Studies in Church History and Patristics

A NAAEKTA

BAATAAQN

26

L. W. BARNARD

STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY AND PATRISTICS

UATPIAPXIKON IAPYMA nATEPIKQN MEAETQN 8El:l:AAONIK H 1978

ANAAEKTA

BAATAAgN

EK�IAOMENA rno nANArISlTOr K. XPHl1TOr

ANALECTA VLATADON BDITED BY

PANA YOTIS C. CHRISTOU 26 L. W. BARNARD, Studies in Church History and patristics Copyright: Patriarchal Institute for Patristic Studies Thessaloniki 1978

PREFACE Recent study has underlined the importance of Judaism for an understanding of early Christianity. In particular the late Jean Cardinal Danielou sought to show that early Christianity was characterized by the use of ideas drawn from Spiitjudentum, i.e. the various types of Jud­ aism in existence at the beginning of the Christian era. Scholars have disputed whether Danielou's abstraction "Jewish Christianity", having a theological viewpoint of its own, ever existed. Nevertheless even if his methodological framework should prove to be untenable he has certainly demonstrated the strong influence of Jewish ideas, particu­ larly Jewish apocalyptic, in the early Church. The first eight studies in this volume are concerned with various facets of late Judaism and early Christianity. I seek to demonstrate the strong influence of Jewish ideas in early Christianity in Egypt, Rome and Syria. Here I bring together the results of research which has oc­ cupied many years. In study 9 I seek to defend the received account of the Martyrdom of Polycarp, the second century bishop of Smyrna, against the view that this was a rewriting reflecting the

interests of

later centuries. Study 10 is concerned with Athenagoras' treatise De Resurrectione. Athenagoras, the late second century apologist, was al­ most unknown in Christian antiquity. However I believe that he was a thinker of great originality who made a distinctive contribution to early Christian thought. Studies 11 - 14 are concerned with fourth cen­ tury topics. In study 11 I show that any attempt to find a precise phi­ losophical origin for Arianism, the fourth century heresy, is fraught with uncertainty. Arius' system was simply a philosophical dualism of its own kind decked out with an eclectic mixture of elements taken over from other thinkers. Studies 12 and 13 examine in detail Athanasius' chequered relations with the Roman State, his disputed election as Archbishop of Alexandria and the circumstances surrounding the En­ cyclical Letter of the Egyptian Bishops of the year 339. I doubt whether Athanasius'eventual goal was a dualistic separation of Church and State.

6 His idea was probably cooperation b etween Church and State with the Bishop s having freedom to decide Church matters and the Emperor having the right to maintain the peace of the Church and to defend its faith. Athanasius' long struggle enabled this to become a fact in By­ zantium. In Study 14 I reconsider the relations of Pope J Ulius, Marcel­ lus of Ancyra and the Eastern Bishops and seek to show that J ulius and the Western Bishops had more in common with the Eusebians than a cursory reading of the history o f the years 337 - 343 would suggest. The tragedy of the Arian controversy was here repeated. Studies 1 5 - 1 7 concern Bede and Eusebius, the Jews and Iconoclasm, and J oseph Bing­ ham, the doyen of eighteenth century English Patristic scholars. Finally Study 18 examines early Christian art as a form of apologetic. It remains to thank Miss D. Raper, Mrs. H. Walker and Mrs. E. Hart for typing a somewhat untidy manuscript produced in various stages at different times. I am also grateful to colleagues at Leeds with whom I have discussed many of the problems raised in this book. L.W.B.

CONTENTS Page

Preface 1.

Hadrian and Judaism.

The B ackground of Judaism and Christianity in Egypt 3. The Epistle of Barnabas in Us Jewish setting. q. Justin Martyr's Knowledge of Judaism. 5. Justin Martyr's Eschatology. 2.

6. The Church in Rome in the First Two Centuries AD. 7.

8.

The Heresy of Tatian. Early Syriac Christianity.

5-6 9-2 6 2 7-51 52-106 107-118 119-130 131-180 1 8 1 -193 1 94-223

9. In Defence of Pseudo - Pionius' Account of Polycarp's

Martyrdom. 10. Athenagoras' Treatise on the Resurrection. 11. The Antecedents of Arius. 12. Athanasius and the Roman State. 13. Two Notes on Athanasius. 1 q . Pope Julius, Marcellus of Ancyra, and the Council of Sardica - a Reconsideration. 15. Bede and Eusebius as Church Historians. 16. The Jews and the Byzantine Iconoclastic Controversy. 1 7 . Joseph Bingham and the Early Church. 18. Early Christian Art as Apologetic. Index

7

subjects

2 2 4-241 242-288 289-311 312-328 329-340 341-353 354-372 373-386 38 7-401 402-415 416

HAD R IAN AND J U DAISM In the early years of the Roman Empire the Jews were an autho­ rised minority group which enj oyed State protection against persecu­ tion and the right to worship according to their own traditions. Rome, in Jewish eyes, was the champion of the oppressed and a bulwark a­ gainst anti - semitism which was always ready to rear its ugly head. But within the pale of J udaism, even before A. D. 70, were Zealot extremists who were intent upon the overthrow of the Roman "yoke ". This fanaticism resuHed in the great J ewish war of A. D. 66 - 70, so vividly described by J o sephus, and the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus. One consequence of the fall of the Holy City, the destruction of the Temple, and the downfall of the J ewish State, was the different relationship which now arose between the J ews and the Roman power. H itherto the consideration shown to J ewish susceptibilities had been marked and there had never been any interference with the full exer­ cise of the J ewish religion and practices. After A. D . 70 the Jews came to be regarded as a potential source of danger to the Empire and were to be watched closely. A notable mark of this changed relationship was the ordinance of Vespasian which required the Temple tax to be paid in support of the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus in Rome 1. Meanwhile Judaism, with its Holy City and cultus destroyed, en­ tered upon a period of reconstruction in the great Rabbinical Schools of Jamnia, Lydda and Tiberias. The outstanding leader of the period immediately after A. D. 70 was Rabbi J ohanan ben Zakkai who sought to give Judaism a new emphasis and values. To his grief - stricken dis­ ciple who feared that with the destruction of the Temple the future iniquities of Israel would have to go unpardoned he declared, 'My son, do not weep; we have a means of atonement as effective as this. And what is it ? It is deeds of loving kindness; as the prophet has put it; "For I desire mercy and not sacrifice'" (H os. vi. 6) 2. Yet in the decades after •

1.

Journal of Religious History 5 (1969) 285-98.

J08. B. J. vii

.

218;

2. Aboth R. Nath,

Dio

Casso 1xvi. 7

iv. p. 21.

10 A. D. 70 men still dreamt of the restoration of the ruined H oly City and the re-building of the Temple 3 and not a few cherished thoughts of the overthrow of the Roman Power by force. Me anwhile the hand of Rome continued to lie heavy upon the Jews and their resurgent intel­ lectual life, especially during the reign of Domitian, who exacted the fiscus iudaicus not only from J ews by race but also from proselytes; Roman citizens who adopted Judaism were especially sought out and punished 4. This Emp eror even sent spies into Rabbinical academies 6 to obtain incriminating evidence. The mantle of J ohanan ben Zakkai now fell upon the Patriarch Gamaliel I I who, as head of the J amnia academy, sought to create legislation to relieve the pressure on his people. He put through economic reforms and enacted takkanot to improve relations between Jews and Gentiles; he visited one community after another in order to see for himself how the population was faring. His one fear was that the endless debate among various Rabbinical factions would result in the destruction of a coherent Judaism and accordingly he set himself to establish unity. He fixed the J ewish liturgy, ordered its adoption 6 and insisted that scholars should submit their decisions to the High Court at J amnia. His work, bitterly opposed, marks a stage in the triumph of a resurgent Rabbinical Judaism. The reign of Nerva and the early years of that of Trajan brought some respite to the Jews. The former relaxed the rigours of the fiscus iudaicus and, in Palestine, some features of an organized Jewish commu­ nity life were revived. Poverty and economic depression were still wides­ pread but an elaborate system of charity had been evolved 7; and in the larger settlements religious services were regularly held and Gamaliel's liturgy used. The Shema was recited in the morning and evening and the Shemoneh Esre 8 daily, from which we learn that the yearnings for the

3. Mishna Pes. x. 6; Taan. iv. 8; Tamid vii. 3. During the period A. D . 70 135 traditions concerning the Temple were collected zealously for it was believed that the restoration of Worship depended upon an authentic record of its ritual having been preserved. See L. FINKELSTEIN The Jews, thei,. History, Cultu,.e and Religion, Vol. I, New York, 19q9,p. H8. The Mishna included a topography of the Temple (Mid­ doth) and a description of the daily duties of the priests (Tamid). q. SUET. Dom. xii. 2; Dio Casso 1xvii. H. 5. Sif,.e on Deut. xxiii. 3; cr. Briba Kamma 38a and Ye,.ushalmi qb. 6. Be,.. iv. 3; Pes. x. 5. 7. Peah viii. 7 seq.; Tos. Git. v. q seq. 8. Be,.. ii. 2. -

11 re - building of the Temple were still strong; the supplications were in terms of the whole J ewish community. A highly - developed system of public instruction, in the synagogue schools, also existed. The restless and fanatical spirit of certain elements in the J ewish population, especially in the diaspora, could not however be absorbed in such pursuits and sought a pol itical outlet. As early as the reign of Vespasian the J ewish temple at Leontopolis in Egypt had had to be closed in case it became a rallying centre for nationalist Jews. And dur­ ing the reign of Traj an in A. D. 1 10, a clash took place between J ews and Greeks in Alexandria which resulted in each side sending envoys to state its case before the Emperor who, according to a papyrus from Oxyrhynchus, came down on the side of the J ews - an indication of the influence they may have exerted in Court circles 9. The Jewish hope of revolt against Rome and a restoration of the Temple took a starker form in the year 1 1 5 when Traj an was engaged in his Parthian war. Very little is known as to the circumstances which called forth the revolt but it appears to have been a concerted movement since it arose simul­ taneously in Libya, Egypt and CyrenelO• I n Alexandria, where a terrible con flict took place, the Jews were ultimately overcome but elsewhere in Egypt, under their elected King Lykyasll, they laid waste whole districts terrorizing the inhabitants. The revolt was ultimately put down by one of Trajan's ablest generals, Quintus Marcius Turbo, but not without much bloodshed. Other centres of Jewish disaffection were Cyprus and Mesopotamia; the latter revolt was quelled with great bar­ b arity by Lucius Quietus who, as a reward, was made procurator of Palestine12• It is doubtful if Palestine itself engaged in the great rebel­ lion as no circumstantial mention is given in our authorities. But minor skirmishes may have occurred13• The accession o f Hadrian may have brought some relief to the J ews. 9. See the present writer's article in Church Quarterly Review, CLX, 1 9 59, pp. 323 If. 10. Dio Casso 1xviii. 32. The diaspora communities maintained close contact with the Jewish Patriarchate in Palestine and this enabled plans to be concerted. A number of papyri now give isolated but vivid glimpses of the course of the war. 11. H. I. BELL Juden und Griechen im romischen Alexandreia, Leipzig, 1926, p. 3S. 12. Eus. H. E., iv. 2; Dio Casso 1xviii. 32. 13. Spart. Vita Hadr. v: "Lycia denique ac Palaestina rebelles animos effereb­ and". E. M. SMALLWOOD, "Palestine c. A. D . 1 1 5 - 1 1S", Historia XI, 1962, pp. 500 510.

12 The Emperor at once abandoned Traj an's policy of territorial expansion along the eastern frontiers and proclaimed a policy of peace and unity in the one Roman world. This, coupled with H adrian's religious toleran­ ce, appeared to bode well for the J ews14 and in the first years of his reign they may have entertained hopes of a re - building of the Temple and the restoration of J ewish Worship which may be connected with a reference in Barn. xvi. 3 415. According to a Rabbinic story the Roman government, in H adrian's day, actually granted authority to proceed with the building of the Temple but the Samaritans opposed the enter­ prise. As a consequence the Emperor issued a decree that the new buil­ ding should not be erected precisely on the site of the old Temple. The result was a gathering of Jewish extremist factions in the valley of B eth Rimmon who were quieted by R. J oshua who told them the story of the lion and the stork; as the stork ought to be glad to have got its head uninjured out of the j aws of the lion, so they also ought to be glad if they were allowed to live in peace under a heathen government16• We do not know if Hadrian had other dealings with the Jews be­ fore the great revolt of A. D. 132 5. A Rabbinical story17 tells of the seven sons of Miriam who were brought before Caesar. They were con­ demned and put to death and later Miriam threw herself from the roof and died. This story follows a traditional framework which is found in several other martyrdom stories18 and is too uncertain to count as histo­ rical evidence. Another tradition states that the celebrated Rabbi J 0shua ben Chananiah, the pupil of J ohanan ben Zakkai, held various con­ versations with Hadrian concerning religious matters. The immediate cause of the second J ewish revolt is not in doubt as we shall see. Yet we may well ask why Hadrian, who was by temper-

-

H. For a Jewish reaction see the Jewish Sybil v. 4.6 seq. 15. See my article in Journal of Egyptian Archaeology, XLIV, 1958, pp. 101 ? 16. Gen. R. 64.. 8; Text and Latin translation in VOlkmar, Judith, pp. 108 - 1 1 ; English translation Soncino, Midrash Rabba. The historical value of this notice is doubted by E. SCHURER, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (revised edition by G. Vermes and F. Miller) Edinburgh 1973, I. p. 535. 1 7 . Found in Talmud Babli Gittin 57b; Midrash Ekhah Rabbathi (on Lam. i. 1 6); Tanna debe Eliyyahu (Rabba c. 30); Yalkut (pericope Ki Thabo). Caesar's name is given as Hadrian in Tanna and his name is mentioned in the context in Talmud Babli. 18. Cf. IV Macc. viii. 1 seq.; the Martyrdom of Symphorosa and her seven sons; that of Felicitas and her seven sons. J . B. LIGHTFOOT, Apostolic Fathers, Part II, Vol. I , pp. 502 - 5. -

13 ament pacific, turned against the J ews. Was he at last goaded on by the astonishing spectacle o f a minority group carrying on practices which offended against his idea of civilized behaviour? Or did he see Judaism as a fanatical nationalistic movement intent on destroying the Pax Romana and undermining his idea of Imperial Unity ? The latter appears more probable to j udge from the element of direct provocation in the assault which Hadrian launched against the J ews. This assault took the form of the promulgation of two provocative measures by the Emperor on his return from Egypt in A. D . 131 which are in striking contrast to his previous sagacious dealings with minority groups. The first was a general edict prohibiting circumcision, similar to the earlier prohibition of castration: mo()erunt ea tempestate et Iudaei beUum, quod vetabantur mutilare genitalia19• That this edict was not spe­ cifically directed against the Jews is shown by the fact that Antoninus Pius subsequently allowed the Jews to circumcise their children while retaining the prohibition against non - J ews20• But Hadrian must have known that to forbid circumcision would affect the J ews most of all and would appear to them to be a direct interference with their religious practices. H adrian's action added fuel t o the flames of disaffection which were burning strongly in many centres in Palestine and the diaspora. The second measure was the spark which set in motion the rebel­ lion. Dio Cassius gives this account: 'At Jerusalem Hadrian founded a city in place of the one destroyed which he called Aelia Capitolina, and on the site of the temple of their God erected another temple to Zeus. For this reason the great and long - lived war broke out. For the Jews regarded it as a terrible outrage that aliens should settle in their city, and that foreign rites should be established in it. They kept quiet indeed so long as H adrian was in Egypt and again in Syria, except in­ sofar as they of design wrought less fitly the weapons commanded of them by the Romans, being forbidden by the Romans to carry arms. But when H adrian was far away they rebelled openly' 21 . It is clear, from this account, that the building of Aelia was begun before the outbreak of the revolt, most probably as a result of Hadrian's 19. Hist. A ugusta, Vita Had,.. xiv. 2 . 20. Modestinus, Digest xlviii. 8. 11. For evidence that other races within the Empire practised circumcision see the commen taries on Barn. ix. 6. A valuable discussion is given by E. M. SMALLWOOD, ((The Legislation of Hadrian and Antoninus Pius against Circumcision)) , Latomus XVI II,1 959, pp. 334. - 4.'; XX, 1961.pp. 93 - 6. 21. Dio, lxix. 12 seq.

14 visit to the ruined site - now a Roman camp - during his j ourney from Antioch to Egypt in A. D. 13022• The Emperor's orders to re - build the city on the Roman plan, with a temple dedicated to Jupiter Capitolinus on the site o f the former Jewish temple, must rank as an act of supreme folly almost unsurpassed in the history of the Caesars. The fact that one who undoubtedly ranks as a supreme statesman, wise and farseeing, could launch a full - scale attack on J udaism and all that it stood for cannot be explained from his previous dealings with authorized groups. Schlirer23 believes that Hadrian's real motif was not hostility towards Judaism per se, as the rearing of magnificent buildings and the founding of cities was the work to which all the energies of his life were devoted. This is hard to accept in view of the element of direct provocation imp­ licit in the desecration of the temple site. Certainly no Roman statesman could have devised a more certain method of denying the Jews a nationa­ lity and a religion of their own. We must therefore believe, in the ab­ sence of mitigating evidence, that Hadrian did not act purely from aes­ thetic impulses with his eyes closed to any possible consequences; rather the founding of Aelia (and the proposal to erect a Roman temple) was a calculated and deliberate assault against the J ewish way of life. Such a folly is the one stain on the character of this most pacific, tolerant and rational of Emperors. The leaders of the revolt, which broke out in A. D. 132, were Simon bar Cosiba24, 'Prince of Israel'; a priest Eleasar; and the venerable Rabbi Akibatli who saw in the figure of Bar Cosiba a fulfilment of the Messianic 22. The coins and inscriptions prove that Hadrian was in Syria early in 130, in Egypt in Nov. 130 and again in Syria early in 131; see the evidence in E. SCHtiRER History of the Jewish people, Div. I, Vol. II , Edinburgh, 1 890, p. 295, note 76 (Re­ vised ed. 19 73, I p. 54.1 ). His residence in Judaea is commemorated by coins bearing the inscription, adventui A ugusti Iudaeae. See further W. F. STINE SPRING, «Hadrian in Palestine 129/130 AD)), Journal of the American Oriental Society LIX, 1939, pp. 360 - 5. 23. Op. cit. p. 293 (repeated in revised edition p. 542). 24. This is undoubtedly his original name. See the Appendix where the bearing of the evidence from the Jndaean desert is discussed. 25. The Talmud records numerous journeys of Akiba into Mesopotamia to Nisi­ bis and Nehardaea, where there were infiuential groups of Jews, and also into CiIi­ cia and Cappadocia. While these traditions must not be accepted uncritically it seems probable that Jewish communities in the diaspora provided some support for the revolt. See P. CARRINGTON, The Early Christian Church, Vol. II, Cambridge, 1 957, pp. 39 - 40.

15 promise of N u. xxiv. 17 'there shall go a star out of J acob'. Akiba besto­ wed on him the punning title Bar Cochba, 'son of the star', and this title was alone known to later Christian writers. The revolt spread rapidly throughout Palestine and took on the character of a guerilla campaign. The Jewish leaders realised that to face the Romans in a pitched battle would be to court certain disaster and so they wisely seized suitable strongholds and hiding places in widely separated places which they fortified. Underground passages and dens became caches for arms, as well as places of refuge for the hard pressed, and from them the insur­ gents made devastating raids on the country - not only against Roman outposts but also against any who failed to supp ort their cause26• The Christians, who could not recognize Bar Cosiba as Messiah, came in for particularly harsh treatment27• Recent MS discoveries have shown that this guerilla activity was well organized. Bar Cosiba worked through a series of local commanders who had to obey his orders implicitly and his careful planning and know­ ledge of the terrain brought immediate results. Jerusalem , which was besieged at the beginning of the revolt, soon fell into rebel hands and re­ mained in their possession for three years, not two as had been previously thought. Bar Cosiba issued coins bearing on one side the name 'Simon' and on the other 'the freedom of J erusalem'j others bear the dates, 'first year of the freedom of Israel', 'second year of the freedom of Israel' with the name ' J erusalem' addedj and a recently found MS fragment bears the date 'third year of the freedom of J erusalem' (i.e.A.D. 134-5)28. Only to­ wards the close of the revolt did the Romans succeed in recapturing the city. According to Dio Cassius29, who is on the whole a trustworthy writer, the reaction of the Roman government to the revolt was dilatory: 'they held them of no account'. Palestine was after all only a very small part of the Empire and to the Romans the J ews a relatively insignifi­ cant race. But when the revolt was seen to have had wider implications in Palestine and the diaspora the Romans acted promptly. Large bo­ dies of troops were sent from other provinces to strengthen the regular

26. 27. 28. 29.

Dio Cassius Ixix. 12. JUSTIN Martyr, I Apol. xxxi. See Appendix Ixix. 13.

16 garrison which, under Tineius Rufus, Governor of Syria, had been unable to crush the rebels. During the course of the war troops were employed from the Third (Cyrenaic) and Tenth (Fretensis) legions and probably from the Third (Gallic) , Tenth (Gemina), Sixth (Ferrata) and Sixteenth (Flavia Firma) legions30• The foremost generals became in­ volved; even the Governor of Syria, Gaius Publicius Marcellus, marched to the rescue of his hard - pressed colleagueS!, although it seems that the supreme command of the operations remained with Rufus during the first two years or so of the war32• H adrian, however, on reviewing the Palestine campaign from An­ tioch, became profoundly dissatisfied with the slow progress made against rebel hideouts and the heavy losses inflicted on his troops and accordingly he ordered the distinguished general, Sextus Minucius Faus­ tinus Julius Severus, to come from Britain to take over supreme com­ mand of the operations33; he arrived late in A. D. 1 33 or early 134, when­ ce Hadrian returned to Rome. Severus slowly and surely crushed the revolt by reducing the rebel strongholds one by one. Dio Cassius gra­ phically describes the last stages of this forlorn attempt to challenge the power of the Empire: But Severus risked not giving open battle against the enemy in any place, seeing their numbers and their fury. Therefore, cut­ ting them off piecemeal by flying columns of greater strength un­ der commanders of lower rank, intercepting also and depriving them of supplies, he was able by this method, a slower one indeed, yet one less perilous, to wear them down and so to crush them utterly. Very few in fact survived. Of their forts the fifty strongest were razed to the ground. Nine hundred and eighty - five of their best known villages were destroyed. Five hundred and eighty thousand were slaughtered in skirmish and in battle. Of those who perished by famine or disease no one can count the number. Thus the whole o f J udaea became a desert, as indeed had been foretold to the Jews before the war. For the tomb of Solomon, whom these 30. See the information given in Schiirer, op. cit., p. 303, note 96 (Revised edit­ ion pp. M 7 - 8 ) . 31. C. I. G. q033 - q. 32. Cf. Eus. H. E. iv. 6. Rabbinical authors testify that the chief enemy of the Jews during the war was 'Rufus the tyrant'; cf. Bab. Taanith 29a. 33. C. 1. L. vi. 1523

17 folk celebrate in their sacred rites, fell of its own accord into frag­ ments. And wolves and hyaenas, many in number, roamed how­ ling through their cities .. M .

Jerusalem itself did not easily succumb. Its fate is not described by Dio Cassius or Eusebius although Appian, a contemporary witness, states that in the end it was destroyed after a violent assault35• There appears to be an element of exaggeration in this statement as J erusa­ lem, from the Imperial point of view, was not an important fortification, and the Romans, with the building of Aelia in mind, would hardly go farther than was necessary in the destruction of the city. Schiirer36 right­ ly points out that the Mishnaic statement that Jerusalem was run over by the plough on the ninth Ab must refer to a ceremony at the original founding of Aelia before the outbreak of the revolt and not to a sign of the utter ruin of the city after its capture by the Romans37• With J eru­ salem in Roman hands the rebels were forced to flee for their lives and Bar Cosiba and certain of his followers escaped to a stronghold at Be­ ther, south - west of Jerusalem, the modern Khirbet - el - Yehoud, whe­ re they put up a stubborn defence until A. D. 1 35. With the fall of Be­ ther the ferocious struggle of three - and - a - half years came to an end although a few rebel elements may have held out longer in remoter hideouts. The recently found MS fragments from the moun tain caves by the Dead Sea, containing Bar Cosiba's dispatches, were probably hidden there by remnants of these fleeing insurgents. The exact whereabouts of Hadrian during the Jewish war are not quite certain and Jewish and Roman experts differ in their interpre­ tations of the evidence. · Schiirer, followed by many authorities, belie­ ves that the Emperor was himself present at the seat of the war - at least during its most critical year. This view seems unassailable as the inscriptions38 and Rabbinical evidence39 imply his presence. We need not, however, believe that Hadrian was long in the field against the 3q. Ixix. 13 - H. 35. Appian, Syr. 1; cf. the similar opinion of Chrys. Ad". Iudaeos v. 11; Niceph. Callisto H. E. iii. 2q; Jerome, Cornrn. in les. i. 5. 36. Op. cit., pp. 307 - 8 (Revised edition p. 551 ) . 37. Mishna Taanith iv. 6; cr. Bah. Taanith 29a. A description of the ceremony is given by Servius in a passage from V arro on Virgil Aen. V. 755. 38. C. I. L. viii. 6706 = I. L. S. 1065; C. I. L. vi. 97q. 39. Gittin 57a; Schiirer, op . cit. pp. 305 - 6 (Revised edition p. 550).

18 Jews. The guerilla nature of the struggle required the u se of a general, such as Severus, expert in that kind of warfare. Hadrian was apparent­ ly content to leave the direction of the legions to him for the Emperor was back in Rome by 5 May 1344°. It seems probable that Hadrian be­ came weary of the Jewish war's drain on Roman manpower and resour­ ces and the desolation of a fruitful province; this is the purport of his omission of the introductory formula 'I and the army are well' in his mes­ sage to the Senate. Hadrian may have had good cause to regret his astoni­ shing provocation of a proud and independent race - a provocation at variance with the whole sp irit of his achievement. In this, and in this alone, did his statesmanship fail during the seventeen years of his reign. Rome exerted a terrible vengeance on those of the insurgents who were captured alive. No mercy, on either side, had been given during the war; now no mercy was shown to the pitiful Jewish prisoners who were sold in large numbers in the slave markets of the Near East. It was said that a Jewish slave could be bought for the cost of a horse in the annual market at the Terebinth in Hebron and at Gaza men spoke of ' H adrian's market' for centuries to come. M any Jews who could not be sold at Gaza p erished from starvation on voyages to Egypt41 - recal­ ling the sufferings of European J ewry in this century. Of the fate o f the rebel leaders we have no certain information apart from late Rabbinical traditions which, however, may contain a nucleus of historical fact. According to one such tradition Rabbi Akiba was put to a martyr's death by torture, his flesh being torn from his body with iron combs. During his sufferings he prayed the Shema and while lin­ gering over the word Echad (D eut. vi. 4) he breathed out his spirit. Then sounded forth a Bath Qol saying, 'Blessed art thou, R. Akiba, that thy soul dep arted with "Echad" '42. Bar Cosiba fared likewise; he was slain by a snake and his head brought to the Roman general. More certain is the treatment meted out to the Jewish population as a whole by Hadrian. He levied a heavier poll - tax on them and any J ews still left in J erusalem were driven out and replaced by Roman colonists. No Jew was allowed to set foot in the city on pain of death qO. C. I. G. 5906 U. Jerome ad Zech. xi. 5; ad Jeremiah VI 18; Chron. Paschale (ed. Dindorf) i. q?q. q2. Bab. Ber. 61b. cr. M. BEER, ((An Ancient saying regarding Martyrdom in Hadrian's Time», Zion 28, 1963, pp. 228 - 32 (in Hebrew).

19 except on one day of the year when the y were allowed to look on the city from afar.43 At the south gate of the city the figure of a swine is said to have been engraved". The building of Aelia Capitolina now pro­ ceeded apace. It was not without its stately buildings - a theatre, baths and two temples. The religious worship of the city centred on the cult of Jupiter Capitolinus to whom a temple was erected on the site of the former Jewish templc45• In it was a statue of H adrian if we may accept the evidence of Christian writers46. Another temple, dedicated to Astar­ te, stood on the traditional site o f the sepulchre of Christ.47 The new Roman city maintained an uneventful existence for at least a century and during this period the Christian Church, now under Gentile Bishops, was unmolested. In honour of the victory H adrian was greeted, for the second time in his life, as Imperator4s. J ulius Severus received the tri umphalia or­ namenta49 and other Roman leaders the usual awards. These however were but shallow words and deeds. The province of Judaea was a de­ sert. The population and land had been decimated by the loss of more than half a million men in battle and almost a thousand villages destro­ yed. Everywhere the sullen bereaved lurked with a fierce hatred burnt deep into their souls. Hadrian, the peacemaker, the realist, could not have regarded the Jewish war as a victory despite the hollow cries o f acclaim. He was only t o live, with his faculties failing, for three years more. For the Jews the war was a tragedy beyond measure. Almost all of the Jewish settlements had been wiped out; strife was everywhere in the land and, far worse, the teaching and practice of Judaism became a capital crime: 'To whom does the verse Ex. xx. 6 "Of them that love me and keep my commandments" refer ?' said Rabbi Nathan. 'To the inhabitants of the land of Israel who give up their lives for the religious commandments' . 'Why are you being taken to the execution block ?' one is asked. ' For circumcising my son', he replies. 'Why are you being cast 4.3. TERT. Ad". Jud. 13; Eus. H . E. iv. 6. 4.4.. J E RO M E , Chron. ad. ann. Abr. 21 52. 4.5. Dio Casso lxix. 1 2 . 4.6. J E R O M E , Comm. in les. ii. 9 ; ct. C H R YS . Orat adv. Iudaeos, v . 11. 4.7. Eus. Vito Const. iii. 26. According to another version a sanctuary of Venus stood on the site of the Cross of Christ: cf. JEROM E , Ep. 58 ad Paulinum iii. 4.8. C. I. L. vi. 975 and 9 7 6. 4.9. C. I. L. iii. 2830. Soverus was probably the last general to receive these.

20 into the flames ?' another is asked. 'For studying torah,' he replies. 'Why are you being crucified?' a third is asked. 'For eating unleavened bread [during Passover]" he replies. 'Why have you been sentenced to get a hundred lashes ?', still another is asked. ' For conducting the ceremony of Palms [during the Feast of Booths]" he replies 50. A Jewish authority gives it as his considered opinion that had Had­ rian remained much longer on the throne it is very doubtful if Palestine Jewry could have recovered from the blows it had received51• In the event the cessation of the conflict only increased the exodus from the country of those who had escaped being slaughtered or sold as slaves­ an exodus which the protests of the Rabbis could not stem. After A. D. 135 the number of Jewish settlements, even in Galilee, declined and the number of refugees in Babylonia became so numerous that an at­ tempt was made to establish there a court independent of Palestinian authority52. Total disintegration was only prevented by the repeal o f Hadrian's edicts b y the new Emperor, Antoninus Pius, and b y a change in the Imperial policy towards the J ews - which now became less ho­ stile. Rome abolished such measures as were consonant with her securi­ ty and prestige although still forbidding the J ews to make proselytes or to enter Jerusalem. Another factor, of even greater importance, was the survival of Rabbinism in the land. There were still scholars in Pa­ lestine and the extinction of their political hopes in A. D 135 caused them to redouble their efforts to salvage J ewish life from the ruin of war. As happened after the catastrophe of A. D. 70 they did not fail and at Tiberias in Galilee they set up a Rabbinical centre similar to that which had previously existed at J amnia. Gradually the Rabbis attempt­ ed the reconstruction of a stable Judaism. Akiba's disciples, particular­ ly Meir, Judah ben Ilai, Simeon ben Y ohai, the new patriarch, Simeon ben Gamaliel, and many others, re - animated the study of the torah and gave the people a civilized heart and mind. Not only prayer but study was exalted to a pre - eminent place in the life of the people and once again the Jews took heart and arose, with the torah in their hands, from the dark river o f death. However, this achievement was bought at a cost. Prior to A. D. 50. Mekilta Bahodesh. vi. II, p. 2q7. 51. J. GOLDIN, The Jews, Thei,. History, Cultu,.e and Religion (ed. L. Finkelstein) , Vol. I , p. 155 52. Be,.. 63a

21 70 Judaism was not solely Pharisaic but embraced hellenistic and se­ ctarian thought. In the years between A. D. 70 and the outbreak of the second Jewish war in A. D. 132 Rabbinism gained the upper hand although hellenistic Judaism was still to an extent alive. After A. D. 135 Pharisaic Rabbinism was alone supreme and hellenistic Judaism which, under exponents such as Philo, had sought to bridge the gulf between the Greek and Jewish worlds, slowly disappeared. Judaism thus became a sharply defined faith and practice and the Jews stran­ gers in a non - Jewish world. To a Gentile writer it would seem that this alone has enabled the J ews to preserve their identity through vicis­ situdes and dangers which would have broken many another race less tenacious in purpose. Hadrian failed to grasp that a nationalist religious faith is an inner strength which outer circumstances cannot destroy. It was as impossible to bring the J ews within the sphere of an Imperial world order as it is to bring the indigenous Africans of our own time into "Western civilisation". It has sometimes been said by Christians that the fruit of develo­ ped Rabbinism has been legalism. This ad hoc judgement needs qua­ lification as the following shows: What is meant by the verse (Ps. xviii. 3 1 ), "The word of the Lord purifies?", said a third century teacher. The commandments were given only to purify the hearts of men. For does it really mat­ ter to the H oly One, blessed be H e, whether one prepares the food one way or another ? Or does it matter to Him if one eats ritually unclean or clean foods ? Surely it does not, but the commandments were given for one purpose only - to purify the hearts of men53•

1ppendix THE SECOND JEWISH REVOLT AND THE DISCOVERIES BY THE DEAD SEA

On 21 J anuary 1952 the French archaeologist, Fr de Vaux, follo­ wing on some hard bargaining, made his way with Bedouin guides to a group of caves in the Wady Murabbaat ten or eleven miles south of Khirbet Qumran where many MSS discoveries had been made since 53. Gen. R. 44, quoted by J. GOLDIN, op. cit. p. 159

22 1947. These caves have yielded a rich haul of MSS fragments an d coins which mostly date from the period j ust before and during the Second Jewish Revolt against Rome (A. D. 132 - 5), whereas the latest of the MSS found at Qumran are from the period just after the First Jewish Revolt. The Murabbaat finds afford new source material for the history of the Second Revolt which supplements what is already known from Christian and Rabbinical sources. To these may be added the discovery of literary and archaeological material at Nahal Hever and Nahal Zeelim in 1959 - 61. (a) The Leader of the Revolt The leader of the revolt is usually called by Christian writers Cochba or Bar - Cochba. In Eus. ehron. and Jerome, ad. ann. A br. 2149, the form of the name is Chochebas; so also in Orosius vii. 13. J ustin I Apol. xxxi has Barchochebas (Bocpx,wxe(3occ;) (cf. Eus. H. E. iv. 8 with Eus. H. E. iv. 6). J erome. Adv. Rufin. iii 3 1 , has Barcochabas. Rabbinical authorities refer to him as Bar Coziba or Ben Coziba (see Derenbourg, Histoire de la Palestine, p. 423). Both of these names are designations, the Christian one distinguishing him as the star, or the son of the star, with reference to Nu. xxiv. 17 which passage R. Akiba applied to him in a messianic sense (cf. Jer. Taanith iv. fol. 68d: 'R. Simon ben Jochai said: R. Akiba my teacher expounded the passage: There shall go a star out of J acob (Nu. xxiv. 17) as follows: "There goes cozb'a out from J a­ cob". When R. Akiba saw Bar Cosiba he said, This is the King Messiah. Then said to him R. J ochanan ben Torta: Akiba, the grass will grow out of thy j aw bone, and yet the Son of David will not have come']. The Rabbinic designation is a name either derived from the leader's father (i. e. the Son of Coziba) or from his home cozb'a (i. e. the man of Coziba); Or it could be a pun, 'son of a deceiver' perhaps invented by the leaders' opponents (Schtirer, Revised edition p. 543). I t seems probab1e that the designation Cochba or Bar - Cochba was chosen on account of its similarity to Bar Cosiba; certainly it became generally used as the Christian writers alone knew it. The coins unearthed prior to the Murabbaat finds have preserved the proper name of two men, Simon and Eleasar. It is universally agreed that the former is Bar - Cochba and that he issued certain coins during the period of the revolt. Those minted in the first year, i.e. A. D. 132 - 3, have the inscription 'Simon, Prince o f I srael' , while those minted in the second year have only the name 'Simon'. On some coins the figure of a.

