallels between Genesis and Plato's
Timoneus, in particular. For instance,
in Genesis, the earth is depicted as waste and void. This may mean chaos or sheer emptiness. The Greek translation of the bible: uses
Plato's adjectives of how he referred to the earth at the beginning. A parallel between two literatures. Which is the original? The Hebrew scriptures were seen as
older. Justin uses this theory to argue
that Plato knew of the cross vaguely: he described the world soul in the form
of a cross. The cross in the ancient
world was not the crucifix but included victory as well. Jn: the cross and resurrection are equated. Socrates' Logos was really Christ. Just as Socrates was accused of being an
atheist by demons, so too were the Christians.
According to Justin, what had
been revealed to Socrates in a partial way is revealed to Christians in a
complete way via the incarnation of the logos in Jesus. The truth of philosophy is the same as that
in Christianity. New in Christianity:
the truth revealed in a new way: to everyone. So, Justin is mid-way to arguing that the
truth is only in the incarnation and that truth is revealed to everyone
(relativism). Continuity and
discontinuity.
Ambiguity
of this theoretical stance: relation of continuity and discontinuity is
ambigious.
Apologetics: to remythologize and
bridge. Martyrdom: stresses
alientation. Yet, Justin and Origen were
both. So, bridging is not necessarily
negatively correlated with alienation.
Other
Christian martyrs:
Tatian
(170s)
Athenagoras
(176-7)
2/24/95:
Seminar
Minucus
Felix:
He
wrote the Octavius at about 200., around the time of Tertillian.
Christians had been accused of canibalism
and incest. Worshiping Christ
depicted as an ass. They were seen as
rejecting the gods. Shunning the light,
lurking in secret places. Greer: the Christians withdrew from the surrounding
culture--not to avoid authorities. Also, misunderstandings--eating body and
blood of Christ, calling each other 'brother' and 'sister', and the kiss of
peace. But, not all was misunderstood:
the Christians really had no altar to offer sacrifices, no temple to house God,
and no statues as graven images.
Octavius gave rationales for these. Octavius also responded to the
criticisms: Christians are moral.
The
Christian view of God governing the creation was criticized (yet gods are said
to effect worshippers, so it was believed to be necessary to worship as the
ancestors did--given that the world is run by chance--inconsistent), which
Octavius refutes. But he did not explain
accidents to good people.
Greer:
Christian martyrdom and persecution--from that which were done to Jews. Maccabees refers to Jewish martyrdom. Christianity, unlike Judaism, was not an
ethnic religion. Christians saw gods as humans made into gods, and as
demons. Not much in the apology on
Jesus.
2/27/95
Christianity
combined the exclusiveness of the conversion stance (the martyr stance which
alienated Christianity) with an attempt to reconcile its teaching vis a vis
outside teachings (which bridged Chrstianity with the Greaco-Roman world). How
can one build cohesiveness and yet remain open to the stranger? That Christianity did these helps to explain
why it spread. Christianity during its
first two-hundred years combined features of Judaism and Graeco-Roman thought.
Now,
lets turn from the impact of these two worlds on Christianity to look at the development
of the early Church itself. We will look
at the Bible, rule of faith (creed), as well as the sacraments and
disciplines. They were ways of
maintaining the memory of the past and making it present. Early Christianity was in this sense an
attempt to preserve the apostolic witness to Jesus Christ.
1.
The Christian Bible
a.
The Christianized O.T.--the Septuiget (Greek trans.). Irenaeus'
economies of God: the prophets are teachers of Israel and look forward to
fulfilment in Christ. The O.T. seen in
two meanings; a purpose for Israel and
for fulfilling God's promise to mankind in Jesus Christ.
b.
The 'Gospel' as proclamation
Ignatius: the meaning of the charters (the
O.T.) are the Gospel and the Gospel is the death and resurrection of Jesus. So, O.T. can't be understood unless one
understands the oral Gospel (the good news of Christ's death and
resurrection)--The Gospel as
preached. This oral Gospel circulates
for quite some time. Justin in 155, for
instance, appeals to an oral synoptic tradition, even as he notes that a
written Gospel was used liturgically.
A kin to the oral and written Torahs?
Mk was the oldest (65). Mt and Lk independently copied Mk and
'Q'. Also, there must have been people
going around saying what Jesus taught.
But, the written Gospels began to take precedence over the orals.
c.
The written Gospels, Pauline letters, etc. as authoritative. Why are there four Gospels? Did Mt intend to supplant Mk? Justin's
pupil, Tacian (170/80), moved to Rome and made a Gospel harmony (his Diatecheron) in which he took the four
Gospels and made one. Around 200, in
Syriac-speaking areas, this, rather than the four Gospels, was read in the
liturgy. The four may have come from different regions. Also, they were influenced by their liturgies.
Lk (Greece), Mt(Palestine), Jn (Rome),
and Mk (Asia Minor). By the time of
Irenaeus, the four Gospels had been accepted.
Then,
Paul's letters were preserved. Ignatius
wrote to Polycarp, the Bishop of Schmerna.
Others asked for Ignatius' letters to him. Polycarp was preserving Ignatius'
letters. Perhaps in like fashion, Paul's
letters were preserved. Paul's letters
may have been the letters to the seven churches mentioned in Revelations. A theory that Ephesians was written by
someone else as an into to Paul. 1 and 2
Timithy and Titus are thought to be later fictions. 2 Thes. is also doubted. 2 Peter refers to Paul's letters as
scriptures. So, by the middle or end of
the second century, they began to be seen as authoritative. Hebrews was rejected in the West. Also, Acts (between the Gospels and Paul's
letters) were also collected and made authoritative. Also, three letters of John that go along
with his Gospel. There was disagreement
on the authoritativeness of John's Revelation.
Authoritative
writings vs. a Canon. Earlier than the
second century, authoritative writings had the authority of the preaching.
d.
The idea of canon--Marcion, Montanus
Marcion
accepts a non-Jewish version of Lk and Paul's letters. He repudiated the other writtings. The
Gnostics, with the Montanians, brought to rise the idea that the authoritative
writings would be a closed body.
Montanus taught that the H.S. was revealing new teaching. The mainline Church did not like the idea
that the H.S. was making new revelation that undermined Christ. So, the montanists were rejected. The
Church: the only authoritative writtings were those which bore witness to
Christ. Jn 20--Jesus did signs not
written in this book. Ch. 21 added. The
Gospel of John portrayed as the apostolic witness of Christ. Apostolicity becomes the criterion for the
canon. Qualifications for being an apostle: having been around since Jesus's
baptism and eye-witnesses of the resurrection. See: Acts when Judus was
replaced.
Apostolicity was the criterion. But
Mark and Luke were not apostles.
Lk preserves the witness of Paul and Mk does so for Peter. But, was Paul an apostle. However, Luke did not regard Paul as an
apostle. Further complicating the
viability of apostolicity as the criterion of the canon, there are books such
as Acts and Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Peter that did not get into the
canon. So, apostolicity was not a
sufficient criteria. There needed to be
a theological aspect conducive to the apostles too.[2] Diffferent local churches included different
texts in the canon. There was, however,
common nucleus of writings.
e.
