4. THE FORMATION OF CHRISTENDOM

THE EARLY CHURCH The Mid-First-Century to the Late 200s A.D.

The actual development of the New
        Testament canon

Christianity's impact on the Greco-
        Roman-Judaic world

The early definers and defenders
        ("apologists") of the faith

Early dissenters from the widely-held or
        "Catholic" view

The textual material on the page below parallels my work found in A Moral History of Western Society © 2024, Volume One, pages 132-140 ... although the page below generally goes into much greater detail.

Modern skepticism about the recorded life and works of Jesus It's easy to say, as many skeptics have done – a recent example being the 1980s-1990s "Jesus Seminar," which sought to highlight the "historical Jesus" – that the early church found it convenient to read all these developments back into Jesus's and his disciples' ministries after the fact, to give rationale for the shameful loss of their beloved leader on a Roman cross.  There are, they say, no "facts" to validate these many early Christian claims about Jesus.  But the skeptics themselves can offer no facts that validate their opinions either.  And the mere coincidence of the self-interest of the apostles and other witnesses with these aspects of Jesus's life does not prove a tampering with the facts as given. Preserving the pleasant – and unpleasant – truths The fact that the disciples never understood this agenda of atonement during Jesus's lifetime does not flatter these individuals.  They come off looking petty and foolish.  Peter's denial to a woman that he had ever had anything to do with Jesus – while his leader was undergoing humiliating cross examination by the Jewish authorities – was hardly something that anyone later trying to promote the Christian movement would have wanted to be remembered about its leadership.  The way Jesus's disciples had so clearly demonstrated themselves to be utter cowards, nearly all of them abandoning Jesus at the time of his arrest and death, would later be a matter of great shame.  Thus given the opportunity of his followers (now become the new leaders of this ongoing messianic religious movement) to clean up these stories at a later time, it seems strange that they let these stories stand in all this unflattering light.  But none of them seemed to have had any interest in "cleaning up" the story.  This attests well to the idea that Jesus was honestly represented by the stories told about him (and about themselves) by his followers. The testimonies of faith Even though some of the stories told of Jesus by his followers seem unbelievable by modern standards, these stories must be understood as an honest effort of highly transformed people to explain the true source of their new power in life.  These are the truths of faith – not fact.  And powerful truths these are – as powerful as the faith that transformed their lives from slavery in the world's ways to an incredible personal freedom in and through their trust in God through Jesus Christ.  By the gift of this new faith they understood how Jesus was indeed the long awaited Messiah, the Son of God, the one promised by the prophet Isaiah who would redeem them from their sins, reunite them with God, their true heavenly Father, and bring them into the promised Kingdom.  This was the ultimate Truth of their lives. The modern bias in seeing "truth" and "fact" as one and the same This is not the time and place to get into a huge metaphysical debate about the proper relationship between truth and fact (the issue was heavily debated by the ancient Greeks – and it is still heavily debated today by philosophers and scientists).  We will look at this issue more closely later in this study.  But we certainly have reached the point at which we need to mention that the modern tendency to view fact and truth as one and the same is loaded with logical errors – ones that our secular world blissfully ignores.  Even the great modern Relativity Theorist Einstein – and his Quantum Theorist friends – were very aware of the dangers of assuming that what we view as "fact" is indeed "objective reality." "‘Reality out there somewhere" is not obtainable without some cultural or "world view" or "faith"" assumptions … which of course mean that what we view even as "fact" is a highly interpretative matter.  What we "see" is actually only a mental reconstruction, tremendously affected by the limited ability of our senses (even aided by modern technological devices) … and by the way culture has taught us to see things.   Modern Christianity itself has fallen into secularist thinking – to the extent that it has attempted to defend on a factual basis what was recorded in the Christian scriptures.  Both the criticisms of biblical "fact" by the secular world and the "factual" defense of scripture by the (fundamentalist) Christian world miss the point of scripture entirely.  Fact does not stand apart from faith – and failing to understand the faith basis of first century Christians makes modern factual interpretation absurd – for both Christianity's skeptical opponents and its misguided defenders.  Scripture is simply – but powerfully – the recording of the truth of faith, faith as it functioned in the Palestinian-Hellenistic world of the first century.  But it is the closest witness we have to truth to go by ... and therefore in our quest for Christian truth, best understood in the cultural-historical context in which that witness was originally laid forth. In understanding this first century context, we will best understand the truth of Christianity. Early carriers of the Gospel to the larger Greco-Roman World In any case, the story of Jesus the Christ did not long remain merely a Palestinian story.  It soon began to be told around the Roman empire – carried by those who truly felt themselves, and the world, transformed by this strange event.  Needless to say, in moving from its Palestinian Jewish roots to the broader Hellenistic Jewish setting, even the Gentile setting, the story (Gospel) got translated in such a way that it might be more readily understood within the larger Hellenistic culture. Paul (mid first century) Certainly the greatest of these translators of the gospel into the language of the larger Greco Roman culture was Paul (Jewish: Saul) of Tarsus.  Paul's faith in Jesus was based upon his own very unique personal encounter with the Risen Lord – on the road to Damascus where he was originally headed in order to begin arresting and putting to death the followers of this new "Way" of Jesus Christ.  His conversion was abrupt, painful, and thorough.  From Christ hater he became Christ proclaimer, one of the most important agents in spreading the Christian Gospel to the broader Greco Roman world.   Interestingly, in his collected letters to the various churches that he had either founded or greatly influenced, he mentions almost nothing about the actual life of Jesus. Rather, he reflects on Jesus as a covenant sign of God's doings on earth.   In Paul's early writings (the letters to the Thessalonians) he emphasizes the return of the Lord Jesus (the "Day of the Lord') as a great act of cosmic judgment on all creation. But his later writings switch emphasis to the spiritual efficacy of faith in Christ as the Atoning Sacrifice for our sins, the power of God's Spirit given to those who live under the Lordship of Jesus Christ, and the unique role of the new church, the "Body" of the "Living Christ" in an unfolding of Divine history. But undoubtedly most important of all, it was Paul that challenged the early Christian leaders at Jerusalem (Peter and Jesus's brother James), the latter who felt that the community of Christ should be reserved just to Jews … at least until the work of bringing all of Israel to Christ should be completed.  