23 star appears over that of a temple. Beside the group of coins associated with Simon others have been found, from the first year, with the in­ scription ' Eleasar the Priest' but after the second year there are no fur­ ther Eleasar coins. I t may thus be plausibly inferred that there were two men originally at the head of the rebellion, Simon and Eleasar the Priest, but that after about a year Bar - Cochba alone directed operati­ ons. Who this Eleasar was is uncertain; late Rabbinical traditions (Mi­ drash on Ecka ii. 2; Gittin 57 a) refer to one R. Eleasar of Modein who was the uncle of Bar Cosiba, but it is uncertain if this man is ' Eleasar the Priest' of the coins. Moreover we do not know if Eleasar the Priest was also regarded as a Messiah; cf. the references in the earlier Qumran texts to the two Messiahs of Aaron and Israel who are to come in the escha­ tological future (IQp ix. I I; CD C vi. 10, vii. 23, xiii. 20, xiv. 19). Thus it will be seen that prior to the Murabbaat discoveries the ori­ ginal name of the leader of the revolt remained uncertain, our only real evidence being the Rabbinical designations Bar Coziba or Ben Coziba which are somewhat late and may, in any case, be a pun; moreover the desi gna­ tion Bar - Cochba clearly depends upon the messianic application and is unlikely to have been an original name. The finds of 1 952 and 1959 - 60 have radically altered the picture and have provided actual contempo­ rary evidence of the name of the leader of the Jewish Revolt. Several texts in Mishnaic Hebrew found at Murabbaat in 1952 call him Simon bar Cosiba ( Israel Exploration loumal X I , 1961, pp. 41 - 50); two let­ ters bearing his name are believed by the excavators to be original let­ ters from him addressed to a lieutenant called Yeshua ben Galgola. From another group of caves has come other MS material related to the Wady Murabbaat finds and this has produced a letter addressed to Simon bar Cosiba stating that the Romans had moved their camp. To this contemporary evidence must now be added the discovery of the actual dispatches sent from the leader's headquarters during the revolt, which were made public in 1 960 by General Y. Yadin. These orders were found in caves near the Dead Sea where app arently remnants of the rebels took refuge after the final crushing of the revolt in A. D. 135. The dispatches were addressed to local commanders and from references in them to harvests and buildings it is clear that they had been written before the recipients withdrew to the barren wasteland to the west of the Dead Sea. According to General Yadin seven of the ten letters al­ ready opened were written in Aramaic and begin with the words ' from

24

Simon bar Cosiba'. · Two other letters were written in Greek and one of them mentions the name Bar Cosiba (Xc.>a£(3cx). The conclusion to be drawn from these contemporary finds is that the name of the leader of the revolt was Simon bar Cosiba. It appears most unlikely that this originally meant 'son of the deceiver' or 'son of a lie', as his enemies later averred (cf. also J erome, Adv. Rufin iii. 21, Out ille Barchochabas, auctor seditionis Iudaicae, stipulam in ore suc­ censam anhelitu ventilabat, ut flammas evomere putaretur') . Since Bar Cosiba or Ben Cosiba is the prevailing form in the mouths of those who esteemed him highly, such as R. Akiba, this cannot be the meaning. Ac­ cordingly I adhere to the view that his original name derived from his father ("son of Cosiba') or from his home ('man of Cosiba') but that it was given a messianic application by the J ews during the revolt which be­ came generally known to later Christians. It was this later messianic aspect of the revolt which prevented Christians from joining it - san by apostasy from their own Messiah. Hence they were roughly treated by Bar Cosiba; cf. Justin I Apol. i. 3 1 : ' For in the recent Jewish war, Bar­ chochebas, the leader of the revolt of the J ews' ordered Christians alone, if they did not deny that Jesus was the Christ and blaspheme, to be led off to terrible punishments' . Cf. also the Armenian of Eus. Chronicon (ed. Schoene ii. 168 seq. ad. ann. Abr. 2149): 'Qui dux rebellionis ludae­ orum erat Chochebas, multos e Christianis diversis suppliciis affecit, quia nolebant procedere cum illo ad pugnam contra Romanos'. Another of the 1959 - 60 finds has confirmed the inscription found on the coins, 'Simon, Prince of Israel' , which belongs to the first year of the revolt. This was a letter written on a wooden slat which was headed 'Simon bar Cosiba, Prince over Israel'; it ordered the arrest of one Tab­ nun ben Ishmael, and the confiscation of his wheat.

(b) The Nature of the Revolt The rebels were at first very successful and quickly made themsel­ ves masters of Jerusalem, which was a Roman camp rather than a for­ tified city. Tha coins found during the last century confirm this for they bear on one side the name Simon and on the other the superscription 'lecheruth J eruschalem', i. e. 'the freedom of Jerusalem'. There are further coins which bear the date 'First Year of the Freedom of Israel' or 'Second Year of the Freedom of I srael', with the name Jerusalem', which may have been minted by the city itself in its own name (see E. Schiirer, 0p. t

25 Div. I, Vol. I I , Appendix IV). The Murabbaat MSS discoveries have now provided further evidence of this dating: a tiny papyrus scrap deal­ ing with a sale of real estate bears the date ' First Year of the Freedom of Israel'. Twelve contracts concerned with the renting of fields and gua­ ranteed by the authority of Bar Cosiha are dated the following year. And, significantly, of four fragmentary documents dealing with real estate transactions one is dated 'Third Year of the Freedom of Jerusalem' ,i.e. A. D. 134 5, and another bears the date 'Third Year of the Freedom of IsraeI'M. These texts, composed in Mishnaic Hebrew, prove that J erusa­ lem was still in rebel hands in the third year of the revolt. The recaptu­ re of the city by the Romans mentioned by Appian, Syr. 50, 'The great city of J erusalaem which Ptolemy the first king of Egypt cap tured, and Vespasian destroyed when it had been settled again, and Hadrian once more in my lifetime' , must therefore have occurred not earlier than A. D. 135. The new finds give information on the guerilla activity which for­ med so large a part of the revolt. We know from Dio Cassius I xix. 12 (cf. J erome, Chronicon, ad. ann. Abr. 2148) that open con flict was as far as possible avoided but that the rebels, from their dens in the m oun­ tains, made devastating raids against any who did not su pport their cause. The finds of 1 959 60 contain Bar Cosiba's orders to two local commanders, Yehonathan bar Bayah and Masbala ben Shimon. These, with other letters, are in different handwriting indicating that they were dictated to different scribes. The signatures on certain of the letters appear to be those of Bar Cosiba's adjutants. The orders were terse and brisk. One said: 'Whatever Elisha says, do' . Another said that a certain Eliezer ben Mattah should be sent to the writer before the Sabbath. Other letters called for the arrest of individuals and the requisitioning of grain as well as for the punishment of certain persons who had re­ paired their houses. The local commanders were frequently cautioned that they would be punished for disobedience to orders. The tone of these letters corresponds to what is already known of Bar Cosiba's cha­ racter as a stern and relentless commander. The papyri found in 1959 60 were in a bundle tied with rope made from palm fronds, and were tucked inside a goatskin with some beads, a mirror, a comb and other articles which may have belonged to the wife of one of the local rebel commanders. These finds show that the second J ewish Revolt, under cit.

-

-

-

5q. M. BURROWS, Mo,.e Li�ht on the Dead Sea Sc,.olls, p. 33

26 Simon bar Cosiba, was a well organised guerilla campaign backed up b y an elaborate administration56• One interesting fact to emerge from the finds is that Bar Cosiba's army contained not only orthodox Jews but Gentiles on whom Sabbath observance was enjoined. However like so many such guerilla campaigns in history Bar Cosiba's reign as " Pre­ sident" of Israel was short lived. Worn down by superior Roman for­ ces he made his last stand at Bethar where he died in the siege of the fifth Macedonica and the eleventh Claudia legions.

55. A detailed account of the finds is given by P. BENOIT, J. T. MILIK, and R. de VAUX, Disco"eries in the Judaean Desert II: Les Grottes de Murahba't, I and II, Oxford 1 961. The Editors date the beginning of the era of Liberation in Tishri or Nisan A. D. 131 and show that Bar Cosiba took over the highly efficient Roman civil organisation and continued to administer it. Jewish farmers became his tenants and paid their rents to Bar Cosiba's treasury. The leader insisted on sabbath obser­ vance and intended Mishnaic Hebrew to be the official language of his kingdom. See further Y. YA DIN, Finds from the Bar - Kokhba period in the Cave of the Letters, 1963; Y. M E SIIORER, Jewish Coins in the Second Temple Period, 1967; B. KAN AEL, " Notes on Dates used during the Bar Kokhba Revolt", Israel Exploration Journal XXI, 1971, pp. 39 - 46; J . A. FITZMY E R , "The Bar Cochba Period", Essays on lhe Semitic Background of the New Testament, 1971, pp. 305 5(a. -

2*

THE BACKGROUND OF JUD AISM AND CH RISTIA­ N ITY I N EGYPT. 1. GRAECO - ROMAN EGYPT CHRI8TIA�ITY first appeared in Egypt as one of many oriental

influences which were sweeping over the Graeco - Roman world. The hellenization of the orient which had been effected through the medium of the Greek language, literature and beliefs was to be followed by a none the less widespread penetration of Greek culture by a religion which had its origins in the life, teaching, death, and resurrection of J esus of Nazareth. In Alexandria the ground had long been prepared for this event. Contacts between Egypt and the Greek world probably go b ack to the dawn of recorded history. The Minoan - Mycenaean civilization of Crete, which decipherment of the Linear A and B scripts has shown to have been an early forerunner of the later Greek civilization, was much indebted to Egyptian influences, forming as it did an early link between the Orient and Europe. And in the age of Greek commercial expansion trading contacts with Egypt increased as the Mediterranean sea was opened to traffic on a scale not hitherto realized; in Periclean Athens the foreign trader became a familiar sight as he plied his wares in the market places. In the train of this commercial expansion, which was to prove of great significance to the Greek world, came the intro­ duction into Hellas of Egyptian deities such as Isis and Amon; the fame of the latter caused Pindar to write a celebrated poem in his honour and an Athenian ship regularly plied between the Piraeus and Cyrene carrying Greeks to Amon's Sahara shrine. Moreover educated Greeks of this and later periods travelled widely in the Orient, the most famous being the illustrious Plato who visited Egypt and the West before establishing his school in the grove of the Academy at Athens. These contacts between Egypt and Hellas were, however, ephemeral and some­ what superficial, and nothing like a religious syncretism took place on either Greek or Egyptian soil. The clearminded Greeks, with their de* Church Quarterly Review 16� (1963) 300-309; q28-qU.

28 votion to the anthropomorphic deities of Homer, were not minded to adopt officiaI1y the Egyptian pantheon into their systems. Although the period of Periclean Athens was, in a sense, an age of doubt the words of Xenophanes still expressed what the maj ority of men felt: 'Since all men's thoughts have been shaped by H omer from the beginning' . It was left to Bellas itself to carry the splendour of its genius to the Orient, which it accomplished through the endeavours of the Mace­ donian Alexander the Great - one of the greatest warriors in the history of the world. Alexander as a youth h ad been tutored by Aristotle at the Macedonian court, learning under the great philosopher's guidance the masterpieces of Greek literature and receiving a grounding in the na­ tural sciences, Aristo Lle's special field of study. As the youth grew up he became infused with the vision of the H ellenistic ideal. Alexander became the first to transcend national boundaries and to see, albeit imperfectly, that mankind is potentially one great family in which each person has rights of his own. Well could Sir William Tarn, the great historian of the Hellenistic age, write: 'Man as a political animal, a fra­ ction of the polis or self - governing city - state, had ended with Ari­ stotle; with Alexander begins man as an individual'l. To this great vision was wedded consummate military skill. From the time when he came to supreme power at the early age of twenty in 336 B .C. Alexander began to plan a campaign against Asia which his victory over the Persian army at Issus brought within his grasp. Before long the Phoenician seaports were captured and Egypt, which had long been a Persian province, fell an easy prey to his army. Alexander then returned to Asia and, marching along the Fertile Crescent, entered B abylon. The Nile and the Tigris Eup hrates valley, the homes of the two oldest civilizations known to man, were in his hands by 330 B.C., an outstanding feat of arms which is not without its lessons for the modern military mind. In Alexander's great campaigns the West and the East were brought into contact in a way never before realised in history. The founding of the Egyptian city of Alexandria dates from this period. Four centuries earlier a centre for Greek merchants had been established at N aukratis 2 in the Nile delta, but as this was solely a trading outpost it is unlikely that any fusion of Greek and E gyptian religious beliefs took place-certainly the objects on the Naukratis site 1. 2.

(3rd edition. 1952). Literally ' mistress of the ships'.

Hellenistic Civilisation

29

yield no evidence of Egyptian influence upon the Greek cults brought in by the traders. Zeus, Apo llo, and Hera remained strangers from afar. However, after the Persian conquest of Egypt the Nile Valley became more open to travellers from other countries, although these contacts, valuable though they were, did not bring Hellas and Egypt into anything like the close political association which was accomplished through A­ lexander's conquest and the settlement of Egypt under a Macedonian government. This effected an entirely new relationship between the two countries, and the way became open for Hellenistic civilization to make that deeper impact on the Egyptian mind which it accomplished under the rule of the Ptolemies. Alexandria 3, founded in 332 B.C. and designed by the great ar­ chitect Deinocrates on the Greek rectangular plan, now rose to importan­ ce, eventually attaining the position of the greatest city of the Helle­ nistic world and a focus for its commerce and trade. One third of Rome's wheat was shipped from its harbour, which also linked the Mediter­ ranean with the east. Oblong in shape, the city occupied a narrow strip of land between the sea and Lake Mareotis, which was itself j oined by a canal to the mouth of the Nile. This was the cause of Strabo's cele­ brated remark that the city was shaped like a cloak worn by the Mace­ donian cavalry. The Ptolemies spared no expense or energy in embar­ king upon a gigantic building programme which even today, wit h our knowledge of large - scale building techniques, impresses the mind. One third of the city was occupied with Royal palaces and open public grounds, while the wide streets, which were used by wheeled vehicles, were flanked with noble collonades. The entrance to the harbour was guarded by a giant lighthouse tower, a descendant of the ancient Sum­ merian ziggurat, which bore the inscription, 'To the saviour gods'. 400 feet high, the tower stood as a guide to shipping for some 1 , 600 years from the time of its erection c. 250 B .C. 4. It is not improbable that it later gave to Arab architects the design of the Minaret. The Royal Museum possessed a great library, lecture halls, exhibition rooms, and living quarters for the scientists and philosophers employed by the Sta­ te. Some distance away stood the gymnasia, baths, concert halls and 3. In Mommsen's striking phrase ' a monarchical creation ex nihiIo'. i. The little island of Pharos, on which the lighthouse stood, was well known to Greek mariners. Ullyses and his friends were detained there for many weary days by contrary winds (Odyss. iv. 35q).

30 market places which, however, were dwarfed by the vast temple of Sarapis, who had been adopted as the state-deity of the city. Such en­ thusiasm did the great city engender that one dialogue claimed that Ale­ xandria was the world, the whole earth her city-land, and other cities only her villages. Exaggerated as such a eulogy undoubtedly is, we gain an indication of her wealth and magnificence under Ptolemy I I from Callixenus' account of the King's m agnificent festival procession, which in splendour outshines even the processions of the Egyptian Old King­ dom. It is sad to reflect that little of this illustrious past now remains, for the buildings which made Alexandria such a fine city have disap­ peared or dwindled into the sands. The spirit of the city, however, re­ mains to this day Greek rather than Egyptian, although the population is now rapidly decreasing. Alexandria, during the period before and after the tUrn of the Chri­ stian era, became the centre of the intellectual life of the Graeco - Ro­ man world. There arose in the city a remarkable group of scientists who, with a priest of the Muses al t.heir head, lived and worked together at the Museum under the patronage o f the Ptolemies. Their freedom from worldly cares was the cause of Timon the Sceptic's sarcastic remark that the group were ' fatted fowls in a coop'. This was the first scientific institution wholly dedicated to research known to have been suppor· ted by a state, and it numbered among its alumni such great names as Euclid the mathematician and Eratosthenes the astronomer 5. The city also became the greatest centre of medical research in the ancient world, Herophilus' medical school being especially famous for its anatomical research on the nervous system. This, like our own, was essentially an age of specialists - an age of discovery and invention when a new world was opening before the inquiring mind - an age which has a good claim to rank as one of the most creative known in the history of scientific reo search. Unfortunately, to a great extent, the inventions of the H elle­ nistic Greeks were wasted, with the exception of a few obvious ones such as the screw and the toothed wheel. The theoretical and the practical had not yet been wedded together - that did not happen until the I n5. The pre - eminence of Alexandria in astronomical research continued into tile Christian era. Thus the Gentile Churches of Palestine and Southern Syria depend­ ed on the Egyptian metropolis for guidance in regard to the calendar - the beginning of the custom whereby the Bishop of Alexandria issued 'Festal Epistles' on the Feast of the Epiphany informing the Church at large when the Pascha would fall. P . CAR­ R I :-l G T O N : The Early Christian Church, Vol. ii, p. 384.

31 dustrial Revolution - and, in any case, the Greeks had a prejudice against the mechanical crafts; their method was to think things through to a logical conclusion rather than to grasp the practical applications of scientific discovery. The art and sculpture of Graeco - Roman Egypt did not reach a high level. The classical restraint had gone, and a certain theatricalism pervades Alexandrian grave reliefs, which are not otherwise conspi­ cuous for their elegance. The Egyptian metropolis was more of a col­ lecting centre for sculpture, although it was here that the pract.ice arose of putting on statues' hair in stucco. The city's real strength lay in other directions: in mosaic work, which it may have invented, and in cameo cutting. The wonderful floor mosaic of Alexander charging the Persian King at I ssus, which has been put together from pieces of a floor pave­ ment discovered at Pompeii 6, is a witness to Alexandria's pre - eminen­ ce in this art. The study of language and literature made advances in the Helle­ nistic period. The older river - valley civilizations had known great libraries furnished with staffs of scholars, but these institutions wer e eclipsed by the vast library of the Ptolemies at Alexandria which con­ tained, at the beginning of the Christian era, about 700,000 rolls, many imported from other countries 7; unfortunately this library has perished and we only know of its existence from the evidence of later writers. Of the six librarians who cover the great period four were philologists, which is perhaps an indication of the basis of the Alexandrian intellectual achievement. The most famous figure associated with the library, ho­ wever, was the philosopher and poet Callimachus, who was the first to catalogue the papyrus rolls and to introduce their division into se­ ctions. The copies of the rolls produced by the Alexandrian scholars became the standard editions of the Graeco - Roman world, and through them knowledge of the Greek classics reached Europe, their wide dis­ semination being helped by the fact that papyrus, the world's writing material, became a state monopoly under Ptolemy I I . These learned Alexandrian circles also produced notable writers and poets such as 6. It was originally native to Alexandria. Now in the National Museum, Naples. 7. 200,000 volumes were brought from Pergamum and presented by Mark An­ thony to Cleopatra; Greek and Hebrew copies of the Old Testament were available

(TERT. Apol. xviii) . Other Egyptian temples had collections of sacred books although

no t on this scale. Private Libraries were usual in Alexandria.

32 Aratus, whose versions of the Ages of the World in his Phaenomena became widely known. The characteristic Alexandrian poetical form, as far as we can judge, was the idyll. Philosophy, out of which Ionian science had at first arisen, was not prominent in early Alexandria. Only later did it rise to pre - eminence, although then, as at Athens, it had a long history; it was still being taught in A.D. 640 when the Arabs con­ quered Egypt and may have continued until A.D. 972, when Greek learning began to be taught in Arabic. Christianity did not make its first appearance in Egypt in vacuo. The new faith could flourish and gain converts only in a suitable milieu; and this was at first the Hellenistic Judaism of the diaspora s . H owever, Christianity was soon to come into contact with the indigenous popu­ lation, and we must briefly sketch the form which its religion took. The Macedonian conquest of Egypt and the foundation of Alexandria placed the Greeks in an entirely new relationship with the native religion, for it meant that the Greeks were no longer visitors to Egypt but inhabi­ tants of the country with a footing in almost every profession and oc­ cupation. From this there came a general identification of the Egyptian deities with those of Hellas, which was based on the earlier comparative list drawn up by Herodotus. The Greeks, who were impressed by the immense antiquity of the native religion and consistently over - valued its importance 9, found no difficulty in entering Egyptian temples to make their offerings at the shrines10• And the Egyptian side reciprocated, for Egyptian theologians, from the Pyramid age, had held conflicting beliefs side by side and in the Hellenistic age saw no obj ection to the identification of their own deities with those of the Greeks. The result was a religious syncretism especially marked in the country areas, al­ though it is questionable how deep a fusion really occured. Always the intensely conservative age - old native religion was the do minant par­ tner playing a vital part in the lives of ordinary people throughout the Graeco - Roman period. The Olympian deities in fact only retained their vitality through their identification with Egyptian deities or because 8. The infiuence of the University of Alexandria on early Christian thought was distant and indirect. Furthermore the apostles of Greek culture did not pay much attention to indigenous practices, although a few, like Chaeremon, studied the Egyptian monuments. Cf. C. BIGG, The Christian Platonists of Alexandria, p. 2 . 9. This reverence is found as far back as PLATO, Timaeus 22 4., and i n ARISTOTLE'S treatise On Philosophy, Frag. 3, 6 - 8. See W. JAEGER, Aristotle (1 934.) pp. 128 9. 10. Greek youths even made offerings to the crocodile god of the Fayyo.m . -

-

33 of their connection with the religious festivals which had been a promi­ nent feature of E gyp tian life from the time of the Old Kingdomll• The situation was somewhat different in Alexandria itself. The cosmopolitan population of the city was drawn from every quarter of the Greek world and further afield - I ndian emissaries from the Budd­ hist King Asoka arriving as early as the reign of Ptolemy 1 112. The city became in effect a collection of politeumata based upon race each ob­ serving its own ancestral customs; the Greek was the most important of these and approximated closely to the polis or city - state of the Greek mainland. One of the results of its chequered history and geographical position was that HeIlas, unlike Egypt, had never possessed a national religion based on the supremacy of a single deity - in fact the deity as­ sociated with each polis was supreme over the inhabitants of that city state alone. From this it naturally followed that the Greek population of Alexandria, diverse as it was in origins, could not be expected to permit the adoption of any one Hellenic deity as supreme over the city. Moreover as we have noted the intellectual element in the Alexandrian population was of great moment, and the swift rise of the scientific method caused a widespread scepticism as to the existence and efficacy of the traditional deities. In a situation such as this the superficial e­ quation of Greek and Egyptian gods made elsewhere in the country was unlikely to find much acceptance. Furthermore the attitude of the Pto­ lemies was all important, for they had their chief residence in Alexan­ dria and regarded themselves as the successors of the ancient Pharaohs. Endued with the ownership of most of the land, they possessed unli­ mited power over the lives of their subjects13• On these rulers fell the problem of the religion of the new city, and ptolemy I brilliantly sol­ ved it by introducing an official cult acceptable to Greek and Egyptian alike. H. I. BELL, Journal of Egyptian Archaeology xxxiv (194.8) p. 89 - 97. 1 2. The intercourse between the early Buddhist Kings and the Ptolemies is revealed on a rock tablet found at Girnar in Gujerat which contains the edicts of Asoka: "And the Greek King (Yoni - raja) besides, by whom the Chapta (Egyptian) Kings Ptolemaios and Gonkakenos (Antigonus Gonatas) have been induced to allow that both here and in foreign countries everywhere the people may follow the d oc­ trine of the religion of Devanipya wheresoever it reacheth". Prinsep, Indian A nti­ quities II, p. 20. Indian influence on Western thought was mediated via Persia and Asia Minor. R. MeL. WILSON, The Gnostic Problem (1958), p. 60. 13. Although they granted Alexandria and two other Nile cities the right to manage their own affairs. H.

34 The supreme deity of this new cult was Sarapis, who literally came into existence through the investigations of a group of priests and phi­ losophers appointed by Ptolemy; in Sir William Tarn' s words, "the only god ever successfully made by men". The exact origin of this deity has been the subject of much learned discussion; identification with the Mesopotamian Bhar - apsi has been suggested and a thorough search has been made for possible Asiatic antecedents in view of the statements of Plutarch14 and Tacitus15 that his giant cult statue was imported into Alexandria from Sinope where it had been a representation o f Hades. It seems however that we should follow U. Wilcken16 and H. I . Bell17 in seeing in the new deity a hellenized form of the Egyptian god Osara­ pis; confirmation of this may be found in the location of the Sarapeum in the Egyptian Rhacotis quarter of Alexandrial8. Furthermore we know that the Apis bull had long been worshipped at Memphis, where it was identified after death with Osiris: and, as the compound Osarapis had been worshipped in the neighbourhood of Memphis before Alexandria was founded, it seems probable that the priests and philosophers of Ptolemy cleverly hellenized the local indigenous deity by representing him as a bearded man of ideal beauty akin to the Greek Zeus. I n this way Sarapis became a deity suitable to the intellectual climate of the times. Egyptians saw in the god a likeness to Osiris and Apis while the Greeks equated him with Zeus; the compound designation Zeus - Sa­ rapis came into frequent use. The new state - deity did not remain an exclusive Alexandrian possession but spread throughout Egyptl9. Ho­ wever, his greatest success was won in other lands20 as the patron saint of the Ptolemaic empire, rather than in his native country. The reason for this lies in the fact that for the native population the new state god H. De Iside et Osiride xxviii. 15. Hist. iv. 83. 16. Urkunden der Ptolemaerzeit (altere Funde), Berlin - Leipzig (1927), Vol. 1 , pp. 7 - 95. 1 7 . Cults and Creeds in Graeco - Roman Egypt (1953), p. 19. 1 8. The temple closure of Sarapis has been discovered. A. ROWE, A nn Serp , Suppl. 2 (Cairo 19q6), gives a detailed account of the finding of ten foundation pla­ ques bearing inscriptions in hieroglyphic and Greek. Cf. Journal of Egyptian Archaeo­ logy xxxiv, p. 1 1 0. 19. The Oxyrhynchus papyri contain invitations to banquets of "the Lord Sa­ rapis". 20. Apollonius, an Egyptian priest, introduced Sarapis to Delos before 300 B . C. .

35 was the official ruler of the universe seated on a high throne, as in the temple representations, rather than a domestic hearth deity near to their everyday lives and needs. The Alexandrian triad was completed by Sarapis' consort Isis and by Harpocrates, deities which were distin­ ctively Egyptian; in particular Harpocrates took on more human fea­ tures as time went by and was eventually adopted as one of the house­ hold gods of the fellahin. Many other identifications of Greek and Egyp­ tian deities were made at Alexandria, but to j udge by the coin types these were in the main academic exercises. From time immemorial the Egyptian Pharaohs21 had been deified, for the Egyptian King was essentially the focus of the nation's well ­ being on whom depended its survival from year to year. It was there­ fore no innovation that one result of the Macedonian conquest should have been the cult - deification of Alexander the Great, which certain­ ly occured at Alexandria in the time of Ptolemy I I and continued until the advent of Christianity. The Ptolemies themselves were accorded divine honours as "saviours", although not until the reign of Eurgetes II does the King call himself "a god". One fact which enabled the Greek Kings to accept such honours was the loyalty of the native priests22, which was readily given in return for the Ptolemies' patronage of the national religion. On the temple walls the Greek Kings are represented clad in the garments which the ancient Egyptian Kings wore when worshipping the gods. Yet this cult of kingship, which in practice re­ sembled the homage paid to the English Royal Family, differed from the ancient Egyptian conception of the Pharaoh. In the Pyramid Age and later the King per se was divine; in the Graeco - Roman period the recognition of the divine right of rulers depended on the material power and standing of the Kings themselves whose real function was philan­ throp ia the well - being of the subjects under their rule. This principle was extended to personages other than royalty. Hippocrates was wor­ shipped in medical schools throughout the Greek world; Diogenes was -

21. I n the Old Kingdom not only the Pharaoh but sometimes other men were deified after death on the merits of their achievements. Later the Greeks identified the divine Imhotep, the sage and physician, with Asklepios, the god of healing. Amenophis, the son of Hapu the minister of Amenophis I I I, was also defied. See P. Ory. xi. 1381 and W. R. DAWSON, "Amenophis the son of Hapu", Aegyptus vii (1926 ), pp. 113 - 38. H. I. BELL, Cults and Creeds op. cit. p. II. 22. See the Decree of Canopus and the proclamation on the Rosetta stone; P. D . SCOTT MON CRIE FF, Paganism and Christianity in Egypt (1913), p, q. -

36 accorded divine honours at Athens in 229 B .C.; in the Roman period not only Augustus, who became in Egypt Zeus Eleutherios Sebastos2:i, but also Roman Governors were worshipped. This was a marked de­ cline from the Classical Age of Greece which recognized so clearly the difference between gods and men. Christianity was later to come into contact with these cults, and it is perhaps not without significance that J ohn's Gospel, in which the divine origin and nature of J esus is most uncompromisingly asserted, became in the second century of the Chri­ stian era the most widely read of the Gospels in Egypt. The attempt of the Ptolemies to forge a ne w Egyptian state reli­ gion was a noble attempt to find a religious basis acceptable to Greek and Egyptian alike. However, at the beginning of the Christian era the Hellenization of the country, with three centuries of effort behind, had not succeeded in making any great change. The Greeks, although wil­ ling to worship the native deities, never really understood the spirit of the Egyptian religion and no inner fusion had taken place. In time the inertia and intense conservatism of the land, symbolized by the enor­ mous pyramids of Gi zeh, played their inevitable role and the imported elements in the deities and in the population tended to disappear, a fact observed by Livy when he wrote: "The Macedonians who have colonies at Alexandria in Egypt, at Seleucia and Babylon and at other places scattered over the world have degenerated into Syrians, Parthians and Egyptians"24. By the third century of the christian era the descendants of the Greek colonists, except to a limited extent in Alexandria, had been absorbed by the native population and the indigenous deities had reas­ sumed their old position ousting the Greek equivalents who shared their worship. A clear illustration of this is to be seen in the persistence of Osiris worship with that of Anubis and H orus26, who remained gods 23. Corpus Papyrorum Raineri (C. WESSE LY, Vienna 1 895), I, 22q. In an oath from Oxyrhynchus to be dated c. 30 B. C. Augustus is described as 0eoc; be 0eou, P. Oxy. xii, H53, ii. 2q. X XVIII. 1 7 . 25. The magical papyri show their popularity i n 2 - 3rd cents A . D . Osiris even figures on GrMk tombstones of this period. Sammelbuch Griechischer (ed. F. PREI­ SIGKE and E. KIESSLING) I, 3q49. The Egyptians, who had long been adepts at the art, introduced religio - magical practices to both Jews and Greeks. The Egyp tians in particular drew their material from many sources. Cf. the Uh cent. Cop tic text: "Hail God of Abraham, hail, God of Isaac, hail, God of J acob , Jesus Christ, Holy Ghos t, Son of the father, who is among the Seven and in the Seven". Papyri Graecae Magicae, K. Preisendanz (1928 - 31) iv, 1230 5, and Bell, Cults and Creeds, p. 73. -

37 of power long after the spread of Christianity in Egypt. Yet at the time of the coming of Christianity Graeco - Roman state - worship was a force in Alexandria itself and with Greek philosophy formed a challen­ ge to the new faith which was later to be met through the labours of Origen, one of the few great minds that Christendom has known. Ho­ wever not far below the surface there lay the intensely conservative Egyptian civilisation - Alexandria was never typical of Egypt as a who­ le26 - which was preserved by the country population and in the temples, always the strongholds of nationalism. Indeed the favour extended to the Greek element in the population by the Roman government only caused the native population to fall back upon its own way of life. The Roman inclination to look upon the country as a granary to be exploi­ ted in the interests of a stable corn supply for the city of Rome also strengthened nationalistic feeling. The con servatism of the land was also to an extent the product of its geographical position, situated as it was in a narrow valley cut off by stretches of desert on the east and west from the outer world and assisted, in the Graeco - Roman period, by the persistence of the native Egyptian language, demotic, which was later to revive as Coptic27• Christianity was not uninfluenced by indige­ nous beliefs which ranged from monotheism to the grosser forms of magic and theurgy, when it came into contact with them in Middle and Upper E gypt in the second and following centuries A.D. 2. THE JEWISH DIASPORA

When we consider dispassionately and objectively the spread of For the introduction of magical practices into Christianity see Hermas, Mand. ii. This may explain how the grosser forms of Gnosticism became allied with Christiani­ ty in Egypt. 26. c. 100 B. C., however, the Egyptian metropolis exercised a great attraction for the country populace. So Ps - Aristeas, 109 - 1 1 : "The country folk by migrating to the town (i. e. Alexandria) and making a long stay there brought agriculture to a low ebb. And so the King, to prevent them making a stay, ordered that their visits should not exceed twenty days ... and he appointed judges with their subordinates in every nome, that so the farmers and their agents might not, while money - mak­ ing in the city, reduce the granaries of the city. I mean the proceeds of agriculture". (tr. H. ST. JOHN THACKERA Y ) . 2 7 . Magic appears to have played a part in the evolution of Coptic for some of the earlist examples of the use of this language occur in magical texts. W. E. CRUM . Journal of Egyptian Archaeology xxviii (1 942) pp. 20 - 31.

38 the Christian religion in the early centuries of its existence we are for­ ced to conclude that the soil had been prepared for the work of the Chri­ stian missionaries. This had been accomplished by the J udaism of the diaspora spread as it was throughout the Roman Empire and beyond its borders as a powerful force. Everywhere the first Christian missionaries found Jewish communities to which were attached not inconsiderable numbers of God - fearers28 , or Gentile religious inquirers, who frequent­ ed the synagogues for instruction in the monotheistic faith of Israelj these communities were the starting point for the work of the Christian mission which proclaimed the religion of Jesus in terms which would be intelligible to its hearers. However, Christianity appears to have gain­ ed its greatest successes among the God - fearers who were not so wed­ ded to ritual practices as were the J ewsj some of these were ready and willing to embrace the new faith. The vast extent of the diaspora in comparison with the almost insi­ gnificant size of the mother country is an enigma which historical study cannot fully solve. We can state the diaspora as a fact but cannot fully explain how it came into existence. No doubt, as E . Schiirer has empha­ sized29, various factors contributed towards its development, such as the deportations to Babylonia which took place in the time of the As­ syrians and Chaldeans and which were repeated in the Persian period. Moreover it was the official policy of the Greek rulers, at the beginning of the Hellenistic period, to intermix native populations and to favour migrations - a policy which was given an added impulse by the wides­ pread trading contacts then developing between the Mediterranean and the countries of the Near East. We can only account for the extensive diaspora of the Roman period on the assumption that a large propor­ tion of the Jewish migrations belong to the H ellenistic period. Yet even this prob ability cannot fully account for the many millions of Jews who were scattered throughout the Empire at the beginning of the Christian era. Is it feasible that the small population of J udaea produced this vast population simply through migration and the process of natural reproduction ? The most likely solution of this enigma is that J udaism owed much - perhaps more than it ever knew - to the numerous conver­ sions that it must have made during the Hellenistic period30 which 28. cIIO�OU!L£VOL -rbv 0e:6v, O'E�6!L£vOL -rbv 0e:6v, or abbreviated to 0'e:�6!LEV0L. 29. Hastings Dictionary of the Bible (Extra VoL) p. 91 30. ' God dispersed the Jews to facilitate proselytism'. R. ELEAZAR, Babylonian Talmud, Pes. 87b.

39 would account for the size of the prominent centres of Jewish life and thought in the diaspora. Such missionary success must lie behind the remark of Straho (at the beginning of the first century B .C.) that the Jews 'have already settled in every city, and it is not easy to find any spot on the earth which this tribe has not occupied and where it has not asserted itself' ( J os. A nt. XIV. 7. 2); the Jewish Sybil also points in the same direction: 'the whole earth, and the sea also, is full of them' (Or. Sybil. iii. 27 1 , 2nd cent. B.C.). Jewish settlements existed in Egypt from early times; one of the first was that of a body of Jewish mercenaries who settled at Elephan­ tine, the ancient Yeb, an island on the Nile in Upper Egypt. This com­ munity developed a curious kind of religious syncretism which embra­ ced the worship of the ancestral deity Yahweh under the name of Yahu or Yah031 with that of other gods and goddesses including Anathyahu32 who must have been regarded as Yahweh's bride. To show their inde­ pendence these Jews c. 590 B.C. erected a Jewish temple, for the car­ rying out of the sacrificial cult, staffed by their own priesthood. Yet during the time of their soj ourn they lived subject to an Egyptian go­ vernor, used the names of Egyptian deities when taking oaths, and to­ wards the end of their occup ation of the site spoke Aramaic, the lingua franca of the Persian Empire. Other Jews entered Egypt in the time of Jeremiah33 from fear of the Chaldeans and settled in various parts of the country. Pseudo - Aristeas34 speaks of two early transplantings of Jewish settlers, but these do not appear to have been on any great scale. The impression we get from the sporadic references which have come down is that Jewish settlements in Egypt, prior to the time of Ptolemy I , were of no great extent and that no mass migrations had taken place. The position however changed somewhat from the time of Alexan­ der the Great who, according to J osephus35, incorporated J ewish sett­ lers among the citizens of the new city of Alexandria. This is probably confirmed by the edict of Claudius quoted by the same author: 31. COWLEY, Aramaic Papyri (1923), pap. 13. 32. COWLE Y , pap. 44, 3. Five deities can be traced in the papyri corresponding to the five gateways to the temple. The colonists probably brought this polytheism with them from Judaea. 33. Jer. 26. 20 - 3; 44. 1. CONDAMIN, Le Livre de Jeremie (1 936), p. 291 f. 34. Ed. Wendland, 13. 35. B. J. I I . xviii. 7; c. Apion ii. i

40 Since I am assured that the Jews of Alexandria, called Alexand­ rians, have been joint inhabitants in the earliest times with the A­ lexandrians, and have obtained from their Kings equal privileges with them, as is evident from the public records that are in their possession and the edicts themselves ... 36 All through the third century B .C., and later, large numbers of Jews entered the country. They settled chiefly in Alexandria, where they en­ ioyed special privileges, although they did not neglect other areas. We hear of many Jews in the Thebaid, the southern part of Egypt, where their influence can be traced in Greek and demotic legal documents in which no interest is charged37. The prominence of J ewish tax - col­ lectors38 there in the second century B . C. is an indication of a fairly strong Jewish element in the population; and that this continued into the Christian era is shown by an entry in a papyrus roll which records payments of 1536 drachmae ' by the rulers of the J e ws for the synagogue of the Thebans'39. Oxyrhynchus, the Fayyum, and the Delta likewise had Jewish communities of considerable strength and wealth40• The J ews took up many occupations; the papyri show that they were soldiers, farmers, shepherds, craftsmen, traders, b ankers and moneylenders ­ in fact they are found evenly spread over the work of the country41 Some Jews, however, fared less fortunately than their brethren and were set to work on garrison duties with a status little more than that of prisoners. In Alexandria the Jews were assigned a special quarter separated from the rest of the city 'in order that they might be able to live a purer life by mixing less with foreigners'u. This quarter stretched along the harbourless strand in the neighbourhood of the royal palace to the east of the promontory of Lochias on the N.E. side of the city. In the second and first centuries B.C. Jews occupied positions of considerable eminence in the metropolis. We know that both Ptolemy VI and Cleop atria I I I 36. Ant. XIX v. 2 37. P. Tabt. III. 817 38. U . WILCU N, Gr. Osu. I. pp. 523 - q. L. FUCHS, Die Jaden Aegyp tens (192q) , pp. q3 - q. 39. P. Lond. III p. 1801. No. 1 1 77 , 57 - 61 . qO. H. I. BELL, Cults and Creeds, op. cit. pp. M - 5. U. The oft - repeated view that the Jews were primarily moneylenders is a product of anti - semitic propaganda. i�. J os. B. J. II. xviU. 7.