The Muratorian Canon: a list of canonical books, perhaps compiled by Hippolytus
at the end of the second century. It
gave apostolic authority to the writings of John, the synoptics, Acts, and the
letters of Paul (except Hebrews). The
Gospel of Peter was doubted.
By the time of Irenaeus (200 CE), there was
a Christian Bible.
3/1/95
The
writings first took on authority at a local level. Irenaeus
in 180 was the first to take note of a Christian Bible. So, the process was a long one, from Paul's
writings in the 50's. At the same time
period, there was the development of a Rule of Faith.
1. 'Credal' formulae in N.T.: they look
older than the N.T. and look like creedal statements.
a.
These credal formulae refer mainly to Christ. 1 Cor 15--reference to a creedal
statement already in existence. Perhaps was back to the 40's. Content: that Jesus died, was buried, was
raised the third day, appeared to Thephus.
Represents a statement of belief.
See also: 1 Cor 12:3--the basis of the ecstatic experiences attest to
them. They are valid if they attest that Jesus is Lord. The baptismal
confession is "Jesus is Lord".
Also see 1 Cor. 13; Rom. 10:9; 8:34--refers to Christ as the risen Lord
who died and now makes intercession for us.
Christ is at God's right hand.
Based on Ps. 110 except that he is not seated, meaning that Christ is
still an intercessor; 1 Peter 3: 18-9--Christ died for our sins so he might
escort us to God. Christ's descent into the underworld is like our baptism; 1
Peter 1:3; 2 Tim. 2:8--Jesus was raised from the dead, and was descended from
David; 1 Tim. 3:16--Jesus was taken up in glory; Rom 1:3--the contrast is
between Jesus according to the flesh and the spirit; the human and Son of God
(on the basis of his resurrection).
Peter at Pentacost said that it was the risen Lord who had poured on the
Holy Spirit on them. Greer: an early understanding of Jesus: His
resurrection, rather than his life, designated him as the Son of God or the
Messiah. This latter designation was
with power. See Mk: no one guesses
Jesus' identity except the demons during his lifetime. The secret is revealed when he died on the
cross. It is out of these passages that
the Jesus part of the Nicene Creed is taken.
Nothing in the creed on his
teachings or miracles; rather, only that which represents the beginning and
end: his death and resurrection.[3]
b.
Reference to Father and the Son was meant to relate Christ to the Father.
1
Cor 8:6--God the Father is by whom is source of life, one Lord Jesus Christ
through whom is life.
1
Tim 2:5-6--Jesus gave himself as a ransom (Is 15:43) for us.
1
Tim 6:13ff--Jesus will appear as the king of kings. He alone has immortality. A creedal fragment elaborated in a liturgical
form.
c.
Reference to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit:
2
Cor 13:13--F, S, and H.S. mentioned together.
Mt 28:19--baptismal formula mentioning not
just Jesus but the Father and Holy Spirit as well.
1 Cor.
12:4ff--the Spirit to the Lord, to God.
Basil: this is not of the nature,
but of the operations of the Trinity.
Source in the Father, through Jesus, in the H.S.
2
Cor. 1:21ff--God annointed us in Christ, giving us the Spirit.
1
Peter 1:2--in the foreknowledge of the Father, by the Spirit, the sprinkling of
the blood of Christ.
The
creed seems to have been from these creedal formulas in scripture.
2.
Function of the Rule of Faith:
J.
Kelley: in baptism, no declaritory creeds.
Only, 'in the name of'. This was
used in other functions such as exorcism (Mk3:10-11--the unclean spirits
confessed Jesus's identity) Mk 5:7--the
demon: Jesus, Son of God. The exorcism
formula put on the lips of the demons.
Later, it was spoken by priests.
Exorcism was associated with preparation for baptism (catechesis). Using such statements in such could be used
to convert gentiles. So, from catechism,
use in preaching and apologetics. Later,
the interlocatory form was used in baptism.
3.
The Evidence: early Christian literature.
Ignatus
of Antioch (107)--letters reflecting creedal formulae--Jesus born from Mary of
the seed of David(i.e. Virgin birth), distinguished him as Son of God. He was of David by the flesh, of God by the
Spirit. It was through his resurrection
that he would set up one body. Greer: a
narrative of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection.
Polycarp
(107)
Hermas,
the Shepard of (140)--God is one, uncontained but contains all things (from
Judaism).
Justin
(155)--firmer ground than Ignatius: a trinitarian formula. The Maker of all, through Jesus by the Holy
Spirit. He elaborates this out in the
First Apology, in which he links the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. This was the beginnings of the old Roman
baptismal creed.
Irenaeus
(180)--God the Father, not made, creator, is the first point. Christ Jesus is
the second (of our faith) through whom by the word all was made, by his death a
resurr, a reunion of God and man. It is
in the Holy Spirit in which this reunion occurs.
Tertullian
(200)
Hippolytus
(217)--at water baptism, lay hands on
him, asking if one believes in the Father.
Immerse once. Then, ask if
believe in Jesus, who died, rose, and is at right hand, and will come to judge. Then immerse.
Then ask if believe in the Holy Spirit, who brings about the restoration
of life. Then immerse.
Greer:
a gradual fixity and ecumenical use of the baptismal creed.
4. Relation of scripture and the rule: At the reformation, the issue:
'either-or'. In the early church, a
'both-and'. Irenaeus: the apostolic
faith takes the form of scripture and the rule of faith. The latter becomes a canon within the canon. The two are to be identified with each other.
One can't read scripture correctly (as a mosiac floor in pieces) without the
rule of faith which enables one to put it together in the proper way. So, the rule is the proper canon within the
scripture. So, not solo scriptura. The
rules of faith differed locally. Local
bishops made decisions. Later, in the
300s, councils called for a unity (that was never achieved). Christian disunion was in the ancient
church. Unity without uniformity.
3/3/95:
Seminar
Eusebius:
He
lived at Caesurae near Jerusalem. He had
information in a library, but no framework.
So he imposed one. Book one is
about Christ. Book two is on the apostles. Book three is on the period at the
end of and just after the apostles. Pure 'virgin' theory of the Church of the
apostles(that they were in agreement and had 'perfect knowledge'). Heretics came later. Greer: Christianity began not as
monolithic. Disputes in the gospels
themselves. The unity (not uniformity)
was of the second century. Before
which, little unity. For example, some
churches were Gnostic and others were ebionites. Also, there were fights between Paul and the
Jewish Christians in the Jerusalem. These heresies did not spring up or blow up
after the apostles. Perhaps they were
more recognized then because there was a greater unity among the churches--a
mainline church.
On
the N.T.: The apostles divided the world among themselves. So, different gospels. He has four classes of writings: 1.
accepted--confessed universally. The 4 gospels, Acts, 14 Paul's letters, 1
Peter, 1 John. Hebrews not accepted in
the west. Revelation not accepted in the
east. 2. disputed--recognized by 'many':
epistle of James, of Jude, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John. (the Catholic epistles) 3. rejected-- the
Acts of Paul, Hermes Shepherd, the Apocalypse of Peter, the epistle of
Barnabas, the Gospel according to the Hebrews, and the Teachings of the
Apostles(Didiche). 4. heretical: the
Gospels of Peter, Thomas, and Matthias, the Acts of Andrew and of John.
Criteria:
apostolicity, acceptability (cited)/theology.
Translations
of these texts can be found in:
E.
