The Age of Apologists

For many years scholars have recognized that early Christians, like the Jews, worshiped in !houses" which were set#aside for that purpose.The !House#Church" $!Catacombs" were not usually places of Sunday worship.%$There were some free#standing structures also, like the free#standing synagogues. These faded during intense persecution.%Archeological &nds dating to the third century at Dura Europos $on the eastern frontier of the Empire% have given us a clue as to what the typical arrangement may have been throughout the &rst three centuries.

Reconstructing the !House/Synagogue/Church"

House Church Common Row House

Christianity and the Roman Government

Contrary to the lasting stereotype, persecution was not the “official” policy of Rome

toward Christianity except at the very end of the third and very beginning of the

fourth century. (Even then, it could be argued, that it wasn’t “official” just de facto.)

Therefore, persecution was neither complete nor widespread, but sporadic and local.

Local governors could choose to appease popular dislike of Christians with capital

punishment. (As w. the crucifixion of Christ, this kept rioting down.)

What the public, or powerful individuals, often feared was the Christian loyalty to a

principality other than Rome first (the Kingdom of Heaven).

Perhaps more significant, was the fear of certain powerful parties and individuals

that the new philosophy/religion was an element of unhealthy competition.

(Drawing away converts and adherents, and their money.)

One result of the infrequent and local nature of the persecutions was that

Christianity was never completely “underground.”

Another was that it could never be completely “stamped-out” (once this became the

policy of certain emperors Christianity was too powerful and widespread.)

Yet another was that Christianity obtained a certain “counter-cultural” appeal.

Finally, this produced the phenomenon of the “Apologists,” who recognized that

much of the antipathy toward Christians was based on lack of understanding.

Background to Justin’s “Second Apology”NOTE: READ THE “SECOND APOLOGY” NOT THE “DIALOGUE WITH

TRYPHO.”

Apologia = “explanation,” or “explanatory defense.”

Justin “Martyr” (d. circa 165 c.e.)

Born to Roman Parents in “Samaria” (in Palestine, present day “Nablus”)

Well-educated, proponent of “Middle Platonism” in youth.

Converts to Christianity after an “old man” (implies another, experienced

philosopher) convinces him of the shortcomings of Platonism (and the value of the

Old Testament and Christianity for overcoming them.)

Moved to Ephesus and taught for a time, presumably in a Christian “philosophical

school”

Set up a Christian Philosophical school in Rome sometime after 138 c.e.

Martyred at the demand of a rival, pagan philosopher, Crescens early in the reign

of Marcus Aurelius.

The “Second Apology” is a brief response to recent martyrdoms of Christians,

particularly the beheadings of three Christians, including the wife of a “dissolute

pagan” who was the accuser.

NOTE: The book’s insistence that the Apologists somehow “added” a philosophical

reasoning to Christianity is the result of author bias. Middle Platonism influenced the

large portions of the New Testament including the letters of Paul.

The Challenge of IdentityIn the course of the second century mainline Christianity was faced with the

challenge of defining itself.There was a discernible mainline: a range of beliefs which were generally

compatible and consistent with the Jewish origins and the first century

transformation.The textbook calls this the “Catholic Church” (Catholic meaning “universal”).A better term might be Bart Ehrman’s “Proto-Orthodoxy.”

“Ortho” - right, or correct.

“doxy”

- worship (from !"#$%&) or…

- teaching/belief (from !"'(&)

In the thinking of the second century you could not cleanly separate the style of worship from the teaching. One was public words the other was public actions. Both were formal and ritualized, and both had to agree and follow tradition.

Three elements were necessary for defining the mainstream:

Centers of traditional authority (Apostolic Succession)

Creeds (kanwnoi) ‘rules of faith’

and the “rule” or kanwn of the New Testament Scriptures.

(Historically you cannot have one without the other two.)