41 employed Jewish generals in their military operations and no doubt found them capable strategists. At the beginning of the Christian era the Alexandrian J ews were the largest community outside of Judaea, and Philo states that they constituted about two - fifths of the city's population and occupied two of the five city divisions. There were, ho­ wever, no ghettoes, and some Jews lived scattered among the Graeco Egyptian population where they had their own synagogues for worship and religious instruction. Philo also reckoned that the total Jewish population of Egypt in his day was about one million, which m ay be considered to be confirmed by the many references to their existence in Lower, Middle, and Upper Egypt which have been found. The same author's remark that the Jews had their dwellings as far ' as the borders of Ethiopia'43 is not necessarily an exaggeration on present knowledge44• As the J ews settled in the Hellenistic cities of the diaspora they were allowed to form their own associations for worship each of which had, as its head, a 'ruler of the synagogue'40 who meted out justice in accor­ dance with J ewish law. When the J ews became more numerous they formed a politeuma or corporation which gave them fuller privileges and ultimately the right to be exempted from the j urisdiction of the Greek courts. The existence of a Jewish politeuma is explicitly attested for Ale­ xandria46 and in time this came to be ruled by an ethnarch; thus Strabo writes: 'There is also an ethnarch at their head, who rules the people and dispenses j ustice, and sees that obligations are fulfilled and statutes observed like the archon of an independent state'47. According to Philo, Augustus replaced the alabarch or ethnarch by a Gerousia or Council of Elders presided over by a gerousiarch - but this seems merely to have been another term for an ethnarch, to judge from the edict of Claudius. What was the status of these diaspora J ews in comparison with that of the Graeco - Egyptian population ? Many authorities, following Josephus48, have believed that the Alexandrian J ews were full citizens of the city possessing the same rights as the Greek population. Sir WHPhilo's references to the Jews see In Flaccum VI. (a(a. Cf. also Philo's statement that communities of Jewish Therapeutae were to be found in every nome (de Vita Cont. III). Samaritan communities also existed in Egypt, Petrie Papyri, II. 92, 93. (as. Hadrian to Servianus - Vopiscus Vita Sat. 8. (aG. Aristeae Epist. 310. (a7. Jos. Ant. XIV. vii. 2 �8. Contra Ap ion ii. (aj Ant. X IV c. i; XIX. v. 2; cf. B. J. II xviii. 7 (as. For

42 liam Tarn49, however, has shown that participation in full citizenship which meant taking a part in the government and administration of the city - entailed the worship of the local gods which for the Jews as a whole meant apostasy from their ancestral faith. Although indivi­ dual J ews50 might become ' deviationists' and see nothing wrong in en­ tering pagan temples, it is unthinkable that the Jewish body in toto en­ tertained such an idea. Josephus is probably guilty of nothing more than a loose use of terminology when he states that Augustus confirmed the Jews in the citizenship granted them by the Ptolemies. In new foun­ dations the J ews were given isopolity, i.e. potential rather than actual citizenship51, and for this reason are described as Alexandrians. I f a J ew wished to become a full citizen he simply worshipped the state deities; in the meantime as a member of the Jewish community he could con­ tinue without hindrance the religious practices of his race. The diaspora, united as it was by a band of loyalty to its Palesti­ nian home, was a permanent source of trouble to the Roman authori­ ties. Everywhere the J ews aroused suspicion among the native popula­ tion on account of their ritual practices, abstention from local social activities, refusal to j oin in the official worship of the locality, and their diet. The Romans tried in earnest to respect the rights of minorities and the Jews were not slow to take advantage of this toleration. They appealed immediately and without hesitation to the governing power whenever they suffered hostile acts or adverse decisions from local ma­ gistrates; and more often than not the Romans, as a matter o f general policy, intervened in their favour. It was Julius Caesar who, as a reward for the help he had received in his Egyptian campaign, gave the Jews a unique j uridical status, i.e. the freedom o f assembly for the purpose of worshipping Yahweh, the right to collect offerings for the Jerusalem Temple, exemption from military service, and a recognition of their corporate existence according to the traditions of their fathers. The amicable relationship which existed between the Roman power and the Alexandrian Jews, coupled with the consciousness that the J ews were strangers from afar, tended to embitter the non - Jewish population q9. The Hellenistic Age, p. 193. For a further discussion of Jewish citizenship in Alexandria see II. A. WOLFSON, Philo, vol. ii, pp. 398 f. 50. According to Pap. Berlin Griechische Urkunden IV. 1 068, a Jew, when noti­ fying the authorities of his son's death, swears by the Emperor Trajan. 51. I I I Mace. 2. 30 ; J os., Ant. XII. viii.

43

of the city. The Jews, in their eyes, were the equivalent of a fifth column in their midst. Moreover the exemption which they enjoyed from the jurisdiction of the Greek courts no doubt caused discontent, and to this was added Jewish exclusiveness, intolerance, and consciousness of racial superiority. The J ewish story of the Exodus, celebrated annually in the Feast of the Passover, was also hardly calculated to flatter E­ gyptian pride, and the Egyptians retaliated by producing their own l e­ gends of the Exodus, which became more anti - semitic with the pas­ sage of time, reaching a climax in the version of Tacitus (Rist. v. I). The wealth and commercial ability possessed by some members of the Alexandrian community such as Alexander the Alaharch, the brother of Philo, who was the Rothschild of his age, simple added fuel to the flames52• These were the causes of that deep hatred of the Jews which became evident in the Egyptian metropolis. Antipathy towards the Egyptian Jews took no violent form during the Ptolemaic period when they were found in the army and also played an active part in the civil wars o f the last two centuries B.C. However, after the fall of Antony and Cleopatra relationships began to take on a more sombre aspect when Octavian confirmed the Jews in their privi­ leges at the very time that he was refusing the Alexandrians the senate for which they had asked. From this time Greek - Jewish hostility in Alexandria became more marked-the Greek population was, in any case, noted for its turbulence-and a nationalistic anti - Jewish literature began to appear. D uring the reign of the Roman emperor Caligula a collision occurred which was to have not insignificant consequences53• This happened in the spring o f A.D. 38, when Herod Agrippa, the notorius spendthrift son of Herod the Great, set out from Rome sur­ rounded by an escort of soldiery to j ourney to Palestine with the in­ tention of calling at Alexandria en route. The local J ews, with signi­ ficant lack of tact, decided to make his visit the triumphal entrance of their ruler. This greatly embittered the Greek population who retaliated

_.

52. The firm of Alexander was immensely rich. He lent Agrippa, when his for­ tunes were low, 7000 I. with which to resort to Italy. Two of Alexander's sons mar­ ried daughters of Agrippa, and a third, at the price of apostasy, rose successively to be Procurator of Palestine and Governor of Egypt. The temple at Jerusalem owed much to the munificence of this Jewish millionaire; the gold and silver which covered the nine massive gates at the entrance to the temple were his gift. Dictionary of Christian Biography Vol. iv, p. 361. 53. Philo, In Flaccum V - VI.

44

by dressing up a local idiot to resemble Agripp a whom they insulted with coarse wit and shouts of "Marin", the Syrian word for Lord, which was an added insult in view of Agrippa's Syrian origin54• The Greeks then demanded that the Jews should pay divine honours to Caligula, who had been deified, insisting that a statue o f the emp eror be set up in their synagogues. A riot followed in which Jewish shops and houses were plundered in the traditional eastern manner and many J ews were slaughtered in the streets. Flaccus, the weak Roman governor, did no­ thing to stop the pogrom, and the unfortunate survivors were huddled together in a ghetto in the dirty delta quarter of the city, although later, when the emperor heard about the incident, Flaccus was promptly recalled and condemned to death. On the Alexandrian side there were some trials in the imp erial courts and a whole patriotic literature, the Acta Alexandrinorum, grew up around the local heroes who are repre­ sented as treating the emperor with great boldness and courage. The Alexandrians came to cherish the memory of their martyrs much as did the Jews and Christians their own. This pogrom had a great effect upon the imagination of the J ews, and they swore vengeance for the outrage which had been committed. It is probable that embassies were sent to other Jewish centres which resulted in armed reinforcements flocking into the Egyptian capital. Claudius' command to the J ews66 "not to introduce or invite Jews who sail down from Syria or Egypt, thus compelling me to conceive the greater suspicion; otherwise I shall by all means take vengeance on them as fomenting a general plague for the whole world' may conceivably refer to these reinforcements. The Jewish communities were, however, by no means united within themsel­ ves and internal strife - perhaps between orthodox and Hellenistic Jews reared its ugly head, to judge by the embassies which two factions sent to Claudius concerning an unknown matter. Further conflicts between Jew and Greek took place in Alexandria in A. D. 5366, and at the time of the Jewish war against Rome in Pale­ stine during the years A.D. 66 70, when the cry of spies was raised against the Jewso7• After A. D . 70 a number of fugitives came from Je-

o

54.. Agrippa was well - known to the Alexandrian money - lenders. cf. J . G. MILN E, A History of Egypt (3rd ed. 1924.), p. 1'. 55. A. S. HUNT and C. C. EDGAR, Select Papy,.i, II. p. 86, lines 96 100 56. H . I . BE LL, Juden und G,.iechen in ,.omischen Alexand,.eia (1924. ) , pp . 27 - 30. 57. BELL , op. cit., p. 3 1 . -

45 rusalem to Alexandria and sought to stir up trouble against the Romans, which the orthodox leaders resisted. In the ensuing turmoil these revo­ lutionaries put certain of the orthodox leaders to death. However, their success was short lived, for the Jewish Gerousia soon crushed the fa­ ction, some six hundred prisoners being taken. Another clash between Jews and Greeks took place in A. D. 1 10 when the Jews appear to have had the ear of the emperor Traj an. Later, however, in A.D. 1 1 5 the Egyp­ tian Jews rose against this emperor58 when he was engaged in his Part­ hian war, as part of a concerted movement of revolt which had begun in Cyrene, and Traj an was forced to send to Egypt one of his best gene­ rals, Martius Turbo, who quelled the rising with great severity. A ter­ rible conflict also took place with the Greek population, and s o great were the Jewish losses that the community never again rose t o eminence in the metropolis59 and did not even play a minor role in Alexandrian politics until the fourth century. Cyril of Alexandria, hardly one of the most attractive of the Church Fathers, finally expelled the J ewish po­ pulation en masse after seven centuries' existence in the city. Christian fanaticism accomplished what the Greeks could never do. The fate of the Alexandrian Jews was to be repeated in the country at large; when the Arab general, Amr ibn al - 'As, conquered Egypt in A. D . 640 - 2 no mention was made of the J ews among the religious groups enumerated in the treaty of peace negotiated with the Mukau­ kis. However, in later centuries Jewish fortunes appear to have reco­ vered for the golden age of Spanish J ewish culture (9th - 1 1th cent.) had its parallel in Egypt and North Africa. In both these countries, especially under the Fatimid Caliphs, the Jews once again rose to high positions in the State and in commerce and were in the vanguard of a flourishing science and culture. The most famous of these was Isaak Israeli (c. A.D. 845 - 945) who was a court physician and also the au­ thor of a number of medical and philosophical works which were highly rated in the Middle Ages. 58. P. Oxy. I X. 1189 shows that the Oxyrhynchus Jewish community was es­ pecially concerned in this struggle. 80 years later the inhabitants of this city still celebrated their victory over the Jews at an annual festival - P. Oxy. 705. Guerilla warfare continued to the death of Trajan - Milne op. cit., p. 39. This revolt dealt a death - blow to the agriculture of the country. 59. A respite may have occurred at the beginning of the reign of Hadrian who held out the promise of a rebuilding of the Jerusalem Temple. The community to which the Epistle of Barnabas is addressed may have known of this hope. See pp . 6�·66.

46 The history of the years which cover the first decades of Christia­ nity is thus a record of spasmodic political and revolutionary activity on the p art of Egyptian Jewry. During this period not only was there strife between J ew and Greek but also between Jew and Jew, and later between Jew and Christian, and the violent massacres and upheavals which took place formed the political background of the early Christian mission. It is worth remembering that a new faith coming from Palestine to Alexandria around the middle of the first century A.D. would be regarded by some Greeks as one more example of Jewish infiltration into their city. However behind the agitators and the leaders of the Jewish community stood not only the thinkers who sought to introduce Hellenistic ideas into the interpretation of their ancestral faith but also the great mass of the J ewish popUlation who followed in the ways of their fathers. Among these folk and among the God - fearers who attached themselves to the synagogues Christianity began to take root. We have already sketched the vast extent of the diaspora at the beginning of the Christian era and have noted the influence wielded by the Jews in Alexandria, Some of whom rose to privileged positions and held high offices of State. Yet this constant contact with the Greek world was not without its dangers for the Jew who desired to remain faithful to the Torah, for the path of syncretism was an inviting one and many there were who followed it. One of these was the Jewish Hellenist Arta­ panus, who asserted that Moses and the p atriarchs were the founders not only of the Jewish religion, but also of the Egyptian religious cults. In the temple of Pan at Apollonopolis in Upper Egypt two J ews record their thanks to 'the god' for an act of deliverance6o• A letter attributed to H adrian asserts that in Egypt all the Jewish synagogue rulers were astrologers61 and quacks - an exaggeration which nevertheless bears witness to the presence of astrological practices in these communities. A synagogue at Athribis was dedicated to Hypsistos by the local J ews in the time of Ptolemy V. Moreover it is possible that the name Sam­ bathaios (J ewish born) which became common among Egyptian Jews, may be derived from Sambethe, the Chaldean Sibyl, whose name appears on the Karanis ostracon from Kom Aushin in Egypt, where it may have been carried by itinerant Chaldean priests who were active in the spread 60. P. M. MEYER, Gr. Texte, p. H9 note 2. 61. Jewish features are not however found in E gyp tian astrological writings. F. CUMONT, I'Egypte des Astrologues, p. 1M.

47 of oriental cults. However, in spite of this all too easy path which some took the Egyptian J ews, in the main, managed to preserve their religious uniqueness as their race has done throughout its long and chequered history. Syncretism at no time got the upper hand, although some of the lower beliefs of the east, such as magic and theurgy, entered the Jewish communities. The credit for this undoubtedly belongs to the leaders of the communities who took good care that the cultural and religious life of the people remained faithful to the Torah. Even Philo, with whom Greek thought was a powerful influence, maintained that the Torah was absolutely binding upon every J ew. In practice anyone who denied that was exp elled from the community. This guidance of the Jewish leaders - important though it was ­ was not in itself enough to guarantee the survival of J udaism. Something more was needed, and this was provided by the regular gatherings of Jews in the synagogues on each Sabbath for worship and instruction. Philo gives a vivid picture of these gatherings: 'On the sabbath day in all cities thousands of houses of instruction are opened in which under­ standing and self - restraint and ability and j ustice and all virtues are taught'62. Archaeological discoveries have shown that synagogues exi­ sted in Egypt as early as the period 247 222 B.C.63, and in Philo's day a large number existed in Alexandria. That their architectural style was Greek is confirmed not only by the evidence of archaeology but also by the description in the Talmud of the Great Synagogue at Alexandria which is said to have been destroyed by Traj an in A.D. 1 16. -

Rabbi Judah (b. Illai) taught: He who has not seen the doub­ le colonnade at Alexandria has never seen the glory of Israel. I t was made like a great b asilica, one colonnade within another. Often there were as many as twice the number which went out of Egypt in the exodus. Seventy one golden chairs were in it, corresponding to the seventy - one elders. Each chair cost 250,000. In the middle stood a wooden platform upon the top of which stood the Chazan of the Synagogue. He had a scarf in his hand which he waved when 62. De Septenario VI. The catechetical instruction of proselytes may have in­ cluded the use of the Two - ways form of teaching which later passed over into Christianity. See pp. 90-105. 63. KRAUS, Synag. Altert. 263, 12qa, 1 25. Cf. also the Synagogue inscription from Lower Egypt quoted by DEISSMA N N , Bible Studies, p. 222, which he dates to the 3rd cent. B. C.

48 a person took up (the scroll of the torah) to read, whereupon all the people responded Amen. At each distinct benediction he waved the scarf and all the people responded Amen. They did not however sit together promiscuously but goldsmiths by themselves, silvers­ miths by themselves, blacksmiths by themselves, weavers by themselves, carpet - makers by themselves, so that if a stranger came he associated himself with his profession in order to get his livelihood64• These Greek structural features and terminology were matched by the use of Greek language in the synagogue service65, which is con­ firmed by the Church Fathers who state that the Septuagint was the only version of the Old Testament in use. Indeed so thorough had been the adoption of this language by the J ewish diaspora from the third century B.C. onwards that command of the semitic tongues had almost wholly disappeared except among the Rabbis. Among the mass of in­ scriptions belonging to the period up to the fifth century A. D . only a few semitic words occur and even these are quite stereotyped in form. The Egyptian Jew spoke, wrote, and worshipped in Greek, and his tomb, however humble in life, carried an inscription written in this language. This fact was of importance not only for the development of the syna­ gogue liturgy but also in providing a linguistic barrier through which the terminology of Palestinian R abbinism, as against its distinctive ideas, could not penetrate with ease, for the Rabbinical developments of the Torah remained in the Aramaic and Hebrew tongues until their translation in medieval times. Perhaps that is one reason why the Rab­ binical College died out in Palestine, with the Jerusalem Talmud un­ completed, leaving the field open for the triumph of the B abylon Tal­ mud in Rabbinical Judaism66• 64.. Tosefta, Sukkah IV. 6, p. 198. Discussion in E. R. GOODENOUGH, Jewish Symbols in the Greco - Roman Period, II, New York 1953, pp. 85 - 6. 65. Egerton Papyrus 5 (P. Lond. Christ. 4.), published by Bell and Skeat in 1 935, is most probably an Egyptian Jewish liturgical prayer written in Greek which em­ braces the heart of the daily prayer, perhaps the Shemoneh Esreh. See J. WAHRHAFT­ ! G , Journal of Theological studies xl (1 939) pp. 376 - 8f. 66. Recent study has however shown that for the period A. D. 70 135 the lin­ guistic frontier between the Greek and Semitic worlds was not necessarily synono­ mous with the cultural frontier between Hellenism and Judaism. Hellenistic ideas could flourish on Palestinian soil and Rabbinical modes of thought are found in the diaspora. See G. D. KILPATRICK, The Origins of the Gospel according to Saint Matthew, pp. 105 - 6, and W. D. DAVIES, Christian Origins and Judaism, p. 14.1. -

49 The authority of the Palestinian Rabbis was further challenged by the establishment of a sacrificial cultus in Egypt in the face of the Deuteronomic centralization of the cult at Jerusalem. The occasion of this was the deposition of the ancient High Priestly family during the upheaval in the time of Antiochus Epiphanes when the High Priest's son fled to Egypt (1 64 - 1 62 B.C.). Here he received a friendly welcome from Ptolemy VI and Cleopatra, and the former placed at his disposal an ancient ruined temple at Leontopolis in the Heliopolitan nome which Onias proceeded to convert into a J ewish sanctuary in the style of the Jerusalem temple, although on as maIler scale and with deviations in small details. Onias gathered together some J ewish priests who were already established nearby and inaugurated a formal Jewish cult which operated for more than 200 years, only coming to an end with the clo­ sing of the temple by the Romans in A.D. 7367• This episode is of interest in that it reveals a spirit of J ewish in­ dependence which was no doubt fostered by the favourable position of the Egyptian J ewish communities at that time. H owever, the Egy­ ptian Jews - especially the more conservative element among them ­ did not cut themselves off from Jerusalem68; many went on festival pilgrimages to the Holy City and the priests were always careful to ve­ rify the genealogy of their wives in the Temple records. Moreover vast sums of money were forwarded to the Temple in the form of dues which made Jerusalem and its priesthood immensely rich and powerful . Philo gives an illuminating description of the collection of these dues: The Temple derives its revenue not merely from a few pieces of land but from other and much more copious sources which can never be destroyed. For so long as the human race endures the Tem­ ple's source of revenue will also continue since their permanence is bound up with that of the whole world. For it is prescribed that all J ews over twenty years of age shall pay annual dues . . . But as 67. On this sanctuary see Jos. Ant. X I I . ix . 7; X I I I , iii, 1 3, x. 4.; X X . x. 3; B. J. I, i. 1; VI I . x. 2 - 4.; Sibyl 0,.. V. 4.29 511. 68. ' I t was a strange relationship between the Rabbis of Palestine and the Jews of Egypt, with their schismatic yet non - schismatic temple at Leontopolis - of independence and yet dependence and homage on the part of the Alexandrians; of disavowal and yet acknowledgement and even incorporation on the part of the Pa­ lestinian authorities'. A. EDERSHEIM. Dictionary of Ch,.istian Biog,.aphy Vol. iv., p . 360. -

-

50 might be expected in the case of so numerous a people the dues amount to an enormous sum. In almost every city there is a recei­ ving office for the sacred funds into which the dues are paid. And at fixed times men of noble birth are entrusted with the conveyance of the money to Jerusalem. The noblest are chosen in every city in order that the hop e of every J ew may be transmitted unimpai­ red. For the hope of the pious is based upon the regular payment of the d ues69• After the destruction of the national sanctuary in A. D . 70 the pay­ ment of these dues reverted in part to the Roman power, which appro­ priated the two drachmae tax to its own purposes. However, the Egy­ ptian Jewish communities continued to assert their racial unique­ ness by accepting a voluntary tax, the ' aurum coronarium' , which was collected and transmitted to Palestine. In the period A.D. 70 135 the J ewish authorities in Palestine continued to maintain contact with the widely separated communities of the diaspora and there was a re­ gular system of envoys who had authority to represent the patriarchate. This regularly established link was of great importance when Judaism came into open hostility with the Church, for it enabled concerted plans to be put into operation in places far separated from one another. Fur­ thermore it enabled Rabbinic J udaism, which was now coming into prominence at J amnia, slowly to enforce its Pharisaic doctrinal p attern on the synagogues of the diaspora. It was this link and the fidelity of Egyptian Jews to their ancestral faith, in spite of much assimilation of Greek thought and culture, which provided the seed - bed for the plan­ ting of Christianity in the Egyptian metropolis. We have already seen that the J ewish communities in Egypt were not uninfluenced by Greek civilization which formed, in the large towns, an all pervasive background, and especially in Alexandria they came in contact with a vigorous mental approach to the problems of the universe. The Alexandrian J ews could not in any case ignore their immediate environment, and some of them made an intelligent attempt to master the finest thought of the day. Jews such as Philo read H omer, Sophocles, Euripides,- Plato, Aristotle, and Zeno and sought to interpret their own faith to the Greek world, and in this they were the forerunners of the present day liberal Jewish movement. The somewhat difficult discus­ sions in contemporary Continental theology concerning the 'demytho-

69. De Monarchia II. 3.

51 logization' of the Christian Gospel are but another example of a problem which is a perennial one for the higher religions of mankind. The literature produced by Alexandrian Judaism is of a varied na­ ture and comprises apologetics, propaganda, dramas, and epics based on biblical themes. These, however, do not reach a high poetical stan­ dard and are only of antiquarian interest. But in philosophy and reli­ gion the achievements of the J ews were considerable and have exerted a permanent influence on the thought of subsequent ages. Indeed the apologia for J udaism which was developed vis a vis the Greek world succeeded in gaining many converts; to the Greeks the synagogue and its teaching suggested a school of philosophy, and the preliminary J e­ wish purifications and prayers were not without analogies in certain of their religious and philosophical circles such as the Pythagoreans. Many Graeco - Egyptians were attached to the Jewish communities either as full members through baptism and circumcision, or as God ­ fearers who were interested in the monotheistic faith of Judaism yet remained on the fringe of the synagogues70• Some of these eventually became full proselytes although others developed an eclectic mono­ theism of their own which sometimes took the form of the worship of the 'Most High God'. Circumcision and the offering of sacrifices apparently fOrmed no part of the practice of these groups. -

-

70. Cf. the Latin participle 'metuens' used by JuvenaI (xiv. 96 f) of Roman con­ verts to Judaism.

3*

THE EPISTLE OF BA RNABAS I N ITS JEWISH SETTING 1 . JU DAISM I N EGl'PT 70 - 135 A.D.

The period from the fall of Jerusalem to the Bar - Cochba rising (70 - 135 A.D.) was one of crucial significance for Egyptian Judaism. During these years Hellenistic Judaism, which had produced so much noble literature and had made such a sustained effort to bridge the gulf between the Jewish and Greek worlds, virtually ceased t o exist as an effective force, and the Christian Church and Gnosticism became its heirs. After A.D. 135, although Jewish communities continued to exist, Judaism never again rose to preeminence and Jews did not even play a minor role in Alexandrian politics until the fourth century A.D. The story of this intellectual and religious decline has never been written owing to the paucity o f evidence, from the J ewish side, for this transi­ tion period. After Philo there exists an unfortunate blank in our know­ ledge of the beliefs and literary activity of Egyptian Judaism. We will hope to show that this situation is not as serious as has often been as­ sumed and that from a Christian source, the Epistle of Barnabas, it is possible to show the probable course that at least one section of Ale­ xandrian Judaism took. (a) De()elopments in Judaism The problem presented by the eclipse o f Philo and Jewish philo­ sophical speculation is of signal importance for the path that Egyptian Judaism took in this period. Why was it that Philo's works, to say the least, were not preserved by the Jews ? 1 It is of course possible that this great thinker was never typical of Alexandrian Judaism as a whole, perhaps representing only a small philosophically minded circle - al­ though it is an interesting fact that in one place 2 Philo is concerned to •

Journal Of Egyptian Archaelogy qq (1958) 101-107; Church Quarterly Review 159 (1958) 211-30; 160 (1959) 320-3M; Scottish Journal of Theology 13 (1960) q5-59. 1. The first Jew to mention Philo by name after his time was A. de Rossi in A. D. 1573. 2. De Migr. Abr. 16. 89ft. E. R. GOODENOUGH, Jewish Symbols in the Greco ­ Roman Period, New York, 1965 vol 12 pp. H ff. argues that a large group followed .

Philo.

53 combat Jews who carried his allegorical method to the extreme of de­ nying altogether the relevance of the Torah to their faith, an indication of the existence of a Jewish group or group s who yielded even more than he did to an accommodation to current thought. However, the main reason for the eclipse of Philo was the resurgence of Pharisaic Judaism, which began at J amnia after A.D. 70 and continued unabated, in its literary activity, until about A.D. 600. The Rabbis looked with disfa­ vour on the attempt which had been made in Alexandria to bridge the gulf between the Jewish and Greek worlds and gradually exerted their influence against this. Thus J udaism, which earlier had been of a va­ ried character wherein, both in Palestine and in the diaspora, Phari­ saic, Hellenistic, and sectarian beliefs existed side by side, now slowly conformed to the path of Rabbinism. However, this change of emphasis was not effected immediately upon the reconstruction of Judaism at J amnia, as the text books used to suggest. There was in Palestine and the diaspora a period, covered approximately by the years A.D. 70 135, during which Hellenistic and Rabbinic ideas continued to exist side by side in Greek documents and the linguistic frontier between the Greek and Semitic worlds had not yet been identified with the cultu­ ral frontiers between Hellenism and Judaism . It is the merit of G. D. KILPATRI C K'S work on Matthew' s Gospel that this fact is recogni­ zed and given full weight 3. He shows that in Matthew we have a Greek document whose thought is closely connected with, and is evidence for, the Rabbinical Judaism of the end of the first century A.D. and, more recently, K. STE NDAIIL ' has provided evidence that this Gospel was produced within a school of exegetes who worked on the lines of the Rab­ binical schools attached to the synagogues. Rabbinical Judaism in Syria, if Matthew had its origin there, was a force to be reckoned with in this transition period. However, when we turn to Egypt it has usually been said that evidence for the beliefs of the Jewish communities in this pe­ riod, from both Jewish and Christian sides, is totally lacking and that therefore it is impossible to gain any clear view as to their development or otherwise. A priori we should expect in the years A. D. 70 135 the Hellenistic element in Egyptian Judaism to decline and the Pharisaic to rise to the ascendancy as the influence of J amnia was exerted. We wish to suggest that one piece of evidence has been overlooked -

3. The Origins of the Gospel according to St. Matthew, 194.6, pp. 101 4. The School of St. Matthew, 1 9M, p. 35.

-

23

54 for the understanding of Egyptian J udaism in this period. This is the Christian document known as the Epistle of B arnabas, which is usually classed with the writings of the Apostolic Fathers of the Church. Bar­ nabas, an epistolary tract of unknowm Jewish - Christian authorship, was probably written in Alexandria during the early years of the reign o f Hadrian (A. D . 1 1 7 - 138) 6, and its significance for us lies in the fact that its arguments are so thoroughly Jewish that the specifically Chri­ stian elements are pushed into the background. J . B. Lightfoot 6 said that the writer treats the Jewish scriptures with a degree of respect which would have satisfied the most devout Rabbi. If this is the case, we may have first hand evidence for the beliefs of at least one section of Ale­ xandrian Judaism in the early decades of the second century A.D., just be­ fore the triumph of Pharisaism. We may give briefly the arguments for regarding the author as a converted Rabbi who brought into Christianity the exegetical and homiletic traditions of the Alexandrian synagogue. The first is the stron­ gly Jewish character of the Epistle's argument and its familiarity with Jewish rites. We may mention also the designation of Satan as the Black one (4. 9; 20. 1) 7, the invisibility of God (5. 10) 8, the land of milk and honey (6. 8), the ritual of the Day of Atonement (7. 1 - 1 1 ) 9, the shrub " Rachel" (7. 8), the sacrifice of the red heifer (8. 1 - 2), the " Kingdom of Jesus on the wood" (8. 5), the gematria on the 318 servants of Abra­ ham (9. 8)10, the interpretation of Psalm 1 ( 10. 10)11, Moses and Amalek ( 12. 1 - 11 )12, Jacob and Esau (13. 1 - 7), the celebration of the sabbath (15. 1 - 9)13, and the allegorical interpretation of the six days of the 5. On the dating and provenance of the Epistle L. W. BAR N A R D , Church Quar­ terly Review clix, 1958, pp. 211 - 29 and Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 4/" 19 58, pp. 101 - 7 6. St. Clement of Rome, Vol. I I p. 503 7. Kidd. 30a. RABBI GU D E M A N N , Zur Erklarung des Barnabasbriefes, p. 128 holds that this expression would only be possible on the lips of a Jew. 8. Chullin 60a. This was also held by a long tradition of Greek though t from the time of Plato onwards. 9. Mishna Menach II; Talmud Menach tOOa; Yoma 6. 1 - 6, 66b; Jos. Ant. III. 10. 3 10. Beresh. rabba 43, 44; Nebar 32a 11. Succa 21b; Abod. sar. 1 9b 12. Mishna Rosh. Hash. 3. 8. In the first two centuries A. D. Amalek, for the Jews, was the eternal enemy; cf. Justin, Dial. 49 13. Cf. Berachoth 57b

55 creation as the 6,000 years of the world's history ( 1 5. 4). However, it is the author's exegetical method which, for our purpose, is of the grea­ test interest. (i) This is strongly Rabbinic ,' this is shown by the division made by the author into H aggadah (ch. 1 - 17) and Halakhah (ch. 1 8. 20), and by the fact that the Epistle as a whole is a Talmud, i.e. didache. Thus in 9.9, immediately following the bold gematria on Abraham's servants, come these words: O!8e:v 0 't"�v &Wpu't"ov 8wpe:ocv 't"�1; 8L8ocX�1; oclhou 6e[l.e:vol; EV �[l.LV. Ou8dl; )'V1jO'Lw't"e:pov &[l.ocOe:v OC7t' E[l.OU )..6 yov· oc)J.oc 0!8oc

6't"L ��LO( EO''t"e: o [l.e:LI;. And in 16. 9 the author says that God dwells in us by 0 )..6yol; ocu't"ou �I; 7tlO''t"e:wl;, � XA�O'LI; ocu't"ou -rill; E7tOCyye:Alocl;, � O'orploc 't"C;)V 8L­ XOCLW[l.&''t"WV, ocl EV't"OAOCL 't"-Yjl; 8L8ocX.-YjI;. The division between the H aggadic and H alakhic sections of the Epistle is marked by the words, [l.e:'t"oc�w[l.e:v 8e xoct E7tL hepocv )'V WO' LV XOCL 8L8ocx.�v ( 18. 1). Moreover passages from the LXX are broken into their component parts and explained piece by piece, as in the rabbinical method of writing midrash ( a good example o f this i s chapter 4); it i s this method which largely ac­ counts for the lack of unity and the presence of membra disjecta in the Epistle. Indeed some of the writer's interpretations have close paral­ lels in rabbinical exegesis. Thus the belief that the J ews fell from grace when Moses broke the tables of stone at Sinai (4. 8, 14. 3) is also found in a tradition in Mekilta, and the subject is further discussed in the Tal­ mudic Aboda Zarah 4b - 5a. There was a J ewish fast day on Tammuz 1 7 which commemorated the dark day of the golden calf incident. Ano­ ther indication of the Epistle's rabbinical style is the author's fondness for the rhetorical question, a didactic device much used by the rabbis. These considerations suggest that the Alexandrian synagogue, in which the author was nurtured before his conversion, knew and practised in the early second century A.D. a type of exegesis and homiletic exposition closely p arallel in many ways to that of the Rabbis of J amnia. The only difference was that this exegesis was somewhat more free than that of Palestinian Rabbinism, being based on the Greek Bible as a whole and on certain of the pseudepigraphical writings. As yet the school associa­ ted with Rabbi Akiba, with its passion for minute accuracy and devo­ tion to the letter of the H ebrew text, which reflected badly on the fre­ quent loose phraseology of the Greek version, had been unable to pre­ vent the use of the LXX in the Hellenistic synagogues of Alexandria. In Egypt the LXX probably ceased to be copied by J ews at a slightly later date than that of this Epistle.