Hennecke and W. Schneemelcher, New
Testament Apocrypha, 2 vol.s, London(1965): Lutterworth.
Irenaeus:
Key: apostolicity. Apostles had perfect knowledge, given down to
their bishops. Creedal statements in scripture: two forms of the same
thing--the apostolic witness. The rule became a heurmanetical principle
in which one can make sense of scripture; the plan by which scripture is
ordered. It was a corporate 'plan'. It
didn't guarantee an interpretation; rather, it helped to draw boundaries on acceptable
interpretations. The opposite of a
wrong interpretation is a range of valid interpretations. Unity does not
necessitate uniformity. So, a rule of
faith does not endorse uniformity. The problem: how diverse can one become
without losing unity? Not sola
scriptura. So, not agree with Luther.
3/20/95
An
issue: using a usable past (apostolic witness: scripture and rule of faith) in
the present. Scripture and the rule were
encountered in liturgy. Of the rule, in
baptismal creeds. The liturgy--the
unifying pattern for making the usable past present. In the first two centuries, no uniform
bible. No standard verbally-fixed rule.
So, unity was not in terms of uniformity.
A grave inscription in 182 makes reference to Christians as sojourners
(alien citizens) in this world; that their home is the celestrial
Jerusalem. Reference to the eucharist
and the virgin. If one were to travel
from Rome to the Mid-east, some unity
would be recognizable in these early Christian communities--but not uniformity
in scripture, rule, or liturgy. So,
unity without uniformity. By the end of
the second century, there were
montanist, valantinian, and martanist ecumenical churches. So, there was
diversity, rather than uniformity, in the early Christian Church.
Worship in the first two centuries: Christians
remained members at first in the local synagogues. Ecclesia
is from the greek word 'assembly', which was used for synagogue as well. Also, Christian assemblies met in
houses. Such a house was discovered at
Despora at the Euphrates river. The
Christian house church (a private house was made into a church) was a separate
building than the synagogue. Up to the third century, it was unlikely
that special buildings were built for assemblies to meet. In the third century, barn-like buildings meant
for rallies rather than worship. Then, the Constantine revolution brought with
it basilicas which were used for worship.
Of the house churches: a sense of leaving
the world behind and entering an enclosed space. The basilicas were used in a similar
way. But with their wealth, did they
really entail leaving the world behind?
Time:
the earliest Christians observed the sabbath (Saturday). 1 Cor. 16--instructed to make collection on
the first day of the week (Sunday?).
Rev.1--reference to the Lord's day.
Pleny: mentions a fixed day of worship.
In most places, Saturday as well as Sunday observances, especially in
the east (and in the Celtic Church).
1. Baptism: It was regarded as the important
ritual. The mystery religions used water
purification rituals. The Isis cult, for
instance. In Judaism, water used for
purification. Also, when gentiles were
converted, they were washed with water and circumcized. The idea was that gentiles were unclean. John the Baptist: a baptism of repentence. Other baptising sects. In the
Christian N.T., baptism took the place of circumcision. Pauline hymns maybe used in baptism. Rom.
13. Light and clothing metaphors. Consistent with what we know of the practice:
baptism at dawn after a night
vigil. Baptized naked and then clothed
in white shirts. Also see Eph.
5:14. Reference to the meaning of
baptism. 1 Cor. 12-14, Paul supports speaking with tongues. Paul is concerned with the function of
it. Status is conferred by baptism, not
speaking in tongues. Disting. bet
getting the spirit and gifts of the spirit.
Ministries (1 Cor. 12) are of the latter. The gifts do not confer status. The gifts are
meant to upbuild the body of Christ. So,
standards for such speaking. In Baptism,
the Christian is given the same Spirit and thus have the same status. Gal 3:27ff.
It abolishes distinctions. A
leveling effect of baptism. Paul moves
from the spirit in christ to the unity in christ. Related.
Rom. 6--Paul knows that baptism is understood as a dying and rising in
Christ. So, one is incorporated into his
death and resurrection. But the kingdom
is 'not yet' as well as 'already'. So,
realized in the general resurrection in the age to come. Interp: baptism is a down-payment of what
will occur hereafter. Paul agrees. But Paul
argues that baptism has a present meaning spiritually and metaphorically--from
an old to new way of life. Leave behind
an old vision of life, replaced with a new perspective of life. This new way of seeing transforms the
Christian's way of life.
These meanings give baptism a concecratory
meaning. So not just an initiatory
meaning.
Justin- 155: 'Living water': either a
stream or river, rather than a font, by which one is regenerated. The washing is called illumination because one
is illuminated in one's understandings. Greer: Baptism was seen as more than
initiation into the church.
RepTertullian--200:
he wrote a treatise on baptism. Renounce
the devil, and answer interrogations while baptized. Take milk and honey, as well, which represent
the promised land. The renunciation had become important. Chrysotom: it was done on Good Friday;
baptism on Easter. The symbols of the promised land show that baptism meant more than
initiation. Annointing was also part of
the ritual by then. To get rid of satin.
Annointing by oil was seen as
concecratory.
Hippolytus--217:
gives a description of baptism. He lost
a papal election in that year and started his own church. Wrote on how his baptism was the traditional
way. Prohibited professions for those
wanting to be baptized. Instruction
lasts three years. Can't take communion
or kiss of peace until baptized.
Exorcized during holy week. Vigil
Holy Saturday night. Bring your bread
and wine for the eucharist. Then, Easter
morning. Infant baptism by this
time. The oil of exorcism and of
thanksgiving given. Renounce satin,
annointed with the former. Then turn to
the right and profess Christ. Then,
baptized naked by a deacon. Repitition
of the creed. Immersed three times
accordingly. Then annointed with the oil of thanksgiving. Then put on new clothes. Then a third annointing. Then, receive kiss of peace, the eucharist,
and cups of milk and honey. Adult
baptism was the norm, so an elaborate preparation and ceremony. Even so, infants were by then baptized.
Greer: Rich themes attached to baptism. The
eucharist was not the big deal for the early Christians.
3/22/95
2.
Eucharist
Origins of:
The Passover meal. But, Jn does
not have the Last Supper as the Passover meal.
If a Passover meal, Jesus took the last of the four cups (the cup of
Isiah). Mt, Mk, and Lk and 1 Cor.
include Jesus' words. Jn has no words of
Jesus in his Supper discourse. Mt and Mk
do not say 'do this in remembrance of me'.
The church today uses the words of Lk and 1 Cor. 11.
Greer:
the Last Supper indicated that the meal be used in Christian worship.
Didiche:
the wine came first. So, a description
of the agape?
1
Cor. 11: the eucharist was celebrated within the context of a meal.
Pleny:
Christian eucharist in the morning of a set day and a meal that evening.
Justin: the person who presides (the
president--is there a bishop of Rome then?) receives the bread and wine of the
people. He gives thanks and the people assent.
The deacons give to the people the food.
Only those baptized and who believe 'what we believe' can receive
communion. The species are the body and
blood of Jesus.
Dix:
this is a structure, rather than a set form of words. The structure is that of the Last
Supper. He took bread, gave thanks,
broke bread, and gave it to his disciples.