The Challengers:The second century was critical for establishing a wide-spread (if not quite universal) definition of “true Christianity.”None of the three developments required for this would have emerged if it had not been for a challenge issued by rival “Christianities” the largest of which were still extreme minorities, but were considered a serious challenge to the mainstream:

GnosticismMarcion and MarcionitesMontanism

Only in response to these did the mainstream develop a clearly articulate summary of faith (creeds), demand that all teaching be in conformity with the tradition established in the first century (apostolic succession), and develop, informally, a list of books which were the “real” authorities in matters of Christian teaching.(That’s right, folks, without the “heresies” there would be no “Bible” as you now know it.)

Gnosticism (highlights):“Gnosis” (Gnwsij) to know.Gnostics believed they had a special knowledge of divine things. Constituted a separate movement which existed both outside of (before), and within,

Judaism and Christianity.“Syncretistic” -- borrowed from, and blended a wide variety of thought into a variety of

consistent systems which shared some common points:Dualism: The universe is divided into “good” and “evil” forces which are at odds with

each other.Viewed the material world as being inferior and/or evil.The human body (and its appearance, form, etc.) was a “shell” which contained the

Gnostic soul, not part of the individual proper.The “Gnostics” form an elite clique who are aware of the “real” state of things.The Gnostics often saw themselves as being eternal “sparks” or “fragments” of the

divine scattered and imprisoned in the material world.Those who were not Gnostics were inherently inferior and not capable of the “salvation”

which comes when the spirit is released from the material body.Set up a situation in which the “Gnostics” saw themselves as bound to a separate moral

code:Some rejected the pleasures of the “world” entirely.Others indulged in them as much as possible, since behavior in this life didn’t matter. According to their critics, their elite status meant that they would willingly lie, defraud,

or betray others so long as no “Gnostics” were harmed by the action.(This truly seems to be the case in Lyons where Irenaeus was writing.)

Christian GnosticismAs with all forms of Gnosticism, recent finds of texts (particularly at Nag Hammadi) have given us

a much better understanding of the Gnostic movements than we had before.We can now balance the descriptions of Christian “Heresiologists” such as Irenaeus and Eusebius

with the words of the Gnostics themselves.(Among other things, we now know that Gnosticism didn’t grow directly out of early Christianity,

but added Christian features to its pre-existing systems.)Apparently many Gnostics were sincerely attracted to the new Christian movement, because the

“Christ” figure could be easily adapted to Gnostic mythology:In “Christian” forms of Gnosticism the Jewish God of the Old Testament was inferior, or

possibly evil.Presented Christ as a purely divine, or spiritual, presence, representative of the transcendent

realm, sent to deliver a small group of people (the Gnostics themselves) from the material

world.The regular Christians were “deluded” into thinking that there was a continuity with the

Jewish Old Testament, when Christ’s “secret teachings” revealed that he had come to

overthrow the Jewish system.The “secret teachings” of Christ were revealed to some of the apostles, but were preserved in a

tradition known only to the Gnostics themselves (though certain “hidden truths” could be

allegorically found in the New Testament).Gnostics often formed their own rival bodies and institutions, but they were also found “hiding” in

the Christian churches (a secret community within the local parish).We have good evidence that regular Christians were seen as a lower class of people, who could be

betrayed to the authorities in time of persecution, while Gnostics would freely deny Christ to the

authorities. (After reading Justin, you can see where this would not be appreciated by mainline

Christians.)

Marcion, and his followers:Marcion: Born, probably prior to the turn of the second century(80? 90?). Died about

154.Went to Rome about 140 and was excommunicated from the Church there in July of 144

when he argued openly for his own interpretation of Christianty.(We no longer have his original writings, but it there is a fairly consistent picture which

emerges from the writings of his opponents in the mainstream.)Not a “Gnostic” but there are some clear parallels.

Rejected the God of the Old Testament. (The “real” God of the New Testament was

the only being worthy of the name, “God.”)Rejected materialism, including sex.Regarded Christ as the deliverer from the creation of the Old Testament God.