But Paul argued strongly that the gospel of Jesus Christ belonged to all – Greek and Jew alike - and thankfully won the argument, thus opening the Christian movement to non-Jews.  This would be a Pauline victory of monumental proportions! For more on Paul The Gospel testimonies themselves (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) As none of Jesus's disciples or immediate followers were scholars or writers (fishermen, mostly), what we today possess in the form of the written as biographies or testimonies about Jesus and his ministry were obviously later distillations of the verbal accounts offered by those who knew Jesus personally. The Gospel of Mark.  The earliest of those accounts, in Greek (as all the gospels happened to be) was the one we know as the Gospel of Mark, most likely first formulated around the time of the destruction of the Second Temple at Jerusalem in 70 AD.  Although it appears as a biographical history, actually it is more a sermonic attempt to explain Jesus in Messianic terms to a Greek audience – using illustrative events, especially miracles – at a time in which the larger context (the current Jewish-Roman War) seemed to indicate the likelihood of a coming "end times."   It also seemed to have a large role to play in Rome (in support of Peter's ministry there?) where Mark's Gospel was used liturgically (read in worship) as a declaration of faith:  faith in the One who was soon to return in Judgment – as the empty tomb implied. The Gospel of Mark was possibly supplemented by another Secret Gospel of Mark, lost to us today, which was accessible only to the "initiates":  those baptized and entitled to share the Eucharist meal of the body and blood of Jesus Christ. The Gospel of Matthew was probably originated soon after the Gospel of Mark, containing much of the same material … although adding its own material, plus a source (today termed "Q") that would be shared with Luke.  Mathew is clearly biography, devoted to showing from birth to death and subsequent resurrection, that Jesus fulfilled precisely the Jewish Messianic mandate.  Indeed, although written in Greek, Matthew was designed to be received by an audience Jewish in background … not so much to convert Jews (his audience was obviously already Christian in identity) as to help hold a Christian faith more closely to its Jewish roots … as it moved deeper into a Hellenistic world. The Gospel of Luke is actually Part One, focused on Jesus's life and ministry, of a two-volume series … Part Two (The Acts of the Apostles) then being the story of the formation of the early Christian community – also up to around the time of the outbreak of the Jewish Roman War in 66 AD.  Both volumes are self-attested as derived from the personal research of the physician Luke, who was a companion to Paul in his missionary work.  Like Matthew, the Gospel portion of the series builds in part on Mark, plus information shared with Matthew, plus material exclusive to Luke.  And like both other gospels, it probably experienced further development, most likely coming to the form we have today around the end of the first century.   The Gospel of John, seemingly put together a bit later, was itself also part of a larger literary grouping, which included also the three Letters of John and the book of Revelation.  Early Christian tradition identified the author ("the disciple that Jesus loved") with John, the brother of James, both members of Jesus's inner group of 12 disciples … though there is no way of verifying this.  Indeed, the high level of Greek employed would have been rather uncharacteristic of one who was originally an Aramaic-speaking fisherman.  On the other hand, although clearly the Johannine writings went through a lengthy refining process, the straightforward stories about Jesus and the precise details of seven of his key miracles as Messianic "signs" – which indicate an intimate familiarity with Jesus and his ministry – could certainly have originated with the disciple John. We do know that John was reportedly the only disciple not to suffer Roman execution for his faith (though he faced a life of continuing imprisonment) and lived to an old age – and it was at that point that he was reputed to have put down his own reflections on the meaning of the life and death of Jesus the Christ.   In any case, the Gospel of John (and the Johannine literature in general) reflects a highly developed philosophical mindset, one rather deeply familiar with Greek philosophy.  The writer employs the philosophies of Plato and the Stoics as he built his narrative on the understanding that Jesus was the Divine Logos – the perfect representation of the essence of God.  The Logos was understood to be the very mind of God and consequently with God from even the beginning of all creation.  And now most importantly, this Logos was found fully within Jesus – so that the person of Jesus and the person of the Logos were indistinguishable.  John did not explain how this came to be:  he merely posited it as being so – by God's doing … unlike the miraculous birth accounts of Matthew and Luke which set out to explain the source of Jesus's divinity in his birth.   This use of the Logos concept - drawn heavily from Neo-Platonist philosophy popular at the time – was not exactly an unprecedented approach.  Indeed, it was very popular as the standard of high-minded thinking among the more literate classes of the empire.  And even Judaism was doing the same interpretation of its religion along Platonist lines – through the works of the Jewish scholar Philo … whose works had a great influence on early Christianity as well. The miracle stories clearly reflected Jesus as the very Logos of God.  As the Logos who comes to life in the flesh, Jesus brings the very essence of God to earth … demonstrating God's loving concern for his human creation – despite whatever status God's earthly sons and daughters (for Jesus identifies God as "Abba" or Father of all) hold in the estimation of others.  Thus Jesus touches profoundly the life of a shunned Samaritan woman, a cripple at the Pool of Bethesda, a woman caught in adultery, a man blind from birth.  Jesus also demonstrated that same Logos power over the forces of nature … such as the changing of water into wine, the feeding of the 5,000, Jesus's walking on water, and ultimately the raising of his friend Lazarus from the grave. Whereas the other gospels tended to emphasize Jesus's miracles as events designed to bring faith to the faithless, in the case of John these miracles seemed designed more to strengthen an ongoing argument with local Jewish authority about the meaning and purpose of Jesus's ministry among them.  Unfortunately, Jesus himself did not seem to win many of his arguments with his Jewish detractors … except in the important case of Nicodemus, who came to Jesus to learn more about him – but who came by night in order not to get himself in trouble in the process! Ultimately the Gospel of John details extensively how it was that these same Jewish authorities were responsible for putting the Logos of God to death on a Roman cross … not realizing that by doing so, they were ironically fulfilling the Jewish prophesy (Isaiah 53) about the One who was to be sent by God to suffer horribly for the transgressions of others, pouring out his life in order to make intercession for the sins of the many. Then – as with all four gospels – the narration ends with Jesus's miraculous rise from the tomb and his appearance after his death to various followers … at first some of the women among his followers – in particular Mary Magdalene (although the Gospel of Mark does not include the post-resurrection appearances of Jesus himself until later editions of the gospel.)