Offeratory, prayer of thanksgiving, fracture, and administration. The prayer of thanksgiving had no set
content. Fourth and fifth centuries:
regional liturgies--those of the East: James(Jerus), Mk (Antioch); also, a
Roman rite.
Hippolitus: milk and honey included at Easter.
The bishop takes the bread and wine,
gives a thanksgiving prayer, and explains these things, then breaks the
bread.
The meaning of the Eucharist: establishment of union between the believer
and Christ. Also, a time-oriented
view in the west later. They thought of the last supper as a
symbolic offering of Christ for them, just as he did on the cross(past
reference). Also, a reference to the age
to come. In the east, for instance, the
eucharist was celebrated at dawn (anticipating the coming of Christ). An anticipation of full fellowship with
Christ in the world to come.
3.
Pascha
The
eucharist was celebrated weekly. Pascha
was annual. The Jewish Passover was its
basis. This feast was originally an
agricultural feast. Then historicized
with the deliverance of the Jews from Egypt.
The
Christian Pascha. It was not celebrated
in certain churches. Perhaps not in
Rome. But the Pascha was important in
Asia Minor.
Melito
of Sardis--165: a sermon. The slaughter of the lamb is Jesus. The mystery of the Lord prefigured in the
lamb. Greer: the basis--a
reinterpretation of exodus. Cross and resurrection explained in terms of the
exodus.
Jn:
Jesus as 'the lamb of God'. Like the
passover lamb, Jesus did not have a broken bone. Also, Jesus crucified when the Jews were
killing the passover lambs. So, Jn relates the sacrifice of Jesus to that of
the Passover lamb. Jesus is the true
paschal lamb.
Quartodecimans: Good Friday celebrated as
Easter on the Passover day. The
fourteenth day of the first month. They
follow Jn: Good Friday(not necessarily on a Friday) was the day of Passover. The death of Christ was that by which death
was slain. So, his death was
celebrated. Not like today. Christ is exaulted or lifted up on the
cross. Jn collapses all elements of the
paschal mystery into the hour of the cross.
The resurrection was viewed as the victory of Christ over death.
The bishop of Rome tried to force the Asia
Minor Quartodecimans to celebrate Pascha on Sunday. Irenaeus intervened. Eventually,
Rome won.
Pasha=paschein (suffer)
pascha=pass over: from death to
life, from old to new.
The
Pascha was the beginnings of a Christian liturgical year. An easter season, lent, penticost. In the
early church, the pascha was thought to be on the same date as Jesu's
conception. So the annunciation date was
at that time (Xmas being nine months later--in December).
4.
Daily Office
Daily times of prayerwas not of a monastic
origin; rather, it was part of the practice of the early church. Didache: say the Lord's Prayer three times a
day. It seems like there was daily
worship. A lighting of the lamp at
the evening.
5.
Ministry
Paul's
letters are the oldest. Refer to local ministers (bishops and deacons). But in the pastoral letters, bishop and elder
mean the same. So, a local structure of an elder/bishop and a deacon. Also, many apostles according to Paul.
Wandering charismatic type. So, two
sorts of ministers. The latter is
discredited. At the local ministry, one
of the presbyters elected head of the other local presbyters to exercise
authority over them. Or, it may be that
some of the wandering ministers settled and exercised a monarchical authority
over the local presbyters. But how was
it that James became the leader of the Jerusalem church?
Greer: a monarchical local ministerial
structure; a collegeate structure between Christian churches.
Ignatius
in 107: already there are bishops, priests, and deacons.
3/24/95:
Seminar
1
Clement:
A
letter of the Roman Church to the Church in Corinth. No mention of Clement in it. He may have been
responsible for such letters. Dated
96-7.
The
Didache:
Date
unclear. 60-the second century. Probably in Syria near Antioch. Greer:
probably early, when the apostles are dying.
Ignatius:
107
CE. Letters to various churches on his
way to Rome to by martyrs.
From
these readings, the condition of the early church was more complicated than one
might think. Also, there was the issue
of the ministry in these writings. The
Roman church was interfering with ministry problems in Corinth. Ignatius gave
thanks for the return of peace in the church at Antioch. Was he involved in the dispute?
Also
in the Didache, a ministerial problem: the roaming prophets. The question: hat to do with them.
There
is the issue of unity behind these.
The
Didache:
A
two-ways document. A parallel in the epistle of Barnabus. Related to O.T. lang. of blessings and curses. Imp. to be 'single', rather than 'double'
minded. Single-mindedness: loyalty to
God only. Don't have divided loyalties.
Similar
to Wisdom lit.
Greer:
two tracks in early Christianity: way of living and cosmic(salvation). Difficulties in keeping them together. The Didache is of the former. Ethics and related liturgy.
The
description of the Eucharist here does not include Jesus words. Also, the cup and bread are reversed. So, is this referring to giving thanks at the
agape meal. Also, Judaic language in the
prayers of thanksgiving.
But,
the words of institution may not have been important then. Also, the Greek word
for 'meal' is 'filled'. So, it could refer to the 'spiritual food'--the
Eucharist bread and wine rather than a dinner.
But, 'spiritual food' could refer to heavenly food too. Still, the bread and wine would be such.
Ignatius:
The
Eucharist is the medicine of immortality and the antidote which wards off
death. Because he views it as the flesh of Jesus Christ, his view seems supernatural.
But, in the west later, a split between symbolic and real. This was not so in that time.
On
the ministry: p. 107: three-fold offices. Yet he is not consistent on how the
heavenly hierarchy to the earthly one. Also, in his letter to Romans, no emphasis
on the Bishop. Ignatius was the first to mention monarchical bishoprics. It was not apostolicity which was cited as
the basis. The Bishop needed for a stable (translated as 'valid')
Eucharist. 'Valid' is more akin to later
usage. The local church is a
microcosm of the ecumenical church. But
not clear how. Also, due to contending Christian groups, the mainline church clamped
down on a ecclesiastical structure.
3/27/95
Christian
Discipline:
Montanism
ca. 170 (or 156): Montanus was a
Christian prophet.
Eusebius' account described prophesy and
the revelation of novel ascetic and moral practices more difficult than that of
the Church by Montanists. Greer: a call
to get back to the rigor of the early days?
Also, martyrdom was emphasized. Problems: can an immoral person be a
martyr? Can one with 'wrong beliefs' (a
heretic) be a martyr? Finally,
millinarianism--the world would soon come to an end, and a new Jerusalem would
come. Greer: this looks like Acts. It could be that it was a reaction to the
Church having gone soft. The montanists
were thought to be saying that their revelation took precedence over that of
Christ. Montanism was rejected because it was thought to have said that it had
a new revelation over that given by Jesus Christ. The main-stream church's
position: there can be new interpretations of Christ's revelation, but no
further revelation.
Tertullian
on the montanists: he became a
montanist. His insistence on the rigors
of the demand of the gospel provoked him to convert. He defended the N.T. position on
marriage. Don't remarry unless your
spouse has died. He sees the mainline
Church as glottunous and lustful. He
emphasized ascetical practices that have moral aspects. For instance, fasting
and virginity. He was also keen on
martyrdom. He believed that the martyrs
of the mainline church were not authentic.
The
rule of faith can't be changed. It is the authority at the level of doctrine or
belief. Not on discipline. It can grow
and become stronger. New revelations of
the spirit can take it beyond where Jesus left it. Even though he restricts the novelty of the
spirit's revelation to discipline, the Catholic Church objected to any new
revelation after or above that given by Jesus.