56 (ii) Allegorical Interpretation. It is a well - known fact that the E­ pistle adopts in toto the allegorical method of interpretation. Examples may be picked at random, the most striking being in 9. 8 where Abra­ ham's 318 servants are made to refer to Jesus and the Cross ( I HT= 318). The writer's usual procedure is to break up passages from the LXX into their component parts, as in the Rabbinical midrashim, and then explain them allegorically. His use of this method far exceeds anything known in Rabbinical J udaism and the New Testament, where it is used only with the greatest caution, and in none of the passages classified by C. H . Dodd as primary sources of testimonia 14. We are therefore j ustified in believing that the writer knew of this method from the tea­ ching of the Hellenistic synagogue before his conversion. Philo's type of allegorization must therefore still have been practised in Alexandria in the early second century A.D. although it may have been used only to serve the purposes of midrashic exposition. (iii) The Pesher Method. Embedded in the Epistle's rabbinical mode of thought is a method of interpreting the Old Testament which has been found in the Qumran Scrolls. This is the quotation of an O.T. text followed by an application to contemporary events - an interpretation which was believed to have a profound significance for those who could understand. Thus B arn. 5. 3 4 reads: -

Therefore we ought to give hearty thanks to the Lord that he has given us knowledge of the past, and wisdom for the present, and that we are not without understanding for the future. And the Scripture says, "Not unjustly are the net's spread for the birds". This means that a man deserves to perish who has a knowledge of the way of righteousness, but turns aside into the way of darkness. Barn. 16. 3

-

4:

Furthermore he says again, "Lo, they who destroyed this temple shall themselves build it". That is happening now. For owing to the war it was destroyed by the enemy: at present even the ser­ vants of the enemy will build it up again. This method of interpretation is reminiscent of that found in the Qum­ ran commentaries on the Books of Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, and Psalm 37, and in the Damascus Document. E. g., with the first passage quoted above may be compared Comm. Ps 37. 8 9 (fragment A co1.1): -

H. Acco,.ding to the Sc,.iptu,.es, 1952 , pp. 107 - 10

57 " Refrain from anger and abandon wrath; fret not thyself, it tendeth only to evil doing. For evildoers shall be cut off. This applies to those who return to the Torah and do not refuse to repent their evil - doing. Those, however, who are defiant about repenting their iniquity will be cut o ff". With the second compare 4 Qp. Nah. 2. 1 1 : "Where is the abode of the lions, which was the feeding place of the young lions (This refers to Jerusalem which has become) an abode for the wicked men of the heathen". Barnabas' use of this method recalls the Qumran word p esher, used frequently in these commentaries to indicate the interpre­ tation of texts, the true significance and application of which is only known by those who possess understanding. K. Stendahl15 has plausibly connected the pesher type of citation with the formula quotations of Matthew's Gospel, and it could be argued that Barnabas took over this method from there. However the fact that his interpretations never refer to the fulfilment in Jesus, and the close parallel with the Qumran citations, suggest that the method may have been already known in the Alexandrian Judaism in which he was cradled. (iv) The Religious Life: In this Epistle the distinctive Christian virtues of faith, hope, and love play a subordinate role, the main empha­ sis of the writer being on spirituality (4. 1 1 , 1 6. 10) and upon knowled­ ge, (gnosis) which is used in three senses: (1) Knowledge is often coupled with faith and has ethical conse­ quences ( 1 . 5, 5. 4, 18. 1 , 19. 1 ) . (2) Sometimes this knowledge refers t o the interpretation o f events in the past, present, and eschatological future (2. 3 4, 5. 3). (3) Knowledge is also mediated through the allegorical interpre­ tation of the O.T. (6. 9; 13. 7) and is also the gift of God ( 1 . 7; 9. 8). -

This idea of knowledge is not that of Gnosticism, where it refers to the comprehension of the soul's origin and nature by a mystical enlighten­ ment, but is fundamentally Jewish. This is shown by the marked af­ finities which the connotation of knowledge in Barnabas has with the idea of da'ath in the Qumran Texts, where it also has a strong ethical content16 and an eschatological reference17• However, as W. D. Davies18 15. Op. cit. pp. 183 202. Peshe,. is also used in the Aramaic part of the Book of Daniel; cf. Dan. q. 9 16. 1. Qs. 9. 17ff; cf. 3. 2; 5. 9, 12; 6. 9; 7. 3 q 1 7. 1 . Qs. q. 1 8ff; I. Qp. Hab. 2. H 18. Ha,.va,.d Theological Re(Jiew xlvi, 19 53, p. 135 -

-

58 points out, the emphasis which the Dead Sea sect placed on da' ath, in comparison with other Jewish literature, may well reflect, in a subtle way, Hellenistic influences which had been entering Palestine since the Maccabaean period. I t is therefore possible that the emphasis upon knowledge in Barnabas, while fundamentally J ewish19, also owed some­ thing to the Hellenistic milieu of Alexandria, where the idea of know­ ledge formed part of the intellectual climate of the age. While no claim is made that the J ewish background of this Epistle necessarily represents the whole of Alexandrian Judaism in the early decades of the second century A.D., it is at least evidence which deser­ ves to be taken into consideration. It shows that in certain J ewish cir­ cles, some hellenistic influences and ideas, parallel to those found on J ewish soil at Qumran, continued to exist side by side with Rabbinic conceptions, as E. R. Goodenough has argued from his study of J ewish symbols in another connexion. However a Rabbinical caste of thought and exegetical methods are clearly central to the Epistle's arguments and in this case overlay these other influences. It therefore appears that in the crucial period A.D. 70 135 Alexandrian Judaism, while having affinities on one side with Philonic allegorism and other hellenistic mo­ des of thought, was also conscious of the pattern and requirements of Rabbinism which, no doubt, had been exerting pressure on diaspora J udaism20• -

19. For affin ities between the Dead Sea Texts and Christian post-apostolic lite­ rature J. P. AUDET O. P., "Affinites litteraires et doctrinales du Manuel de Discip­ line", ReCJue biblique 59, 1952, pp. 219 - 38, 60, 1 953 pp. U 82. He has expounded his views in his study, La Didache: Inst,.uctions des Apotres, Paris 1958. Cf. also W. RORD ORF, "Un Chapitre d' E thique Judeo - Chretienne: Les Deux Voies", Reche,.­ ches de Science Religieuse 60, 1972, pp. 109 - 28 who holds that the sitz - im - leben of the "Two Ways" changed from that of Jewish proselytism to pre - baptismal teaching when it was adopted in Christianity. 20. E . R. GOODENOUGH, Jewish Symbols op . cit. Vols. 1 - 12, New York 1 953 65, has argued that a form of Hellenistic Judaism, which was strongly influenced by paganism, existed side by side with Rabbinic Judaism in Egypt and elsewhere down to the fourth and fifth cen turies A. D. and even later. He believes that this Hellenistic Judaism disappeared during the sixth to eighth centuries when its leaders learnt Hebrew afresh and were guided by the Torah and Babylonian Talmud (Vol. 12 p. 198). Goodenough's thesis has been vigorously challenged by some scholars who find little evidence for such a demise. However Goodenough's work is a warning against making a rigid dichotomy between Hellenistic and Rabbinic Judiasm. His researches undoubtedly show that in some parts of the diaspora different kinds of Judaism could flourish side by side. -

59

(b) The Struggle with Christianity We have already seen that strife between Jew and Greek reached ugly proportions during this period. In particular the terrible losses suffered by the Alexandrian J ewish community following on the revolt against Traj an in A.D. 1 1 5 must have had serious consequences. A time of political upheaval such as this would not have been conducive to consolidation, and Egyptian J udaism slowly began to decline in influen­ ce. However in the period from A.D. 70 135 the J ews were still a for­ ce in Egypt, and we must now study their relations vis - a vis the Chri­ stian Church. As is well known the origins of Egyptian Christianity are bathed in obscurity. It has been suggested21 that in origin it was of Gnostic character and that this accounts for the silence of later orthodox wri­ ters. There is no real evidence to substantiate this view - especially in view of the fact that Basilides and Valentinus now appear to have been more Christian and less Gnostic than previously thought22• Again, our earliest certain evidence for Christianity in Egypt is the Epistle of Barnabas, c. A. D . 120, which has behind it a long tradition of wor­ ship, catechesis, and liturgy23, and presupposes the use of Matthew's Gospel and several of the New Testament epistles. Moreover the use of an earlier Two Ways cetechesis in this work, almost certainly Jewish Christian, sugests that Christians of Jewish descent existed in Egypt at an earlier period. We may also believe that Gentiles formed an ele­ ment in the Church, as the earliest Christian Gnostics, who appear in the reign of H adrian, could hardly have arisen in vacuo. Basilides in particular had behind him earlier Christian speculations. There is also some evidence for a connection between the Roman and Egyptian Chur­ ches at an early period which was, no doubt, facilitated by trading con­ tacts between the ports of Puteoli and Alexandria. Quite apart from Eusebius' reference to Mark, the historical value of which is disputed24, -

-

2 1 . W. BAUER, Rechtgliiubigkeit und Ketzerei im iiltesten Christentum, 19 34., pp. 4.9ff 22. See especially the Gospel of Truth in the Jung Codex which may be the com­ position of Valentinus. Text in Ediderunt M. MALIN I N E , II. G. PUECH and G. QUISPEL, Studien aus C. G. Jung Institut VI, Zurich 1956. 23. For a comparison of the structure of the Epistle with that of the Tannaitic catechism see pp. 72-85. 24.. H. E. 2. 16. C. H . ROBERT'S demonstration in Journal of Theological Studies

60

we have the recognition of the connection by Julius 1 25, the similarity between the Canons adopted by the two Churches and the readings found in the Sahidic version of the New Testament which are also found in Codex D and in the old Latin versions. I t appears probable that both Jewish and Gentile Christians were to be found in Egypt in the first century A. D . , and perhaps the Roman Church had taken a share in bringing the new faith to the country. Relations between Jews and Christians during the period A.D. 70 135 took on a more sombre aspect. From the Christian side we have the evidence of the Gospels of Matthew, J ohn, and the Apocalypse26, i.e. evidence from Syria and Asia Minor, which shows that antagonism was most marked where Christians were of Jewish descent. This is also supported by explicit statements from Jewish sources which have been collected by G. D. Kilpatrick27 who quotes, as the most informati­ ve piece of evidence, the Birkath - ha Minim composed by Samuel the Small at J amnia c. A. D . 85. In its earliest form it reads: " For the excommunicate let there be no hope and the arrogant government do thou swiftly uproot in our days; and may the Christians and heretics suddenly be laid low and not be inscribed with the righteous. Blessed art thou, 0 Lord, who humbles the arrogant". This insertion in the li­ turgy henceforth made it impossible for Christians of Jewish descent t o attend the synagogue28, as undoubtedly some of them had done up to that time, and the breach was made absolute before A.D. 100 by the sending out of letters from Palestine to all synagogues informing them of the necessity of excluding Christians from their assemblies. Further evidence of the measures taken by Judaism is provided by a statement of Justin Martyr which may well belong to an earlier period29• Relevant also are two stories found in Jewish sources dating from the period A. D. 100 - 130. The first concerns a man called Ishmael who prevented J a­ cob, a follower of Jesus ben Pandera, from healing a man who had been -

50, 19q9, pp. 155 - 68 that the Alexandrian Church's custom of writing biblical texts on papyrus leaves, rather than on rolls, was taken over from Roman usage also supports the view that the two Churches were connected. 25. ATHANASIUS, Apol. c. Arian. 35 26. Matt. 27. 25; John 5. 17f; 6. 32 - 5; 7. 19, 37 9 inter alia; Rev. 2. 9; 3. 9 27. Op. cit., pp. 109 - 13 28. Matt, q, 23 ; 9, 35 ; 10, 1 7 ; 12, 9 ; 13, 5q auvcxyroY1j followed by cxt)'t'oov and John 9. 22; 12. q2; 16. 2 are relevant here. 29. Dial. cum Trypho, 17. 1 -

61 bitten by a snake. The second is about a certain Eliezer ben Hyrkanos who admits to his error in applauding a specious halakhah of Jesus which had been recounted to him by the Christian Jacob of Kephor Sekhanya. These stories show that by the early second century A.D. religious con­ tact between Jews and Jewish Christians had been condemned, which applied also to the reading of Christian literature. A ruling which dates from the period A. D . 90 - 120 ran: "The book margins and the books of t he Minim, i.e. the J ewish Christians, are not saved but they, with the divine names in them, are burned where they are" 30. A further in dication of the controversy between the two bodies is to be found in the Rabbinical polemic against the doctrine of the two powers, which had been held in earlier Judaism and is found in the Qumran Scrolls31. This attack began in the first quarter of the second century and would certainly have been invoked against the Christian doctrine of the Per­ son of Christ. The above evidence will have shown that in the period A. D . 70 - 135, and especially from c. A.D. 90, Rabbinical Judaism took active me asures against J ewish Christianity which included the expul­ sion of Christian J ews from the synagogues, the prohibition of religious intercourse between the two groups, and of the reading of Christian literature by J ews. A J ew had to be either a Christian or a J ew; he could not be both at the same time. The evidence from the Jewish side so far considered is Palestinian in origin, while the Christian evidence comes in the main from Syria and Asia Minor. Can we generalize from this to the position obtaining in the Egyptian diaspora ? How far, in fact, were the instructions of the Rabbis of J amnia, which begin with the promulgation of the Bir­ kath - ha - Minim, carried out in Egypt in view of the somewhat freer attitude adopted by Alexandrian Judaism in matters of homiletic and midrashic exposition ? Were there any violent contacts between Church and Synagogue during this transition period which saw the slow decline of Hellenistic Judaism from the pinnacle to which Philo had brought it ? Again it is the Epistle of Barnabas which throws some light on this difficult question. Commentators on Barnabas have often been puzzled by the vio30. Kilpatrick, op. cit., pp. 11 1 - 12 31. 1. Qs. 3. 13 q. 26. This conception is ultimately Iranian. Cf. Yasna 30. 3, 5. H. MICHAUD, "Un mythe zervanite dans un des manuscripts Qumran", Vetus Test, V, 1955, pp. 137 q 7, believes that Zervanism, a special branch of Zoroastrianism, was the determining infiuence on the Qumran theology. -

-

62 lent reaction which it exhibits against Jewish institutions and beliefs, exceeding anything known elsewhere in early Christian literature, al­ though in itself the Epistle is based closely on a Rabbinical method of exegesis. A good example of this is the polemic against the Tem pIe in 1 6. 1 2, where the Jews are not only castigated as "wretched men" for putting their hope in the building but are also stated to have conse­ crated God in the Temple almost like the heathen. In the same chapter we have an exultation over the destruction of the Temple and the Holy City which is almost unbelievable on the lips of a J ow (16. 5). Similar to this is the writer's polemic against J ewish sacrifices and fasts (2. 4 10; 3. 1 - 6) and against circumcision, which he regarded as the work of an evil angel (9. 4). While the political upheavals of the age favoured fanaticism these views appear to have been borne of the consciousness that, as a Christian convert, he was finally excluded from Judaism and its worship never to return. The very fact that he had written a Chri­ stian Epistle, only fit for burning as a book of the Minim, would have widened the breach; and the same applies to the writer's employment of a Two Ways catechesis, with its doctrine of the two angelic guides, which for the J ews would have savoured of the "two powers" doctrine. This Epistle reflects a breach between the two religions which had be­ come absolute, and this is the explanation of its reference to "we" and "they" (4. 6; 14. 4), to the "former people" and the "new people" of God (5. 7; 13. 1), and to the covenant which has been taken away from the J ews and given to the Christians (4. 7; 14. 4). The writer sees no conti­ nuity between Judaism and Christianity, such as is found in the Epistle to the H ebrews, but only antagonism. The very fact that he could advo­ cate such violent and extreme views, although elsewhere appearing as a kindly and humane man of real pastoral gifts32, is an indication of the feeling which existed between Jews and J ewish Christians in Egypt in the early part of the second century A.D. We are thus j ustified in believing that the Palestinian Rabbis by this time had been able to exert their views in the Egyptian metropolis in the question of religious intercourse and that J ewish Christians had been expelled from the sy­ nagogues in accordance with the Birkath - ha Minim. In many ways the situation in Alexandria was then similar to that of the milieu which produced Matthew's Gospel. This Gospel, like the Epistle of Barnabas, is strikingly J ewish; its structure is based on the five books of the To-

-

32. 1 . 1

-

5, 8; q, 9; 21. 5 9. -

63

rah and its arguments are essentially Talmudic. Yct this same Gospel reflects also a breach between the two religions which was becoming absolute. 2. AUTHORSHIP AND DATE

The Epistle of Barnabas is of unknown authorship and certainly has no historical connexion with the Barnabas mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles. P. PRIGE NT, L' Ep itre de Barnabe I XVI et ses sour­ ces, Paris 1961, has cast doubts on this Epistle's Alexandrian provenan­ ce, believing it to come from a Syrian milieu. W. WENGST, Tradition und Theologie des Barnabasbriefes, Berlin 1971, has argued for Western Asia Minor as the background of the Epistle. Against both opinions is the strong literary connexion with Alexandria. Clement of Alexandria, the earliest witness to the Epistle, frequently quotes it and gives it an authority equal to the Catholic Epistles, which suggests it had already gained recognition in the Alexandrian Church - perhaps through public reading at the Paschal Festival. Following Clement, Origen, Apostolic Church Order ( c 300 A.D.) and Codex Sinaiticus, all Egyptian witnesses, knew the Epistle. On the other hand there are no African witnesses before Augustine and no Syrian witnesses before the fifth century. More­ over the Epistle is so full of the use of allegory, as distinct from historical typology, that the work must come from a Sitz - im Leben where this was not an innovation. Alexandria certainly fits this picture better than any other centre. The exact date of the Epistle however presents certain problems. The Epistle is clearly a tract for the times; a J ewish - Christian com­ munity somewhere or other was in danger of returning to Judaism and perhaps news of this imminent defection had been brought back to Ale­ xandria by travellers. Our author reacts strongly and exhorts this com­ munity, whom he had visited in the past ( 1 . 4), to remain faithful to their Christian faith: "You ought then to understand. And this also I ask you, as being one of yourselves, and especially as loving you all abo­ ve my own life; take heed to yourselves now, and be not made like unto Borne heaping up your sins and saying that the covenant is both theirs and ours" (4, 6). The papyri indicate that there were constant contacts between the Egyptian metropolis and Middle and Upper Egypt for administra­ tive and commercial reasons and most probably Christianity was first -

-

64 carried along these routes. Moreover, the early Biblical and Christian papyrus texts which come mainly from Middle Egypt indicate that the new faith had reached that area by the second century A.D., which co­ heres with the general probability of an outward expansion of the faith from Alexandria. The fact that Jewish communities were in existence in Middle Egypt from early times, e.g. at Arsinoe and at Oxyrhynchus to the south where a J ews' Lane is mentioned, suggests that this J ewish Christian community was perhaps in existence somewhere in Middle Egypt in the second century A.D., although Christianity could concei­ vably have reached these parts at an earlier date. We come now to the internal evidence of the Epistle. Two passa­ ges come up for consideration: I : 16, 1 4 1 . I will also speak with you about the temple, and show how the wretched men erred by putting their hope in the building, and not in the God who made them, as if it were the house of God. 2. For they consecrated Him by the temple almost as the heathen. But learn how the Lord speaks, in bringing it to naught: 'Who has mea­ sured the heaven with a span , or the earth with His outstretched hand ? H ave not I ? saith the Lord. Heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool: what house will ye build for me, or what is the place of my rest ?' You know that their hope was vain. 3. Furthermore He says again, 'Behold, they who destroyed this temple shall themselves build it'. 4. That is coming to pass (ytve:'t'oc�). For through the war it was destroyed by the enemy ({mo 't'WV ex6pwv), now even the servants of the enemy will build it up again (ot 't'WV &X6pWV U1tljpe-rOCL OCVOLX.OaO(J.�croU(rLV ocu­ 't'6v). Verses 3 and 4 have given rise to many conjectures allegedly bea­ ring on the date of the Epistle: ( 1 ) Some commentators have seen here a reference to the rebuil­ ding of the sp iritual temple, in which case ot 't'WV ex6pwv U1tljpe-rOCL is a re­ ference to Roman officials who are taking part in the building of the true temple of God, the Church. We know that in the time of Domitian certain Christians held high positions in the Imperial Government and earlier there may have been converts in lesser positions. While it is true that the building metaphor is prominent in the New Testament33 -

33. Eph. 2. 19 - 22; 1 Pet. 2. 5 9 . -

65 Christians forming the stones in the temple of the Church with J esus as the corner - stone - nowhere else in this Epistle does the author show any conception of the Church as the B ody of Christ - indeed, for him the temple is the human heart ( 1 6, 10). Furthermore a transition in vv. 3 and 4 from the earthly temple destroyed b y the Homans to the spiritual temple is unnecessarily abrupt, for the spiritual temple, i.e. the human heart, is first discussed in v. 6. For these reasons this interpretation cannot be regarded as satisfactory. (2) That the rebuilding of an actual temple of stone is referred to is, then, probable and the question of its bearing on the date of the Epis­ tle must be raised. The sup position that the author has in mind the destruction of the first J ewish temple by Nebuchadnezzar and its rebuil­ ding by the officials of the enemy, i.e. Cyrus and his successors ( E zra, 6, 3) - YLVE't'OCL being read as a historic present - is not impossible34• H o­ wever, the more natural interpretation of vv. 3 and 4 is that the destru­ ction of the temple and its rebuilding is a live question which it is neces­ sary to speak about at length to this Jewish - Christian community, in which case the destruction of the national shrine by Titus in A . D . 70 i s in view. I f the Epistle was then written subsequently to A. D . 70 the question is when ? Vespasian, if anything, adopted an anti - Jewish policy; he ordered that the half - shekel payable to the support of the Jerusalem sanctuary should still be collected and applied to the use of the Capitoline J upiter, an ord er which in the hands of Domitian became a pretext for harsh measures being directed against recusant J ews. There is simply no authority for the oft - repeated statement that ru­ mours of Vespasian's intention to rebuild the temple were current among J ews during his reign. And the case is no better with Titus, D omitian, or Nerva. The only emperor who fits the bill is H adrian (A. D . 1 1 7 38) , who inaugurated a more lenient policy towards the J ews. We know that promises of the restoration of the temple were definitely mad e by this emperor35 early in his reign (cf. especially Sibyl. Or. 5, 48. 42 1; 10, 34.. This is favoured by A. L. WILLIAMS, Journal of Theological Studies 34., 1 9 33, 34.3

35. K. THIE ME, Kirche und Synagoge (1 94.4.), 22 - 25. The reference cannot be to the building of the heathen temple to Jupiter Capitolinus by Hadrian after the quashing of the Jewish revolt in A. D. 135 - no J ew would be in terested in such an abomination; neither can the Jewish proposal to rebuild the Temple during the Bar Chochba revolt be meant - mentioned by Chrysostom, Hom. c. Judaeos, 5, 1 1 ; cr. Gennadius Dialogue (ed. Jahn, 1 893, fol. 1 30v) . The reference is to a proposed Roman rebuilding in which Roman officials (and perhaps Palestinian Jews) will assist.

66 163) and after the terrible conflict between J ews and Greeks in Alexan­ dria and elsewhere in Egypt in the time of Traj an, which resulted in Jewish losses on a vast scale, this new policy must have appeared of great significance to Egyptian Judaism. We know that many Egyptian Jews, especially in the country areas, still looked towards Jerusalem, hellenized though they were in many ways - their own replica of the temple at Leontopolis had been closed in A. D. 73. Now there was hope that the national shrine would be rebuilt by the Romans and their of­ ficials. If this interpretation is correct then the Epistle will date from early in Hadrian's reign, i. e. A.D. 118 20 - a date which coheres with the general situation implied in the writing. -

I I : 4, 4 5 -

In the fourth chapter the writer warns his readers that the final stumbling - block (TO Te)..e:�ov crxocv3OCAOV) is at hand (4, 3) and that they are living in the period immediately before the ' beloved' , i. e. J esus, will come to his inheritance. They are therefore not to return to Jewish pra­ ctices or to imagine that the Jewish covenant is valid (4, 6); rather in these last times they are to resist evil and to pay heed lest the Black One (0 fLe)..OC C;), i. e. Satan, should get the upper hand (4, 9). What is this final stumbling - block which Barnabas' Jewish - Christian rea­ ders are encountering ? From 16, 4 this would appear to be the hope of the rebuilding of the Temple at J erusalem which, as we have seen, was current in certain J ewish circles in Egypt at the beginning of Hadrian's reign. The writer is apprehensive lest those who were in close contact with J ews should be led astray by these resurgent hopes. Perhaps he has in mind 2 Thess. 2, 3 4, where anti - Christ, the man of sin, the son of perdition, is closely associated with the Temple. The apocalyptic setting of this chapter must be borne in mind when the crucial verses 4, 4 5 are critically examined: -

-

Dan. 7, 24

And the prophet also says thus: Ten Kingdoms shall reign upon the earth and there shall rise up after them a little King, who shall subdue three of the Kings at once

Dan. 7, 8

(or in one) (uq/ �v). D aniel says likewise concerning the same: And I beheld the fourth beast, wicked and power­ ful and fiercer than all the beasts of the sea, and that ten horns sprang from it, and from them a little excrescent horn, and that it subdued at once (ucp' �v) three of the great horns.

67 It is universally agreed that the fourth be ast is the Roman Empire38 (as in Rev. 13. 17; cf. Mk. 13, 14; Ass. Moses 9, 8; 4 Ezra 12, 1 1 - 12; Hippolytus and the Talmudic text Aboda Zara) and that the ten horns are ten Roman emperors who have occupied the imperial throne. But that is as far as agreement goes. The attempt to penetrate the enigma further and to identify the three humbled kings has brought forth a who­ le crop of theories as to the date of the epistle37• The theories fall into three main groups: ( 1 ) The view that the ten emperors end with Vespasian, the lit­ tle horn being Nero redivivus who, as anti - Christ, returns to humble Vespasian and his two sons, Titus and D omitian, who are associated with him in the exercise of supreme power, forming three in one. Thus the epistle is to be dated between A.D. 75 and 79 when Vespasian died. (2) The view that the little horn is N erva who was elected emperor after the murder of Domitian in A.D. 96. The three humbled kings are again the three Flavians and the epistle is to be dated between A.D. 96 and 98. (3) The view that the little horn is Nero and the three kings are Nerva, Traj an, and Hadrian who formed one family by adoption - the epistle then d ating from the reign of Hadrian, A. D . 1 1 7 38. All these theories, as they stand, have insuperable obj ections, quite apart from the interpretation of 16, 3 - 4. (1) places the epistle too early when its general background is exa­ mined. The most natural interpretation of we; yeypoc7t't"ou (4, 14) is that Matthew's Gospel is being quoted which, after allowing time for its arrival, would place the epistle not earlier than the turn of the second century; moreover, the writer may have known John's interpretation of the brazen serpent (12, 6), to j udge by the infrequency of this parti­ cular typological interpretation in the early Christian Fathers. Also the fact that we must allow time for Christianity to have spread from the Egyptian metropolis to another part of Egypt indicates that the epistle should not be dated much before A.D. 100. Against (2) it may be said that Nerva was never a great potentate and there is something odd in his humbling the three Flavians. -

36. The original interpretation of Daniel equated the beast with the Greek Em­ pire, but this passed out of currency simply because history failed to confirm it. er. Sibyl. 0,.. II I, 388 400. 3 7 . ' The historical allusions' in the Dead Sea scrolls are equally obscure and have produced divergent views as to their dates. -

68 The objection to (3) is that Nerva, Trajan, and Hadrian were never regarded as great persecutors of the Church - indeed their leniency was dwelt upon in comparison with the cruelty of Nero and the malignant caprice of Domitian38• Moreover, the coupling of their names through adoption to make the 'three in one' is a little strained. The failure of these attempts to read the Barnabas enigma suggests that another approach should be made, and the solution which will be proposed has not been put forward before, as far as we know. In the first place the writer's meaning is shown by the interpretative glosses whi ch he puts into his quotations from Daniel. The most significant of these is the phrase ucp' � which is usually taken to mean 'in or under one' , i.e. the three kings who are subdued are somehow closely connected. Ho­ wever, ucp' tv simply means at once, i . e. at one blow; ucp' bJ� would be re­ quired for 'in one' . Furthermore �� �u't'wv implies that the little horn is one of the ten horns, in contrast to Dan. 7. 24 where he comes after the ten, a strong indication that Nero is in mind39• We know that expecta­ tion of the emperor's reappearance was rife in the early Christian cen­ turies. He was thought to be living beyond the Euphrates, whence he would swoop down and destroy his enemies (Suet. Ner. 57). Various impostors presented themselves as the returning emperor - one gathe­ ring followers on the banks of the Euphrates in the time of Titus, ano­ ther appearing in the reign of Domitian. In the second century A.D., according to Dion Chrysostom, 'to the present time all men desire him to be alive, and the majority even trust that he is' (Orat. 21). This belief chimed in with the Christian expectation of the appearance of anti ­ Christ in th e last days, cf. Rev. 1 7, 8; Asc. Isa. 4, 2 ff. Jewish specula­ tion also concerned itself with Nero redivivus, for in two of the Sibyl­ line Oracles, one certainly written in Egypt, he is excepted to precede the advent of the Messianic reign as the final scourge. The belief linger­ ed for centuries and is mentioned by J erome, Augustine, and Martin of Tours. I f, then, the little horn is Nero returning as anti - Christ, who are the ten kings and the three of their number who are to be crushed by him ? It is here that Rev. 1 7 is significant. We have to remember that our author was writing against an apocalyptic background much as 38. Cf. Melito addressing M. Aurelius in Eus. H. E. IV, 26; TERT. Apol. 5; LAC­ TANTIUS, de Mort. Persec. 3, q; Eus. H. E. III, 31 - 33; Sulp. Sev. ehron. II, 31. 39. cr. also Dan. 7. 8.

69 was the seer of the Book of Revelation; he believed that he was living in the last times when the power of evil was everywhere in the ascen­ dant and the rumours of the rebuilding of the Jerusalem sanctuary were the last manifestation of this evil. In such times strict logic does not apply and the Christian mind tends to view events in terms of black and white. This is shown in Rev. 17, 10, where the seer j umps from Nero to Vespasian in his enumeration of the Roman emperors40• He does this because the reigns of Galba, Otho, and Vitellius were of no import in the struggle be tween the Empire and the Church. With Vespasian, however, the Flavian house entered on a period of power which lasted for more than twenty - five years (A. D. 69 - 96) , and the question which con cerns us is whether Vespasian was a perse­ cutor o f the Church. Sir William Ramsay41 believed that he was, although other Roman historians have adopted a more cautious attitude. One fact, which is often forgotten, is that no systematic records were kept of the early persecutions and often the knowledge possessed by writers, whether pagan or Christian, was accidental and fragmentary. Because of this the argument from silence is precarious in the extreme. The re­ cord of the sharp persecution of the Church in the reign of Traj an was only preserved accidentally for posterity and might easily have been lost. In the case of Vespasian (A.D. 69 - 79), a stocky, common - sense countryman who restored the prosperity of the Roman world, Hilary of Poitiers ranks this emperor between Nero and Decius as a persecu­ tor of the faith. It is no argument to say that this is counterbalanced by the omission by Melito
70 the OpInIOn of the Roman historian Hugh Last is significant43: while sceptical of Sir W. Ramsay's view, Last emphasized the change which came over the attitude of the Imperial Government between the time of Nero and Trajan. He believed that in the last quarter of the first century Judaism and Christianity became aware of themselves as two religions, and that as Imperial knowledge of Christianity became more precise, a more clearly defined policy came into existence - a policy which is in evidence in the Pliny - Trajan correspondence. There is, too, the interesting passage in Severus Sulpicius,44 probably derived from the lost Histories of Tacitus, which describes a council of war held after the faU of Jerusalem. Different opinions were then ex­ pressed about the Temple. Some thought that the Temple should be left standing; Titus and others expressed the view that the building should be destroyed so that the religions of the Jews and Christians might be more completely extirpated, for these religions had the same origin. It is unlikely that this speech embodies the ipsissima rerba of Titus45; in accordance with ancient practice it is most probably the composition of Tacitus himself46. Yet i f this is the case its value is the greater, for it then embodies Tacitus' conception of the nature of the Flavian policy towards Christianity. In the speech the difference between Judaism and Christianity is recognized - both are evils to be stamped out - although it is not yet fully appreciated that Christianity is a religion independent of the Jerusalem Temple and cultus. However, the enmity which the speech embodies is a fitting prelude to Tacitus' account of the attitude of subsequent emperors towards the adherents of the new faith. With the last of the Flavians there is more certain evidence of perse­ cution. Domitian (A . D . 81 96), an embittered and jealous man, accen­ tuated the absolutist tendencies of Vespasian, even wearing the dress of Triumphator in the senate. Martial curtly dismisses his reign as coun­ terbalancing the good that Vespasian and Titus had don8: ' Flavia gens -

•

q3. Journal of Roman Studies 27, 1937 p. 80 92. qq. eh,.on. 2. 30: At contra alii et Titus ipse evertendum in primis templuID cen­ sebant, quo plenius Judaeorum et Christianorum religio tollatur: quippe has religio­ nes, licet contrarias sibi, isdem tamen ab auctoribus projectas: Christianos ex Juda­ eis extitisse: radice sublata stirpem facile perituram. q5. Titus, a charming and intelligent man, died as 'the darling of the human race' (Suetonius) and was at once deified. q6. Cf. the speeches in Thucydides and in Luke - Acts which are likewise compo­ sitions of the authors. -

71 quantum tibi tertius abstulit heres, Paene fuit tanti non habuisse duos'. Domitian was fond of oriental flattery and was accorded, and accepted, divine honours in his lifetime - an act which would have made him ana­ thema to the Christians. Towards the end of his reign (A. D. 93 - 96) this emperor's policy became more ruthless and the evidence that he perse­ cuted the Church, as well as the Jews, is unequivocal, the names of two of his victims in Rome being preserved47• In Christian eyes this emperor, rightly or wrongly, came to rank with Nero as a great persecutor. In the Apocalypse the Beast from the sea is the hostile world - power re­ presented by Nero and Domitian; Melito of Sardis, TertulIian, J uvenal, and many subsequent wri ters coupled them together48• The impression made by the ruthless Domitian imprinted itself deeply on the Christian mind. In the light of this fact the three humbled kings of Barn. 4, 4 5 cannot be other than the three Flavians - Vespasian, Titus and Domi­ tian. Only these three, in Christian eyes, were worth humbling, for Ner­ va, Traj an, and H adrian, as we have seen, were not regarded as perse­ cutors by second - century Christian Writers. Only the three Flavians fill the bill. If this is the case, we suggest that our author enumerated the ten emperors in this way. Like the author of Revelation he put aside the name of Julius Caesar who, though he claimed the praenomen Imperatoris49, was a dictator rather than an Imperator in the later sense: beginning with Augustus he enumerated Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, Nero; then as in Rev. 1 7 , 10 he omitted, Galba Otho, and Vitelli us (who­ se reigns cover but nineteen monthus) as unworthy of ranking with the Augusti - resuming with Vespasian, Titus, Domitian, Nerva, and Tra­ j an. It is a mistake to imagine that the author of Barnabas regards the little horn, Nero redivivus, as crushing the three emperors who immedia­ tely precede his own advent. He merely states that three of the great horns will be humbled - not necessarily the last three60• That the author's thought is supra - historical rather than historical is shown by 4, 12, cf. 21, 3, where he speaks of the final j udgement of the world when each -

47. Domitilla and Flavius Clemens. Acilius Glabrio was possibly another. 48. See the catena of passages quoted in J . B . LIGHTFOOT, St. Clement, 1 . p. 104 Cr., where full references are given. What happened in Rome in the time of Domitian would soon be known in Alexandria. 49. SUET. Jul. 76 50. The writer freely adapts the L X X of Daniel. In the original the little horn is Antiochus Epiphanes, who disposes of his last three rivals.

72 will receive, according to his deeds, a reward of righteousness or iniqui­ ty. It therefore seems likely that in 4, 4 - ;) the writer envisages the ten Roman emperors resurrected and standing before the judgement thro­ ne to receive their due . The persecutors of the Flavian dynasty - and especially the arch - fiend Domitian - will be humbled at one blow by Nero who will then himself apparently be subdued by the returning Jesus. In this way a satisfactory account is given of the three humbled kings as seen through the eyes of Chris Lian apocalyptic. If these ob servations are not without substance then the Epistle of Barnabas will have been written very early in the reign of H adrian when expectations of a rebuilding of the national shrine at Jerusalem were rife among Egyptian J ews. The writer looks back over the past and finds a fulfilment of Daniel's prophecy in the ten emperors down to the beginning of H adrian's reign who were worth consideration in Chri­ stian eyes, with the Flavian dynasty marked out for punishment. 3. THE EP ISTLE AND T H E TANNAITIC CATECHISM

In favour of the view that the writer was a converted J ow is the strongly Jewish character of his arguments which are closely parallel to those of the Talmud. We have already noted the designation of Satan as "the Black One"51 (4. 9, 20. 1), the invisibility of God (5. 10)52, the land of milk and honey (6. 8), the ritual of the Day of Atonement (7. 1 1 1 )53, the shrub " Rachel" (7. 8), the sacrifice of the red heifer (8. 1 2), the Kingdom of Jesus on the wood (8. 5), the gematria on the 318 servants of Abraham (9. 8)54, the interpretation of Psalm 1 ( 10. 10)55, Moses and Amalek ( 12. 1 - 1 1 )56, J acob and Esau (13. 1 - 7) the celebra­ tion of the Sabbath (15. 1 - 9)57 and the allegorical interpretation of the six days of the creation as the 6000 years of the world's history ( 1 5. 4). The Rabbinic character of the Epistle is further illustrated by the division into Haggadah ( 1 17) and H alakhah (18 - 20), by its literary style and frequent use of the rhetorical question as a didactic device. -

-

-

51. 52. 53. 5q 55. 56. 57. .

Kidd. 30a (n. 7). Chullin, 60a (n. 8) Mishna Menach, 11; Talmud Menach 100a; Yoma, 6. 1 - 6, 66b. (n. 9) Beresh rabba, q3, qq; Nebar, 32a (n. 10) Succa, 21b; Abod. Sar. 19b. (n. 11) Mishna Rosh Hash 3. 8 . (n. 12) Cr. Berachoth, 57b. (n. 13). .

73 The allegorical method of interpreting the LXX, which is carried to extreme lengths, was undoubtedly taken over from Philo and his school. These considerations seem to point to Jewish authorship, an opinion maintained by Rabbi Giidemann58 and other J ewish commentators. The occasional blunders in the details of Jewish rites are to be explai­ ned by the writer's knowledge being derived from the Judaism of the diaspora, rather than from that of Palestine. The Epistle, a tract for the times, contains long sections of instru­ ction suitable for J ewish Christians who were familiar with Rabbinical exegetical methods. The writer, in spite of his touching humility ( 1 . 8, 4. 9), assumes that his readers (or hearers, if the Epistle was first read at Synagogue gatherings) will understand his arguments and this suggests that they must have already received instruction along these lines. This would point to catechetical instruction as being at least one factor in the background of the Epistle and this is supported by the writer's emphasis on baptism (6. 1 1 , 17; 1 1 . 1 - 1 1 ; 16. 8) in contrast to his neglect of the eucharist. The existence of early Christian catechetical forms is now increa­ singly recognized since the work of P. Carrington,59 E. G. Selwyn60 and C.F. D . Moule61• The evidence which they give points to the existen ce of: (1) A very early baptismal form, compiled under the influence of the Apostolic Decree of Acts 15, based on the idea of the Church as a neo - Levitical community, and containing teaching on absti­ nence from sensual sins (A bstinentes) , on Love as the fulfilment of Holiness, on Worship, and on the conduct expected of catechu­ mens. (2) A fragment on Catechumen virtues, based on Prov. 3 and Ps. 34 and containing teaching on Church order (Induentes). (3) A later version of the early baptismal form incorporating teaching on positive renunciation (Deponentes) and its opposite, on Worship, the fragment of Catechumen virtues, and a Christian social code (subiecti). The preparation of this catechetical pattern is assig­ ned to a date c. 55 A. D . 58. Zur Erkldrung des Barnabasbriefs, p . 1 2 8 . J . MUILENBERG. The Literary Relations of the Epistle of Barnabas and the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, p. 99 fl. 59. The Primitive Christian Catechism, 1 9�0. 60. The First Epistle of St. Peter, 19�7. 61. Journal of Theological Studies, 1 N. S. 1950, 29 u . -

74 (4) An anti - Jewish catechesis on the nature of the true Christian sacrifice, offering and Temple (anti J udaeos). While Jewish influence on certain elements in 1 3 has been noted by these writers it cannot be said that the order and substance of the Jewish catechism is preserved in the forms behind the New Testament documents. These illustrate the change wrought by the new life in Christ and are markedly under the influence of verba Christi which had cir­ culated in oral and written forms from an early date. The Epistle of Barnabas, which has as its milieu the Alexandrian Church of the early second century, is on the other hand influenced by the verba Christi to a far smaller extent: the dis tinctive Christian virtues of faith, hope and love, the fruits of the Spirit, hardly appear and are overlaid by ideas of knowledge and spirituality. Moreover the writer has little grasp of the corporate nature of the Church which was an essential element in the earlier catechetical teaching. The Rabbinical caste of the Epistle's thought and the midrashic style of exposition show that the writer stands closer to Judaism than the writers of the New Testament Epistles. We might then expect to find the order and substance of the Tannai­ tic catechism preserved more closely in the catechetical teaching be­ hind the Epistle and this hypothesis we must now put to the test. The baptismal instruction which the Tannaites in the Talmud 82 re­ commend should be given to candidates �for admission to Judaism is divided into five parts: the test, the commandments, charity, the pe­ nalties, the reward and world to come. Individual teachers no doubt adapted the details of this scheme to the needs of the particular cate­ chumen or group with which they were dealing. Thus Josephus63, in his apologia for J udaism, makes no reference to the test as he is not concerned with an actual proselyte, although he reproduces the other parts of the catechism faithfully. We must now look more closely at these five parts with the Epistle of Barnabas in mind: A. The Test: A person wishing to enter Judaism " at this time" was asked whether he knew that "Israel at this time is broken down, pushed -

62. Bab. Yeb, 4.7a seq. Cf. Gerim, 1. The period of the Tannaim, historically speak­ ing, came to an end with the completion of the Mishna c. 200 A. D. The Tannaitic literature therefore reflects earlier teaching than that of the Amoraim and Geonim. 63. Contra Apionem II. 22, 1 90 seq. D . Daube, The New Testament and Rabbinic Judaism, p. 138. I am especially indebted to Ch. V of his book for the Jewish back­ ground.