A general overview To be sure, the oral tradition about Jesus's deeds and sayings were the first way in which the "gospel" was spread from place to place. Also, letters written by the apostles, especially Paul, were very important sources of knowledge and inspiration to the early church. But these were hardly "scriptural" in the early days. That honor still belonged only to the Jewish Scriptures (the Christian Old Testament). But by the early 2nd century various gospels were being circulated in which the story of Jesus had been carefully assembled and written down – mostly to be read in worship, much as the Jewish Scriptures were read. Luke's history of the early church or "Acts of the Apostles" was also highly valued. Also the letters of Paul, John, Peter came finally to have authoritative status.   Also widely used, and considered "authoritative" was Tatian's Diatessaron (a Gospel harmony), as well as the Shepherd of Hermas. But eventually these two sources would lose favor – not being themselves purely "apostolic" (being recognized as coming from one or another of Jesus's original disciples) in their origins.   Over the next century other writings were added to the "canon"1: the "Pastoral Epistles," the secondary letters of John and Peter, James, the anonymous letter to the Hebrews, and – lastly – Revelation. Meanwhile the various writings collected by the Gnostics were widely rejected by the "Catholic" church as being of very dubious origin. By the beginning of the fourth century (300s), the canon had, by and large, taken on the look that it has today. The early oral tradition It is hard for us to understand how important and persistent was the oral tradition about Jesus among the earliest Christians. To be sure, Paul's letters were carefully preserved and copied and passed around. But the sayings of Jesus were the most precious of all the legacy that the church carefully nurtured. In about 95 AD, Clement, bishop of Rome, in his letter to the Corinthian church, quotes Jesus sayings, which were as likely at that point to come from oral tradition as from written "gospels." As Jesus left no writings of his own, the "record" had to be authenticated by those with the status of "apostle."  Only they had the right to say exactly what it was that Jesus said and didn't say.  Indeed, by the beginning of the second century, apostolic authority was becoming as important as Old Testament writings in the esteem of the churchmen. Often what the apostles said about Jesus was in the tradition of the Jewish midrash and was more for moral/spiritual instruction (sermons) of the faithful than for historical accounting for the curious. Oddly enough, Paul, who gave us our earliest written testimonies concerning the new faith, generally does not himself quote Jesus or any of the Jesus sayings.  However his own injunctions, such as in Romans 12, indicate a familiarity with the Jesus sayings or teachings – though Paul does not credit Jesus with these words of his. The first use of the "Gospels"  In about 125 AD Papias, bishop of Phrygia (reputedly a pupil of the apostle John and possibly the scribe who wrote down John's Gospel as John dictated or taught him) was reported (by Eusebius) to have commented on the need to write down the sayings of Jesus:  "I do not suppose that what I could get from the books would help me so much as what I could get from a living and abiding voice."   We know through Eusebius that Papias was aware of at least two gospels, John and Mark, (with respect to the latter, at least in part or portion of what has come down to us as this gospel). But we cannot be sure of exactly what he meant by "books." Usually these would have been in reference to the sacred writings of the Old Testament.  He probably was not yet referring to the "gospels" as books.   Papias defended the writings of Mark – answering the criticism that they were not an orderly account by pointing out that they were not written from that vantage point to begin with but were simply the recordings of whatever Peter felt inclined to report – including material from his sermons. This strikes us as a very strange comment because what we know as the Gospel of Mark is indeed a very orderly account – and not just a collection of reminiscences.  Was Papias referring to what we know as the Gospel of Mark – it hardly seems likely – or some writings from which that gospel eventually derived? What was he referring to?  How could he have known of the writings of Mark and yet not about his Gospel at the same time?   Roughly contemporary with Papias' letters was the Didache (The Lord's teaching to the Gentiles through the 12 Apostles), which seems to have drawn heavily from Matthew or something like Matthew.  And yet there are wide variations.  Why would the author of the Didache have picked and chosen from Matthew (without giving credit to its apostolic source) rather than just using all of it?  Did "Matthew" exist at that time as we know it?  If it did – why did it not have weightier authority with the writer of the Didache?   A generation later, just prior to the middle of the second century, Justin of Rome speaks in his Dialogue with Trypho about the "memoirs" of Peter (the Gospel of Mark?).  In his First Apology, Justin also mentions the "memoirs of the apostles', which he said were read in church along with the compositions of the prophets (Old Testament prophets). In the next generation, Tatian, disciple of the martyred Justin of Rome, put together a gospel "harmony" of the four (with possibly other minor sources as well) gospels (175 AD?) much as we seem to have them: the Diatessaron.  This gives us our first clear indication of a developing gospel tradition.  The chronology was built heavily on the Gospel of John, except in minor instances when the synoptic narrative was followed (clearing the temple during the end rather than the beginning of Jesus's ministry).   The Diatessaron itself remained the preferred gospel source within the Syrian church until in the early 5th century (400s) when the Syrians were pressured to give it up in favor of the four recognized gospels. Paul's letters We do not know when or exactly how Paul's letters came together as a recognized collection of "Scripture."  Possibly Luke may have collected and edited these letters just as he put together his gospel account and the Book of Acts – heavily focused on the ministry of Paul. We do know that they were the first body of Christian literature that was circulated as a collection – as early as the first part of the 2nd century.  The earliest surviving manuscript (from Egypt around 200 AD) does not include the Pastoral epistles (most modern scholars doubt that they were written by Paul – for they show evidence of a much more evolved church organization than probably had existed at the time of Paul) but does include Hebrews (which the Western or Roman church did not recognize as Pauline until the 4th century).  Marcion's edition of Paul's letters (put together around 144 AD) includes neither the Pastoral Epistles nor Hebrews.   The first evidence we long had of combining the gospel accounts with the Pauline letters into something like a "New Testament," was in the scholarship of Marcion (ca. 150 AD).  He combined Luke's gospel (a version of it that differs somewhat from our own) with Paul's letters into a single collection – which became the scriptural foundation of his gnostic secessionist movement – later rejected by the Orthodox community. The Gnostic writings From the Nag Hammadi documents, discovered in upper Egypt in 1945, we have a large number of Christian writings – gnostic in character – in 52 documents.  