Virginity:
Justin
(at 175 CE): he insists that the Christians are not sexually immoral but have a
greater sexual morality than do the pagans.
Celebacy was here stated as an ideal.
Greer: where does this ideal come from?
Usual view of the early church:
marriage is good, but celebacy is better.
The source could be in a
metaphysical dualism of spirit and matter in middle Platonism. Also, there may have been ascetical
movements in Judaism that included it.
Also, it could have come out of the Christian view that the age to come
(where no male or female, or marriage) was emminent. Paul (1 Cor. 7) considers what the abolition
of sexuality in the age to come means in the here and now. How is one to realize this ideal in the
present? Paul is not against
anticipating the new age by being celebate.
But he states that married persons can do the same thing if they treat
eachother as equals. Also see Mt: some
have become celebate for the Kingdom.
Institutional
practices from this: women in a clerical
household. 'Spiritual sisters for the
priests'. This practice was stamped
out. But, convents of women took root. This was before monasticism as a movement
which was post-Constantinian.
The
Syrian encratites: celebacy gone too far (Greer). A rigorous form: no sex as a vow is necessary
for one to be a Christian. The Apocryphal Acts, which include the acts of
Thomas, come from the encratites.
3/29/95
Virginity:
As
an ideal for some, it was clearly so for some of the earliest of the Christians.
Syriac encratite view: virginity is not an
ideal of some, but a norm of the Church; Acts of Thomas: written after the
Gospel of Thomas at about 220 in Syria.
It is a story set in India.
Jesus, looking like Thomas, talks to a royal household in India. He convinces the King's daughter to remain
celebate rather than to marry. The king
is not happy at this. Later, Thomas
tells a man that only those who take a vow of chastity can be baptised. Later, a woman refused to go along with such
a vow, so Thomas slew her and later raised her from the dead. Greer:
the ideal of virginity is oriented eschatologically (a spiritual marriage that
will be fulfilled in the world to come).
Not a matter-spirit dualism.
Acts of John: sex is a divice of the serpant. The ideal of virginity has become a
norm. This was not so in the mainline
ancient Church. In it: marriage is good,
and celebacy is better. Greer:
according to Socrates, there was a proposal that celebacy be required of
priests. The Church rejected this.
Greer:
Christianity and Judaism diverge on their attitudes toward celebacy. For instance, rabbis must be married. If not procreate, then thought to be light
shedding blood. Christianity preserves
the ascetical view of certain strands of ascetic Judaism, however, and likes
them to an eschatological view.
Post-baptismal
sin:
Issue:
what is the community to do about people who do not live up to the standards
thereof? The older view: Mt 18[4];
1 Cor. 5[5],
Heb. 6:4-8[6],
10:26-31[7].
This view: excommunication for major
sins like murder, sacrificing to pagan gods, and adultary. So, in
the early days, Christians had to be committed.
Only when the Church grew lax could those excommunicated be taken back
in. Later still, less causes made
for excommunication.
Revisionist view: In the N.T., a demand of
the Gospel, but also a message of forgiveness.
The demand and promise are in tension.
Greer: excommunication in the early church used as a tool to urge the
penatant to repent so he could rejoin the community in good standing. Not meant to be permanent. 2 Cor. 2:5-11--excommunication as a tool to
bring one back. Forgiveness: 1 Jn.[8]:
recurrances of sin are not fatal, but need to be dealt with by forgiveness.;
James 5:15-6.[9]
Ignatius 107: Those who sin can repent
and return to the Church. Didache: Give
a ransom for one's sins. Forgive those
who have sinned against us. On the
Lord's day, break bread after confessing sins.
Otherwise, not a pure sacrifice.
2 Clement 140: A homily either at Rome or Corinth. Repent while on the earth. Greer: this could refer to repentance to
venial sins. Mortal sins are not necessarily
being thought of. Hermas 140: a mediation between the rigorists and these
moderates. Dionysius of Corinth 170: From Eusebius' account. Dionysius instructs orthodox, attacking
Marcian. He ordered the bishops not to
stress chastity for those having trouble with it. People excommunicated ought to be readmitted.
Rigorist reaction: Tertellian wrote that
those excommunicated ought not to be readmitted. Hippolytus too reacted against the increasing
use of penitence.
Greer: in this early period, there was some
attempt to balance the tension in the Gospels of its demands and its
forgiveness. The Church was seen as
called to be holy (as an aim, rather than a pre-condition). It is not a club of saints but is a
fellowship of sinners. Penance was
public. Private confession came later
from the Celtic monasteries.
In
sum, the mainline development during the first two centuries was a rule of
faith and the development of a liturgy and discipline to keep the gospel
alive. Christians thought of themselves
as citizens of the heavenly Jerusalem passing through this life. So, the Christian life defined with reference
to the past (cross and resurrection) and the eschatological future.
3/31/95:
Seminar
The
Acts of Paul (185):
Stories
of Paul functioning in the main-stream. It is really a novel. It was in the
popular literature in the early Church. A popular attitude toward
Christianity. The folk religion. A pious imagination on the N.T. being
integrated into the life of Paul.
Paul
is set as quoting the beatitudes, plus additions. Virginity is a norm. Anger and lust represent a loss of control
of the mind over the body. Greer: this
may be connected to the idea of the resurrection: it was believed that when the
mind has perfect control over the body, the body becomes incorruptible. Virginity is a case of the mind controlling
the body. The double-minded person is partly good and bad. But virginity as a norm was not so in the
mainline church. So, was it the writer's agenda applied to Paul? The audience
intended are those who bow their knees and break bread(Eucharist?).
Greek philosophy: immortality of the
soul (separate from the body).
Rabbinical Judaism: the soul doesn't separate with the body.
Christianity: had to integrate these
views to be acceptable to both groups. Therefore, 'resurrection of the body'.
There is a self-baptism in the Acts of
Paul. The practice was unusual.
Also, a lion was baptized. The value of
virginity and the miracles would have been taken seriously. The author was in
Asia Minor.
The
Sheperd of Hermas (140):
Virginity
is an issue, as is repentance. One view
of it: there should be a jubilee day when everybody gets a second chance. Or, a reaction to a prevailing penitential
system in Rome, yet not wanting to bar any chance to come back. Hermas' solution: repentance and a
possibility of a return. But not
everyone excommunicated will make it. The Church was seen as older than
creation. An old Christian trinity:
Father, Son, and the Church.
Repentance
was public. The excommunicated were
still allowed to go to Church, but could not participate in the kiss of peace
and the Eucharist. That if they did
public penitence, they could return, was not new in Hermas. Rather, Hermas stressed repentance and
different outcome.
4/3/95
On
the formative period: Why did
Christianity that began as a sect within Judaism become a world religion? The scattering spread of Christianity in the
first two centuries. Then, in the third
century, consolidation. No clear
explanation of how and why it spread.
Greer: three considerations. 1.