75

about, driven about and tossed about, and that sufferings befall them". If he replied "I know and am not worthy" no further test was needed and the person was at once entered as a candidate suitable for instru­ ction. The test was designed to show that the fundamental ethos of the faith had been grasped and was in the nature of a prologomenon to the catechetical teaching proper. The candidate was required to understand that Israel's sufferings resulted from a special relationship to God. A feature of the Test was the eschatological undertone of the introductory point. It is Israel' s sufferings "at this time" which are emphasized in reply to an enquiry from a Gentile "at this time". The period of humi­ liation was interpreted by some Rabbis as lasting from the time of Da­ vid and Solomon to the Messianic reign of the future. Early Christian catechetical forms64 contained a reference to af­ fliction and temptation in the last times against which the Christian was to stand firm. The authorities mentioned stress the dependence of this on authentic verba Christi although Carrington 65 also notes its J ewish character, referring to Ecclus. 2 . In the Epistle of B arn abas the theme of affliction and temptation appears against an eschatological background in Ch. 1 -4. Thus 4. 9: "Wherefore let us pay heed in the last days, for the whole time of our faith wi1l profit us nothing, unless we resist, as becometh the sons of God in this present evil time, against the offences which are to come, that the Black One may have no opportunity of entry;" CC. 1. 8; 2. 1 , 10; 4. 1 2. As B arnabas was writing to people who were already Christians we should not have expected the theme of the Test to have necessarily appeared, as with Josephus. The fact that it does appear may indicate that the writer was drawing on the traditional structure of the Tannaitic catechism. This view is strengthened by the fact that eschatology is the principal theme of the concluding part of this catechism where the notion "at this time" recurs, being opposed to the "World to come": it is precisely this theme which occurs in the concluding chapter of Barnabas, a chapter that has always caused dif­ ficulty to commentators who adopted the neat division of the Epistle into Haggadah and H alakhah. B. The Commandments: The next stage in the catechism of the Tan­ naites was the actual preparation of the catechumens which went under -

p.

6q. qq2 65.

Rom. 5. 3; I Thess. 1 . 6; I Pet. 1 . 6; James 1 . 2. Selwyn, op. cit., Table XIV - 9 regards this teaching as belonging to a separate Persecution Form . Op . cit., p. 22, 59.

76

the head of "the Commandments" (miswoth rather than halakhoth, the subtle Rabbinic directions). This consisted of instruction in the chief duties and general atmosphere of the new life in Judaism. The catechist would at the beginning often enlarge upon and explain the nature of Israel's sufferings " at this time". Then the candidate was told some of the lighter and weightier commandments66 and these were regarded as important because they were repeated later during the act o f baptism when two scholars stood by to communicate them at the moment of im­ mersion-proof that for the Tannaites baptism had a moral and spiritual significance67• This stage of the catechism also contained detailed tea­ ching as to the significance of the Sinaitic covenant68 when, according to the Rabbis, the Israelites of old, like proselytes, were received through baptism, circumcision and sacrifice. Proselyte b aptism was, in fact, a re­ enactment of the exodus and wilderness pilgrimage with the giving of the Torah as the climax; this was at the heart of Jewish catechetic al teaching. Instruction on the nature of the sabbath69 was also included in this section the general object of which was to lead the candidate to­ wards his goal by giving him, at the beginning, only certain of the com­ mandments. The stronger nourishment came later as he progressed. Ho­ wever a good deal was left to the individual catechist who could adapt his teaching to suit the needs of the catechumen's educational and spiritual level. There was no fixed form of wording, such as in the catechism of the English Prayer Book, although the main themes were laid down carefully. In time certain traditional collections of commandments appear to have come into existence and catechists no doubt drew on them. When we look carefully at Barnabas ch. 5 16 it is interesting to notice how many of the themes of the Tannaitic catechism in this section re - appear. Thus in chs. 5, 7 and 12 the sufferings of Christ (who has taken the place of Israel) are explained at great length to the virtual exclusion of other aspects of his life and work. 5. 1 : "For it was for this reason that the Lord endured to deliver up his flesh to corruption" sets the note for the Epistle's teaching in these chapters. Christians are those who enter into the mystery of suffering; thus 7. 1 1 , "But why is it that -

66. cr. Mish. Ab. 2. 1 . qal and hamu,. can be translated "easy" and "burdensome"Daube. op. cit., p. 120. 67. Daube, op . cit., p. 1 21 68. Pal. Pes. 36b; Boo. Yeb. 46a; Boo. Ke,.. 9a; Siph. on Num. 15. 14. 69. Siph. o n Num. 15. 41.

77 they put the wool in the middle of the thorns ? It is a type of Jesus pla­ ced in the Church, because whoever wishes to take away the scarlet wool must suffer much because the thorns are terrible and he can gain it only through pain. Thus he says 'those who will see me, and attain to my Kingdom must lay hold of me through pain and suffering"'. The writer regards the commandments as having an absolute authority (cf. 7. 1 , 10. 1 2 ) and the gravamen of his charge against the Jews i s that they have misinterpreted and misunderstood them from the beginning (8. 7, 10. 12, cr. 1 4. 4). Christians alone have the true understanding of the com­ mandments and should "consort with those who fear the Lord, with those who meditate in their heart on the meaning of the word which they have received, with those who speak of and observe the ordinances of the Lord, with those who know that meditation is a work of gladness, and who ruminate on the word of the Lord " (10. 1 1 ) . The moral and spiritual significance of baptism is also strongly emphasized in this section of the Epistle. Thus 1 1 . 1 1 : " H e means to say that we go down into the water full of sins and foulness, and we come up bearing the fruit of fear in our hearts, and having hope on Jesus in the Spirit. 'And whosoever shall eat of them shall live for ever'. He means that whosoe­ ver hears and believes these things spoken shall live for ever". Cf. 1 6 . 8 9 . It i s also significant that the events associated with the exodus, the Sinaitic covenant and entry into Canaan are dealt with at length in these chapters; cf. especially 6. 8 19, 12. 1 - 1 1 , 14. 1 4. In the writer's view the Jews lost the covenant through their disobedience and thus it was given to Christians through the sufferings of Chris t. This argu­ ment is so much at variance with the early Christian idea of the "new covenant" that we are justified in believing that the writer is reprodu­ cing a J ewish method of exegesis known before his conversion. The be­ lief that the Jews fell from grace when Moses broke the tables of stone at Sinai ( 1 4. 3) is found in a Rabbinic tradition in Mekilta and the sub­ ject is further discussed in the Talmudic A boda Zarah 4b - 5a which may be the Jewish answer to the Christian polemic. We know too that there was a Jewish fast day, on Tammuz 1 7 , which commemorated the dark day of the golden calf incident ( Taanith. 4. 6.). The probability that the writer of Barnabas is utilizing the themes of the Tannaitic catechism is further confirmed by the appearance of detailed teaching concerning the nature of circumcision in ch. 9, a sub­ ject which the proselyte to Judaism was required to grasp carefully. The writer castigates the Jews for their belief in the circumcision of -

-

-

78 the flesh thus: " But moreover the circumcision in which they trusted has been abolished. For he declared that circumcision was not of the flesh, but they erred because an evil angel was misleading them" (9.4). By a bold gematria (9. 8), Abraham's circumcision of his 318 servants is referred to Jesus and the Cross ( I HT). The theme of sacrifice appears in chs. 7 and 8 and that of the Sabbath in ch. 15. That the object of this section of the Epistle was to lead readers to a deeper comprehension of God's commandments is shown in 6. 17: "What then is the milk and honey ? Because a child is first nourished with honey, and afterwards with milk. Thus therefore we also, being nourished on the faith of the promise and by the word, shall live and possess the earth". The subjects discussed in Barn. 5 - 1670, viz. the sufferings of Christ, the commandments, the significance of baptism, circumcision and sa­ crifice, the Sinai covenant and the Sabbath, will be seen to reproduce closely the themes of the Tannaitic catechism. H owever many bold re - interpretations are used to yield a Christian meaning from the LXX text and also full use is made of the allegorical method of interpretation. Moreover, as has long been recognized, a good deal of haggadic exege­ SIS appears. C. CharilY: The next stage of the Tannaitic baptismal catechism concerned charity to the poor. This was a definite duty for the Jew and the candidate was left in no doubt as to his guilt if he failed to give away the gleanings, the forgotten sheaf, the corner and the poor man's tithe. In principle these four duties applied only within the J ewish community although, in practice, the Rabbis sometimes made concessions which allowed Gentiles to benefit from them "for the sake of the ways of pea­ ce"71. The laying down of these four clear cut duties was intended to prevent catechumens hiding under a cloak of vague generality; the ca­ techist's task was to impress on his pupils that charity was compulsory and binding. I t is however not to be supposed that these items formed the whole of this section of the catechism. Much was left to the individual cate­ chist who would expand and enlarge on topics which especially interested 70. Chs. 16 25 of Augustine's De Catechizandis Rudibus, a model catechetical address suitable for delivery to candidates before their admittance to the official catechumenate, bear a marked resemblance to Barn. 5 16. In particular the way in which Augustine champions the theory of the six ages of the world, corresponding to the six epochs of creation, suggests that he knew the Epistle. 71. Mish. Git. 5. 8. -

-

79 the candidate. Although in the Tannaitic schem e, as we have it in the Talmud, no special reference is made to humility and subordination, there is little doubt that many catechists would treat of these as being the spirit in which the four main duties should be carried out. Thus the treatise Derekh Eretz Zuta opens: "The ways of scholars are, meek and humble in spirit, oppressed, beloved by every man, fearing sin". The association of the notion of the fear of God with the duty of sUbjection to superiors is also Jewish, as is revealed by the Qumran Scrolls ( I . Qs. 3. 13 4. 26).72 The Epistle of Barnabas contains a section on the "Two Ways" (Ch. 18 - 20), which are described as those of Light and Darkness ( 1 8. 1) - a section parallel to Did. 1 - 5. The question of the relationship be­ tween these versions has been much discussed during the past half century particularly in the pages of the Journal of Theological Stu­ dies. A group of English scholars73 has maintained with great erudition that no Jewish manual containing "Two Ways" teaching ever existed; that the author of Barnabafl was the first to compose such a manual as a finale to his letter and that the author of the Didache had this E­ pistle before him when composing his treatise. The main argument of these scholars was the silence of Jewish sources as to the existence of a "Two Ways" manual and the alleged chaotic order of Barnabas' Two Ways section which, in the Didache, was brought into a more formal order by a careful re - arrangement. However many scholars were dis­ satisfied with this som ewhat tidy theory and have continued to maintain that both versions of the "Two Ways" in the Christian documents were based on an earlier J ewish catechesis which was used by the Rabbis in the instruction of proselytes and perhaps also in synagogue exposition. In 1945 E. J . Goodspeed74 made the brilliant suggestion that the source used by Barnabas and the Didache was none other than the Greek original of the Latin text known as De Doctrina Apostolorum which, he believes, shows primitive traces incompatible with its being a later La­ tin translation of Did. 1 6. It is beyond our purpose here to enter into the details of this debate"; except to observe that one of the main planks -

-

72. Cf. also Mish. Ab. 1. 3; Bab. Be,.. 17a; Aristeas 257. 73. Dom CO NN OLLY, ARMITAGE ROBINSON, F. E. VOKES, W. TE LFER inte,. alia. 74. A nglican Theological Relliew, Vol. 27 (1945) pp. 239 - 247 . 75. See the present writer's article in Church Qua,.te,.ly Relliew, Vol. 159 (1958) p. 211 - 230.

80 of the English scholars' argument, viz. that a Jewish "Two Ways" never existed, cannot now be maintained in the light of the section headed " Of the Two Spirits in Man" found in the Qumran Manual of D iscipli­ ne ( I . Qs. 3 . 13 - 4. 26) which was, in all probability, an expository ser­ mon used by the priests of the community76. If, then, as seems likely this section of the Epistle stands in a clo­ se relationship to a Jewish source or sources we must ask why the writer placed it at this point in his Epistle while the author of the Didache prefaced it to his treatise on Church ordinances. The usual an swer is that he added it as a H alakhic conclusion to chs. 1 - 17. However it is often forgotten that ch. 21 is the real conclusion with its renewal of the eschatological emphasis of the opening chapters of the Epistle. Goodspeed believes that the "Two Ways" section was a later addition to the original letter made by another hand c. 1 30 A.D. but this seems unlikely in view of the personal references of ch. 21. A more plausible view is that the writer placed the "Two Ways" section at this point, because he was following the outline of the Tannaitic catechism in which the section on "Charity" followed that on the "Commandments". It is significant that this section links up closely with the theme of charity and duty to the poor within the community. Thus: "Thou shalt love thy neighbour more than thy own life". "Thou shalt share all things with thy neighbour and shalt not say that they are thy own property" . 1 9. 9: " B e not one who stretches out the hands to take, and shuts them when it comes to giving". 1 9. 1 1 : "Thou shalt not hesitate to give and when thou givest thou shalt not grumble, but thou shalt know who is the good paymaster of the reward" . 19. 5: 19. 8:

Those who follow the Way of Darkness and fail i n the duty o f charity are: 20. 2:

" Persecutors o f the good, haters of the truth, lovers of lies, knowing not the reward of righteousness, who cleave not to the good, nor to righteous j udgement, who attend not to the cause of the widow and orphan, spending wakeful nights not in the fear of God, but in the pursuit of vice, from whom meek-

76. On the meaning of the title "For the Maskil" see T; H. GAST E R, The Scriptu­ res of the Dead Sea Sect, p. ,. 7 .

81 ness and patience are far and distant, loving vanity, seeking rewards, without pity for the poor, working not for him who is oppressed with toil, prone to evil speaking, without know­ ledge of their Maker, murderers of children, corrupters of God's creation, turning away the needy, oppressing the afflicted, ad­ vocates of the rich, unjust judges of the poor, altogether sin­ ful" 77. That the duty of charity only applied within the community is shown by 19. 2: "Thou shalt not j oin thyself to those who walk in the way of death". cf. 19. 6. Indeed Christians were to form a closed group, as with the Qumran sect: 19. 10: "Thou shalt seek each day the society of the saints ". These precepts are in marked contrast to the teaching and example of Jesus and the Apostolic Church and undoubtedly reflect Jewish beliefs. A further parallel is provided by the emphasis in the "Two Ways" on fear and submission. Thus: 19. 7

"Thou shalt obey thy m asters as a type of God in modesty and fear; thou shalt not command in bitterness thy slave or hand­ maid who hope on the same God, lest they cease to fear the God who is over you both; for He came not to call men with respect of persons, but those whom the Spirit prepared".

I t is also interesting that, as in the Tannaitic scheme, the verse following on the "Two Ways" announces the reward for those who obey and the corresponding punishment for disobedience: " I t is good there­ fore that he who has learned the ordinances of the Lord as many as have been written should walk in them. For he who does these things shall be glorified in the Kingdom of God, and he who chooses the others shall perish with his works" (21. 1 ) . D . The Penalties: Following on instruction o n Charity i n the sche­ me of the Tannaitic catechism came a section on the penalties for trans­ gressions. This stage was not particularly concerned with minor slips but with serious crimes, such as flagrant desecration of the sabbath, 7/. This section may stand in the same line of descent as the Rabbinic particip­ les of the correct practice and would then go back to a Hebrew source which read: "(They are) persecuting the good, (they are) hating the truth" etc. See further Daube, op. cit., p. 10� 5 on Didache 5. -

82 which incurred the punishment of extirpation and stoning7s• Sometimes it took as its basis provisions on the sabbath and the food - laws which were already being followed by God - fearers who had attached themsel­ ves to the synagogues as religious enquirers. Emphasis was then placed on the fact that such ob servances, optional before conversion, would now be compulsory and to dispense with them would involve dire pu­ nishment. This stage of the catechism was essentially concerned with the difference between Judaism and the Gentile world in matters of religious practice. The lists of penalties given in the codes of the Qumran community?9 suggest that the practice of detailing punishments against backsliding went back into the pre - Christian era and was used with reference to J ews as well as proselytes. In early Christian catechetical forms warnings against relapsing into sin often follow the proclamation of dutiesso. However Christianity, as a whole, under the influence of the te aching of Christ did not adopt the J ewish practice of detailing penalties for transgressions. According­ ly in the Epistle of Barnabas there is no separate section correspon­ ding to the Tannaitic penalties. However that is not to say that warnings do not appear. A good example is contained in the chapter on the food­ laws which the writer has included under B: "Now, in that Moses said, 'Ye shall not eat swine, nor an eagle, nor a hawk, nor a crow, nor any fish which has no scales on i tseH', he included three doctrines in his understanding. Moreover he says to them in Deuteronomy, 'And I will make a covenant of my or­ dinance with this people'. So that the ordinance of God is not abs­ tinence from eating, but Moses spoke in the spirit. He mentioned the swine for this reason: you shall not consort, he means, with men who are like swine, that is to say, when they have plenty they for­ get the Lord, but when they are in want they recognize the Lord , j ust as the swine when it eats does not know its master, but when it is hungry it cries out, and after receiving food is again silent. ' Neither shalt thou eat the eagle nor the hawk nor the kite nor the 78. Rabbinical comments on the first dialogue between Ruth and Naomi reflect this stage of the Jewish catechism. 79. 1 . Qs. 5. 1 20; 6. 23 7. 25; CDC 9 . 1 - 12. 22. 80. Gal. 6. 7 ff; Eph. 5. 5 ff; Phil. 3. 18 ff; Col. 3. 25; I Thess. 4. 5ff; Heb. 6. 4 If; 10. 26 ff; I Pet. 3. 12. -

-

83 crow' . Thou shalt not, he means, j oin thyself of make thyself like to such men, as do not know how to gain their food by their la­ bour and sweat, but plunder other people's property in their ini­ quity, and lay wait for it, though they seem to walk in innocence, and look around to see whom they may plunder in their covetous­ ness, j ust as these birds alone provide no food for themselves, but sit idle, and seek how they may devour the flesh of others, and be­ come pestilent in their iniquity" (10. 1 - 4). The readers of the Epistle are exhorted to "grasp fully the doctrines concerning food" (1 0. 10). The exegesis of this chapter with its warnings, overlaid though it is with allegorism, is so thoroughly Jewish that it is probable that the writer is following the Tannaitic theme. The attitude of Christians to non - believers is strictly parallel to the attitude which the Tannaites require J ewish converts to exhibit towards Gentiles. E. The Reward and the World to Come: The final section of the Je­ wish catechism is concerned with the reward for keeping the command­ ments. In section A the catechumen was required to agree that Israel's sufferings were her glory. Now he receives the assurance that those who do their duty will be exalted in the world to come. The phrase "at this time" occurs again as in A and thus the entire catechism is given an eschatological setting. A further feature of this section is the intimate form of address; e. g. " Know that the World to Come is made only for the righteous ones"81. The Tannaites had realized that righteousness was not necessarily given any earthly reward. Catechists also discussed here the question of the resurrection of the dead, drawing on Rabbinic tra­ ditions which regarded conversion as a separation from the grave and a rising from death to life"82. Frequently a transition was made from a consideration of the individual destiny of the proselyte in the coming age to that of the p eople of God. The Tannaites however directed that a catechist should not dwe ll on eschatological d octrines at length and scriptural support for this was found in Ruth 1 . 18 where "she left spea­ king", i. e. "she became reticent", was referred to the concluding part of the catechism83. 81. Cf. Mish. Ab. 2. 16. 82. Bab. Ta. 32a. 83. Bab. Yeb. 4. 7b.

84 The earliest Christian catechetical forms contained an eschatolo­ gical section which was used to re - inforce teaching on the moral con­ duct expected of the catechumen in this present age84. When we turn to the Epistle of Barnabas it is significant that the concluding chapter (21 ) reverts to the eschatological setting of the early chapters. Thus: 2 1 . 3:

"The day is at hand when all things shall perish with the evil one; the Lord and his reward is at hand".

21. 6:

"And be taught of God, seeking out what the Lord requires from you, and see that ye be found faithful in the day of Jud­ gement" .

The p ersonal form o f address in the latter passage i s t o b e noted. Those who have followed the commandments will be glorified in the World to Come. Thus:

21. 1 :

" It is good therefore that he who has learned the ordinances of the Lord as many as have been written should walk in them. For he who does these things shall be glorified in the Kingdom of God, and he who chooses the others shall perish with his works. For this reason there is a resurrection, for this reason there is a recompense".

Especially noticeable is the mention of the resurrection of the righteous without any mention of the resurrection of J esus, which the writer el­ sewhere alludes to (5. 6). The Epistle here dep arts from the teaching of the earlier Christian catechisms. H owever a similar use is made of eschatology, viz: to inculcate righteous living. Thus: 2 1 . 2:

" I beseech those who are in high positions, if you will receive any counsel of my goodwill, have among yourselves those to whom you may do good; fail not".

The only theme o f the last stage of the Tannaitic catechism which does not appear in the concluding chapter of the Epistle is that of the cor­ porate destiny of the people of God. But the writer had little grasp of the Church as the Body of Christ united to its Head and this omission is therefore understandable. Lastly Ch. 21, which is quite short, is very reticent concerning the details of the eschatological future. The writer of the Epistle follows closely the structure of the final 84. Selwyn, 0p. cit., Table II p. 376 8. -

85 section of the J ewish catechism and the probability that he was drawing directly on it is perhaps enhanced by the fact that he does not appeal to the example and work of Jesus. The evidence in this section will have shown that early second century Egyptian Christianity, insofar as it is represented by this E­ pistle, was deeply indebted to Judaism in developing the structure of its catechetical teaching. The influence of the Synagogue on the insti­ tutions, worship and instruction of the early Christian Church was grea­ ter than is often realised and continued long after the timc when the two religions first came into acute conflict in the period A. D. 70 - 135. This is shown for Egypt by the prayers in the Prayer Book of Serapion, bishop of a Church in Lower Egypt in the first half of the fourth century A. D . , which contains many J ewish ideas - e. g. the souls of the decea­ sed are described as being at rest with Abraham, I saac and J acob and the address " 0 Lord God of Ages" is frequently used. The great value of the Epistle of Barnabas is that it enables us to see J ewish influence at its optimum at a relatively early date. The writer was less marked­ ly under the influence of the life, teaching and example of Jesus than other early Christian writers; in spite of the violence of his anti - Jewish polemic he remained in outlook a Jew and brought with him into Chri­ stianity the catechetical, homiletic and exegetic traditions of the sy­ nagogue. We can further illustrate the authors indebtedness to late-Judaism from his treatment of folklore survivals in two sections of the Epistle: (a) The Ritual of the Scapegoat: in vii. 6 1 1 the writer develops the type of the two goats, emphasizing their likeness, which is referred to the likeness of the glorified Christ to the Christ who suffered on the Cross. Cf. especially vv. 6 8. Note what was commanded: Take two goats, goodly and alike, and offer them, and let the priest take the one as a burnt offering for sins. But what are they to do with the other ? ,The other, he says ,is accursed. Notice how the type of Jesus is manifested: And do ye all spit on it, and goad it, and bind scarlet wool about its head, and so let it be cast into the desert. And when it is so done, he who takes the goat into the wilderness drives it forth, and takes away the wool, and puts it upon a shrub which is called Rachel, of which we are accusto­ med to eat the shoots when we find them in the country: thus of Rachel alone is the fruit sweet. The basis of this account is the ritual for the Day of Atonement described in Lev. xvi. 5 - 10 and 21 - 2. However, in the Old Testament -

-

86

account there is no mention that the goats are to be alike, nor of the mal­ treatment of the goat, nor or the binding of scarlet wool about its head the goat is merely sent into the wilderness by the hand of one man after Aaron, the High Priest, has laid his hands on its head conferring the sins of Israel. Many scholars believe that these elaborations were introdu­ ced by Barnabas in order to find a fulfilment of the type in Christ who, in his passion, was maltreated by the soldiers and wore a scarlet robe. However, it is significant that the Mishna tractate Yoma (c. A. D. 200) supplies certain fresh details concerning the ceremonies observed on the Day of Atonement and these may well reflect genuine traditions of the period before the destruction of the Temple in A. D. 70. As the Tem­ ple ritual, at the time Yoma was written, was no longer applicable to Jewish life it has been less overlaid with comment and argument by later tannaim and less exposed to the possibility of revision (cf. Yoma xvi. a). In Yoma vi. I we are told that the two goats are to resemble one another as closely as possible; the lots were made of boxwood, and af­ terwards gold; the High Priest drew out one lot in each hand, and then tied a thread of scarlet wool upon the head of the goat destined for A­ zazel. The words of the High Priest's confession over the goat were: '0 God, thy people, the house of I srael, have committed iniquity, transgres­ sed, and sinned before thee. 0 God., forgive, I pray, the iniquities and transgressions and sins which thy people, the house of Israel have com­ mitted and transgressed and sinned before thee; as it is written in the law of thy servant Moses, "For on this day shall atonement be made for you to cleanse you: from all your sins shall ye be clean before the Lord" '. ( Yoma vi. 2 ) The goat was then led away, accompanied by some of the nobles of Jerusalem, and its arrival at a place which was regar­ ded as the edge of the wilderness (Besh Haroro three miles from J eru­ salem according to Yoma vi. 8) was signalled back to the High Priest in the Temple. Finally the goat was conducted, by a single man, to a place called Suk, where it was thrown backwards over the edge of the cliff, and dashed to pieces among the rocks ( Yoma vi. 6 - 8). The general principle of transferring sins physically to some animal, which was then dismissed, is a widespread practice in folklore and pri­ mitive religion and has been fully described by Sir J ames Frazer in the Golden Bough, Part vi, 'The Scapegoat', who gives many examples (p. 36): 'Thus among the Badagas of the Neilgherry Hills in Southern India, when a death has taken place, the sins of the deceased are laid upon a

87

buffalo calf through contact with the dead man's hand'. Elements of great antiquity may therefore lie behind the accounts in Barnabas, in the Mishna tractate and in the less elaborate description in Leviticus. We believe that this is confirmed by the account of the maltreatment of the goat in this Epistle which has often been taken as a fiction of the writer designed to point the parallel with the sufferings of Christ. In Yoma vi. 3 4 come these significant words: -

They delivered it (i. e. the goat) to him that should lead it away. All were eligible to lead it away, but the priests had estab­ lished the custom not to suffer an Israelite (i.e. a non - priest) to lead it away ... And they made a causeway for it because of the Ba­ bylonians who used to pull its hair, crying to it, 'Bear (our sins) and be gone ! Bear (our sins) and be gone' ! Who are the B abylonians ? According to the Gemara tOQa they are Alexandrian Jews. But it seems more probable that the word refers to the crowds in general in view of the popular nature of the rite here described, which seems far removed from the solemn, priestly treat­ ment of the goat described in the Old Testament and elsewhere in Y oma. We may therefore have a folklore survival of great antiquity in this account of the people crowding round, seizing hold of the goat and in­ dividually seeking to transfer their sins to it. Certainly we are moving within the same circle of ideas as with Barnabas' reference to the spitting upon and goading of the goat before its banishment to the wilderness. It therefore seems probable that the writer of the Christian Epistle had access, through the Hellenistic J ewish synagogues of Alexandria, to a Jewish tradition, later found in the Mishna, which went back far into history to a period before the Jerusalem Priesthood was able to insti­ tute, in the post - exilic period, a solemn scapegoat rite for the Day of Atonement. The maltreatment of an animal in this connexion is well documented in folklore literature. Frazer refers to the Bhoitya's of Ju­ har, in the Western Himalayas, who, on a certain day of the year, take a dog, intoxicate him with spirits and having fed him with sweetmeats lead him round the village and let him loose. They then chase and kill the dog with sticks and stones believing that now no disease will visit the village during the coming year. Another striking example is a New Year's custom once carried on in some parts of Braedalbane in Scotland where a dog was taken to the door, given a piece of bread and driven out with the words, 'Get away , you dog'. Whatever death of men or

88

loss of cattle would happen in this house to the end of the present year, may it all light on your head ! (Frazer op. cit. p. 209). The reference, in Barnabas, to the putting of the scarlet wool on a shrub called Rachel has always caused difficulty to commentators and various emendations have been suggested. There appears to have been some confusion, in the mind of the writer, between the Greek word for mountain - ridge, from which the goat was thrown ( Rachis), and the name of a local shrub or brier (Rachos). In this case, however, it seems unlikely that we have a folklore survival. (b) The Sacrifice of the Red Heifer: Following on the interpretation of the scapegoat the Epistle of Barnabas devotes a chapter to the sacri­ fice of the red heifer, an enactment mentioned in the Old Testament (Nu xix) and elaborated in the Mishna treatise Parah and later by the Jewish scholar Maimonides. Thus viii. 1 reads: But what do you think that it typifies, that the commandment has been given to Israel that the men in whom sin is complete offer a hei­ fer and slay it and burn it, and that children then take the ashes and put them into vessels and bind scarlet wool on wood (see again the type of the Cross and the scarlet wool) and hyssop, and that the children all sprinkle the people thus one by one in order that they be purified from their sins ? Several features of this account deserve mention. According to Nu. xix. 3 Eleazar, the representative of the High Priest, was to bring the victim forth without the camp, i.e. in practice from the Temple hill in Jerusalem, by the Red Heifer bridge, across the Kidron to the Mount of Olives. At a spot secure from possible contamination by gra­ ves the heifer was slain by a second person (according to the Hebrew text) in the presence of the priest who then dipped his finger in the warm blood and sprinkled it seven times in the direction of the Temple (cf. Parah iii. 9). The Greek Bible, however, makes the killing the work of those who had led the heifer from the camp and Barnabas appears to be following this tradition. A pyre for the burning had previously been constructed from various fragrant woods; four are named in Parah iii. 8, cedar, pine, spruce and juniper. The complete carcass of the hei­ fer comprising skin, flesh, blood, and dung was then burnt. The state­ ment in the Epistle that children took the ashes and placed them into vessels is at variance with the account in Nu. xix. 9 where, after the pyre was reduced to ashes, they were collected by a third ritually clean man and deposited in a clean place outside the camp - the two previous

89 participants having been rendered taboo through contact with the victim. The writer, however, appears to be referring to the ritual associated with the ashes from previously burnt red heifers mentioned in Parah iii. 3: 'When they came to the Temple Mount they alighted . . . At the entrance o f the Temple Court was set ready a jar of ashes of the sin - offering. They brought a male from among the sheep , tied a rope between its horns, and tied a stick and wound it about the other end of the rope and threw it into the j ar. The sheep was smitten so that it started backward and spilled the ashes, and the child took of the ashes and mixed enough to be visible on the water. R. J ose says: Give not the Sadducees occasion to cavil; but rather one of the children took the ashes directly from the j ar and mixed them' . I t is interesting that R. Jose the Galilean, mentioned here, belonged to the third generation of Tannaites, c A. D. 1 20 40, i. e. to the same period as the Epistle of Barnabas. The reference in the Epistle to the scarlet wool, wood and hyssop seems to be a reminiscence of Nu. xix. 6 where these are to be cast in the midst of the burning pyre. According to later Jewish sources these items consisted of a thin piece of cedar, in reality a piece of the fragrant wood of the Juniperus Phoenicea or Oxycedrus a cubit in length; a bunch of aromatic hyssop or wild marj oram; and a striped woollen cloth dyed scarlet which bound the juniper together (Parah iii. 10 - 11; Maimonides de Vacca Rufa). The description of Barnabas is thus confirmed by these later sources. The origin of this rite belongs to pre - history and to the primitive belief that a dead body was a source of real, if undefined, danger to anyone who came into contact with it. The agent used for a purification from the death taboo was often water which was believed to acquire an added p otency through the addition of ashes. The ritual of the red heifer is a survival from the time when these ideas operated, the female heifer being chosen as the most efficacious victim. At this period of the past fragrant woods, such as the j uniper, cypress and the aromatic plants of the mint family, were supposed to act as a protection against the harmful powers which were thought to hover around dead bodies. The scarlet wool may be a survival of the belief that the colour of sa­ cred blood was the taboo colour par - excellence. The origin of the rite described in Barnabas viii. I may therefore lie in the pre - Mosaic age before the Hedrews had become conscious of themselves as a nation. However, in the post - exilic period the rite received further interpre-

90

tation and this development is reflected in the Christian Epistle and the Jewish sources. Uncleanliness and sin, sin and death had now be­ come associated ideas; the red heifer became a means for the removal of sin, an expiatory object of a unique kind, and the details of the rite a powerful object lesson in the purity and holiness required of a chosen people. The account in the Epistle of Barnabas has been described as inaccurate, the work of one only slightly acquainted with what he des­ cribes and full of preconceived notions85• However, as we have shown, the writer has an intimate acquaintance with the details of Jewish pra­ ctice and his only error is to connate the ritual associated with the as­ hes from previously burnt heifers with the slaying of the red heifer itself. q. CHRISTIANITY IN THE EPI STLE AND THE 'TWO WAYS' TEACHING

A reading of the tract will show that the author of Barnabas is

not in the front rank as a Christian apologist. His failure to appeal to the life and example of Jesus - apart from the imitatio Christi of the Social Cod e in the Two Ways section (19. 7) - is noticeable. H is attitude to the Jewish Covenant is very different from that found in the Epistle to the Hebrews. The Old Covenant is worthless in his eyes rather than, as for Hebrews, the shadow and preparation for the new and greater Covenant. However in considering Barnabas' anti - Jewish polemic we should make allowance for the situation of the Alexandrian Church in his day. We know that Gnostic tendencies early appeared in this Church and that the great heresiarchs Basilides and Valentinus had considera­ ble followings. One feature of their systems was the disparagement of the God of the Jews and the Old Testament, and it is not impossible that Barnabas too was influenced by this attitude. Moreover the J ewish po­ pulation of the metropolis had been almost wiped out in conOict with the Greek population only a few years earlier in Trajan's reign, and it is hard to believe that the Church did not also suffer at that time. Per­ haps Barnabas had unhappy memories of that holocaust, which may ac­ count in part for his attitude to Judaism and all that it stood for. These political upheavals may have also given an edge to the writer's chiliastic and apocalyptic beliefs; these always tend to flourish in times of crisis. Barnabas hims elf makes no claim to be a teacher (1. 8) per-

85.

W. CUNNIN GHAM, the Epistle of Barnabas p.

xlvii.

91

haps he had in mind the prohibition of Matt. 23. 8 "Be not ye called Rab­ bi: for one is your teacher and all ye are brethren"; instead he writes to this community as one of them to suggest a few things to cheer them in their present difficult situation. Yet he reverenced the prophets and teachers of the past and present ( 1 . 7, 2. 4), and in this he was following a well known Rabbinical principle (Cr. T. B. Sank. 1 10a: "He who dis­ putes with his teacher is as if he disputed with the Shekinah"). We may instance too the Qumran community's reverence for the Teacher of Righteousness as "the priest into whose heart God put wisdom to ex­ plain all the words of his servants the prophets, through whom God declared all the things that are coming upon his people and his congre­ gation" (Habakkuk Commentary 1. 5). Barnabas is also keen that this Egyptian Jewish - Christian group should meditate on and study both the oral teaching given to them and the Christian writings in their pos­ session ( 10. 1 1 , 21. 1. 6). Our author was an earnest man. A warm humanity pervades his writing which is by no means an unattractive counterpart to his exege­ sis of the Old Testament. He addresses his readers as "sons and daugh­ ters" (1. 1., cf. 21. 9); he experienced "keen delight" when visiting this Church before ( 1 . 3); J esus is described as "the beloved J esns" (4. 8); God's care is "our Father's kindly purpose" (2. 9); the true temple of God for the Christian is the heart of man (6. 15). Such phrases as these reveal the real man behind the exegete and apologist. When we turn from Barnabas' Christianity to the type of J ewish Christianity which our author was addressing we find various tenden­ cies at work which we know from other sources early entered Egyptian Christianity. In 4. 10 Barnabas exhorts his readers "to detest utterly the practices of the Wicked Way. Do not shut yourselves up and court solitude as though your j ustification were already assured. On the con­ trary attend the common meetings and j oin in discussing what contri­ butes to the common good". Several of the Church Fathers likewise tell their readers to attend Church regularly and so stifle heretical ten­ dencies. Perhaps these Christians were fond of the ascetic and encrati­ tic practices which are reflected in the Gospel according to the Hebrews known to Clement of Alexandria, which was certainly read in E gypt by Jewish - Christians. Have we here a glimpse of incipient Egyp tian mona­ sticism in Middle Egyp t early in the second century A. D. ? Whatever be the precise truth it is clear that there existed a tendency in this com­ munity to retire withi n itself and so forg et its social responsibilities.