Among those writings was The Gospel of Truth, which gives new indication that in Rome around 150 AD there was a corpus (but not by any means considered a "collection") of recognized writings approximating our "New Testament."  Indicated as belonging to this authenticated corpus are: Matthew and Luke (possibly with Acts), the Gospel and 1st letter of John, the Pauline letters (except the Pastorals), Hebrews and Revelation. The earliest sense of the canonical books From the Muratorian Fragment, a 7th or 8th century copy of a document belonging probably to the late 2nd century, we have something of a list of the authoritative books of the Roman Church.  The first part is mutilated but undoubtedly reports Matthew and Mark.   It specifies Luke, John, the Acts of the Apostles, the letters of Paul (now including the Pastoral Epistles), Revelation, Jude and the letters of John, Wisdom of Solomon (our Old Testament Apocrypha), and a work called The Apocalypse of Peter – not to be confused with Peter's letters, which are not mentioned.  James is not mentioned, nor is Hebrews.  The Shepherd of Hermas is recognized as important, but not authoritative.  The documents of Marcion, Valentius and the Gnostics are rejected as forgeries. What the "Fathers of the Church" had to say on the matter Irenaeus.  Of his many writings (175-200 AD), the most important to have survived was Against Heretics – a five-volume set of writings designed to refute the Gnostic claim that it preserved the true spirit of apostolic Christianity.   Irenaeus rather clearly demonstrated that the Holy Spirit gave the apostles perfect knowledge – which was in no way a secret knowledge.  "The truths they received and passed on are openly preserved for us in the sacred writings: the four gospels, the letters of Paul, etc." This was a very clear demonstration that the catholic (or universal or apostolic) church had established a clear line of canon – including, as best we can tell, the books which we use today as the "New Testament" and excluding the many other writings that were floating around claiming authority – especially all the gnostic writings.  We know also that Irenaeus used the Shepherd of Hermas and the Book of Wisdom as source books – though he did not claim that they enjoyed the same authority as the others. Tertullian was the first significant scholar to do his work in Latin (around 200 AD).  He was also the first person to report the general use of "New Testament" (or "New Covenant") in the Latin West in reference to the canonical writings of the church. He does not spell out the actual books he considered as an integral part of the New Testament.  Thus we cannot be sure that it included James, 2nd Peter, 2nd and 3rd John.  It did include Jude.  It did not include Hebrews – though he comments that although he had no authority to add it to the list, he felt it deserved a place with the others as it was the work of Barnabas, who "learned his doctrine from apostles and taught it with apostles."  He compared it with the highly esteemed Shepherd of Hermas, which was widely considered as inspired scripture; to Tertullian it was vastly inferior because of the Shepherd's relative moral laxity: forgiving a sin committed after baptism (Tertullian had become a Montanist, or moral rigorists – condemned by the church some years after his death as a heresy). Clement (also around 200 AD) held to the idea that the books widely recognized as canonical were indeed the sole foundation for doctrine.  Clement too mentions the Old and New Testament – though he does not enumerate the books involved. His reference seems to be fairly standard: the gospels, Paul's writings, etc.  In keeping with the tendency of the Eastern Church, he includes Hebrews – which he felt was written by Paul.  But he also includes freely other Christian writings such as the Didache, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Gospel according to the Egyptians, the Gospel According to the Hebrews, the Preaching of Peter, the Sibylline Oracles, and others. Origen was a student of Clement's and was strongly influenced by him.  Origen preached expositorily from both the Old and New Testaments and wrote excellent commentaries on Scripture.   He commented how Hebrews was a disputed book – not because of its content but because of questions about its author.  He himself was inclined to doubt Paul's authorship of Hebrews – for the Greek style was considerably better than that found in Paul's other writings.  Perhaps, however, it was composed by a disciple of Paul's. Origen is the first Christian writer to mention 2nd Peter – mentioning it as a disputed writing, as well as 2nd and 3rd John, James and Jude.  He is quoted in Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History to have said that he himself felt that 2nd and 3rd John were authentic works of the author of the Gospel of John and 1st John.  They may have been overlooked previously only because of their brevity.  He calls James "the reputed epistle of James."  He quoted from it in his writings – but he clearly had questions about its ranking with the recognized "scriptures."  He also personally felt that Jude was worthy to be included among scripture – though it was a disputed writing. But he also included the Didache as scripture – along with the Letter of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas.  On the other hand – he was a little more suspicious that his teacher Clement had been about some of the other writings read widely in Christian circles.  The Gospel according to the Egyptians he even felt was heretical.   He himself gave very allegorical interpretation to Scripture – in a somewhat gnostic fashion: he emphasized how these writings were given by the Holy Spirit and must be read spiritually rather than literally.  He also considered the gospels to rank above the epistles in importance, and the Gospel of John to rank highest among the gospels. Eusebius of Caesarea (flourished in the first third of the 300s) was, after Luke, the second most important historian of the early church that we have.  His Ecclesiastical History is the only source we have on the life and writings of many of the early church fathers – and those whom they debated in the struggle to establish Christian orthodoxy.  He was also an advisor to Constantine on important church matters. He listed the current Christian writings: 1) as universally acknowledged:  the four Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, the epistles of Paul [including Hebrews], 1st John, 1st Peter and Revelation   2) as disputed: James, Jude, 2nd Peter and 2nd and 3rd John; and   3) as spurious: the Didache, the Apocalypse of Peter, the Epistle of Barnabas, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Acts of Paul and Revelation Interestingly, Revelation is listed twice: universally acknowledged and spurious!  By this, he meant that it was acknowledged in his day as authoritative – though he himself had serious questions about it.  By spurious he did not mean to be rejected – but only to be read with caution.  In addition to these three categories, there were a number of books circulating around which he held were outright heretical – and to be avoided (Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Peter and others – mostly gnostic works). The Canon is "established" Finally, in 330 or soon thereafter, the Emperor Constantine requested of Eusebius 50 bound copies of Scripture – both Old and New Testaments – to be used in the churches in Constantinople.  