Christianity 'at its best' sustained the conversion stance from Judaism (i.e.
something exclusive about the Christian stance in that world) as well as the
missionary stance. The martyr spirit and the apologists.: exclusivity and inclusivity
combined in a tension that made Christianity attractive. Both needed for it to have spread: making
one's views make sense and a willingness to die for them. 2. The balance of the this worldly and the
other worldly. In the early world,
Christianity emphasized salvation, but there was also the emphasis on a way of
life in the Christian community. Lucian notices the salvation
belief(resurrection of the dead) and the community solidarity(they call each
other 'brother and sister') of the Christians.
Resurrection hope and baptism(initiation into a community). The resurrection hope of salvation was in
baptism too. The raison d'être was of something (an agreed upon ideal) outside the
community: the resurrection hope, which constituted the basis for community
solidarity. 3. Mainline Christianity was relatively organized, although there were
Marcian and Gnostic Church offshoots.
Attitudes
of Christians toward the Roman Empire and its culture:
1.
Tertullian and Clement, ca. 200
Tertullian
is the first Christian Latin writer. He
lived in Tunisia (NE. Africa). The West.
Clement
of Alexandria in Egypt. Clement wrote in
Greek (was in the East).
Their
attitudes towards the empire were opposite: Clement--Christ transforming
culture; Tertullian--Christ against the empire.
Greer: a paradox in the Christian stance
toward the empire and the larger world.
Christians behave as citizens but are as aliens. The soul transcends the body and is alien to
it, yet it governs the body. Alien citizenship. Their true citizenship is in heaven but they
are also citizens of the empire. In this
world but not of it. Alien to their
culture but maintained responsibilities in the empire. The Letter of Diagetus insists on this
paradox. Tertullian agrees. Having a higher loyalty does not make one
subversive. But Tertullian recognizes
that there can be a conflict between the two loyalties. For instance, idolatry. Certain moral duties such as refraining from
public shows. Moreover, the world is corrupted
by idolatry: worship of the creature.
This sets up a conflict between being loyal to Christ and being a Roman
citizen(e.g. making sacrifices to the idols).
Tertullian: Christ against
culture. Shunning idolatry is the prime law for Christians. Martyrdom: from
the hopeless corrupted world.
Clement
of Alexandria: A writing based on
Aristotle. An apologetic address to exhort people to become Christians. The grasshopper made up for the missing
string, not because the song attracted it; rather the song was perfected by God
by sending the grasshopper. The new song
is the eternal word of God which became incarnate, which broke the chains of
idolatry leading us back to piety, freeing the created order. This new song had ordered the cosmos so the
whole world might become harmony. So,
Christ transforms the world, and thus culture, from idolatry. Martyrdom: a deed of love to redeem the
world. Clement: Christ transforming culture.
This attitude prevails, and allows Christians to accept Constantine's
patronage.
2.
The imperial anarchy: The attitude of
the Roman empire toward Christianity: It
is a mixed attitude (just as the Christian attitudes toward the empire were
mixed). Popular and official
views.
Marcus
Orilius died in 180. Signs of
trouble. Barbarian invasions and
plagues. His son was assassinated in
193. Then, civil war. Septimius Severus won. From then (193), an increasing militarization
of the empire. Soldier emperor. Constantine was one. Septimius Severus and successors
193-235. Things were falling apart. In response to the deteriorating condition,
there were attempts by the emperors to get the gods on their side. Persecuting Christians was such an attempt.
4/5/95
The
Imperial Anarchy:
High
taxes and plundering by the army.
Economic ruin meant that money economy seems to have collapsed in the
third century, CE. Civil war was a
factor. Impact on peasants: they gave
up. They fled the land into the fourth
century. Also, the upper-middle class of
the cities who belonged to the city councils had done liturgies (public services)
voluntarily for the city. But, this
became obligatory, via taxation. So,
they fled from the cities. Constantine
exempted those who would be ordained from this duty. Lots of ordinations, so this had to be
rescinded. Also, no new markets in the
third century. This was of course
another source of economic stagnation.
Also, the Persians became militant on the Eastern frontier. Also,
invasion of Germanic tribes across the Rhine. Also, plagues. Response: a series of military dictators who
sought to force order:
Septimius Severus 193-211
Caracalla 211-18
Elagabalus 218-22
Alexander Severus 222-35
Decus 249-51
By
the 260's, the empire was ruled by two rulers: one in the East and the other in
the West.
Effect
on religion: The common idea of the
emperors was that if they appeased the Gods, they would restore order. Elagabalus
was not only an emperor, but was a pagan priest. It was not uncommon to have
priest-kings in the East. He was a
priest of the Sun cult, symbolized by a black stone which he moved to Rome when
he became emperor. His religious policy
as emperor: he built a temple to his Sun
god. This god was seen to include all
the lessor divinities. So, he gathered artifacts of other gods in the
temple. Constantine did likewise with Christianity--to
establish unity by gathering lessor gods under Christianity.
Decus issued an order that everyone should
sacrifice to the gods. Certificates
to those who had sacrificed. The
Christians were caught out by this, even though it was not aimed at wiping them
out (even though the Christians thought it was a means of getting rid of
them). The impact on the Christian Church: The Decian persecution of 250 CE.
Alexandria(East)--Dionysius:
he describes plundering and lynchings.
There were martyrs there, though as they were the exception rather than
the rule. There was a popular
persecution of Christians.
Carthage(West)--Cuprian:
he was the bishop there (in Tunisia).
He believed that satin used the emperor and his officials as his
tool. The majority of his own church
sacrificed willingly. He himself fled
during the persecution so he could put the Christian community together after
the persecution. Difficulty: there were
those Christians who did not sacrifice (some were martyrs, tortured, fled, or
passed over--different levels of 'good') and those who did (some willingly, by
torture, or use of a bribe to get a certificate without having to
sacrifice--different levels of 'bad').
Infants were baptized and communicated in Carthage in 250.
Simyrna--Pionius:
he was martyred. Pagan mob sympathized.
So, in some places by 250 Christianity was
not persecuted from popular prejudice but from imperial persecution. Eventually, popular attitudes inhibit
imperial persecutions. Why less
popular resistance? The works of the
apologists of the second century may have been a factor. Also, like Clement of Alex, a view in
Christianity that culture is not necessarily bad. Perhaps this view had
taken root. Also, Christians in this period cared not only for each other but
for others outside the church during this period of decline in the Pax Romana.
4/7/95:
Seminar
The
Passion of Perpetua and Felicitas:
In
one of her visions, she prayed for an unbaptised man who died of cancer. Her prayer brought him to heaven. A leading edge of a later thought of
pergatory. The martyrs' extra merits give them powers that could be used by
mortals. Later (250 CE), martyrs
supplied merits to sinners. Luther
objected to this being applied to those who are dead. Martyrdom was seen as a second
baptism. The prime imputus for the persecution by 200 was the mob. That
the martyrs defied by insult, rather than forgave them, seems to be contrary to
what Jesus had taught and exemplified. The governor who was persecuting them seems
to have insensed the crowd.
This
account is probably the montanist view
of martyrdom: Desire martyrdom. Tertellian agreed. But Clement of Alexandria
maintained that one should not provoke martydom: if persecuted, go to
another city. But this passage doesn't
involve a motive to provoke persecution, but is rather about finding ears for
your message. Clement of Alexandria:
don't provoke martydom (against the view of the Montanists) and don't be
unconcerned with martyrdom (against the Gnostic view). Polycarp: neither seek it out not avoid it.