92

Barnabas is obliged to remind some of these Christians of their duty . . " I would exhort those who are in better circumstances, i f you will ac­ cept my well - meant advice: you have in your community persons to whom you can do good; do not miss your opportunity" (21. 2). Chapter 17 of the Epistle marks the end of the writer's somewhat wearisome argument. "So far as it was possible to give you a simple explanation, 1 sincerely trust 1 have, in keeping with my desire, omitted none of thc things that h ave a bearing on salvation. For if 1 should write to you concerning things present or yet to come, you would not grasp them, because they are as yet hidden in parables: Let this then be enough" ( 1 7. 1, 2.) The author now passes to ethical instruction on the two ways of life required of Christians of which he considers it im­ p ortant to enlighten or remind his readers. "Let us now pass on to ano­ ther kind of knowledge and instruction. There are two ways of instru­ ction - as there are two powers - that of light and darkness. And there is a great difference between the two ways: the one is controlled by God's light - bringing angels, the other by angels of Satan. And as the latter is the Ruler of the present era of lawlessness, so the former is Lord from eternity to eternity" (18. 1 , 2). The way of light is then des­ cribed in detail: .

Love your Maker; reverence your Creator; glorify him who ransomed you from death; be single of heart and exuberant of spi­ rit; do not associate with such as walk in the way of death; abhor everything unpleasing to God; hate every form of hypocrisy; do not by any means neglect the commandments of the Lord. Do not carry your head high but be always in a humble frame of mind; do not reach after personal glory; do not plot evil against your neighbour; do not open your heart to presumption. Abstain from fornication; do not commit adultery; do not practise corruption of youth; do not let the Word of God escape your lips in the pre­ sence of any that are impure. Make no distinction between one man and another when rebuking anyone's transgression. Be gentle, be quiet; with trembling treasure the instructions you have recei­ ved. Do not bear malice against your brother. Do not waver in your decision. Do not take the name of the Lord in vain. Love your neighbour more than yourself. Do not kill a foetus by abortion or commit infanticide. Do not withdraw your hand from your son or your daughtcr; but from their youth teach them the fear of God. Do not covet your neighbour'S goods; do not be greedy. Do not be

93 on intimate terms with the powerful but associate with holy and lowly folk. Accept as blessings the troubles that come upon you, assured that nothing happens apart from God. D o not be double minded or double - tongued, for the double - tongue is a deadly snare (19. 2 7a). -

Inserted in this way of light is a social code governing the relation­ ship between masters and slaves which is also to be found in the New Testament epistles and is based upon the imitatio Christi ( 1 9. 7b). There follows further teaching about the sharing of private property and the duty of almsgiving with the command to "love as the pupil of your eye those who explain to you the Word of the Lord" (19. 9). The way of light ends with a request to hold fast the traditions and to abstain from schism. The way of darkness or of the Black One (20. 1) which is governed by Satan's angels contains a list of vices which, as we shall see, was a commonplace in the ethical instruction of the ancient world: In it is found everything that corrupts the souls of men: ido­ latry, rashness, the pomp of power, hypocrisy, double dealing, adul­ tery, murder, robbery , pride, lawlessness, deceitfulness, malice, surliness, sorcery, magic, covetousness, lack of the fear of God. To this belong persecutors of the good, haters of the truth, lovers of falsehood; men who ignore the reward of right living being not devoted to what is good, or to just jUdgement; men who neglect widow and orphan, who are on the alert, no t because they fear God but because they are bent upon vice; who are utter strangers to gentleness and p atient endurance; men who love vanities and are fee hunters; who are heartless towards the poor, take no trouble about the oppressed, are prone to slander, do not know their Maker; murderers of children, destroyers of God's image; men who turn away from the needy, oppress the afflicted, act as counsel for the rich, are unjust judges of the poor; in a word - men who are sin­ ners (20. 1 2). -

The appearance of somewhat similar teaching about the two ways in the early Christian document known as the Didache, discovered in 1883 by Bryennios in the Jerusalem monastery of the Greek quarter of Constantinople, immediately led to the hypothesis that the authors of both Barnabas and the Didache were incorporating into their writings a Jewish manual which may have been originally used in the instruction

94 of catechumens and proselytes. This view was ably championed by the Rabbinic scholars C. Taylor and G. Klein, who were able to cite numerous para1lels to the two ways form of teaching in Jewish writings. However, a vigorous discussion has taken place during the last 50 years as to the literary relationship between Barnabas and the Didache, and it cannot he said that any agreed solution has as yet been found. On the one hand a group of scholars (Dom Connolly, Armitage Robinson, F. E. Vokes, inter alia) have maintained that no Jewish manual of the two ways ever existed; Barnabas was the first to compose such teaching and the au­ thor of the Didache (whether second or third century A. D. or later) had Barnabas before him when composing his tract. The main argument of this "school" - if we may so designate them - is the alleged chaotic or­ der of Barnabas' two ways section when compared with the more formal order of the Didache; th e Jatter writer brought Barnabas' chaos into order and enlarged his two ways section with material from the Sermon on the Mount (Did. 1 . 2 - 3), from Hermas and other writings, prefixing it to his treatise on Church Ordinances. Other scholars have been nnCOn­ vinced by this rather tidy theory and have argued that Barnabas - who was a somewhat rambling writer-had the Didache before him when penning his epistle (thus Father Kleist, S. J . , in his commentary on these texts) . It is difficult to see the force of either of these arguments; is Barnabas in fact as confused as these scholars imagine ? K. E. Kirk saw long ag086 that there was very little to choose between them, as both writers adapt their material freely in the "two ways" section and, as we should ex­ pect, their order varies as in the Matthaean and Lukan versions of the Q source in the Gospels. In the way of life section Barnabas tends to group his material around love to God, love to neighbour, and ecclesias­ tical responsibilities, with the Social Code interspersed between the first two, while the Didache, in this section, places the social code last, following a summary of the Decalogue, a meditation on the ten commandments, and a section on ecclesiastica1 responsibilities. In the way of death there is nothing to choose between the two authors. Both writers thus manipulate their materia1 freely, although the frequent agreements in wording between the two strongly suggest that some sort of common material was in use. The fact that minute literary analysis has led to an impasse over this question suggests that ano-

86. The Vision of God., 1 931, 1 1 1 - 1 2(.. :

95 ther approach should be made, and it is here that we should like to call into account the evidence assembled by E. G. Selwyn in Essay II ap­ pended to his commentary on the First Epistle of St. Peter (1947). Dr. Selwyn has shown by detailed study that behind the New Testament Epistles there lies the use of common catechetical or parae­ netic material which circulated in the early Church in both oral and written form; this material was used by teachers and catechists and was adapted to different groups and occasions. Certain of these forms which appear in the New Testament were used for ethical instruction and among them were the social code (subiecti) which governed relation­ ships between the various classes of the community and a list o f virtues and vices - and these also appear in Barnabas and the Didache. Another form of instruction was that of the "two ways" now under discussion, which, however, does not appear directly in the New Testament apart from the verba Christi: "Enter ye in by the narrow gate: for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction and many be they that enter in thereby. For narrow is the gate and straitened the way that leadeth unto life and few be they that find it" ( Malt. 7. 13 - 14), al­ though it is implied in the Gospel teaching about God and Mammon and in the accounts of Jesus' temptation. These three forms of ethical instruction were known both in the Graeco - Roman world and in Ju­ daism prior to the Christian era, and it would seem that the problem of the relationship between the "two ways " section in Barnabas and the Didache can now be solved in the light of Dr. Selwyn'S investigations. We know that certain Jewish rabbis set great store by the oral torah, and we can perhaps envisage an oral pattern of the two ways form of teaching which was adapted by various Rabbis in their instruction; sometimes it may have been written down in a set form. This back­ ground was inherited by Christianity in taking over Jewish catecheti­ cal forms for its own missionary purposes, and so behind the version of the two ways in Barnabas and the Didache and the original Jewish oral pattern may lie several written versions, not necessarily verbally identical, which were in use by catechists and teachers in different areas. The differences and the agreements between our two documents are best accounted for on the assumption that the form of the two ways which they used may not have been precisely the same. It is because scholars have tried to reconstruct from Barnabas and the Didache a common written source that disagreement on this question has been 80 great. Once it is seen that a common catechetical pattern, although

96 not necessarily the same written document, lies behind these writings then most of the difficulties disappear. We venture to think that this will also throw light on the vexed question of the genesis of the Latin text entitled De Doctrina Apostolorum, of which a Greek original pro­ bably once existed. The Doctrina contains much of the material contai­ ned in the two ways section of Barnabas and the Didache in fact the Didache has about 90% of its material and Barnabas about 60%, al­ though the arrangement of the latter writer varies considerably from the Doctrina. It has been argued by E. J . Goodspeed (Anglican Theolo­ gical Review, 27 (1945) that the lost Greek version of this text was the original written "two ways" which Barnabas and the Didache had be­ fore them when they were composing their works; yet there are eight substantial items not present in the Doctrina which occur in our two writers, and this appears to be a strong argument against Goodspeed's theory. Nevertheless the Doctrina shows primitive features which sug­ gest that it is not simply a later Latin translation of Did. 1 6. Our sug­ gestion is that the Doctrina represents one early written version of the "two ways" pattern of teaching out of the many which circulated in the early Church. It was similar to but not necessarily verbally iden­ tical with the version used by Barnabas and the Didache. The metaphor of the two ways had a long history behind it in both Jewish and non - Jewish thought. Among the Greeks it was derived from the antitheses of Heraclitus, which in the fifth century B. C. were designed to arouse people from conventional ethics; it also appears in Xenophon, Hesiod, Theognis, Virgil, and Plutarch, and among the Pythagoreans it was symbolized by the diverging arms of the sacred letter y ( upsilon)S7. In Judaism the idea of the two ways - the one the way of righteousness and the other the way of evil - is found throughout the Old Testament and later Jewish writings (e. g. Ps. 1. 6; Jer. 21. 8; Provo 4. 18 19; 4 Mace. 14. 5; 1 Enoch 94. 1 - 4; 2 Enoch 30. 1 5; Pirke Aboth 2. 1, inter alia). This twofold way was apparently emphasized in the instruction given to Gentiles, although its fullest development occurred in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs which date from the second century B. C. Thus Testament of Levi 19. 1: "Choose for your­ selves either the light or the darkness; either the law of the Lord or the -

-

-

87. Note also the Tabula of Cebes 16, a disciple of Socrates; "Dost thou not see a little door and a way in front of the door, which is not much crowded, but the tra­ vellers are few? That is the way that leadeth to the true instruction".

97 works of Beliar" ; Testament of Judah 20. 1 : "Two spirits wait upon man, the spirit of truth and the spirit of deceit"; Testament of Asher 1. 3; "Two ways hath God given to the sons of men, and two inclinations, and two kinds of action and two modes and two issues. Therefore all things are by twos, one over against the other. For there are two ways of good and evil; and with these are the two inclinations in our breasts discri­ minating them ". I t is here that we should like to call in evidence the Dead Sea Scrolls. Prior to their discovery no actual Jewish manual incorporating the tea­ ching of the two ways had been discovered, although, as we have seen, the idea was present in Jewish thought. It was, therefore, always open to scholars to argue that the writer of the Epistle of Barnabas was the first to compose a manual of ethical teaching on this theme for his Christian readers, drawing out the verba Christi of MaU. 7 . 13 14. However, embedded in the Manual of Discipline, the book containing the principles and constitution of the sect discovered at Qumran by the Dead Sea in 1947, was found a section concerning the two spirits in man. The manual itself is a compilation in which several formulations of the rules of this community were gathered together and with the Zadokite Work it has not been inaptly compared with the Didache, the Didasca­ lia Apostolorum, and the Apostolic Constitutions important documents for the understanding of the organization of the primitive Christian Church. This strict Jewish pietistic community who considered themsel­ ves to be the Elect of God and the true Israel provide an interesting glimpse of the beliefs of sectarian Judaism in the last two centuries B. C., although its influence should not be exaggerated. The section on the two spirits (3. 13 - 4. 26) has this introduction: -

-

This is for the man who would bring others to the inner VI SlOn (Hebrew maskil), so that he may understand and teach to all the children of light the real nature of men, touching the different va­ rieties of their temperaments with the distinguishing traits the­ reof, touching their actions throughout their generations, and tou­ ching the reason why they are now visited with afflictions and now enjoy periods of well - being. The word maskil means one who imparts to others his own inner vision in other words a teacher (Cf. Dan. 11. 33; 12. 3, 10) - and it therefore seems probable that Professor Gaster is right in seeing in this section of the Manual an expository discourse designed to accompany the reading

98

of the torah to the assembled members of the Qumran community, per­ haps based on Deut. 30. 15: "See, I have set before thee this day life and good, and death and evil". We know that expositions were a regu­ lar and independent feature of the synagogue service, and it became customary to invite any scribe who happened to be present to deliver the sermon (thus Matt. 4. 23; Luke 4. 15; Ler. rabba 3; Pesikta rabba­ thi, ch. 15, 78b, Teruma 1 , ed. Buber, 2 . p. 89); it was usual to close the exposition with the brief prayer: "May His great name be blessed fore­ ver and ever and ever". It seems likely that in the larger towns these expositions of the torah were sometimes given on days other than the sabbath; from the period before the destruction of the Temple a tradi­ tion has been preserved concerning a body of men who assembled daily in the synagogue for reading and exposition of the Creation story ( T aa­ nith 4. 2; T08. Taanith 4. 219; Bab. Taanith 27b), and T08. Taanith 2. 217 states that from early times the congregation assembled in the sy­ nagogue on the second and fifth days of the week for reading from the torah. It is therefore possible that the Qumran community, when they separated themselves from Jewish urban life at an undisclosed date before the Christian era, took with them into the wilderness this custom of the synagogue. It is difficult to say if the "two ways" method of ex­ position which formed a model sermon for the priests of the sect was itself already in use in the synagogue before the migration of the com­ munity; in view of the prominence of the metaphor in the Old Testa­ ment this is perhaps not improbable - in fact it was very suitable for the instruction of proselytes. In any case the Qumran priests appear to have worked over the traditional material, incorporating their own special theological ideas into it. In time the expository sermon on the "two ways" which circulated in written form may have become part of the instruction which was given to the children of the community. We know that these children had to undergo a ten - year period of study in the provisions and institutions of the Covenant, and that they had to study especially a manual known as the Book of Hagu, which was also to be the staple diet of the priests and lay judges of the community (Zad. Work 13. 1 , 10. 7). The word hagu in late Hedrew means meditation or study, and this manual of study would no doubt contain ethical in­ struction on the way of life required of members of the community. We must now consider in more detail the section of the Manual of Discipline on the two spirits in man. Following the introduction comes a section on the nature of the God of Knowledge p arallel to the intro-

99

duction to the mandates of the Shepherd of Hermas. Then the instru­ ction proceeds: " Now this God created man to rule the world, and ap­ pointed for him two spirits after whose direction he was to walk until the final inquisition. They are the spirits of truth and of perversity". This idea of the two spirits created by God and guiding men was espe­ cially congenial to the Qumran community - although it also appears, as we have seen, in the Testaments of the Twe[CJe Patriarchs and is almost certainly due to Iranian influence on J udaism. The eastern Iranian tea­ ching of Zoroaster (c. 600 B. C.) preserved in the ancient poems known as the Gathas contains these sections: At the beginning, the two Spirits which are known ... as twins Are the one better, and the other evil In thought, words, deeds; and between these two, The wise choose well, but not so the foolish ( Yasna 30. 3). Of these two Spirits, the evil one chooses to do the worse things, But the most Holy Spirit, clothed with the firmest skies, sided with righteousness And thus did all those who are pleased to gratify the Wise Lord by honourable actions ... ( Yasna 30. 5). For Zoroaster there is but one God, the Wise Lord (A hura Mazda) and b elow Him are the two spirits - the good spirit (Spenta Mainyu) and the evil spirit (A nra Mainyu) representing the realms of light and darkness which struggle with their angels against each other in the world drama as two armies. Undoubtedly this is the source of the Qumran doc trine although it is hazardous to suggest exactly how this Iranian idea en­ tered Jewish sectarian teaching. Later from it developed the Rabbinic idea of the yezer ha - tob (good inclination) and the yezer ha - ra (evil inclination) in every man which also appears to have been known to the apostle Paul. The Qumran sermon continues: The origin of truth lies in the Fountain of Light, and that of per­ versity in the Wellspring of Darkness. All who practise righteous­ ness are under the domination of the Prince of Lights, and Walk in ways of light; whereas all who practise perversity are under the domination of the Angel of Darkness and walk in ways of darkness. A remarkable parallel to this occurs at the beginning of the "two ways"

section in the Epistle of Barnabas: "There are two ways of instruction as there are two powers - that of Light and that of Darkness. And there

100

is a great difference between the two ways: the one is controlled by God's light - bringing angels, the other by the angels of Satan. And as the lat­ ter is the Ruler of the present era of lawlessness, so the former is Lord from eternity to eternity" (Barnabas 18. 1 2 )88; the Didache version is however much briefer: "Two ways there are, one of life and one of Death, and there is a great difference between the two ways" (Did. i . 1). After an elaboration of the Light - Darkness theme, which was also central in Iranian religion, the Qumran manual details the virtues of those who are guided by the spirit of truth and the vices which are the lot of those guided by the spirit of perversity. -

This is the way those spirits operate in the world for the enligh­ tenment of man's heart, the making straight before him all the ways of righteousness and truth, the implanting in his heart fear of the judgements of God. A spirit of humility, patience, abundant com­ passion, perpetual goodness, insight, discrimination, a sense of the Divine Power that is based at once on an apprehension of God's works and a reliance on his plenteous mercy, a spirit of knowledge informing every plan of action, a zeal for righteous government, a hallowed mind in a controlled nature, abounding love for all who follow the truth, a self - respecting purity which abhors all the taint of filth, a modesty of behaviour coupled with a general pru­ dence and ability to hide within oneself the secrets of what one knows - these are the things that come to men in this world through communion with the spirit of truth. And the guerdon of all that walk in its ways is health and abundant well - being, with long life and fruition of seed along with eternal blessings and everlas­ ting j oy in the life everlasting, and a crown of glory and a robe of honour amid light perpetual. But to the spirit of perversity belong greed, omission in right doing, wickedness and falsehood, pride and presumption, deception and guile, cruelty and abundant insolen­ ce, shortness of temper and profusion of folly, arrogant passion, abominable acts in a spirit of lewdness, filthy ways in the thrall88. Cf. Hel'mas Mandates 6. I I . 1 2. "Hear now", said he, "concerning faith. There are two angels with man, one of righteousness and one of wickedness. How then, Sir, said I shall I know their workings, because both angels dwell with me?" This version is probably independent of Barnabas and may represent one crystal­ lization of the "two ways" form of teaching, ultimately going back to Iranian ideas, which circulated in the early Church. -

101 dom of unchastity, a blasphemous tongue, blindness of eyes, dull­ ness of ears, stiffness of neck and hardness of heart, to the end that a man walks entirely in the ways of darkness and of evil cunning. The guerdon of all who walk in such ways is a multitude of afflicti­ ons at the hands of all the angels of destruction, evedasting per­ dition through the angry wrath of an avenging God, eternal hor­ ror and perpetual reproach, the disgrace of final annihilation in the fire, darkness throughout the vicissitudes of life in every ge­ neration, doleful sorrow, bitter misfortune and dark ruin - ending in extinction without remnant or survival. Such lists of virtues and vices were not peculiar to the Qumran teachers but were a commonplace of the ethical instruction in the Graeco­ Roman world; the Pythagoreans and Orphics in particular were addi­ cted to this kind of code and we know that a popular gambling game was played with counters each of which had inscribed on it the name of a different vice. The Dramatists and Stoics likewise made frequent use of this method although it was left to the Hellenistic J ew Philo to surpass all previous lists by compiling one containing 1 47 adjectives descriptive of the man addicted to pleasure rather than to virtue which was Philo's ideal. Catalogues of virtues and vices were also a common­ place of Old Testament teaching and in the New Testament occur in the teaching of Jesus ( Mark. 7. 21 - 22) and of Paul (Gal. 5. 1 9 23; 1 Cor. 6. 9 - 10; Rom. 1. 29 - 32 inter alia). Their appearance in the Qum­ ran Manual of Discipline was thus no innovation of the Qumran priests but probably was part of the stock - in - trade of Jewish teachers. Rend­ ell Harris long ago made the interesting suggestion that the Jewish list of vices was derived from the catalogue of sins recited at confession on the Day Atonement 89. B e that as it may it seems certain that the teaching of the Synagogue would contain instruction about the vir­ tues expected of and the sins to be avoided by the good Jew and pro­ selyte to Judaism, and we need look no further than this for the back­ ground of the Qumran lists. -

After a section on God's truth and the calling of the community to share in his eternal glory the Qumran sermon concludes: Thus far, the spirits of truth and perversity have been struggling in the heart of man. Men have walked both in wisdom and in folly. 89. The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, 18 88.

102

If a man casts his portion with truth, he does righteously and hates perversity; if he casts it with perversity, he does wickedly and abo­ minates truth. For God has apportioned them in equal measure until the final age, until " He makes all things new". He foreknows the effect of their works in every epoch of the world, and he has made men heirs to them that they might know good and evil. But (when the time) of Inquisition (comes), He will determine the fate of every living being in accordance with which of the (two spirits he has chosen to follow). On comparison with the later Christian versions of the "two ways" in Barnabas and the Didache several interesting points emerge. The Qumran sermon breathes a devotional spirit which is absent from the later versions, and this is in line with the devotional note of the Thanks­ giving Psalms of the sect. Here was a community of pious individuals which took very seriously the importance of an inward faith; but by the time of the epistle of Barnabas and the Didache in the late - first and early second centuries A. D. a tendency had appeared in Christia­ nity which emphasized obedience to law rather than the possession of an inward faith in Christ, and because of this the ethical codes embed­ ded in these writings are more externalized in nature90• The Qumran priest merely desired to teach the members of the community "the real nature of men, touching the different varieties of their temperaments with the distinguishing traits thereof, touching their actions through­ out their generations, and touching the reason why they are now visi­ ted with afflictions and now enjoy periods of well - being". In the "two ways" section in Barnabas, and especially in the Didache, there is a step away from this conception of religious inwardness; if we possessed other Jewish pre - Christian versions of the "two ways" it is possible that they too would reflect an interest in codification for its own sake. A further point of difference between the Qumran and the later versions is the treatment of the social code. In the Manual of Discipline this does not 90. Later Christian instruction struck a higher ethical note. Cf. the fragment discovered by P. M. Barnard in the Escurial Library which is certainly the cateche­ tical instruction given by Clement of Alexandria to the newly baptized. The opening words exhibit the gentleness of touch which is the mark of a great mind - "Cultivate quietness in word, quietness in deed, likewise in speech and gait, and avoid impetu­ ous eagerness. For then the mind will remain steady and will not be agitated by your eagerness and so become weak and of narrow discernment and see darkly".

- 103

form part of the "two ways" section but is separate (5. 1 - 7) and is naturally concerned with rules considered suitable for the life of the sect. In Barnabas and the Didache however the slave - master theme familiar from the social codes underlying the New Testament epistles appears within the two ways section. The command to slaves to obey their masters in reverence and fear is probably pre - Christian but was given special emphasis in Christianity as an opportunity for the imitatio Christi. Such social relationships did not apply in the case of the Qumran community although its members are exhorted to obey the decisions of their priests, the sons of Zadok, who have the deciding word in all doc­ trinal, economic, and j udicial matters. In certain respects the version of the two ways in Barnabas is closer to the Qumran sermon than that of the D idache. This is shown by the occurrence of the light - darkness realms91 which are under the control of God's angels of Jight and the angels of Satan, and also by the empha­ sis on knowledge in both codes92; the Didache however does not have these themes. It might be argued that the author of Barnabas drew directly upon the Qumran "two ways" teaching for these ideas. We know that there were contacts between Alexandria and the Dead Sea area at the time of the rise of Christianity; Egyptian trading contacts in this period were very wide, and certainly bitumen for embalming reached Egypt from the Dead Sea region. Moreover archaeologists are of the opi­ nion that the large j ars found in the Qumran caves in which the scrolls were stored are of Egyptian design, which suggests that a fairly close contact existed between the sect and Egypt. Likewise the Pythagorean element found in the teachings of the sect might be due to contact with Alexandrian thought. Furthermore the Epistle of Barnabas and the Qumran documents both reflect an attitude hostile to the Jerusalem 91. The metaphor of light and darkness which is ultimately due to Iranian in­ fluence is prominent in the New Testament and was associated quite early with bap­ tismal instruction. Later it passed into patristic thought - a good example occurs in Clement of Alexandria's Exhortation to the Greeks II. "Upon us who lay buried in darkness and shut up in the shadow of death a light shone forth from heaven, purer than the sun and sweeter than the life of earth. That light is life eternal, and whatsoever things partake of it, live". The metaphor is also prominent in the Enneads of Plotinus, which show traces of Iranian dualism. 92. The concept of truth which is prominent in the Scrolls is not, however, found in Barnabas. In the Scrolls it is often the equivalent of the torah ( = Samaritan qush­ ta l .

104 Temple and cultus although both develop their arguments from dif­ ferent angles. And it is perhaps not beyond the bounds of credulity that some remnants of the Qumran sect may have j oined up with J ewish and Jewish - Christian survivors of the Jewish struggle against Rome which culminated in the destruction of the Temple in A. D. 70, and so found their way to Alexandria along the route well - known to Jewish travellers. However, not too much should be read into these various possibilities. We have to allow for a complex Jewish - Iranian back­ ground behind the beliefs of Barnabas and the Qumran scribes, and no direct borrowing on the part of the Christian writer need be envisaged. It is not without significance that early Christian writers show no direct knowledge of the Qumran community or for that matter of the Essenes. If we may now recapitulate, our view of the genesis of the "two ways" would read something like this. Within late - Judaism instruction was given by the Rabbis and varied in its nature according to the au­ dience addressed. Sometimes it took the form of expository discourse based on passages of the torah delivered in the synagogue service; at other times it formed, together with circumcision and baptism, the con­ ditions for the acceptance of a proselyte to Judaism. It is likely that part of this instruction took the form of teaching on the two ways of life and death and light and darkness. This teaching circulated among the Rabbis in the pre - Christian era in both oral and written forms, and one example of the latter is found in an expository sermon contained in the Qumran Manual of Discipline, which the sect may have taken over from the use of the synagogue, aIthought the Qumran scribes had wor­ ked this over and incorporated certain theological ideas of their own which they wished to emphasize in the teaching given to the members of the community. The exact form of this "two ways" teaching probably varied from place to place and from teacher to teacher - som etimes it may have contained a code dealing with social relationships. Christiani­ ty, which was otherwise heavily indebted to Judaism, as it developed its mission in the Graeco - Roman world took over from the diaspora Jewish forms of ethical instruction. Among these were the "two ways" teaching, which may have been known to the early Church in both oral and written forms. One such written form was the original version of the Doctrina Apostolorum which is now only known in a Latin version. The fact that a verb um Christi was in existence concerning the two ways of life and the fact that Christianity itself came to be known as the Way (Acts. 18. 26) gave added impetus to the use of this form of instruction

1 05 in the Church's approach to the ordinary man93• Eventually the Syrian writer of the Didache made use of a "two ways" instruction which had been originally used in the teaching of Jewish proselytes (cf. Did. 6. 2), although he added to it excerpts from the Sermon on the Mount and generally made his own arrangement of the material. Likewise the Alexandrian author of Barnabas in the time of Hadrian incorporated a similar Jewish instruction (perhaps through the medium of the Hel­ lenistic synagogue ?) into his epistle which bore marked resemblances to that used by the writer of the Didache in some matters although dif­ fering in others. The form used by Barnabas was closer to the version of the Manual of Discipline than that of the Didache. However, between the original Jewish oral pattern of teaching and the written forms in the Christian documents may lie a number of oral and written versions not verbally identical yet which all contained fundamentally Jewish ideas. The contention of the Rabbinical scholar C. Taylor as long ago as 1888 that Jewish models existed behind the later Christian "two ways" code is thus correct. 5. HECENT RESEARCH

Recent research has examined the Old Testament testim onies and the sources which lie behind the Epistle. P. PR IGEl'
93. The Epistle to Diognetus shows the different approach which was made to the pagan intellegentsia.

106 xion with Alexandria; the Epistle is strongly anti-J ewish and not merely anti-cultic (cf. 3. 6; 4. 6; 5. 11; 8. 7; 10. 3-5; 13. 1; 13. 6; 14. 1 ; 15. 6; 16.1 -2); moreover the Epistle shows no trace of the Gnostic undervaluing of Jesus' humanity and is free from an adoptionist Christology (Barnabas never says that Jesus seemed to come in the flesh but that he was manifested to suffer and endure). R. A. KRAFT, The Apostolic Fathers Vol. 3, Barnabas and the Didache, New York and Toronto, 1965 holds that the Epistle in its final form is a 'school' product. Barn. 1 -17 uses older material almost all of which goes back, directly or indirectly, to Jewish religious literature. Much of this was already in blocks of tradition, halakic, haggadic, mid­ rash, hellenistic J ewish propaganda, moral ising Greek natural history, typological and allegorical traditions, and apocalyptic sources. The final author was a compiler of various 'school' traditions closely related to hellenistic Judaism. Kraft's view however would seem to under­ value the particular theological viewpoint which the writer has imposed on his sources. A full scale commentary on the Greek text of the Epistle was published by P. PRIGENT and R. A. KRAFT ( Epitre de Barnabe, Sources Chretiennes, Paris 1971 ). Particularly valuable is the ' Introdu­ ction Critique' and ' Notes' to this edition. K. WE N GST , Tradition und Theologie des Barnabasbriefes, Berlin 1971, against Prigent and Kraft, holds that Barnabas has a central theological perspective which is belief in the Old Testament as the norm for theology and in the torah as the way of salvation. For Wengst Barnabas is not a patch­ work of traditions but has a central perspective of its own. Neverthe­ less he holds that behind Barnabas was a type of hellenistic - Jewish Christianity which is historically related to the opponents whom Igna­ tius of Antioch controverts in his Ep istle to the Philadelphians, i.e. Bar­ nabas emerges from a Western Asia Minor milieu c. 130 - 132 A. D. Against Wengst's theory is however the fact that Ignatius is contro­ verting only one heresy, viz. Jewish - Gnosticism; there is nothing in Barnabas which suggests this heresy. Gnosis for Barnabas does not involve a denial of the reality of Jesus' body but is more Jewish and re­ lated to the idea of knowledge in the Wisdom literature, i.e. practical knowledge of the Will of God. Moreover there is a gap of 20 years be­ tween the composition of the Ignatian Epistles and Wengst's date for Barnabas which is not easy to bridge; and Wengst does not con­ sider the use of allegory in Barnabas which has much in common with Alexandrian exegesis. In spite of the valuable work of Prigent, Kraft and Wengst there is still much to support the view that the S itz - im - Leben of the Epistle was Alexandria.

4*

JUSTIN MARTY R'S KNOWLEDGE OF JU DAISM . Justin Martyr, the second century Christian Apologist, was born in Samaria but he was brought up as a Gentile and had a Greek educa­ tion. He tens us that he was uncircumcised 1 and had no knowledge of Judaism until he was an adult when he came to know Moses and the prophets. From this we may infer that he left Palestine at an early age. What kind of J udaism did Justin know later in life ? Our only sour­ ce of information about this is the Dialogue with Trypho which Justin probably composed c. 160 A. D. It has been suggested 2 that this Dia­ logue has behind it an original historical debate between Justin and a Jew, Trypho, which occurred soon after 132 A. D . - which J ustin has subsequently elaborated from oral and written material known to him. Any discussion of the Jewish background of the Christian Apologist must take its start from Trypho himself. Trypho was a Jew had fled from the war in Palestine 3, no doubt in company with many of his compatriots. He was apparently spending much time in Greece and Corinth 4 although, at the time of the debate with Justin, he was in Ephesus 5. His culture was Gentile for he sta­ tes that he was taught in Argos by Corinthus of the School of Socrates 6. Trypho distinguishes himself from "our teachers" 7 and includes him­ self among those who have been warned against entering into discus­ sions with Christians 8. He was therefore a layman and not a Jewish •

Vetus Testamentum 1q (196") 39 7-�06. 1. Dial. 28 2. A. L. WILLIAMS, Justin Martyrj the Dialogue with Trypho, London 1930, p.

xxiv 3. q. 5. 6. 7. 8.

Dial. Dial. Dial. Dial. Dial. Dial.

1. 3j 9. 3j 16. 2j 18. 3 1 . 3. 1. 1 1. 2 9q. q 38. 1

108 Rabbi - a fact corroborated by his lack of knowledge of Hebrew. I t is thus very improbable that he was the learned R. Tarphon who was of the second generation of Mishna teachers - and in any case R. Tarphon was strongly anti - Christian while Trypho argues from a real desire to ascertain the truth 9. It is all the more interesting that Trypho was a layman as his conception of Judaism will represent a position differ­ ent from the Palestinian Pharisaic orthodoxy which was being enfor­ ced following on the reconstl'llction at J amnia after 70 A.D. Trypho's character is only too human. H is manners are genial and better than those of his friends1o• Yet he thinks that J ustin is derangedll and acctlses him, not without justice, of qu o ti n g only Old Testament passages which support his arguments12• He loses his temper13 and says roundly that J ustin's explanations are artificial and even blas­ phemous. Yet the debate finishes on a friendly note14• These personal touches preclude, I believe, the view that the figure of Trypho is an ideal construction which Justin has created to embody the best of both schools of Judaism16• If this was the case we should have expected the picture of Trypho to have been more uniform. On the whole the Debate, as recorded in the Dialogue, was condu­ cted in an amicable spirit which says much, considering what was at stake, for both the characlers of Justin and Trypho. It is superior in tone to the majority of Christian writings in the Corpus A nti J udaicum. The Dialogue with Trypho is an important source for Jewish know­ ledge of Christianity as well as for Christian knowledge of J udaism and implies a closer intercourse between Christians and Jews in the first half of the second century than has usually been supposed. It would appear that the Rabbis of J amnia were not wholly successful in enfor­ cing on the diaspora the pattern of Pharisaic orthodoxy which forbad contacts with the Minim, i.e. Christians16• -

9. 10. 11. 12. 13.

Dial. 87. 1 Dial. 1 . 1 ; 2. 6; 8 . 3; 9. 2 U. Dial. 39. 3 Dial. 21. 1 Dial. 79. 1 14.. Dial. H2. 1 15. The view of E . n. GOOD ENOUGH, The Theology of Justin Martyr, Jena 1923, pp. 90 - 3 16. J USTIN (Dial. 16. 4) knew of the benediction composed by Samuel the Small at Jamnia c. 85 A. D . On this H . STRA C K , Jesus die Haretiker und die Christen pp. 66 rf.