(Debates continue over possible influence of one group on the other.)Marcion developed a radical interpretation of the writings of Paul, and certain sections of

the Gospel of Luke, in which the message of Christ is presented as a clear rejection of the

Jewish God.Marcion’s list of “true” Scriptures pertaining to the Christ is really the first “Canon” of the

New Testament. (The first list of authoritative books.)It contained edited versions of ten letters of Paul, and a heavily abridged version of the

Gospel of Luke.Marcion’s followers formed a small but significant rival church which was particularly

strong in parts of Syria, lasting there until the fifth century.Marcion’s book, Antitheses, set forth the specific doctrines that Marcion rejected from

mainline Christian teaching.

MontanismNamed after Montanus, who began preaching about 170.Known by its adherents as the “New Prophecy” because its leaders (Montanus and

his female associates Priscilla and Maximilla) claimed to have received a “new

revelation” from God which superseded, or perhaps completed, the New

Testament.This “new revelation” was the key to interpreting the “true” meaning of many

passages of the Scriptures.Predicted the imminent end of the world (a date which seems to have been

conveniently flexible.)Practiced a much more rigorous ascetic discipline than Proto-Orthodoxy:

More and longer fasts.Discouragement of marriage.Severing of “worldly ties” in preparation for the end.Martyrdom was not to be avoided, and was even to be sought-out. (They

weren’t the only ones criticized for this.)Very quickly formed a separate, rival church which, though never large, made a

significant number of converts early-on. Probably had female clergy.Dwindled out of existence in the early fourth century. (Possibly wiped out by the

last persecutions.)Tertullian was its most significant convert. (As a Church Father his writings are

important, if always suspect.)

The Response:While a range of opinions were tolerated within Proto-Orthodoxy, the teachings of

Marcion, the Gnostics, and the Montanists were widely held by the mainstream to have

crossed the boundaries of authentic Christianity.Hence they came to be called “Heretics”:

From !"#$%"&', to “choose.”“Heretics” are those who choose to follow their own ideas, or choose their own way, over the teachings and tradition of the “original” or “genuine” church.In making this choice they have chosen to depart from the main Christian community.(Note for clarity: “heretic” can only be applied to those who claim to be Christian, not to Jews or Pagans, etc.)

Somehow the boundaries of the faith had to be clearly established, in the minds of the

leaders of the Proto-Orthodox.Tradition -- overagainst the Gnostic claim to have the “secret traditions,” and the

claims of Marcion and the Montanists to have the “true” interpretation of the scriptural

writings, the true tradition of the Apostles’ teaching had to be identified as it was

carried-out in the various local churches established by the Apostles.Creeds -- concise and formal statements, or formulas, of belief which stated,

positively, the teachings of regional mainline churches and excluded contrary

teachings. (“Staking out the boundaries of the faith” -- Gerald Bray.)the New Testament Canon: Overagainst the list of “acceptable” or authoritative

writings the Proto-Orthodox developed their own list, which would come to form the

“New Testament” as we have it today.

Tradition:Contrary to the assumptions of many modern Christians, in the second century it was not

possible to “go to the bible” to find out what the original teachings of Christianity were.The part dealing with Jesus Christ, the “New Testament,” had not been established as an

authority yet. (Though all the books had been written, most in the first century.)The response to the developments of the “heresies” was first to look to the most traditional

communities, those which were large and had clearly been established by the original

“Apostles” (the ones “sent out” by Jesus to teach.)Those things which were universally taught in these churches came to form a common

“tradition” by which other teachings could be measured.The “kerygma” or “officially preached message” of the Apostles was determined in this

way, along with consulting those texts which were regarded as being “Apostolic” in origin

(though there was no agreement on exactly which these were.In second century writers the “plain and original” teaching of the Apostles is set overagainst

the “secret teachings” of the Gnostics.From this desire to follow what was “handed down” (traditio) from the Apostles came the

related doctrine of the “Apostolic Succession:”The True teachings of Christianity are found where the Holy Spirit has preserved it.The true preachers are those clergy who can trace their ordinations, (or some would

argue their “teachings”), directly, through a kind of genealogy, to specific apostles.The local bishops are the guardians and keepers of this true Tradition, and hence the

“Apostolic Succession” proceeds through the bishops.(While this will all seem very “Catholic” to many modern Protestants, this was how the

Lutherans understood it originally also. In fact the way I have it here is more Lutheran.)