The Bible as put together by Eusebius seems to have included in the New Testament the same 27 books (thus including Revelation – which the Emperor was particularly fond of!) that we find in our New Testament – probably in the same order as we find it today. This did not actually constitute a "formal" canonization of scripture ... but certainly became a very important precedent in defining the Bible such as we know it today! 1The word "canon" is of Greek origin, meaning a rule or measuring stick.  Thus for a particular writing to be considered part of the canon (being "canonical") it had to measure up to a certain standard of authenticity.  Deciding what material was canonical and what was not was a matter of great importance to the Christian community ... for Christians felt it vitally important that Scripture be entirely "God breathed" ... and not be just a human by-product – no matter how philosophical or even "useful" it might appear to be. CHRISTIANITY'S IMPACT ON THE GRECO-ROMAN-JUDAIC WORLD Christians providing entertainment for the Romans The Jewish Rejection of Christianity The first Christians thought of themselves as Jews – Messianic Jews who believed that in Jesus of Nazareth the ancient Jewish hope of a Messiah had been fulfilled.   Nonetheless, these Jewish Christians rejected (in line with the apparent teachings of Jesus and the apostles) the halakhic midrash of the Pharisees – seen as legalistic burdens imposed on the faithful:  the ritualistic washing of hands, burial restrictions, required fasts, etc. But such disrespect for the Law was shocking to the rest of the Jewish community – which began to see the Christian group not just as another Jewish sect (of which there were many within Judaism) – but as a serious "heresy."  (Thus Paul in his early life had been active in trying to stamp out this movement – by imprisonment and death if necessary).   But even more revolting to the Jewish sensitivities was the idea that Jesus had died and had come back to life from the grave.  To the Semitic mind this was something of a Greek or pagan invention and not anything they considered to be in the light of how they understood God to operate.  This seemed Dionysian, or Orphic – certainly not Jewish.  This was not what they were led to believe that any Jewish Messiah would be doing.  Jesus" death and resurrection had no meaning to them.  They were definitely of the mind that righteousness was established through good works – not through the mysteries of some kind of human blood sacrifice or the suffering of death by some God-figure in order that others might live forever in God's holy precincts. Also the idea of a God Three-in-One (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) went way beyond the monotheism of the Semitic mind of the Jews.  To the Jews this "Trinity” of God sounded closely like the polytheism of the pagan Greek world with its many gods.  The Greeks seemed to have no difficulty with the idea that God might take several forms – yet be the same God.  But to the Jews this was mere blasphemy (as it would be to the Semitic Arabs who had much the same mindset as the Jews on these matters). The Jews had been making converts from the Greek and Roman population during this time – and many of these Jewish converts were easily brought into the new Christian faith.  Synagogues dominated by Greek Jews thus easily became Christian centers of worship.  But otherwise the older Jewish community was quick to reject the doctrines of this new faith. Finally, as the last straw, when in 66 AD the Roman emperor Hadrian insisted that the Jews renounce their religious observances (including most importantly circumcision – which to the Romans seemed to be a very barbaric practice), Christian Jews did not hesitate doing so, for they had ceased to observe such religious practices themselves for some time. Much of the rest of Judaism, however, rose up in angry revolt against the Roman decrees.   In contrast, the Christians withdrew to the safe site of Pella (in modern day Jordan) when Jerusalem in AD 70 was sacked by the Romans in retaliation for the Jewish rebellion.  And in the intensity of the pain of seeing their beloved temple leveled to the ground, the "Orthodox" Jewish party felt all the more hatred for the Christians.  To them, the behavior of the Christians during this crisis proved all the more convincingly that the Christians were Jewish "traitors." So finally, in around 90 AD, a group of Jewish leaders convened their scattered people at Jamnia (or Jabneh), trying to form a new "Sanhedrin" (Council) in Palestine to replace the one that had once gathered in Jerusalem.  Present were Rabbi Johanan ben Zakkai, Gamaliel (grandson of Hillel) and Simeon. Here it was decided that word was to go out to all the synagogues around the Empire that Christians were to be expelled from synagogue worship.  They had no part of the "true" Jewish community. The formation of the Greco-Roman church Now expelled from synagogue worship, each local Christian community established its own structure for fellowship – though they all seemed to have had one or more overseers (episcopos) or elders (presbuteros),2 depending on whether the Greek or Jewish tradition was emphasized.  As defined in 1st Timothy (Chapter 3), an episcopos was one of the congregation, a person of excellent repute whom the congregation could rely on as a trustworthy overseer.   Some of the churches were recognized as apostolic churches – that is, founded by one or another of the original apostles – and thus their governing structure commanded regional respect (Jerusalem until 70, Rome, Antioch, Smyrna, Ephesus and others). Roman persecution From its origins in Roman Palestine in around 30 AD, the "Way" of Jesus Christ spread quickly around the cities of the Roman empire among the humbler classes.  In a way it touched the Dionysian hearts of the people:  Jesus had proved himself Son of God by dying for us and then by being raised from the dead by God – though not for just a season but for all eternity.  Fervent was the belief that those who honored Jesus as the Lord of their lives would be raised with him to glory – where they would live eternally with him – without further fear of pain or death.   But making Jesus "Lord" ran into a distinct problem in that the emperors were in no mood to be challenged for that same position as spiritual "Lord" by some cultic figure known as "Christ."  Also the Roman army, which was the chief tool of the emperors, was heavily Mithraist (a religion from Persia) and held Christianity in contempt. And the Jewish community – which enjoyed approved legal status under Roman law – was quick to deny that Christianity was merely a Jewish subset.  In short, Christianity was unwelcome in the Roman empire – except in the private hearts of the faithful who met secretly to celebrate the secret rite of the Lord's Supper, and to read and expound on the Scriptures (both Jewish Scripture and the new apostolic writings that were being passed around carefully). In 64 AD, the persecutions became more systematic when Nero put Christians to death as scapegoats for the burning of Rome.  From then on persecution was a constant fact of life for the Christian.  But in 250-251 AD under the emperor Decius, in 259-260 under Valerian, and in 303-305 under Diocletian the persecutions were pursued relentlessly by the authorities. The horror of the persecution during each of these periods was relieved only with the death of each of the zealous emperors involved. 2"Bishop" is a shortening of the Greek word episkopos, meaning "overseer" or "one who watches over" ... rendered into Latin as episcopus.  