109 Trypho's arguments against Christianity reveal by contrast his conception of Judaism. In general he is anti - Christian (8. 3 ff) and finds in the moral teaching of Jesus too high a standard to keep ( 10. 2). Trypho particularly objects to Justin's arguments about the torah and asks whether Justin thinks that the torah unfits men for salvation (45. 1 ff). He is surprised that Christians do not separate themselves from the heathen and eat things offered to idols (8. 4; 10. 3; 19. 1 ; 20. 2, 35. 1 46. 2). H e asks whether Christians are allowed to keep the Sabbath and to be circumcised (46. 1 - 4; 47. 1 ) although he I'ealizes that certain pre­ cepts of the torah can only be observed in Palestine. Trypho and his friends are worried by Justin's remark that Gentile Christians are the children of God (124. 1 ) and Israel itself (123. 7). They assert that Isa. 42. 6 ff refers to proselytes and not to Gentile Christians ( 122. 4). Try­ pho even infers that J ustin means that no Jew shall have an inheritan­ ce in the holy mountain of God which Justin corrects making this de­ pendent on repentance (25. 6). Trypho particularly objects to the Incarnation on the grounds that it is incredible (68. 1 ). The pre - existence of Jesus, he asserts, is impos­ sible as he lacked the powers of the Holy Spirit at first (87. 1 ff). He wants proofs that there is another God (65. 1 ) and that he was born of a virgin (63. 1). Trypho disputes the use made by Justin 0 f certain passages in the LXX such as Gen. 18, Isa. 7. 14, Ps. 96, lsa. 1 1 . 1 - 3, 40. 1 - 17. He is even shocked when Justin says that Christ spoke to Moses at the burn­ ing bush (38. 1 , 3). The Christian doctrine of the Messiah is a maj or stumbling block; Trypho says that the Christians "shape a kind of Messiach for themsel­ ves" (8. 4). He agrees however that the Messiah is to be born of the race of David (68. 5) but is to be only a man who will become Messiah (49. 1, 67. 2). And even if the Messiah is to suffer he cannot suffer by crucifi­ xion (89. 2, 90. 1 ). J ustin, in any case, has first to prove that J eSlls was called a Stone (36. 1 ) . It is significant for the understanding of Trypho's conception of Judaism that he accepts many of Justin's statements. Thus: "All our race expects the Messiah, and we acknowledge that all the p assages of scripture which you have cited have been spoken of him" (89. 1 ). Trypho holds that it is right to look for a reason in God's command (28. 1) and states that the torah was, in fact, given because of the hardness of Is­ rael's heart. It was not necessary to salvation as is seen from the case

110 o f the patriarchs (67. 7 ff). H e grants the case o f the patriarchs (67. 7 ff). He grants that Justin's LXX quotations are such as to point to his interpretation but he wants more information - especially concerning Isa. 7. 1 4 (77. 1). Such is Trypho's liberalism that he confesses that he is charmed with the debate and found more than he expected ( 1 42. 1). Trypho's interpretations of certain passages in the LXX are in­ teresting. He regards the Son of Man mentioned in Dan. 7. 13 as the Mes­ siah (32. 1). With regard to the "three men" in Gen. 18. 2 he grants that God appeared to Abraham, though before the three men" who were really angels, came (46. 4 ff); but he afterwards acknowledges that they were not angels, though the passage does not show that there was ano­ ther God (56. 9). Yet the third angel was God, and yet not the God in heaven, although his 'eating' is difficult, if not metaphorical (57. 1 , 3). Trypho accepts Justin's explanation of Isa. 42. 8; "My glory will I not give to another" (65. 7). He agrees that a new Covenant is foretold (77. 9 - 1 1) and that Isa. 1 1 . 1 - 3 does refer to the Messiah, although not to Jesus (87. 1 ff) . A friend of Trypho's who j oins in the debate on the se­ cond day says he can give no reason against Justin's interpretation of the incident of the Brazen Serpent - and neither could his teachers. "So say what you will, for we are paying heed to you as you reveal the mystery of things that cause even the precepts of the prophets to be attacked" (94. 4). Trypho was a Hellenistic Jewish layman who combined the cul­ ture and enquiring spirit of the hellenistic world with a knowledge of traditional Jewish exegesis and haggadah. He has no knowledge of the Hebrew language but knows accurately the Septuagint version of the Old Testament. His is not however the Judaism of Philo and Alexan­ drian hellenistic Judaism, nor that of the Palestinian Rabbinic schools. Trypho represents a mediating J udaism, perhaps having Palestinian roots, which cannot be strictly classified. Judaism, ever after 70 A. D., was not a monolithic structure and had a number of facets, as recent discoveries have shown1? Trypho represents one of these facets. He warns us against identifying the linguistic frontier between the Greek and semitic worlds with the cultural frontier between Hellenism and Judaism. What of Justin Martyr himself ? Was he qualified to conduct a 17. See especially W. D. DAVIES, Christian O,.igins and Judaism, London 19 62, pp. 105 8 -

111 controversy with such a Jew as Trypho ? What knowledge did he pos­ sess of Jewish post - biblical traditions and haggadah ? Again we should be in error if we assumed that Justin, because he wrote in Greek, only knew the hellenistic Judaism of Alexandria. Indeed, as an examination of Justin's philosophical background would show, it is very doubtful if Justin was familiar with Philo although he certainly knew the Jewish Wisdom literature. His knowledge of Judaism was derived directly from the LXX and from post - biblical practices, doctrines and exege tical methods with which he was apparently familiar. a) Justin's dependence on the Greek version of the Old Testament: It will be as well to give some examples which show his ignorance of the He­ brew text of the Bible. In Dial. 49 his argument based on Ex. 1 7. 16, "A hand upon the throne of the Lord", is derived from the LXX which has a reading different from the Hebrew text. 2 Justin's quotation in Dial. I from Isa. 39. 8 - 40. 18 presents seve­ ral verbal variants from the LXX yet it agrees with the LXX and Vulgate, and differs from the Hebrew, in adopting the masculine, instead of the feminine, gender in verse 9, 6 e:uocyye:).,L�b(J.e:vo�. 3 In Dial. 1 13 Justin states that the Jews, although taking no ac­ count of the change of Oshea into Joshua, yet made it a theologi­ cal question why oc was added to the name of Abraham ( A�pococ(J. for "A(3p oc(J. ) and a second p inserted in the name of Sarah CEocppoc for 'Zocp oc) I t is difficult to imagine that this could have been said by anyone who knew that the real change in Hebrew was the addi­ tion of the letter (h) in the name of Abraham and the change of (i) into (h) in that of Sarah (i.e. Sarah for Sarai). 4 In Dial. 125 Justin gives his explanation of the meaning of the name " I srael", It is derived, he says, from Isra, i.e. "a man over­ coming" and el "power". But the Hebrew derivation is probably from 'chief' of 'prince' and El, "God". 1

'

.

It is interesting that Justin not only in general follows the LXX in his quotations18 but he charges the Jews with corrupting those copies 18. Justin appears to use an eclectic text of theLX X.It is possible that his associations with Palestine, Ephesus and Rome may have supplied textual variants; H.B. SWETE, Int,.oduction to the Old Testament in G,.eek, Cambridge 1902, p. U9. J. SMIT SIBIN-

112

o f the LXX which, it appears, were in use in some synagogues. I n Dial. 68. 7 he says that the Jewish teachers "presumed to affirm that the translation made by the seventy elders in the time of Ptolemy, the K in g of Egypt, was in some respects untrue". In Dial. 71 Justin repeats the same charge and alleges that the Jewish teachers did not allow that the translation of the LXX was well done, and that they endeavoured to make a translation or to give interpretations themselves (tiM' or.{rw( e;1jyda6or.L r.eLpwv't"cxL). It is j ust possible that this is an allusion to the version of Theodotion who, according to Irenaeus (A d". Haero 3. 24), was a Jewish proselyte and whose version was made in the first half of the second century19. More interesting are the references which Justin makes in Dial. 72 to certain expurgations from the LXX text alleged to have been made by the Jews. There is no certain evidence that these in fact exi­ sted - indeed in the case of one passage, the quotation from Jer. 1 1 . 19, all MSS both Greek and Hebrew retain it20• Justin himself acknowled­ ges that the quotation still existed in some copies found in the synago­ gues of the Jews (72. 3). It is remarkable that Trypho, whom Euse­ bius describes as "the most distinguished of the Hebrews of his time" (HE. 4. 18), instead of insisting on direct evidence for so grave an ac­ cusation was content to regard it as merely incredible. The almost certain conclusion is that neither Justin nor Trypho knew Hebrew or the Hebrew version of the Scriptures and this led them into errors of interpretation. But in this ignorance they were joined by large numbers of Greek speaking Jews who heard the LXX read in the synagogue serVIce. b) Jewish Post - Biblical Practices: Justin was acquainted with certain Jewish practices which are not found in the Old Testament. In Dial. 16. 4, cf. 47. 4; 93. 4; 1 18. 3, he refers to the cursing of Christians in the synagogues. This accords with the Palestinian form of the Twelfth Bene­ diction in the Shemoneh' Esreh which prayed that Christians (nOtzrim) may GA, The Old Testament Text of Justin Martyr, Leiden 1963, has shown that Justin's

quotations from the Pentateuch contain much ancient and valuable material. 19. It is still an open question whether Theodotion's adaptation was based on the LXX or on another Greek version. B. J. ROBERTS, Peake's Commentary on the Bible, Revised ed. 19 62, p. 81. Justin, in his quotation from Daniel in Dial. 31, shows a knowledge of Theodotion's readings. 20. This text was used in Christian testimony collections; LACT. 4. . 18; CYPRIA!'I, Test. 2. 15, 20; GRE GORY NYSSA, Test. ad". Jud. 6; Dionysius Bar Salibi 4.. 19, 6. 8 .

H3

perish and be wiped out of the book of life2l• It is arguable that notzrim strictly refers to N azarenes, i.e. Jewish Christians, but Justin assumes that it refers to all Christians, Gentile as well as Jewish. There is no rea­ son to doubt the correctness of his information although equaIly many Jews seemed to have remained in friendly contact with Christians in spite of the command of the Rabbis not to hold discussions with Chris­ tians to which Justin refers in Dial. 38. 1 and which is confirmed by T. B. Aboda Zara 27b: "Let a m an have no dealings with the heretics (minim) nor get healing of bodily diseases from them - for heresy (mi­ nuth) attracts". In Dial. 40. 4 - 5 Justin refers to the scapegoat in the ritual of the Day of Atonement: "And the two goats at the Fast that are commanded at the Fast, which by God's command must be alike, of which one be­ came the Scapegoat, and the other an offering, were an announcement of the two Advents of Christ22: of one Advent, in which the elders of your people and the priests, laying their hands on him and putting him to death, sent him off as a scapegoat; and of his second Advent, because in the same place of Jerusalem you will recognise him who was disho­ noured by you ... Now that there is no permission for the offering of the two goats which were commanded to be brought at the Fast to take place anywhere save in Jerusalem, you are fully aware". The basis of this account is to be found in LeI,J. 16. 5 10, 21 - 2. But it is significant that in these passages there is no mention that the goats are to be alike nor that the elders and priests laid hands on the scapegoat - according to LeI,J. 16. 21 the goat is sent into the wilderness by the hand of one man after Aaron, the High Priest, had laid his hands on the goat's head confessing the sins of Israel. Neither is there any mention of Jerusalem. J ustin's additions to the biblical account are merely due to his obvious desire to find typological fulfilments of the ritual of the Day of Atonement in the Advent of Christ. They also ap­ pear to reflect fresh details concerning the ceremonies observed on that Day found in the Mishna Tractate Yoma which in its present form da­ tes from c. 200 A. D. But this Tractate may well reflect genuine earlier traditions as the Temple ritual, at the time Yoma was written, was no longer applicable to Jewish life and therefore has been less overlaid -

21. T. B. Berakoth 29a 22. TERTULLIA N, Ad". Jud. H

114 with comment by later tannaim and less exposed to the possibiHty of revision (cf. Yoma 16a). In Yoma 6. 1 ff we are explicitly told that the two goats are to re­ semble one another as closely as possible. The words of the High Priest's confession over the goat were: '0 God, thy people, the house of Israel, have committed iniquity, transgressed, and sinned before thee, 0 God, forgive, I pray, the iniquities and transgressions and sins which thy people, the house of Israel, have committed and transgressed and sinned before thee; as it is written in the law of thy servant Moses, "For on this day shall atonement be made for you to cleanse you: from all your sins shall ye be clean before the Lord"'. The goat was then led away, accompanied by some of the nobles of Jerusalem and later by a single man, to aplace called Suk where it was thrown backwards over a cliff and dashed to pieces among the rocks. I t is also interesting that, ac­ cording to Yoma 3. 9, the two goats used in the ritual were solemnly chosen by lot in the temple area and this practice seems to be alluded to by Justin who clearly has a knowledge of these post - biblical Jewish pra­ ctices in this passage. In D ial. 134. 1 J ustin refers to Jewish teachers who permit Jews to have four and even five wives a piece. This is attested by Josephus who says that it is an ancient practice for the Jews to have many wives at the same time (A nt. 17. 1 . 2 3). In the Talmud polygamy is not ru­ led out: "While one rabbi says that a man may take as many wives as he can support - Raba in Yeb. 65a - it was recommended that no one should marry more than four women ibid. 44a"23. c) Jewish post - Biblical Beliefs: Justin in a number of passages shows of knowledge of beliefs held by the Rabbis but not found in scripture. Thus in Dial. 8. 4 Trypho is recorded as saying, "But Messiah, if indeed he has ever been and now exists anywhere, is unknown, and does not even know himself at all nor has any power, until Elijah shall have come and anointed him, and shall have made him m anifest to all". The doctrine of a Messiah as existing on earth, although unknown, is attes­ ted by 4 Esdras 13. 52, by R. Nachman (4th cent. A. D.) and by Rab (T. B . Sanh. 98b). According to T. B. Sanh. 98a the Messiah might even he among the lepers at the gates of Rome. The details concerning the relationship of Elijah to the Messiah are also significant24. According to -

-

23. Jewish Encyclopaedia X. 121. Western Jews have been monogamists since the time of R. Gershom ben Judah C. 1000 A. D . 2q. Ct. also Dial. q9

115 later Jewish traditions Elijah, in the Messianic age, will restore to Is­ rael a flask of oil for anointing the King Messiah (Kerithoth 5ab; Horay­ yoth 11b; Siphra Tasr. I 9 (ed, WEISS 41a))2li. In several Talmudic tra­ ditions Elijah is not only a prophet but also High Priest whose custom it was to anoint the Kings. Justin's reference to the anointing of the Messiah by Elijah in the Messianic age is, in Klausner's opinion, the earliest reference to this Jewish belief. 26 In Dial 44. 1 Justin refers to the belief that the Jewish nation was sure of salvation because they are Abraham's seed27• And in Dial. 64. 1 Trypho says that only Gentiles need Christ - not the Jews. In 69. 7 there appears the Jewish belief that Jesus was a magician and a deceiver ­ a belief held by Celsus28 and referred to in T. B . Sanh. 43a, "On the eve of Passover they hanged Jesus, and a herald went out before him for forty days, (crying) Let him be stoned, for he has committed sorcery, and has deceived Israel, and led it astray". In Dial. 1 23. 1 Justin speaks of a proselyte who undergoes circum­ cision "with the object of j oining the people is like one who is native born". This is an undoubted reference to the Jewish belief that a prose­ lyte is like a new - born child29 in that his former family connexions had ended and that he had begun a new life. d) Jewish post - Biblical exegesis: In a number of passages Justin shows a knowledge of J ewish methods of exegesis and interpretation although these are not so prominent as in the Epistle of Barnabas. Justin sometimes quotes passages of Scripture in an ascending order of impor­ tance, viz. Hagiographa, Prophets and finally the Law. A good example of this is found in Dial. 29. 2: "For the words have not been fitted to­ gether by me, nor adorned by human art, but they were sung by David, proclaimed as good news by Isaiah, preached by Zechariah, written down by Moses. You recognise them, Trypho ? They are laid up in your Scri­ ptures, or rather not in yours but in ours, for we obey them, but you, when you read, do not understand their sense". The order David, I saiah, Zechariah and Moses no doubt would have appealed to Trypho. In Dial. 32. 1 Trypho accepts the Son of Man of Dan. 7. 13 as the 25. 26. 27. 28. 29.

Cf. also the Ethiopic book Kebra Nagast ch. 98 The Messianic Idea in Israel, London 1956, p. q56 See Strack - Billerbeck on Matt. 3. 9. ORIGEN, C. Cels. I. 28, 2. q8; c1. Clem. Rec. 1. 58; LAcT. T. B. Yeb. 62a

5.

3

116

Messiah. This exegesis was well known among the Jews, cf. Similitu­ des of Enoch 37 - 71 ; 4 Esdras 13. R. Akiba spoke of the 'thrones' of Dan. 7. 9 as prepared for God and for David (T. B. Sanh. 38b - apparently alluding to this exegesis). In Dial. 36. 2 6 Ps. 24 is referred to Solomon. This was common among the Jews; e. g. T. B. Sabb. 30a reads: "When Solomon built the sanctuary he sought to bring the ark into the Holy of Holies. The gates clave together. Solomon said twenty four forms of prayer, but no answer was given. He began to say. Lift up your heads, 0 ye gates . . . . Further illustrations of Jewish exegesis occur in Dial. 56. 5 (the interpretation of Gen. 18. 2, 19. 1 ); In Dial. 57.2 (the question how one of the angels could be God when he ate); in Dial. 62. 2 ff (the interpre­ tation of Gen. 1. 26); in 65. 1 (lsa. 43. 8); in 67. 1 (lsa. 7. 14); in 1 12. 4 (the camels) inter alia. J ustin also appears to have been familiar with a quantity of syn­ cretistic exegesis of Gen. 1 .This is shown in I Apol. 64 : "From what has been said you can understand why the daemons continued to have the image of the so - called Kore erected at the springs of waters, saying that she was a daughter of Zeus, imitating what was said through Moses. For Moses said, as I have quoted: ' In the beginning God made the hea­ ven and the earth. And the earth was invisible and unfurnished, and the Spirit of God was borne over the waters' . I n imitation of the Spirit of God, spoken of as borne over the water, they spoke of Kore, daugh­ ter of Zeus". This linking of Gen. I with the pagan goddess of springs is compared by H. Chadwick with Numenius of Apamea who links the same text with Egyptian representations of the gods as sea - borne30• It would seem that both Justin and Numenius drew on a Jewish syncre­ tistic tradition of Gen. 1 possibly Syrian in origin31• e) Justin's Knowledge of Jewish Sects: Justin's knowledge of Ju­ daism is, in the main, revealed in his discussion and controversy with the Jew Trypho - and particularly in their respective use of the LXX; only incidentally does Justin refer to aspects of Jewish life not strictly germane to the controversy. But in Dial. 62, 1 3 he refers to a heretical party among the J ews who said that in Gen. 1 . 26 ('Let us make man') God was speaking to -

"

-

30. Journal of Theological Studies 1'0, 1963, pp. 495 - 6. The reference is to Nu­ menius, ap. Porph. de Antro Nympharum 10. 31. C. C. RICHARDSON, Early Christian Fathers, London 1953, p. 285

1 17 the angels and that the human body was the creation of angels. There is a good Tannaitic tradition which states that God spoke to the angels at the creation32 and Goldfahn states that such passages are fre­ quently found-but in no orthodox Jewish tradition were the angels repre­ sented as creators of the human body. This belief was undoubtedly the crux of the heresy to which J ustin refers and it would seem that this was some form of Jewish Gnosticism. Certainly Philo knew of this be­ lief for, in speaking of the angel of Gen. 48 16, he says Moses "mentions man alone as having been made by God in conjunction with other as­ sistance (Gen. 1. 26). Here, therefore, the Father is conversing with his own powers, to whom he has assigned the task of making the mortal part of our soul... H e thought it necessary to assign the origin of evil to other workmen than himself"33. Recent discoveries have shown that Gnosticism was allied to Judaism at an early date and fragments of Jewish syncretist.ic interpretation appear to have been known. Justin makes another mention of Jewish groups in Dial. 80. 4 when he enumerates seven heretical Jewish sects which no orthodox Jew would acknowledge. These are the Genistae, Meristae, Galileans, Hel­ lenians, Baptists to which Justin strangely adds the Sadducees and Pharisees. This list is very difficult to interpret34• Nothing is known of the Genistae, Meristae and the Hellenians (unless Hellenians is a mista­ ke for the followers of Hillel); the Baptists are presumably the Hemero­ baptists or "morning bathers" - an Essene group who bathed every morning before the hour of prayer in order to pronounce the Name of God with a clean body;35 the Galileans may possibly be the followers of Judas of Galilee who led a revolt against the Romans in 6 A. D. It is however totally incomprehensible how Justin, in view of his know­ ledge of post - biblical Judaism, could describe the Sadducees and Pha32. Midr. Gen. Rabba c. 8 , p. 7cd from A. H . GOLDFAH N, Justinus Martyr und die Agada, Breslau 18 73, p. 24.5 33. De Fuga 13. 68, 70; cf. De Opif. Mundi 24.. No other Jewish writer seems to know of this belief. Justin does however refer to the orthodox Jewish belief that the permanent angels were rays from the Glory of God which it was the will of God not to recall; Dial. 128; cf. T. B . Chagiga 1 4.a. 34.. Hegesippus also gives a list of seven sects "opposed to the tribe of Judah and the Christ" (Eus. H. E. 4.. 22). EPIPHANlUS, Pan. Haer. 14. - 20 also mentions seven J ewish sects before the incarnation but does not state that they were repudiat­ ed by orthodox Jews. On Justin's list see M. BLACK, Bulletin of John Rylands Library 4.1, 1 959, pp. 285 - 303 35. Tosef. Yad. end

118

risees as unorthodox. The inaccuracy of this passage may point to cer­ tain corruptions in the text or to some misunderstanding on Justin's part36• The evidence assembled will have shown that Justin has a good working knowledge of post - biblical Judaism such as to stand him in good stead in his controversy with a Jew who likewise knew no Hebrew and, like J ustin, apparently used the Old Testament in its Greek form. Apart from his strange mistakes about Jewish sects Justin's errors are remarkably few37• Trypho represented a liberal mediating type of Ju­ daism not strictly Philonic nor Palestinian Rabbinic in character. Ju­ stin, with his cosmopolitan culture and wide interest and footing in the Greek world, was well able to cope with the arguments of his adversary indeed the Dialogue is proof that, in certain circles, there was a close intercourse between Christians and Jews even after the promulgation of the Birkhath - ha - Minim which forbad such contacts. Justin's know­ ledge of Judaism is in general accurate. He has a good knowledge of the LXX and of Jewish post - biblical practices, beliefs and exegetical methods and also is familiar with Jewish - Gnostic syncretistic exege­ sis of Gen. 1 . There is surprisingly little in Justin to suggest a close ac­ quaintance with Philo and Hellenistic Judaism. It is not now possible to ascertain when or how Justin acquired his knowledge of Judaism although this was probably, in the main, before his confrontation with Trypho.

36. M. BLACK, op. cit. pp. 289 - 90, holds that by the Sadducees Justin meant Zadokites or Qumran Essenes. He links the mention of the Pharisees with that of the Baptists and holds that Justin is referring to "baptizing Pharisees". 37. A. L. WILLIA MS, op . cit. p. xxxiii

5*

J USTI N MARTYR'S ESCHATOLOGY This study has been prompted by an article by Professor C. F. D. Moule of Cambridge on the Influence of Circumstances on the Use of Eschatological Terms 1. Briefly Professor Moule's thesis is that it is an error to seek for a seqllence of development or evolution in eschato­ logical formulations within the New Testament as the hope in the Pa­ rousia weakened: ' my point is not only that these (i. e. New Testament statements about the last things) are incapable of being built into a sin­ gle system, but also that they have, intrinsically, no logical sequence or successive order of evolution, but may arrive on the scene at any mo­ ment, and in almost any order, whether to 'peg' two opposite ends of a p aradox or to defend different aspects of the truth as they chance to come under attack. They are produced (to use Papias' celebrated phra­ se) 7tpO� 't"oc� Xpdocc; to meet each need as it arises' 2. Professor Moule has no difficulty in showing that the language of realized eschatology is used more when the indiridual believer is in mind; futurist eschatolo­ gy when the group destiny is being emphasised; the mythical and quasi physical language of apocalyptic when the future of the entire cosmos is in view. So Paul can use realized eschatology, apocalyptic and non apocalyptic language according to his theme, not according to the stage of his theological development 3. The question of the delay in the Pa­ rousia was hardly in view in the New Testament and did not affect the shaping of theological thought "'. Professor Moule's conclusions (and he is dealing only with the New Testament) are I believe of importance for the understanding of Justin Martyr's eschatology. Justin has a vivid belief in the Second Advent of Christ, yet it is remarkable how little the delay in the Parousia seems to *.

1. 2. 3. �.

Vigiliae Chl'istianae 19 (1965) 86-98. Journal Theological Studies XV, 1 964., pp. Op. cit. p. 5 Op. cit. p. 11 II Peter iii is unique in this respect.

1

-

15

120

have worried him. The 'time scale' type of argument is hardly found in his writings. E. R. Goodenough's explanation of this is that Justin was a simple type of Christian 'to whom the written and oral traditions of early Christianity ... have meant more than the attempts of thought­ ful men to reconcile them with the facts of life' 5. This is, I believe, to underestimate Justin who after all was a philosopher who had come to Christianity from a mid - Platonist milieu 6. My thesis is that Justin, writing in the mid - second century, was still dominated by the tension between the already and the not yet; by what had happened in the co­ ming of Christ, the whole Word, rather than by problems of the delay of the Parousia. H is eschatological language varies according to circum­ stance, as with the New Testament writers, and this is the cause of his apparent contradictions. Goodenough's judgement that Justin's is an inferior mind and that one of the chief values of a study of his eschato­ logy is the testimony it bears to the completely uncritical character of his thinking 7 could equally well be applied to Paul or John. We now pass to consider Justin's eschatology in detail: I The Two A dvents Again and again in both the Dialogue and the Apology Justin sta­ tes his belief in the two advents of Christ 8. The first has already happe­ ned in the Incarnation when he came as a dishonoured and suffering man without glory - the second coming will reveal him in glory with the angelic host. Justin uses the word 7tOCPOUcrLOC no fewer than 29 times while the only other occurrence of the word in the Greek Apologists is found in Tatian, Oratio ad Graecos xxxix. 3. The two comings - the first in lowliness, the second in exaltation - have been, for Justin, pro­ phesied in the Old Testament and he adduces a succession of proof texts in support of his view, some not found in the New Testament Thus Ps. cx. 7, 'Of a brook in the way shall he drink, therefore shall he lift up his head', describes the humility and the glory of Christ 9. In the first ad5. The Theology of Justin Martyr, Jena 1 923 p. 279. Note his remark. 'It is one of the marvels of history that Christianity did not collapse when its eschatological hope had to be indefinitely postponed' (op. cit. p. 279). 6. Dial. ii 6 7. Op. cit. p. 291 8. I Apol. Iii; Dial. xxxii, xxxiii, xl, xlv, xlix, ex, cxi inter alia. 9. Dial. xxxiii. 2

121

vent Christ was pierced, in the second they will recognise the one whom they have pierced and bitterly mourn10• Even the events associated with Moses and Joshua are brought in to support Justin's viewll: Moses stretched out his hands as he sat on the hill and continued until evening while Joshua was the leader in battIe enabling Israel to prevail - the former symbolising by his outstretched arms the first coming and the cross while Joshua (Jesus) symbolises the second coming when the po­ wer of the name will prevail over the daemonic hosts. Likewise the two goats offered on the Day of Atonement represent the two advents - the scapegoat symbolising Christ's suffering and death and the other goat his second coming which Justin seems to imply will take place in J e­ rusalem12• This belief in the two advents of Christ is found consistently in the New Testament and Justin's linking of it with the status of Christ as humiliated and glorified is also thoroughly biblical. The fact that he overlays and supports this belief with much fanciful exegesis and quo­ tes proof texts which sometimes appear to have been picked at random should not blind us to his fundamentally New Testament outlook. What is significant is that Justin preserves the tension found in the New Testa­ ment between the already and the not yet, i. e. between realized and futurist eschatology. While many of his references to the second advent are, as might be expected, collect ire, i. e. Christ comes as the arrival of a king to a community, some are individualistic. Thus in Dial. xxviii. 2 3 Justin says to Trypho: -

' It is but a short time that is left you for coming over to us, if Christ comes suddenly, you will repent in vain, you will lament in vain; for he will not hear you. "Break up fallow ground for yourselves", J e­ remiah has cried to the people, "and do not sow over thorns. Cir­ cumcise to the Lord, and be ye circumcised in the uncircumcision of your heart". Do not therefore sow in thorns and unploughed

10. Dial. xxxii. 2; cf. Zech. xii. 10 - tt. 1 1 . Dial. cxi. 12. Dial. xl. q 5. Justin apparently knows the Jewish traditions preserved in Mishna T,.actate Yoma iii - vi. In its present form this tractate dates from c. 200 A. D. but it may well renect genuine earlier traditions of the Temple Ritual. According to Yoma iii. 9 the two goats used in the ritual were solemnly chosen by lot in the Temple area. Justin seems to a.llude to this. See p. i n . -

122

land whence you have no fruit. Know Christ, and behold there is fair fallow, fair and rich in your heart'. This is the language, not of apocalyptic, but of realized eschatolo­ gy: 'Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of Man cometh'I3. II.

The Delay in the Parousia

In J ustin's day the Church had existed for more than a century. Generations of Christians had lived on earth and had, no doubt, believed in a second coming of Christ. The Church in Rome had survived the fires of the Neronian persecution and the lesser assault of DomiLian. What is surprising is that anxiety Over the delay in the Parousia seems to have left but little trace in early Christian literature. The following references comprise the sum total of references to a 'delay' before the time of Justin: II Peter iii. 4; I Clem. xxiii. 3; Barn. xix. 5; Hermas Vis. I I I. 4, 3; I I Clem. xi. 21', and most of thes e refer to the 'double - minded' who are disputing 'whether these things are so or not'IS. In view of the paucity of references to the 'delay' in the Parousia as constituting a dif­ ficulty it is all the more surprising that scholars have surmised that the n on - occurrence of the second advent was the cause of a radical re formulation of Christian doctrine and practiceI6. Justin, as a good re­ presentative of second - century thought, was little troubled by the non - arrival of the second advent. There are but three passages in his writings which bear on this question. In Dial. xxxii. 3 he quotes Dan. vii. 25 that the Man of I niquity is to reign for season, seasons and half a season. Trypho and his friends, says Justin, explain a season as a hundred years in which case if and seasons refers to two seasons, the Man of Iniquity will reign for at least 350 years before the End comes. Justin rejects this and holds that, since the time of the Ascension, the Man of Iniquity is at the door, i. e. the last times are about to appear. What is significant is that Justin nowhere suggests that Christians have been 13. Mt. xxv. 13. 14. Moule 0p . cit. p . 15 quoting Dr. E. Bammel who did not intend this as an exhaustive list. But I have been unable to find any further references. 1 5 . IIERMAS Vis. I I I . 4.. 3 1 6 . The classic position of M. WE RNER, The Formation of Christian Dogma. 1957.

1 23 querying the non - arrival of the End-it is only a question of proving to Jews that their interpretation of Dan. vii is wrong. In two passages in his Apologies Justin explains to the non - Chri­ stian world why the destruction of the world has been postponed. Ac­ cording to I I A pol. vii. 1 God has delayed the destruction of the world (and of the daemons and men) 'because of the seed of the Christians, who know that they are the cause of preservation in nature' (3LOC TO O"7tep fLOC TWV XpLO"TLOCVWV, I) YW WO"XEL EV 't"fi CPUo"EL IhL OCLTLOV EO"nv. In I Apol. xxviii. 2 Justin says that 'God delays doing this (i. e. destroying the world) for the sake of the human race for he foreknows that there are some yet to be saved by repentance, even perhaps some not yet born' . The first passage seems to have in mind the Old Testament idea that the destruction of a city by God will be postponed if there is a seed or small remnant of righteous people in in17• Yet the contex t makes it clear that J ustin has in mind the Spermatic Logos conceptionlB. The researches of C. Andresen19 have shed new light on the antecedents of this idea. Andresen shows how Cicero, who depends on Antiochus of Askalon, speaks of the semina justitiae which have been present since the earliest generations of man. Cicero links the seed forces of the Stoa with the seeds of Justice, i. e. he gives an ethical rather than a metaphysical inter­ pretation of them. The same development is found in Arius Didymus in his exposition of the Peripatetic ethics. He reads the idea of 'seed for­ ces' into Aristotle in an exclusively ethical interpretation. Men, for Arius, possess by nature the 'beginnings' and 'seeds' of the virtues which are brought to perfection by morals and right behaviour. Arius is the first to give a purely ethical interpretation of the A6YOL O"7tEpfLOCnxoL In And­ resen's view Arius is the link between the philosophy of Antiochus of Askalon and Cicero and Middle Platonism (as exemplified by Albinus)20. He believes that Justin's ideas are best explained by reference to Middle Platonism where the 'seed forces' are given a moral and ethical inter­ pretation and are not connected with the Stoic World Reason. I t was 17. Gen. xviii. 16 - 33. 18. See below and U. Apol. viii and xiii. 19. "Justin und der mittIere Platonismus"; Zeitschrift fur Neutestamentliche Wis­ senscha(t 44 (1952 - 3) pp. 157 - 195. Andresen's thesis has however been challenged by R. HOLTE, Stud. Theol. 1 2 (1958) pp. 109 - 1 68 and J. H . WASZI N K, Festschrift Theodor Klauser (Jahrbuch (ur Antike und Christentum) , Erganzungsband 1 (1964.) pp. 380 - 390. 20. Full references in Andresen op. cit. pp. 171 6 -

124 after all from this type of Platonism that Justin passed into Christi a nity21. The intricacies of Andresen's argument need not detain us. What is significant is that Justin, in I I Apol. viii, after giving his view that God delays the destruction of the world because the seed of Christians are the cause of preservation in nature, states that men have embedded in them the faculty of knowing good and evil: ' But neither do we affirm that it is by fate that men do what they do, or suffer what they suffer, but that each man by free choice acts rightly or sins' . . .'this is the nature of all that is made, to be capable of vice and virtue'. This is similar to the Middle Platonist use of the Stoic general concepts (communes no­ titiae; koinai or physikai ennoiai). Justin however closely connects these general concepts with the 'seed forces'. This is shown by his terminology when he speaks in this passage of the seed of the Christians who are the cause of preservation in nature and the seed of the Logos implanted in the whole human race22; and in another context of ' the intuition of God implanted in the nature of man'23. In the second passage from I Apol. xxviii. 2 Justin states that God delays the end in order that future generations (some perhaps unborn) may have the opportunity of repentance. This is the nearest we get in J ustin to the 'time scale' type of argument. There is no suggestion in these two passages from the Apologies that Justin is troubled by the non-arrival of the second advent or that it has affected his innermost thought. His ideas vary according to a change of circumstance. He is no longer confronting a Jew who was familiar with the LXX but is seeking to demonstrate, to the educated world, the rationality of the Christian position. Accordingly he places the emphasis on individual choice, as did the prevailing Middle Pla­ tonist philosophy, and seeks to show that Christianity is in harmony with nature. In a sense this is a type of realized eschatology although transmuted into a philosophical key. Apocalypticism can thus be rele­ gated into the background and the emphasis placed on individual res­ ponsibility in choosing good or evil. Elsewhere Justin represents Chris­ tians as looking forward to the end of the present order of things and the destruction of the world. These two beliefs should not be considered 2 1 . Dial ii. 6 22. I I Apol. viii 2 3. II Apol. vi.

125 mutually contradictory. Justin can use apocalyptic and non - apocalyp­ tic language according to his theme, not according to the stages of his development as a Christian Philosopher, much as Paul did. I I I . The Resurrection and the Millennium Justin, in common with traditional Christian eschatology, held that Christ and his angels will suddenly appear on the clouds of heaven24. Then will come the resurrection in which the souls of men will be re united with the bodies discarded at death. Justin says that his opponents ought not to object to the idea of survival after death since they have much the same in their own traditions:2li 'Treat us at least like these; we believe in God not less than they do, but rather more, since we look forward to receiving again our own bodies, though they be dead and bu­ ried in the earth, declaring that nothing is impossible to God'26. In the Dialogue the collective nature of the Parousia is emphasised. The resurrection of the saints occurs at this time, a renewing of heaven and earth takes place and Christians inherit an eternal Jerusalem. J u­ stin likens this to the entry into the promised land under Joshua: 'And just as he (i. e. Joshua), not Moses, led the people into the Holy land, and as he divided it by lot to them that entered with him, so also will Jesus the Christ turn the dispersion of the people, and will distribute the good land to each, though not again in the same manner. For the one (Joshua) gave them the inheritance for a time, for he was not Christ our God, nor Son of God, but the other ( Jesus) will, after the holy resurrection, give us our possession fo­ rever. . .This is he who is to shine in Jerusalem as an everlasting light' 27. cr.

Dial. cxxxix. 5: 'Wherefore men from every quarter, whether bond or free, believ­ ing on Christ, and knowing the truth that lies in his words and those of his prophets, are aware tha.t they will be together with him III that land, and will inherit the incorruptible things of eternity' .

2q. I Apol. Ii. 8 9, Iii. 3; Dial. xxxi. 1 . 25. Note the a,.gumentum ad hominem in I Apol. xviii referring to Odyssey xi. 25 seq. 26. I Apol. xviii. 16. 27. Dial. cxiii. 3 5. cr. TERT Ad". Jud. ix. -

-

12 6 It is possible to infer from this that the general resurrection and judgement, the renewing of heaven and earth, and the establishment of an eternal kingdom with Jerusalem as its capital all occur together. Justin's language is certainly capable of a spiritual interpretation and is in line with much New Testament eschatology. However in the Dialogue another view is found. J ustin introduces the idea of the millennium or 1000 year reign of the Saints in Jerusalem which is inaugurated by a resurrection of the righteous and closed by a resurrection of the righteous and wicked after which follows the final judgement. There is no doubt that Justin held that Jerusalem would be physically re - built. In answer to Trypho's question he replies: I have acknowledged to you earlier that I and many others do hold this opinion, even as you also know well that this is to take place. But I also informed you28 that even many Christians of pure and godly mind do not accept it29' · But I, and all other entirely orthodox Christians, know that there will be a resurrection of the flesh, and also a thousand years in a Jerusalem built up and adorned and en­ larged, as the prophets Ezekiel and Isaiah, and all the rest, acknow­ ledge'30. •

• • • •

In Dial Ixxxi Justin quotes Isa. Ixv. 17 - 25 and Ps. xc. 4 (' a day of the Lord is as a thousand years' ) and then goes on: 'And, further, a man among us named J ohn, one of the apostles of Christ, prophesied in a Revelation made to him that they who have believed our Christ will spend a thousand years in Jerusalem, and that afterwards the universal, and, in one word, eternal resur­ rection of all at once, will take place, and also the judgement. And this too our Lord said: "They shall neither marry, nor be given in marriage, but shall be equal to angels, being children of God (that is) of the resurrection" '31. As Justin only applies the verba Christi to conditions after the general resurrection it is likely that he is referring the prophecy of Isa. Ixv to actual conditions which would come to pass in Jerusalem, although, 28. 29. 30. 31.

This is however nowhere to be found in the Dialogue. Dial. lxxx. 2. Dial. lxxx. 5. Dial. lxxxi. 4. The reference appears to be to Luke xx. 35 seq.