Greer:
charisma and institutions are not mutually exclusive. But, Weber's routinization of charisma is
inevitable because bureaucratization is inevitable in
institutionalization. Greer: could there
still be openings for charisma amidst the routinization? Like 'intrepreneurs'.
Clement
of Alexandria:
There
are three levels of martyrdom: threat of punishment, promise of reward, and out
of love. Out of love is the best. Rahner: one can die the death of Adam or
Christ. Martyrs had done the
latter. Greer: this is not necessarily
so. Clement focuses on the motive. But,
even if the motive is suspect, this is better than those who proclaim Christ
but wew not so by disposition. So, the outward act matters too. Greer: a middle ground between the Montanists
and the Gnostics.
4/10/95
A
record showed that many Christians refused to be martyred during the third
century. Christianity was less alien then.
Martyrdom
of Pionius 250 (on the anniversary of
the martyrdom of Polycarp in 156).
Pionius gave a speech in the marketplace when the Roman governor was in
town. Pionius was arrested. He refused to offer sacrifice. He was a presbyter of the Catholic
Church. Whereas with regard to Polycarp, the mob was not hostile to
Pionius. With regard to Pionius, however,
the persecution's impetus was from the Roman government. Polycarp had been shouted down by the crowd
whereas Pionius spoke to a silent crowd. The crowd then tried to persuade Pionius to
make the sacrifices. The Roman general
was afraid that the mob would rally around Pionius. Pagans even came to care for him in
prison. But, there is some evidence that
there was still some popular prejudice against Christianity. Even so, Christianity had settled-down into
the Graeco-Roman landscape. Why?
Origen
ca. 185-251
His
life(from Eusebius): He desired
martyrdom as a young man. His mother
stood in the way of his zeal. Origen
grew up in an Christian family, which was a rarity. His father was a martyr. He encouraged his father in this. Origen went on to be the head of a
catechesimal school. He set up a
Christian institute of higher learning. Like Justin, he was a Christian
teacher. Christianity was seen as a teaching passed on from teacher to
disciples. A school Christianity which
was in some degree of tension with episcopal Christianity. Origen distinguishes between the simple
Christians and those of learning thereof.
Anyone can get to the latter.
Besides the teaching, there was something ascetical in his
training.
He
was primarily a teacher and scholar. He
wrote the 'hexi..." (six fold) in which he wrote six translations of the
Bible. A way to get what the original
reading of the text might have been. He
was concerned with textual questions. He
also wrote on allegorical interpretations of scripture. He saw not only a narrative meaning, but a
deeper meaning buried beneath it. He was
respected for his views in the Church.
Origen moved from Alexandria to Caesurae (near Jerusalem). Theodore ran into Origen, changing from the
pursuit of law to that of being in Origen's school. The ascent to God was the aim of the
education. But it began with the
basics. Origen would interrogate his
pupils to show them the shallowness of their views. He included Physics, ethics, and Greek
Philosophy as preliminary studies to the study of the scriptures. It is from the latter that the soul can
ascend to God. Origen began in Alexandria, then went to Arabia. He often was summoned by churches as an
expert in dealing with theological disputes in them. He got in trouble doing so in
Alexandria. Tension between
ecclesiastical and teaching Christianity?
He settled in Caesurae and does his travels from there.
The
Contra Celsum: refuting a book written by Calcus (a pagan) who attacked
Christianity. Interesting that Calcus
was deemed worthy of being refuted 80 years after his writings. Calcus attacked Justin's Christianity
(175). Greer: this was a different
Christianity from that at the time of Origin (250).
4/12/95
1.
Origen the Apologist:
He
argued against the argument of Calcius that Judaism distorted the ancient truth
held by the original peoples of the world.
Christianity was twice-removed, therefore. Origen:
the Logos pre-existed any ancient people and came to be recognized most fully
by the Christians. Calcius accused
Christians of stealing children. So how
could they be the only people to whom God had revealed Himself? Origen: Christianity appeals to immoral
people, but it is able to reform them.
So, Christianity, unlike
Philosophy, is able to reform and thus make people moral. Also, that Christians were simple and
uneducated shows that Christianity was able to be grasped by all. This does not mean that there were no
intelligent Christians.
Origen, like Philo, sought to
re-mythologize the scripture such that its deeper truths would be impressive to
those outside, by an allegorical method. The narrative (e.g. that God
walked in the Garden) meaning is truth accommodated to those who are
ordinary. He allegorized this because
God should not be anthrophormorphized.
The allegorical meaning is the deeper meaning.
Origen's theology: like that of
Plotinus(founder of neo-Platonism).
So, Origen was a neo-platonist.
But he believed that Plato got his truth from the pre-existing Logos
which was shown more fully in Christianity.
On Creation: there need be no
incompatibility between Genesis and Plato.
2.
The Apologetics of Practice:
Difficulties
in scripture allow one to get to the allegorical meaning. More impressive than precept is example. A preoccupation on the moral practices over
the letter of scripture as precept.
The
decreasing alienation of Christianity was due not only to apologetics, but the
moral practices of Christians toward non-Christians.
3.
The Imperial Recovery:
With
Septuitus Severus, a military order established. Among such rulers was Claudius Gothicus
268-70: His work of restoration included driving back the Goths.
Aurelian
270-75: he succeeded in uniting the empire, consolidating it. He went east to recover Palestine, Egypt, and
Asia Minor. He also defeated the Gallics
in Gaul and Britain. Military rule was
behind this restoration of order. He
built the wall around Rome. It marked
the decline of the empire that Rome itself would be considered threatened. He was dedicated to a local Sun cult. He brought it to Rome when he became emperor.
Diocletian
284-305: he, too, was a military emperor.
In 293- a tetrarchy: a re-structuring of Roman governance. Two chief emperors, and two vice emperors. Decentralizing control of the emperor. The
provinces were divided into smaller units, grouped together into regions. A turn from Laissez-faire to more government
control of the economy. Fixed prices,
for instance. Constantine was his
successor. They were totalitarian
rulers.
The
church under Diocleian: There were
barn-like structures serving as Churches.
Christianity was public and
respected by the end of the third century.
Some Christians in civil service.
No longer persecuted. So, the
Diocletian persecution came out of the blue.
The Constantinian revolution and the church's 'success' under it was
also a surprise, however.
In
the fourth and fifth centuries when the empire fell, Christian bishops acted as
civil authorities in the cities.
4/19/95
2.
The Constantinian Revolution:
a.
Constantine's conversion: why he converted is a puzzle. It began a gradual process by which the
empire became Christian. He had a vision
of he sun god in 310 and of Christ in 312.
He may have thought that Apollo and Christ are simply different
manifestations of the sun god. On his
coins, he was depicted as having a solar crown.
At least a public notion of a connection being between Apollo, Christ, and
the sun god, even if Constantine didn't make it. Christian Bishops later 'explained' to him
that there is no connection. He was
finally baptized in 337 on his death-bed.
Greer: his conversion was a process.
On his motive: a moral force binding the
empire together for political purposes.
But: this makes of his conversion nothing but a calculated political
act. Religion wasn't typically used that
way in those times.
312 Milvian Bridge:
Constantine defeats Maxcenus in the sign of the cross. He had a vision, and thought the power of
Christ aided his army.