And the word "Episcopalian" means simply a religious community directed by a bishop.  "Priest" is a shortening of the Greek word presbuteros or "presbyter" … originally meaning simply "elder."  "Presbyterian" means simply a religious community directed by an elder (or more likely a small group of elders). Christian religious art hidden away from Roman authorities in the Roman catacombs Catacomb of Ss. Pietro and Marcellinus - Rome (300s) The ceiling of a cubiculum in the Catacomb of Ss. Pietro and Marcellinus (Jesus - the Good Shepherd - as the central figure; the story of Jonah as some of the surrounding figures) The prophet Jonah being thrown into the sea Detail of the ceiling of a cubiculum in the Catacomb of Ss. Pietro and Marcellinus Christ as Orpheus - Catacomb of Ss. Pietro and Marcellinus (Christ was known for his power to bring peace to mankind  in the way that Orpheus was known to tame wild beasts with his music) Christ healing the bleeding woman - Catacomb of Ss. Pietro and Marcellinus Christ and the Apostles - Domitilla Catacombs - Rome (early 300s) Christ with Beard (early depiction of Jesus as a Jew with beard and long hair) Commodilla Catacomb - Rome (late 300s) THE EARLY DEFINERS AND DEFENDERS ("APOLOGISTS") OF THE FAITH But the persecution only seemed to serve to purify the ranks of the Christian community, leaving it filled with people of the highest integrity and courage – a factor which only attracted the Romans all the more to the faith!  Indeed, some of the finest Roman talent began to make its way into the ranks of this community, giving us such people of stature as Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria in the second century (100s) AD – and Tertullian, Origen and Cyprian in the third century (200s). Clement, Bishop/Presbyter of Rome (late first century: d. ca. 100) In his Letter to Corinth, "1 Clement" (ca. 95?), he deals with the issue of establishing an orderly (apostolic) succession of leaders among the elders and speaks against Judaizing and docetic influences in Corinth. Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch (fl. early 100s) Ignatius wrote a number of letters while on the way to Rome to be executed.  In these, he urges the churches to build a ministerial pattern of one bishop and several presbyters and deacons.  The bishop was to have the key responsibility of maintaining the unity of the church and its doctrines against the diverse interests pulling at the churches. Polycarp (martyred. ca. 160) Polycarp was reputed to be a direct disciple of the apostle John.  He eventually became Bishop of Smyrna.  The story of his martyrdom as an old man was widely circulated throughout the early church as a testimony of faith. Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis (fl. early 100s) Papias was a friend of Polycarp ... who wrote five books (only excerpts survive) authenticating from those who had personal knowledge of Jesus's original disciples the early writings of the gospels such as Mark and Matthew – explaining their sources or origins – and commenting on various other stories about Jesus and the disciples. Justin "Martyr" (d. 165) Justin underwent his own philosophical/ spiritual journey as a young man. Along the way he studied Stoicism, Aristotelianism, Pythagoreanism, Platonism.  He finally became a convert to Christianity on the basis of the integrity and bravery of its martyrs.  He became a teacher in Rome – and died (beheaded) a martyr there rather than sacrifice to the gods. He took up the task of relating Christianity to Greek philosophy – especially Platonism (which he still respected).  He stressed (along with the gospel writer John) that Christ was the Logos. He claimed also that Plato had been inspired by the Old Testament. And finally he put forth the idea that Christianity was the completion of what earlier Greek philosophers were trying to arrive at. Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons (ca. 130-202) Irenaeus was born into a Greek Christian family of Asia Minor. He became a disciple of Polycarp – but was also influenced by Justin's philosophy. He moved to Lyons (Gaul or France) as a young man, becoming a presbyter there – in 177 succeeding the martyred bishop and living on at Lyons until his death possibly at the beginning of the 200s. He took up the theological task of refuting the Gnostic heresy.  His writings give us much of our knowledge (negatively biased, of course) of the Gnostics.  The Gnostic claim of possessing special secret knowledge not given to other Christians he refuted with the claim that the apostles would have passed such knowledge on to the churches they themselves founded and loved – if such knowledge had actually existed. Also – he noted that the apostolic churches all proclaimed the same set of doctrines out of a well-recognized set of apostolic writings (the New Testament) – outweighing, by way of true authority, the ridiculous and contradictory innovations of the Gnostics and their writings. He was opposed to Montanism – but urged the church not to condemn this movement without careful thought on the matter. Clement of Alexandria (Titus Flavius Clemens) - ca. 150-215   Clement was a major voice in the Eastern or Greek part of the Church.  He was, however, quite different in temperament from Tertullian.  He was born a Greek pagan, but converted to Christianity and studied under a number of Christian teachers – principally Pantaenus, head of the Christian school in Alexandria (whom he succeeded in around 190). Being originally from Athens, he showed a much more favorable bent toward Greek thought – even non-Christian Greek thought!  Clement took up the cause of defending orthodox Christianity through demonstrating its conformity to well-accepted Greek philosophy – proving orthodox Christianity to be thus a higher version of Christianity (and also the consummation of Greek philosophy).  Nonetheless, he still thought highly of Greek philosophy and believed that Plato and others had helped opened the way for the Gospel through their own doctrines … which were not necessarily in opposition to the Gospel. We also are beholden to him for our knowledge today about certain aspects of the ancient Greek mystery religions and popular philosophies of the day.  His Exhortation to the Heathens/Greeks is a careful, point by point refutation of the major doctrines of these religious and philosophical movements.  He writes so knowledgeably because he himself had once been a part of their world.  He strongly laid the case for the impassability (emotionlessness) of God – which was also the vision of God held by the Greek philosophers – and also the ideal of the Greek Christian seeking after God. Alexandria Egypt (actually highly Greek in culture at the time) was falling heavily under the influence of Gnosticism.  Clement's answer to Gnosticism was to demonstrate true Christian "gnosis" or knowledge: the discipline of ethical living and the disciplined contemplation of God.  Clement was more of the impression that Jesus had imparted "secret knowledge" to his disciples.  However, the gnosis that Clement spoke of was fairly orthodox by the standards of the day. But Clement himself was subject to some of the Gnostic negative views about the natural life: Jesus surely did not need to eat, drink and sleep like mere mortals – but did so that his disciples might not get the wrong idea about him (Docetism). Tertullian (ca. 160-225) Tertullian was a Latin Carthaginian who was born a pagan and trained in rhetoric and the law. He converted to Christianity just before the turn of the century.  