“Creeds” (Baptismal Formulae)Even in the first century there was a tradition of summarizing the faith in a

formal, ritualized, “confession” which identified the early Christian communities

and separated them from more traditional Jews.

“Jesus is Lord” (as in 1 Cor. 12:3 -- rejects radical Ebionism in which Jesus

would only be a “prophet.” “Lord” = “Adonai.”)

“Jesus Christ has Come in the Flesh” (1 John 4:2 -- the words reject radical

Docetism)

This practice was expanded in the second century formal outlines of specifically

“correct” teachings which would be used to teach those interested in converting

(‘catechumens’) and would be easily memorized by them and recited thereafter as

the “confession of the faith” or the “rule of faith.”

The creeds were worded to establish the boundaries of mainline teaching, and

exclude “heretical” ideas (such as Gnosticism, Docetism, Ebionism, etc.)

In the second century creeds were specifically used as “measures” of belief: those

who did not agree with the faith as stated were not to be part of that community.

(These creeds would become the foundation and raw material for the “Great

Creed” -- the Nicene Creed -- of the fourth century.)

Example: The “Apostles’ Creed”

1. I believe in God the Father, Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth:

2. And in Jesus Christ, his only begotten Son, our Lord:

3. Who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary

4. Suffered under Pontius Pilate; was crucified, dead and buried: He

descended into hell:

5. The third day he rose again from the dead:

6. He ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of God the Father

Almighty:

7. From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead:

8. I believe in the Holy Spirit:

9. I believe in the holy catholic church: the communion of saints:

10. The forgiveness of sins:

11. The resurrection of the body:

12. And the life everlasting. Amen.

The Canon of the New TestamentCanon = kanwn = a “guideline” or “authoritative list”

Overagainst the list of Marcion and the practice of picking and choosing

“authorities” by the Gnostics, the Proto-Orthodox developed their own list of

those books which were considered to be the true authorities for Christian

teaching.These were added to the “Old Testament,” and the lesser books of the

“Apocrypha,” over which there was no debate -- they were taken from the official

books of the Synagogue, and particularly as they were found in the official Greek

translation, the “Septuagint.”In the course of the second through the early fourth centuries a consensus

developed on what were the authoritative books from the Apostolic times -- what

we now call the “New Testament.”Contrary to the DaVinci Code, and a shocking number of supposedly educated

theologians, there was no council at which the books were “chosen” (not at Nicea,

or Carthage, or anywhere else).Councils merely agreed upon the lists that had come down by common consensus

from the second and third centuries.Also counter to the Code and much current popular opinion there were not a

“host” of books which were “rejected.”The way in which the books were chosen meant there was remarkably little

variation in the lists among the Proto-Orthodox communities throughout the

Empire.

Criteria for the Canon:Apostolic Authority

The question in recognizing the authoritative books was one of determining

which represented the original teaching of the Apostles.Only those books which were recognized as either being authored by the

original Apostles (including Paul), or having the authority of Apostles in their

production (e.g. Mark, Luke) were acceptable.Tradition of Use

To determine which texts were Apostolic in origin the local traditions of the

earliest communities were considered.Those books which were widely in use in the original communities (read in the

liturgy) made it into most of the early “canons.”(In this way the “Bible” was determined by a consideration of tradition more

than anything else.)While the final form of the list is only set in the fourth century (again, by

consensus) the criteria clearly eliminate most of the interesting candidates for

“other gospels” or biblical books.The Gnostic texts were not in use in mainline churches, and more significantlyThey were clearly produced in the second century.(Sorry, Dan Brown.)

The study of what got in and why (and what didn’t) is still fascinating -- see the

cool link on my webpage.

Irenaeus of Lugdunum (Lyons)

Born circa 115, died possibly as late as 202.

Spent his boyhood in Smyrna in Asia Minor, and probably knew the celebrated

Bishop Polycarp there.