313 Edict of Milan: a
proclamation of religious toleration.
Christian property restored without price.
pax deorum: the peace of the gods. If you appease the gods, then they will help
you. Perhaps Constantine converted for
this reason--to help him win his victory.
He
gradually realized that a commitment to Christianity excluded commitments to
other religions. He may have gone for
this to appease the Christian god which he assumed had helped him win. So, his motive may not have been sheer
political calculation.
b.
Religious policy
Legislation: He did not declare paganism illegal; in fact,
some laws supported paganism. Private
pagan practices were forbidden. He wanted
to protect the public worship of the pagans.
Magic practiced in private practices had hurt the reputation of
paganism. He also left the altar of
victory in the Senate. So, Christianity
was not the official religion of the empire; rather, he patronized it. Some of his legislation favored
Christianity. Recognition of Sunday as a
special day. There was some transfer of
powers from pagan officials to Christian bishops. Civil
powers began to be given to Christian bishops. Also, in 325, bloody gladiatorial games
outlawed. Also, 'welfare reform'(no
welfare payments for single women with children, for instance) favored celibate
Christians. Finally, Christian clergy
were exempt from taxes--which produced so many ordinations that it was
repealed.
Money:
gifts of money and property to Christian
Church. He gave an imperial estate
to the Church. He gave money for the
building of basilicas in Jerusalem as well as Rome and other cities. Greer:
the church goes from 'rags to riches'.
He also built large hospices and hospitals to be run by the Church.
Christian
unity: he also adjudicated disputes among Christians. For instance, the
Donatist schism. Both sides initially
appealed to Constantine. He consulted
the bishop of Rome. An alliance bet.
church and state. The synod of Arles in
314: recognition to the Catholics. The bishop of Rome saw it as an ecclesiastical
synod; Constantine saw it as an imperial synod.
Misunderstanding inhibited a power struggle between them. They both thought of it as they chose. Yet,
the Donatists had the buildings. So, he
was unsuccessful in resolving that dispute.
Also, in 325, he adjucated at the Council of Nicea. Heresies had been handled on the local level
before then. He considered himself the thirteenth apostle.
c.
Christianization of empire--a process.
The empire was not Christian until 380 when
the then-current emperor 'wished' that Romans become Christians.
3.
Impact on the Church:
a. Public character of liturgy: Christian
worship had been private. Then,
processions and basilicas. Regular
worship was still private. Relics
in private hands taken over by bishops and civil authorities.
b.
conciliar development of doctrine: a
movement towards the regularization of doctrine. A drive toward unity, though not uniformity.
c. canon law--discipline: custom formalized.
d.
resistance to Emperors: there were many
Christians unhappy with the Constantinian revolution. The monastic movement in Egypt was perhaps a
reaction against this revolution. Also, bishops in the fourth century opposed
the Arian emperors.
Greer: the terms and significance of the
alliance between Church and State was not set.
What evolved was the idea of the Christian commonwealth. Revived in the West in the Middle Ages. In U.S. in its early history. So, the
idea has died hard. It is the legacy of
the Constantine revolution. It implies a responsibility of the church
for the society, but risks that the Church became worldly. Greer: Christians are supposed to be alien
citizens. The Christian commonwealth
contradicted this. The risk of
identifying Christianity with culture.
Was
the triumph a triumph? Yes and no.
4/21/95:
Seminar
Constantine:
Like
the Roman emperor, Jesus was believed by Constantine to be with the Gods after
his death. Also, Christian aspects of
'Divine Kingship'. Christ shown from this
time as a king. The good shepard becomes the imperial figure. Christ even has been depicted in military
garb.
Whereas Divine kingship in Persia and India
where the king was himself divine, here Christ is in this role, so Constantine
is representative of God rather than having His divinity. Such divine kingship retains the creaturely
status. So, 'divine kingship' in the
sense of having been chosen by God, representing and proclaiming God, a servant
of God (virtuous and having the 'fruits of godliness), and as having sought
divine assistance.
So
these ideas come out of hellonistic ideas of divine kingship(the Roman emperor
was said to go to the Gods after death), persian('fruits of godliness'), and
the solar cult (Christ as the sun god, with the emperor representing Him), and
the Christian ideas (the individual human soul as the image of Christ, who in
turn is the manifestation (Word) of God).
The image of God here is exampled by the emperor. Constantine is in the court of God. This was so, even though Constantine did not
destroy the pagan imperial statues.
Eusebius
related Constantine to the figure of Moses.
What
conclusions can be reach on this new alliance of church and state? Paganism was still lawful. The empire didn't wipe out paganism until the
middle of the fifth century. Also, the
consequences of the alliance were not clear to either the church or state. After Constintine, the imperial family
fought, Julian survived. Was
Christianity the favored patronage of the family of Christianity? Justin's apostacy may indicate this. Also, Theodocius and some other emperors in
the fourth century were lukewarm in the alliance. Also, not all Christians were enthusiastic
about the alliance. Monasticism began as
a movement after the Constantinian revolution to retain the spirit of the
martyrs. Also, Donatists were against
it. Also, Athanatius and Basil the Great
were bishops who disliked the Arian emperors.
Ambrose excommunicated an emperor.
Further, the church did not become an agent of the worldly. For
instance, Constantine
gave the church funds for humanitarian causes.
So, the Constintinian
Church
The spiritual authority of the church was
seen as higher than the temporal imperial authority of the emperor. But when
the emperor was a Christian, then his temporal power had this higher
'spiritual' status. In such a case,
the emperor was believed to rule over a sacral commonwealth, especially in the
east even to this day. In the west, papal supremacy. He filled a void. Gregory I in 590 established the papal state.
This broke down if the emperor was not a Christian.
Greer: the alliance has been grossly
oversimplified. It put Christianity in the prevailing culture. This ignored the alienness of Christians to
this world, but it gave a foundation for the social gospel. So, a negative and possitive aspect of the
Christian commonwealth.
[1]exoteric work: addressed to one's
own school; esoteric: addressed to outsiders.
[2] Greer acknowledged that the
political self-interests of the mainline church leaders was another factor in
the selection of books into the canon.
This may have involved both the matter of whether the author of a book
was a follower of a particular church leader, as well as of how the contents of
a book portrayed a particular church leader and his precussors, as well as the
stances which they had taken, politically, socially, economically, morally, or
theologically. For instance, the person
said to have been the first witness to the resurrected Christ was given special
status, so too that person's leader.
That different books had different persons in this position may indicate
that political patronage was a factor in whether a particular book was
incorporated into the canon.
[3]The creed is soteriological.
[4]If
your brother sins against you, go to him...
If he refused to listen to the Church, let him be to you a gentile and a
tax collector. This is in Mt. following
the parable of the lost sheep. Following
it: forgive seven times seven. So, not
listening to the Church is really serious.
[5]A
case of incest. The man should be handed
over to Satin.
[6]If
a person has fallen, he should repent. No
forgiveness.
[7]If
sin after baptism, a fearful expectation of judgment.
[8]Whoever
is born of God does not sin. And,
whoever thinks he has not sin is fooled.
Seems contradictory. But,
recognition of the salvation in baptism and the reality that we sin afterward
but can repent.
[9]The
letter of faith will save one who has sinned.
Some sort of discipline in the church of confession and forgiveness of
sins.