He seems to have remained all his life a teacher – probably never becoming a bishop or even presbyter. But he was an excellent writer in Latin – and very influential in formulating Latin theology. He tended to be a religious legalist who dedicated himself to the idea that the faith should be confined tightly within the parameters of a well worked out line of Orthodox theology. Indeed, he demonstrated an (unacknowledged) intellectual debt to Stoicism – with all its religious rigorousness. He was a very strong opponent of Monarchianism (Sabellius) – laying out one of the earliest Orthodox statements on the nature of the Trinity. However, he departed from the Greek Christian theologians (such as Justin) who saw Christianity as being in harmony with Greek philosophy, noting the distinction which exists between rational knowledge and faith; faith is God given and not open to the speculations of the human mind. Eventually he became a Christian Montanist – admiring its moral rigor. Indeed, he became very critical of the "established" church for its leniency in dealing with on going sins of Christians – even changing his mind about the possibility of a second repentance for a back slider. Origen (ca. 185-254) Origen was born into a Christian family in Alexandria. His father was martyred in 202 – leaving a very deep impression on Origen. He studied under Neo Platonist Ammonius Saccas (also teacher of Plotinus) and lived in Alexandria as a teacher at the catechetical school, until he had a falling out with the Alexandrian bishop. He then moved to Caesarea in Palestine where he continued his work. He lived the life – up until he began to have second thoughts on the matter as an older man – of an ascetic. He remained true to the faith, suffering severe torture in the Decian persecution of (249-251) – dying a few years later from the effects of this treatment. Origen was a prolific expositor of the Bible (carefully studying Scripture verse by verse).  But he viewed its content as allegory – used to lead the reader to a "deeper," more spiritual meaning of Scripture. [Note: this was a principle well established in Greek learning and used widely in the study of the ancient Greek legends.  Thus Philo used this in his commentaries on the Jewish Scriptures.  However, this put Origen in strong distinction to the attitudes of the more literalist Tertullian on the matter!] As a catechetical teacher (preparing those who were about to enter the church), Origen was well aware of and loyal to the doctrines of Christian Orthodoxy – though (in keeping with the intellectual spirit of Greek learning) he felt that the scholar had the call to pass imaginatively beyond these foundational ideas – not so as to contradict them, but to offer supplementary understanding). His imaginatively speculative mind would get him in trouble with Orthodoxy in a later age – for many of his ideas were later condemned as heretical: thus for instance, the old Socratic theory that the soul exists independently of the body and enters it at birth; or the universalist notion that in the end all would be saved; or some very imaginative views on the Trinity! He saw Jesus's redemptive death on the cross as an idea of salvation suitable for the common lot of people.  But for higher thinkers, he believed that Jesus's redemptive purpose was lodged in the idea of the believer being raised to the level of God through the contemplation of God (an idea that would reappear in medieval mysticism).  The higher soul understands the importance of moving from the imperfect world of becoming (the world of flux and change) to the perfect world of pure being (eternal, unchanging, impassible – like God). This contemplative path is the path of higher minds. He was a trinitarian – in opposition to the Monarchianists.  Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three hypostases (translated to the Latin as "persons").  The Son however was begotten of the Father not as a single historical event – but as an on going event since the beginning of eternity. But in line with classic Greek philosophy, he believed that creation was eternal – not made. Beings fall from grace and thus from an eternal relationship with God and thus come in need of redemption.  The purpose of God's redemptive work in Christ was thus to restore creation to its original state of being in eternal relation with God. Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage (martyred in 258) Cyprian was born of an upper class pagan family and destined for a life in high public office – until he converted to Christianity around 245 because of the high moral qualities of the faith. Only a few short years later he was made bishop of Carthage!  He then had to lead the Carthaginian church during the Decian persecutions of 249-251 – which was aimed first at the death of all Christian bishops.  Cyprian, warned in advance, was able to hide – though this gave jealous clergy, who had resented his rapid rise, a chance to criticize him. Then the persecution was directed against all Christians, forcing them, under penalty of death, to sacrifice to the pagan gods – including importantly the emperor god. A large number of Christians apostatized (gave up their Christian faith) under this unexpected pressure. Then when just as suddenly the persecutions ended – the problem emerged of readmitting apostatized Christians back into the fold: who should have the power to readmit them and under what terms? The Church fell into deep internal dissent over the matter. Some of the more rigoristic withdrew in anger at the ease by which Christians were being forgiven for their apostacy – and withdrew to set up separate churches. The unity of the church was threatened. Cyprian pressed for forgiveness and unity – and claimed that only the bishops, not the most rigoristic individuals ("confessors"), had the right to restore the apostates. His views influenced greatly the idea of a church ruled by ordained bishops and not by charismatic individuals. But he also believed that bishops had autonomous authority in their own bishoprics and no bishops stood above any others (such as the Bishop of Rome!) His view on this matter prevailed only temporarily. Anthony of Egypt (251-356) A religious hermit in the Egyptian desert (along the lower Nile) who was considered the first organizer and inspirer of monastic Christian life.  As a young man of about 20 he took up the practice of asceticism (self denial).  At about the age of 35 he took to the desert to live in total isolation – remaining in that condition for nearly 20 years.  During these years he was engaged in an on going struggle with visions of Satan – and in the perfecting of his spiritual life. The stories of his struggles began to inspire the larger Christian world (including Athanasius who was to write a biography: Life of Anthony).  Indeed, over the years a large number of other Christian ascetics had gathered around him to imitate his discipline, and in 305 Anthony ended his isolation in order to instruct others in the monastic life.  Eventually he organized a monastery, Dayr Mari Antonios, on a mountain near the Nile – which stands to this day. EARLY DISSENTERS FROM THE WIDELY-HELD OR "CATHOLIC" VIEW The "Judaizers" or "Legalists" (first century) Their view was that all Christians must submit to the full requirements of the Law of Moses – in particular the requirement of male circumcision and the keeping of all the details of the Jewish religious code – as integral parts of the covenant of salvation in Jesus Christ.  