Studied and taught at Rome before being sent to Lugdunum in Gaul as a presbytyr

(priest).

(The Christian community in Lugdunum was primarily a Greek-speaking group of

merchants and artisans. Irenaeus is an “eastern” church father.)

Was absent in asia minor (not Rome as the book says) in 177 when a fierce local

persecution killed the then bishop. (Somewhat ironically, he was in Asia Minor

urging a tolerant stance toward Montanism.)

When he returned to Lugdunum he was made the new Bishop by the church there.

The center of Irenaeus’ theology is the teaching that Christ restores (recapitulates)

the original intended perfection of all creation in Himself.

Humans are “saved” (he wouldn’t use that word) through being made one with,

and like, Christ, or “deified” by a life of union with Christ/God.

None of the teachings of Irenaeus originated with him, but he was the one who

most clearly set them forth in writing, and his writings became a standard authority

for both East and West in the next centuries. (His texts were very widely

distributed.)

Irenaeus, continued:Part of Irenaeus’ influence comes from his thorough discussion of, and attack on,

Gnosticism and the Marcionites.

This “five volume set” was originally entitled “An Indictment and Overthrow of

Knowledge Falsely So Called.”

Mercifully, this was shortened to “Against Heresies” in later Latin translations.

Until very recent finds of texts in Egypt and a few other locations, Irenaeus was the

source which provided the only thorough image of what Gnosticism was and taught.

(He is still valuable, as almost everything we have discovered supports the accuracy

of his account, if it also reveals his biases.)

His other major work, called “Proof of the Apostolic Preaching” was also read

throughout the Roman Empire, though it was lost to modern scholars until 1904. In

this one he demonstrates the continuity of Judaism and Christianity through a very

traditional (by his day) Christian reading of the Old Testament.

There is some real debate over when Irenaeus died (among scholars who have way

too much time on their hands.)

Whether it was at the end of the second century or the beginning of the third, it was

a martyr’s death and there is good reason to believe he was “turned-in” to the

authorities by some local Gnostics.

You are reading Against Heresies, book 1 chapters 1 - 11 and 31; also read book 5

chapters 29-34.

A Few Points to Note on Chapter7:

Tertullian and Cyprian represent the first truly Western and Latin interpreters of

Christianity.

The North African Church of which they were both a part was shaped by the intense

persecutions there, and hence “martyrdom” is explored more fully by them as a

theological category than anywhere else.

Western Christianity has a far more categorical and “legal” approach to Christian

teachings which begins with Tertullian.

For Tertullian this meant a more austere moral life and a firm rejection of “pagan

philosophy.”

Part of this is due to the categorical nature of the Latin language.

(As soon as Christianity is translated into Latin differences begin to emerge in the

interpretations of the East and the West, though they don’t become critical for a few

centuries.)

Eventually Tertullian would slip over the “rigorist” (or “legalistic”) edge into the

heresy of Montanism.

READ CAREFULLY: The book’s claim that Tertullian provides the first “systematic”

treatment of the “Trinity” does not mean that the idea of “Trinity” began with

Tertullian. He’s just the first to logically dice it out. (More on this in part two.)

Reading Assignments: Gnosticism

“Gospel of Thomas”

Big question: Is it even “Gnostic?”

Some scholars (Elaine Pagels and followers) would like to date this document

to the first century -- my problem with that is that there is no evidence of this

very fragmentary document existing prior to the fourth century, in the fourth

century Coptic dialect.

In light of our coverage of Gnosticism, what do you make of it?

The Gospel of Judas and Apocalypse of Peter

Definitely Gnostic.

Question: How can we tell from the content of the text?

Both documents can be dated to the mid-second century.

The Apocalypse of Peter is from the Nag Hammadi find of Gnostic, and not so

Gnostic texts (1945).

The existence of the Gospel of Judas has been known since its finding in the

1950’s, but has made the news because the text had been stolen, hidden, and

otherwise kept out of scholars’ hands until last year.

(If you’re familiar with the media hype, or Dan Brown) Is all the hype

justified after you read these “other” accounts of Christian “Truth?”