This was strongly resisted by Paul, once a Jewish legalist (Pharisee) himself, who claimed that salvation came by God's grace alone – established for us through the faithfulness of Jesus and received in turn by us through our faith – and was not earned by anyone through the keeping of any part of the Jewish law (or any other law). Gnostics (late first century and thereafter) The Gnostics departed in a major way from the "apostolic" teachings of Jesus's original followers.  Their thinking absorbed strong mystical influences from the pagan culture around them.  Gnosticism grew up within the church during the late first century, achieved a strong influence within the church during the mid second century, and lingered on quite some time thereafter within the fringes of the churches after major efforts were made to suppress it. The Gnostics got their name, meaning "the ones who know" because they claimed to possess special revelation knowledge that the rest of the Christian community was not privileged to have.  According to this special knowledge, the cosmos was a supposedly a dark, fallen second order of life created by a mere secondary order god: Yahweh.  True God (not Yahweh) could not have made such a flawed creation. Further they believed that there were two orders of Christians: the spiritual and the worldly. The spiritual or the saved (or "elect") were privileged spiritual beings who were raised above this flawed world and accorded special entrance into the secret world of original light, where God was found in truth.  Moreover, such Gnostic "spirituals" were freed from the moral requirements of this darkened world of flesh (and many acted accordingly). Docetists Docetism was a variant or component of the Gnostic heresy – of a rather rigorous variety.  According to world despising Gnostics, Jesus could not have been truly human – for that which is of God could never have taken the flawed form of a creature of this world.  To have actually been flesh would have made him captive to evil.  Thus Jesus only appeared to have been such a worldly creature. Manicheanists Manicheanism was another variant of rigoristic Gnosticism.  Manicheanism was a borrowing from the dualistic Light Darkness Persian philosophy – also popular in Roman world.  The Manicheanists professed the idea of a dualistic divinity: 1) the creator/god of this physical world is Evil; 2) the god of Good is master over the spiritual world.  The two are in struggle with each other for supremacy over life. Marcionists (middle of 100s) This was another version of Gnosticism – but very rigorous in its self denying tendencies. The Marcionists were rigorously self-denying of the "flesh" – even of sex. Like Gnosticism, Marcionism tended to be strongly anti Jewish … feeling that the Christian Scriptural canon should be purged of all "Jewish" influences.  To the Marcionists, Yahweh of the Old Testament and the New Testament God were not the same thing. Marcionists were also docetic and dualistic in the manner of the Gnostics and Manicheanists. Montanists (late 100s) Montanism started up in Asian Minor, ca. 170 – spreading rapidly throughout the empire.  It too was Gnostic in character.  This movement began as a "New Prophecy": as part of the continuing role of the Paraclete (Holy Spirit) in further developing the life of the church.  It was guided heavily by the ecstatic utterings of Montanus (from whom it got its name), and the female "prophets" Priscilla and Maximilla. It was also apocalyptic: viewing Phrygia (a Roman province in Asia Minor) as being the New Jerusalem of the End Times – which we were soon approaching.  It too held a very rigoristic view of the Christian life:  fasting, celibacy, martyrdom – and looked down on those Christians who were less rigoristic than they. Modalists The Modalists are those who took up the cause or viewpoint of Sabellius, one of the major exponents of modalist thinking (Modalism is also known as Sabellianism).  Modalism puts forward the view that God is One – but appearing in three different "modes" in three different phases of revelation: Father (Creator), Son (Redeemer) Spirit (Sustainer) who come into history during different times (thus, for instance, the Son is not co eternal with the Father and is subordinate to him). Arius – Arians (ca. 200) Arianism from Arius, one of the major promoters of Unitarian thinking within the church, is also known as a supporter of Monarchism or "one ruler" … in opposition to the Trinitarian view of God in three persons:  Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The major stress of Arius was the sole rule of a heavenly God.  His teachings tended to downplay the orthodox or catholic Christian understanding of Jesus as being pure God, replacing it with an understanding of Jesus as one who achieved godliness at death.  Thus Arianism saw Jesus's divinity as derivative of God – not coexistent and co eternal with God.  It was adoptionist, in the sense that it felt that Jesus was rewarded at death with divinity for his faithfulness.  Jesus thus earned his divine status. It thus played into the hands of the rigorists who felt that the way to God was through immense human effort and self discipline – as per Jesus's example. This kind of thinking was to be a major problem for Apostolic or Orthodox or "Catholic" (Universal) Christianity which felt that Arianism greatly reduced the vital importance of Jesus in the Divine scheme of things.  Orthodox Christianity taught that the only way to God, the only "work" acceptable to God to remove the stain of sin from human life, the only path by which we were restored to oneness in our fellowship with God (Atonement), was through the divine work of God in the form of Jesus Christ on the cross.  Anything else, any human work we put forward on our own behalf before God, merely served to diminish the importance of the saving act of God through Jesus Christ on the cross. Salvation only by divine grace … through human faith Thus Arianism played down the role of God's grace in saving sinners.  It definitely stood in opposition to the doctrine – strongly put forward by the apostle Paul – of divine election or "predestination," whereby those who were destined to salvation were the ones God alone, out of the mystery of his divine will, chose for this purpose.  According to Paul, we all are such sinners that no one could ever presume to work his/her way to heaven.  Only the merit of the cross earned by the faithful Jesus could compensate or atone for our sins.  Only those who cling to Jesus's merit, not their own, could ever achieve heaven.  Only those who come to such faith in Jesus (again, by a miracle of God's grace), who truly make him the Lord of their lives, will ever enter the kingdom of God.  Only those whose eyes are opened by the Spirit of God to this understanding, who surrender their own natural instincts for self justification, will ever see eternal life.  Only those mysteriously touched by the power of God so as to be able to overcome their sinful, self serving instincts, will be saved.    Thus … according to Paul and the early Orthodox or Catholic church, there is no way that we can work our way into heaven by our own efforts. The popularity of "works-righteousness"  Nonetheless, the idea whereby persons earned their way to salvation through the rigors of their own religious life ("works-righteousness"), remained very popular among the people – and persisted through the centuries (even down to today) … ever ready in some new form (Pelagianism [early 400s], Armenianism [early 1600s]) to invade orthodox or catholic theology.   Go on to the next section:  Constantine ... and the "Romanization" of Christianity   Miles H. Hodges