127

unlike Papias, he does not emphasise the sensuous element of the mil­ lennium . I t is a hopeless task t o reconcile this belief i n an earthly millennium in Jerusalem with Justin's other opinion that the new Jerusalem will be an immediate, spiritual, eternal land or inheritance. The argument that there is no mention of the millennium in the two Apologies and that therefore this belief was of no real significance to Justin will hardly bear examination as to have stated boldly the collapse of all earthly power and the rule of Christians under Christ in a rebuilt Jerusalem would have been very untactful, to say the least, in an apologia intended primarily for the non-Christian world. Rather both views were held by Justin and I wish to suggest that this is another example of how circumstance has affected his eschatology. I n stating the doctrine of the eternal Jerusalem Justin is following New Testament tradition about the spiritual destiny of mankind. In holding to an earthly millennium in a rebuilt Jerusalem Ju stin, I suggest, was strongly influenced by the events of the great J ewish war of 132 5 A. D. and the Messianic pre­ tensions of B ar-Chochba or Bar-Cosiba32• It is not without significance that in the Dialogue Justin refers to the war as still in progress. Thus in Dial. i. 3. Trypho says that he has recently fled from the war to Greece and Corinth; cf. ix. 3. Dial. xvi. 3 seems to refer to Hadrian's edict after the destruction of Jerusalem forbidding Jews from visiting the city, cf. xl. 2, xc. 2 , I A pol. xlvii, liii. In Dial. cviii. 3 the city has been taken. This war set in motion large numbers of refugees fieeig from Pa­ lestine who came to many of the larger cities in the Roman world. Dis­ cussion, with a Jew, could hardly avoid the queslion 'What is to become of the ruined Jerusalem ?' Justin claims the city for Christians by draw­ ing on an earlier strand of millennial teaching found in Rev. xx. 4, 6 and in J ewish speculation33• Both views, the spiritual and the millen­ nial Jerusalem, are held by Justin (not because he was simple minded and incapable of logical thought-the whole tenor of his philosophy is against this) but because circumstances affected his eschatology. He can use the mythical and quasi-physical language of apocalyptic ac-

32. Recent discoveries suggest that this was his real name, pp. 22-34.. 33. Bohairic Death of Joseph (T. S. iv. 2. 14.2); cf. Apoc. Bar. xxix. 5 seq; Enoch x. 19. In Christian teaching in Papias (IREN. Adl'. Haer. v. 33); Barn. xv; TERT. Adl'. Marc. iii. 24.; LACT. Dil'. Inst. vii. 20 seq. inter alia. Also found among the Ebio­ nites and Moatanists.

128

cording to his theme-although he admits that many Christians do not subscribe to his quasi-physical viewsM• IV. The Judgement and World Conflagration Justin puts the judgement, when men will be j udged before the throne of God according to their deeds, immediately after the second advent or at the close of the millennium. Every man-the living and the dead-reaching as far back as Adam 'will appear before the great assize: We are in fact of all men your best helpers and allies in securing good order, convinced as we are that no wicked man, no covetous man or conspirator, or virtuous man either, can be hidden from God, and that everyone goes to eternal punishment or salvation in accordance with the character of his actions'36. As Isaiah was sawn asunder so will Christ divide the human race at the judgement, some being destined for his everlasting Kingdom and some for unquenchable fire36• Justin as­ sociated the angels with men in the j udgement as both have been given free wil}37. The daemons will be finally and totally conquered and sent to the eternal fires3s while Christ will reign as eternal King and Priest39• The general impression Justin gives is that men and angels who have done evil and misused their free will be condemned to eternal fire suffering forever. However he also states that in the eternal fire every man will suffer in proportion to his deeds: ' I f you pay no attention to our prayers and our frank statements about everything, it will not in­ jure us, since we believe, or rather are firmly convinced, that every man will suffer in eternal fire in accordance with the quality of his actions, and similarly will be required to give account for the abilities which he has received from God, as Christ told us when he said 'To whom God has given more, from him more will be required'40. The wicked are only 34. Dial. lxxx. 2. If the above suggestion is correct then there is reason to believe that Justin preserves the tenor of an actual discussion with Trypho in the period 132 5 A. D . This however need not exclude the possibility that he has made addit· ions at a later period. 35. I Apol. xii. 1 . 36. Dial. cxx. 5. 37. Dial. cxli. 1 2 . 38. I Apol. xxviii. 1 , Iii. 3. 39. Dial. xxxvi. 1 . 40. I Apol. xviii. 4; Lk. xii. 48. -

-

i29

punished so long as God wills them to exist and be punished u. Goode­ nough says that Justin is here retaining distinct traditions and it is idle to speculate as to which he regarded as the true one42• Would it not be more true to say that J ustin's ideas vary with change of circumstan­ ce ? The imagery of the great Assize is taken over from the NT and is used when a personal decision - for or against - is at issue while in his apologia to the non - Christian world J ustin emphasises more the ra­ tionality of the Christian position and action in accordance with reason. The quality of actions are thus all important and punishment varies according to this quality. Justin's views on the subject of a world conflagration after the Judgement are again diverse. In a remarkable passage in I I Apol. vii. he criticizes the Stoic identification of God with matter which is ever changing and destructible. Christians believe, Justin says, that the end of the world will come when the fire of judgement descends and utterly dis­ solves everything as in the days of Noah. At this destruction evil angels, daemons and men will cease to exist. How this is to be reconciled with the doctrine of the eternal rule of Christ from the new Jerusalem, found in the Dialogue, is not stated. A significant clue lies in the fact, rarely noticed, that only the Apologies speak of a final conflagration while only the Dialogue knows of the eternal Jerusalem. I suggest that again Justin's views vary according to circumstance for in the second Apology he is concerned to refute the Stoic view (as understood by Middle Pla­ tonism) that the deity is periodically destroyed in changeable matter. In the Dialogue Justin is more concerned with refuting Jewish beliefs and asserting the fact of Christ as the light of an eternal Kingdom the capital of which is Jerusalem. Professor Moule, in his study of New Testament eschatology in the article already mentioned, says: 'different formulations have to be enlisted in the service of different affirmations, all of which may prove to be simultaneous aspects of a single great conviction too large to be expressed coherently or singly'43. Our investigation has shown that this statement is an apt description of Justin Martyr's eschatology. The assertion that he is a simple - minded, uncritical, muddled Christian, IS I believe, wide of the mark. He is, in fact, no more confused than U . Dial. v. 3. This is q2. Op. cit. p. 288. q3. Op. cit. p. 9

a

philosophical context.

9

130

Paul or John. Justin's language varies according to his theme, not ac­ cording to his stage of development as a Christian philosopher. There is little in his writings to suggest that the delay in the Parousia caused him concern or that time - scale calculations of the end had any signi­ ficant influence on his theology. His fundamental interest is the Whole Word" incarnate in Christ - in other words with what has happened and he preserves the tension between this ' already' and the 'not yet' found in the New Testament. In J ustin's extensive writings we can trace no evolutionary sequence of eschatological formulations. Rather affirma­ tions of individual realized eschatology (leading to the call to repentan­ ce), futurist eschatology bound up with the destiny of the group, the language of Apocalyptic both mystical and quasi - physical are used according to the theme under discussion. It is arguable that Justin allowed the biblical basis of his theology to be modified to too great an extent by his philosophical presuppositions - this is perhaps particu­ larly true of his Logos doctrine, But this is not a charge which, I think, can legitimately be brought against his eschatology.

(a(a. II Apol. viii.

6*

THE C H U RCH I N ROME I N THE F I RST TWO CENTURIES A. D. This chapter will seek to study the following aspects of Christianity in the city of Rome during the first two centuries A. D.: 1 . The Origins of the Church in Rome 2. The Church in Rome at the end of the first century A. D. 3. The I nfluence of J udaism and Jewish Christianity on early Roman Christianity 4. Recent Study 5. Christianity in Rome 150 - 200 A. D. I THE ORIGINS OF THE CHURCH IN ROME

The origins of the Church in Rome are bathed in obscurity although many legends later arose to fill the gap in our historical knowledge. There is no evidence that the Church there was founded by any of the twelve apostles although Andronicus and Junius, apostles in the wider sense, may have been among its early members. Peter, Jesus' apostle, was not the only name put forward as the founder of the Roman Church. According to certain Jewish - Christian traditions 1 Barnabas was the founder. Before Paul's arrival at Rome the Christian community must have been quite small as it was hardly known to the local Jewish com­ munity. Probably it was ill organised and consisted of a number of small groups which may have arrived independently in the city. According to L. E. Elliott - Binns 2 this explains the absence of any mention of the 'Church' in Rom. I. 6f£. and gives meaning to the statement of Irenae­ us, towards the end of the second century, that Peter and Paul not only founded the Church but organised it. The earliest reference to a presen­ ce of Christianity in Rome is the statement of Suetonius that Claudius *.

New Testament Studies 10 (1963-64) 251-60; Studia Patristica 8 (1966) 3-9! L. W. BARNARD, Studies in the Apostolic Fathers and their Background Oxford (1966) 151-163; Heythrop Journal 9 (1968) 29-36. 1. Clem. Rec. 1, 6 ff; Hom. 1, 9. 2. The Belinni1l8s of Western Christendom, London 1948, p. 92.

132

expelled Jews from Rome in 51 A. D. owing to disputes which arose 3. Among these Jews were Aquila and Priscilla and it would seem that the question of the Messiahship was at stake in these disputes. In the earliest period the Christians were drawn from the lowest ranks of society and counted among their numbers both slaves and freedmen. Greek was the common language and indeed remained so until late in the second century. Since Jews were numerous in Rome it is likely that Christianity made its way among them aL an early date certainly the strong influence of Jewish and Jewish-Christian ways of thought within the Church well into the second century supports this. We will examine this influence in section 3. The names of Peter and Paul are conjoined in the earliest inscripti­ ons in the catacombs - even in the Canon of the Roman mass which may be as early as the close of the third century where the name of Paul is included immediately after the name of Peter in the list of the apost­ les. Linked to this was a tendency to narrate similar stories and legends of each apostle, such as the legends of their chains. According to one story Leo I presented the chains of Peter to Eudoxia, the wife of Va­ lentinian I I I who in 442 built a church to receive them. Chrysostom refers to the chains of Paul as being in Rome 4• In the catacombs the usual order is for Peter to be placed first although some early inscripti­ ons give precedence to Paul. The well known graffiti of S. Sebastian have these words: PAVLE ED PETRE PETITE PRO VICTORE and PAVLE PETRE PETITE PRO E RATE. Also PAVLE PETRE IN M E N T E HABETE SOZO­ M E N VM and AT PAVLO ET PET{RO) REFRI{GE RAVI)5. What historical evidence can be gleaned from the earliest notices about Peter and Paul ? Certainly Paul was at Rome towards the end of his life where he was placed under house arrest 6. The absence of any reference to Peter in Paul's Epistle to the Romans and in the Captivity Epistles suggests that he was not in Rome during the period covered by them. However there are three pieces of evidence concerning Peter which provide strong evidence that he was in Rome at some stage and that he was martyred there during the reign of Nero. The first is in I Clement written in 96 A. D., which refers to cases in the recent past 3. SU ETONIUS, Claud. 25, q. q. Hom. 8 on Ep. ad Eph. 2. 5. P. STY GER, Romische Ma,.ty,.e,.g,.iifte, Berlin 1935, p. MI ff. 6. Acts 28, 30.

133

in which Christians had suffered ill treatment and death. Among these Peter and Paul are mentioned together: 'Peter, who because of unjust envy suffered tribulations not once or twice but many times, and thus became a witness and passed to the place of glory which was his due 7. With him a large number of Christians died, among them female Christi­ ans, who were execuLed dressed as Danaides and Dirces'. This points to the persecution of Nero, to be considered shortly, and to a date c. 64 - 5 A. D. Clement however provides no details as to the manner or place of Peter' s martyrdom. Ignatius of Antioch, c. 110 A. D., writes to the Romans asking them not to rob him of the martyr's crown by interceding with the State .. .' I do not command you as Peter and Paul did' 8. This suggests that Peter and Paul were at Rome at some stage. The third piece of evidence confirming Peter's martyrdom at Rome is the Ascension of Isaiah 9 which in its Christians form dates c. 100 A. D., which states in prophetic language that Peter will be delivered into the hands of Belial, the murderer of his mother ( Nero). Also relev ant is John 21, 18 - 1 9 which alludes to Peter's death as a martyr, and the re­ ference in I Peter 5. 13 to Babylon. The exact place of Peter's burial is difficult to determine. Accord­ ing to Gaius, a member of the Roman congregation in the time of Ze­ phyrinus (199 - 217), the tropaia of the apostles were on the Vatican Hill and the road to Ostia10• Opposed to this an entry in the Roman calen­ dar of 354 states that in the year 258 the memory of Peter was celebra­ ted at the Vatican, that of Paul on the road to Ostia and both in cata­ cumbas. An epitaph composed by Pope Damasus states that the two apostles had once dwelt in a shrine on the Via Appia under the basi­ lica later known as S. Sebastian's which up to the fourth century was called ecclesia apostolorum. Excavations carried out in 1917 uncovered a shrine dating from c. 260 although no graves of the apostles were found. Further excavations were carried out in 1940 - 49 under the Petrine basilica and led to the discovery of a vast necropolis reached by a street of tombs leading to numerous mausolea, dating between 130 and 200, among them one that is Christian containing a mosaic representing Christ - Helios, a valuable piece of early Christian iconography. The 7. 1 Clem. 5, 4.. S. Ad Rom. 4., 3. 9. 4., 21 re. 10. Eus., HE 2, 25, 7.

134 ground below and in front of the confessio of Peter proved to be a ceme­ tery bounded by a wall erected c. 160. In the east side of this wall was a double niche and in the earth beneath a flat stone in front of the lower niche was found a heap of bones. The belief that these were the bones of Peter has been held by some scholars - although the fact that the bones were not placed in some form of security when the aedicula was built later on militates against this belief. However the Vatican exca­ vations have led, in all prob ability, to the remains of Gaius' tropaion being found - and the Christians who erected it certainly believed that the apostle's burial place was on the Vatican Hillll. Nero's persecution in 64 A. D . , in which in all probability Peter perished, was the first occasion when the Christians at Rome were con­ fronted by the Imperial power. Tacitus' account, in his A nnals, gives a valuable insight into the background of the persecution. A persistent rumour was circulating in the city that Nero himself was responsible for the fire which on 16 July 64 destroyed several districts and partly burnt others. Tacitus states that, in order to get rid of this suspicion, the Emperor diverted it on to the Christians 'who were hated on account of their misdeeds'. Men were bribed to denounce Christians as the culp­ rits and this led to their being seized in large numbers and executed in terrible ways - some Christians were sewn in the skins of animals and thrown to the dogs, others were clothed in inflammable materials and used as living torches in Nero's gardens, which had been thrown open to the public for the spectacle. Tacitus believes that the Christians were unj ustly accused of arson, although he believed that they deserved se­ vere punishment on account of their other crimes12• Tacitus' description shows that by c. 64 A. D. the Christian community in Rome had a con­ siderable number of members. However it is unlikely that Nero believed that the new religion was a threat to the Roman State. He merely used, to his own advantage, the hostility of the local population in Rome towards the Christians. His persecution does not explain the later anti Christian policy of the State. Nero's case was unique and applied only to the city of Rome. There is no indication, in the extant sources, that his persecution included that of the Christians outside Rome, although Lactantius later believed this. 1 1 . K. B A us, From the Apostolic Community to Constantine, London 1965, p. 1 1 7 . 12. Annal. fl. , 4.4..

135

2 THE CHURCH IN ROME AT THE END OF THE FIRST CENTURY A.D.

Christian writers and Roman historians have tended to approach the problem of the Persecutions of the Church from different angles. In general the first have sought to interpret the evidence provided by Christian sources and only then have turned to the non - Christian sources for confirmation or otherwise of their deductions. The second, specializing in Roman history rather than that of the Church, have tended to look for the tendentious element in the Christian tradition and, in consequence, have usually adopted a cautious attitude towards the so - called persecutions. Thus, in face of the universal Christian tradition that Domitian was a second Nero, B. W. Henderson13 could state that his persecution, if it occurred at all, was very short and of no lasting significance. H. M. Last14 believed that with Nero the curtain fell until it rose again on Pliny's Bithynian scene when the whole atmo­ sphere was changed. E. T. Merrill15 described the Christian tradition as springing from the vague notion that Domitian had for a short time been a persecutor. What are the facts ? Is there sufficient ambiguity in the Christian sources to justify the cautious view of the eminent Roman historians cited above ? This question cannot be divorced from a consideration of the known facts of Domitian's reign. He was born in Rome on October 24th, A. D. 5 1 the second son of Vespasian and Flavia Domitilla; he lost his mother and only sister in early life, and when his father and brother became embroiled in the great Jewish War in A. D. 66 Domitian was barely fifteen years old. On his father's accession to the Imperial purple in A. D. 69 the youth received the praetorship which he held from January 1st, A. D. 70. During this period there began to appear traits in his character which were later to take on a more sinister aspect. He robbed L. Aemilianus of his wife Longina and, after living with her for some time, finally married her. Such were the complaints against him that they served to hasten his father's return to Rome from the 13. Fir>e Roman Emperors p. q5. H. "The Study of the Persecutions", Journal of Roman Studies 27, (1937) 90. 15. Essays in Early Christian History, London 192q, p. 173. See also the discussion of J. MOREAU, "A propos de la persecution de Domitien", La Nouvelle Clio 5 (1 953) 121 - 9.

136

Jewish War. Domitian was now kept in the background, as far as the direct government of the country was concerned, although he received further distinctions. On the death of Vespasian in A. D. 79 Titus became Emperor and Domitian, though openly spoken of as consors imperii, was wisely kept in an inferior position. History presents no universal pattern which can be predicted in advance; neither is it wholly determined by social and economic causes which can be calculated by students of those branches of learning. The impact of human personalities and 'the changes and chances of this fleeting world' have a decisive effect in shaping and moulding the tex­ ture of history for good or evil. On September 13th A. D. 81 the Emperor Titus died from fever and the unstable Domitian was at once acclaimed Emperor with the title Imperator Caesar Domitianus Augustus. His reign - which lasted until A. D. 96 when the hated Emperor met his death at the hands of his friends, his freedmen and his wife - was marked by capable administration and no small ability in the art of war. But administrative and military prowess are of little avail if the administra­ tor or commander is a tyrant, for then constitutional safeguards can be swept aside at will and tyranny introduced by the back door. So it was with Domitian. His jealousy had already become evident early in his reign when he recalled Agricola from Britain soon after his victo­ ry, which had left that country in a pacified state. It was however after A. D. 85 that the Emperor became more and more of a tyrant and less and less of a constitutional ruler. It is significant that in A. D. 85 - 86 he allowed himself to be called dominus ac deus. Now many of the more republican of the senators were condemned and a conspiracy against the Emperor discovered and crushed. The year A. 0. 89 brought triumph over the Dacians and Germans with the recognition of Domitian as victor. Yet parallel with these military successes the arrest and condem­ nation of distinguished persons and the confiscation of their property continued unabated. In A. D . 91 a Vestal Virgin, charged with having broken her vows, was, by order of Domitian, buried alive. This year also saw the unveiling of the great equestrian statue of the Emperor in the Forum of Rome which is celebrated by Statius16• The hounding of the nobility continued as Domitian's character deteriorated; he be­ came obsessed with the idea that anyone of note was his enemy - and in A. D. 93 the great Agricola fell victim. There followed a reign of terror 16. Siluae

1,

1.

137 almost unsurpassed in Roman history for its capriciousness and mental torture: tHis poverty made him grasping and his fears made him sava­ ge'I7. Everyone went in fear of his life. No one could tell if the next as­ sault would fall on him or his family. One here, one there, was struck down from malice, jealousy or caprice and Roman life was harrowed with an agony of suspense. The reign of terror only ended with Domi­ tian's death on 18 September A. D. 96, when the world breathed again and Romans began to wonder how Nerva, his successor, would act towards them. The characters of Nero and Domitian were quite different. Nero made a fierce, wholesale and reckless assault and enlisted the p assions of the multitudes on his side; Domitian, on the other hand, was stealthy and treacherous, striking down his victims one by one. The Christian tradition about the so called 'persecution' of Domi­ tian first appears in the Apology of Melito, Bishop of Sardis, which he addressed to Marcus Aurelius some seventy years after Domitian's death: 'Alone of all the Emperors, Nero and Domitian, misled by cer­ tain malicious persons, saw fit to slander our faith'ls. This tells us little, as it is clearly influenced by Melito's theory that the bad Emperors were persecutors while the good Emperors were favourable to the Chri­ stian religion. More to the point is a statement by Melito's contemporary, Hegesippus, which is recorded by Eusebius: 'There were yet living the family of our Lord, the grandchildren of Jude, called the brother of our Lord, according to the flesh. These were reported as being of the family of David, and were brought to Domitian by the Evocatus (i. e. the prefect of J udaea). For this Emperor was as much alarmed at the appearance of Christ as Herod. He put the question, whether they were of David's race, and they confessed that they were. He then asked them what property they had, or how much money they owned. And both of them answered, that they had between them only nine thousand denarii, and this they had not in silver, but in the value of a piece of land, containing only thirty - nine acres... When asked, also, respecting Christ and his Kingdom, what was its nature, and when and where it was to appear, they replied, that it was not a temporal nor an earthly 1 7 . SUET., Domit. 3, 2, Inopia ,.apaz IMta rae",". 18. Eus., HE �, 26.

138 K ingdom, but celestial and angelic; .. Upon which Domitian despi­ sing them made no reply; but treating them with contempt as simple­ tons, commanded them to be dismissed, and by a decree ordered the persecution to cease' l9. .

The significance of this statement of Hegesippus lies in the words which I have italicized. It appears that it was not Christianity as a doctrinal system which Domitian wished to persecute but persons of eminence whom he might suspect of undermining his authority. The grandsons of Jude were peasants and of no account - so the persecution ceased. A further point is that the Emperor would not tolerate Christians who might incite the conquered Jewish population to acts of rebellion. This account falls into line with what we know from Roman sour­ ces of the character of the Emperor. Christians no more than others would escape if Domitian thought they were a threat to his position. But it is unlikely, without firm evidence to the contrary, that he would have instituted a wholesale persecution of Christians simply because of their faith. Domitian was suspicious of people rather than of their beliefs. Later Christian tradition did not understand this and has painted the Emperor in the darkest hues. Tertullian describes Diomitian as resembling Nero in savagery but having his wits about him and soon giving up the persecution which he had initiated 20. Eusebius states that Domitian at length established himself as the successor of Nero in his hatred and hostility to God: 'He was the second that raised a per­ secution against us, although his father Vespasian had attempted no­ thing to our prejudice'21. Eusebius states that even pagan historians re­ cord this persecution and its martyrdoms in their histories22• In subse­ quent writers the persecution of Domitian is portrayed with increasing­ ly vivid details; even that of Nero falls into the background. While the tendentious element in these accounts is obvious we must allow for the fact that a reign of terror, in which the victims were killed one by one, would take on darker hues to those who looked back on it over a period of years. Tradition after all does not arise out of nothing. We now turn to the contemporary Christian literary evidence for 19. 20. 21 . 22.

Eus., HE 3, 20 (italics mine). Apol. 5; cf. Eus., HE 3, 20. E us., HE 3, 1 7 . ]{E 3, 1 8 .

139 the persecution of Domitian which is found in the First Epistle of Cle­ ment ( I Clement), written to the Church in Corinth which was suffering from some grave internal dissensions. This document is assigned, by near universal assent, to the last decade of the first century and is the earliest writing to issue from the Roman Church after apostolic times. Clement, according to Hermas Vis. 2, 4, 3, was a kind of foreign secre­ tary of the Roman Church23• Certainly, to j udge from his Epistle, he acted on behalf of his Church. The letter itself contains no personal references; the first person plural is used throughout and Clement's name nowhere appears. His personality, at once attractive, modest and reasonable, is absorbed in the Church of which he is leader and spokesman. It has generally been assumed by Christian commentators that this Epistle contains references to the 'persecution' o f Domitian. This was maintained with great erudition by J. B. Lightfoot in his justly famous commentary24. More recently however R. L. P. Milburn in an important, though neglected,'article has sought to show that I Clement contains no allusion whatsoever to persecution at Rome or anything of that kind25• A few other scholars, from different angles , have cast doubt on the usual view. Thus G. Edmundson in his Bampton lectures26• argu es strongly for a date c. A. D. 70 and refers I Clement 1, 1 to the outbreak of persecution under Nero. The Roman historian E . T. Merrill27 went to the other extreme and argued for a date as late as A. D. 140. Both of these dates seem quite impossible in view of the evidence cited below. There appears to be no good reason, on the literary evidence, for doub­ ting the usual date in the last decade of the first cfmtnry. R. L. P. Milburn (and we shall deal mainly with his thesis) places great emphasis on the translation of I Clem. 1 , 1 , the opening words of the Epistle, in which Clement apologizes for his delay in writing to the Corinthian Christians: 23. Clement is a baffling figure. In most lists of the early rulers of the Roman Church he is placed third, after Peter and Paul, being preceded by Lin us and Allene­ letus or Cletus. In the Liberian list he is placed second, as in Augustine, Ep. 53. In the Clementine Romances Clement follows Peter, as in TertuIlian, de praes. 32. At­ tempts to explain or reconcile these discrepancies are, at the most, conjectures . 2q. St. Clement of Rome, London 1 890, vol. 2 pp. 7 8. 25. "The Persecution of Domitian", Church Quarterly Review 1 3 9 (1 945) 154 - 64. 26. The Church of Rome in the First Century, London 1 913, pp. 1 88 - 202 . 27. Essavs in EarlV Christian History, London 19 2q, p. 2U. -

140

'Owing to the sudden and repeated misfortunes (C1VfupOea{;) and cala­ mities (:n:eet:7lTCvC1et{;) which have befallen us, we consider that our attention has been somewhat delayed in turning to the questions disputed among you, beloved, and especially the abominable and unholy sedition, alien and foreign to the elect of God, which a few rash and self - willed persons have made blaze up to such a frenzy that your name, venerable and famous, and worthy as it is of all men's love, has been much slandered' . Milburn maintains that :n:eet:7lTCVC1eU;, translated 'calamities' by Kirsopp Lake and 'reverses' by Bishop Lightfoot, could equally well mean 'ac­ cidents' . In this case the word could refer to some troublesome domestic hindrances in the life of the Roman Church which had caused this delay in writing to Corinth. This interpretation is just possible linguistically as, according to Liddell and Scott, :n:ee{:n:TWC1U; has the meaning 'accident' or 'chance occurrence'2S. Its meaning, in Classical Greek, is close to C1Vft­ flJOea which in Pindar, Aeschylus (and often in Attic Greek) has the mean­ ing 'misfortune' or ' mishap' . If the reading of Codex Constantinopolitanus (:n:eetC1TUC1et{;) is accepted (Latin impedimenta) then again this could refer to hindrances or unfavourable circumstances. However these misfor­ tunes or unfavourable circumstances (whatever they were) are descri­ bed as ' sudden and repeated' . This does not suggest a mere internal, do­ mestic upset within the Roman Church but repeated pressure which has caused the Church grave concern such that its Bishop has been de­ layed in writing to another Christian community which is suffering from grave internal trouble. Moreover if the Church of Rome had been suf­ fering from the kind of thing which had afflicted the Corinthian church what kind of advice or help could it have given ? Would Clement's mes­ sage of harmony, unity, order, moderation and reasonableness of con­ duct have meant much ? The primacy of Rome in early times was a moral and spiritual one. In seeking to remove the mote from their bro­ ther's eye would they not have forgotten the beam in their own eye ? It therefore seems more probable that these sudden and repeated mis­ fortunes and unfavourahle circumstances had come upon the Roman Church from outside. Milburn then states that apart from this disputed passage I Cle28. Liddell, Scott, Jones: Lexicon, Heliod. 6, 14; Hipp. 26, 1 (the last is a medical context) .

141

ment contains 'no other allusion to persecution at Rome or anything of the kind'. It would seem that this statement cannot be substantia­ ted by a careful study of the Epistle. In Chapter 4 Clement has given Old Testament examples of those who were persecuted from the motive of jealousy as illustrations of the troubles at Corinth. He then passes, in chapters 5 and 6, to more recent examples of this spirit: 'But, to cease from the examples of old time, let us come to those who contended in the days nearest to us; let us take the noble examples of our own generation. Through jealousy and envy the greatest and most righteous pillars of the Church were persecuted and contended unto death. Let us set before our eyes the good a­ postles: Peter, who because of unrighteous jealousy su ffered not one or two but many trials, and having thus given his testimony went to the glorious place which was his due. Through jealousy and strife Paul showed the way to the prize of endurance ... and thus passed from the world and was taken up into the Holy Place - the greatest example of endurance. To these men with their holy lives was gathered a great multitude of the chosen, who were the victims of jealousy and offered among us the fairest example in their en­ durance under many indignities and torturers'29. The phrases 'days nearest to us', 'our own generation', used immediately after the Old Testament examples quoted in Ch. 4, cannot easily refer to events in the last year or two, as must have been the case if the letter had been written at the end of Nero's reign. On the other hand the words 'our own generation' are unlikely to refer to a period 50 or 60 years in the past as would be the case if Clement had been writing during the reign of Hadrian. The use of bishop and presbyter as interchangeable terms in the Epistle also points to a date not too far advanced into the second century. A reference to some thirty years in the past, when Peter and Paul and a great multitude died in the Neronian persecution, is certainly not out of keeping with the context. Clement then passes from the sufferings of Christians in the past, through the jealousy of a tyrant, to the present time. 7, 1 reads: 'We are not only writing these things to you, beloved, for your admonition, but also to remind ourselves; for we are in the same arena ((1�al'l'an) and the struggle is before us'. 29. I Clem. 5,

1

-

6, 1 .

1 42 This verse is a crux interpretum. Those who deny that I Clement contains any allusion to Christians being persecuted in Clement's day must either forget this verse or explain it away. Moreoever if, on the theory of Ed­ mundson and Elliott - Binns30, the Epistle was written immediately after the Neronian persecution it is difficult to see why Clement should have introduced historical stages into his argument - Old Testament examples in Ch. 4; Peter, Paul and the Neronian martyrs in Chs. 5 and 6, 1 (the noble examples of OUr own generation), followed by 'the same struggle is before us' in 7, 131• Furthermore if in 7, 1 Clement is merely referring to internal troubles of the Roman Church, it is difficult to see why he should give, in Chs. 5 and 6, references to the external persecu­ tion by Nero. It would therefore appear probable that 7, 1 should be taken as a reference to a strllggle in which the Church o f Rome, in Cle­ ment's day, was engaged - viz., the possibility that its members might be selected for martyrdom at any time - a situation which required much patient endurance. The word meO,{t{tu (literally, list) came to refer to a trench and then to an arena surrounded by a trench or dug up and covered with sand. Many examples occur of its symbolic use both in Classical and Christian writers and here it is metaphoricall y used of the athletic arena in which the contestants struggle. So Clement and the Roman Church remind themselves that persecution is not yet a thing of the past. The references in I Clement could support the view lhat the Epistle was written j ust after the reign of DomiLian when the Church was not sure how the new Emperor, l'\crva, would react32• Or it could perhaps be fitted into a lull a year or two before Domitian was assassinated. In any event we shall not go far wrong if we assign its composition some­ where between the years A. D. 94 and 97. It is perhaps not without significance that the sins of jealousy and envy are constantly emphasized in Chs. 1 - 7. For Clement this had a double meaning. He can cite examples of jealousy to the Church of 30. G. E D M ll N D S O ."i ibid. pp. 188 - 202; L. E . E LLIOTT - BIN NS, The Beginnings of Western Christendom, ibid. pp. 101 2. A.E. WIL H E LM H OOIJBERGH, "A Diffe­ rent View of Clemens Romanus", Heythrop Journal XVI (1975) 266 - 288 dates 1 Clement to 69 AD. 31. This early dating is also rendered doub tful by the fact that the Church of Corinth is called &p)(octcx in I Clem. 4. 7, 6. 32. Dio Cassius 68, 1 states that Nerva forbad the bringing of accusations of maiestas or • Jewish life'. -

-

143

Corinth in order to show how this sin can ruin the internal peace of a community; yet he can also refer to the Neronian martyrs as victims of jealousy and envy from without. Then, in Ch. 7, Clement can remind his own Church that they are struggling and contending against a simi­ lar jealousy from without, with the suggestion that martyrdom is always a possibility. This, together with the reference in 1 , 1 to the sudden and repeated misfortunes which had befaHen the Roman Church, fits in with the character of Domitian as revealed by the non - Christian lite­ rary sources. He did not persecute groups en masse. But he carefully selected and struck down his victims one by one, driven on by malice and jealousy and the belief that everyone of note was his enemy. It is essential for the understanding of Clement's references to realize that the Roman Church in his day was not mainly composed of slaves or the lower strata of Roman Society. J . B . Lightfoot, in memorable phrases, describes it thus: ' It is the tendency of religious m ovements to work their way upwards from beneath, and Christianity was no exception to the gene ral rule. Starting from slaves and dependants it advanced silently step by step till at length it laid hands on the princes of the im­ perial house'33. This gaining of converts from the higher ranks of Roman society took place in the decades following the N eronian persecution, but progress was broken by the accession of Domitian who in a succes­ sion of sharp, sudden, partial assaults, and motivated by m alice or jealousy, struck down his luckless victims. It is very unlikely that Christians would have escaped34. The universal Christian tradition that this Emperor was a second Nero may not be true in strict historical fact; yet in another sense it is true, for the Christians, no less than others, suffered mental torture as they were left in an agony of suspense in many ways harder to bear than direct persecution. Tradition does not arise out of nothing, as the exponents of Formgeschichte sometimes imagine. We now turn briefly to the vexed question of the identification of the martyrs during Domitian's reign. One of the most celebrated to be struck down was the Emperor's cousin Titus Flavius Clemens whom he 33. St. CleIMnt of Rome It ibid. pp. 29 30. 3q. PLINY, in his letter to Trajan, says that though many Christians had been tried for their lives in Rome during his recollection, he was ignorant of the procedure followed in such cases. As Pliny was an infant in the time of Nero, and the other Em­ perors of his time, except Domitian, were not 'persecutors' it seems likely that these trials occured in Domitian's reign. This is significant pagan evidence: cr. PLINY Ep. -

96.

1 44

held at one time in high favour. Domitian had given him his niece Fla­ via Domitilla in marriage and had designated their sons as heirs to the Empire. Yet within a year of nominating Flavius Clemens as his colleague in the consulship Domitian put him to death, banished his wife to Pan­ detaria and his daughter to Pontia. No reason is given in Suetonius' account for his demise, although he states that Flavius Clemens was characterized by 'utterly contemptible indolence' (contemptissimae iner­ tiae) which may refer to a certain reluctance in the performance of poli­ tical and civic duties as well as innate idleness. Dio Cassius tells far more36• He states explicitly that Flavius Clemens and Domitilla wera accused of atheism. This same accusation, he adds, was brought against many others who showed a bias towards Jewish customs. This last sta­ tement is significant. Milburn36 attempted to evade its force by stating that what Domitian feared was an affection of Jewish beliefs and pra­ ctices by distinguished citizens who could then belittle his claim to be divine. It may be doubted if this explanation will do. J udaism, as dis­ tinct from Christianity, was a religio licita and the description 'atheism' was out of place in connexion with it. The combination of Jewish rites with the charge of atheism, so often levelled against Christians from the time of Nero onwards37, points unmistakably to Christianity and not Judaism38• As a Christian Flavius Clemens would not patronize vicious 35. Dio 67, 14.. Th is part of Dio's history is contained in the abridgement of Xi­ philinus, an 1 1 th cen tury monk of Constantinople. 36. MILBURN ibid. (n. 25) p. 1 60. 37. Cf. Mart. Polyc. 9; JUSTI N, I Apol. 1, 6; 2, 8; ATHEN AGORAS, Suppl. 3; 4.; 30; TERT., Apol. 10 ff. See further P. ALLARD, Histoire des persecutions pendant les deux premieres siecles, Paris 1 903 pp. 104. - 5. 38. E. M. SMALLWOOD, "Domitian's Attitude towards the Jews and Judaism", Classical Philology 51, (1 956) 1 - 13 follows Milburn (to whom she does not refer) in seeking to show that Flavius Clemens and Domitilla were at:�61L£vo� or 'god - fearers' living on the fringe of Judaism and following Jewish customs to a sufficient extent as to be subject to attack by Domitian. She argues that the case for regarding them as Christians rests on a flimsy foundation. Miss Smallwood's case rests upon the following premises: 1 ) Conversion to Judaism constituted "atheism" as it involved refusing Domitian the divine honours which he sought. 2) The fact that Flavius Clemens held high public office is an indication that he was not a Christian. 3) Talmudic and Midrashic writers support the view that he was a Jew. 4.) Indications that the Jewish race was in danger under Domitian are to be found in Josephus' Antiquitie6.

145

amusements or the State Religion. Many civic and politicaJ duties, in a period when men went in fear of their lives, might be closed to a practi­ sing Christian. The literary evidence, such as it is, is in favour of Fla­ vius Clemens and his wife being Christians - a striking example of how Christianity, by the end of the first century, had gained a footing within the Imperial Family. It is possible, but cannot be proved, that another of Domitian's victims, Acilius Glabrio, was a Christian. All we are told is that he was put to death because he was accused of the same kind of charges as many of Domitian's victims - and because he fought with wild beasts39• The context suggests that these charges were ' Jewish pra­ ctices' although this is not quite certain and it is not explicitly stated that he was charged with atheism'. Archaeology, in the past, has been invoked in support of the view that certain of Domitian's victims were Christians. The publication of P. Styger's great work, D ie romischen Katakomben, in 1932, and subse­ quent work (see especially L. Hertling and E. Kirschbaum, Die romischen Katakomben und ihre Martyrer (1950)) has, however, cast doubts on the dating of the catacombs, and the evidence is too uncertain to warrant any finality in the matter. In particular the inscriptions of the gens A ci•

Against these points are the following: 1) There is no evidence in Classical or Jewish writings that Domitian attacked Jews by race or that they suffered any disabilities during his reign. The status of Judaism as a religio licita continued unaffected and there are no indications that Jews were forced to commit idolatry. Why then assume that god - fearers and proselytes were treated differently from circumcised Jews and classed as 'atheists' ? The one instance of 'atheist' applied to the Jews which Smallwood quotes (by ApOLLONlUS MOLON, Jos. in Ap. 2. 1q8), comes from the first cen tury B. C. and is not relevant to Domitian's reign. On the other hand the fact that Christianity was not a religio licita and its followers had the charge of 'atheism' commonly levelled against them would appear to support the interpretation which I have given: 2) is clearly based on a na priori assumption concerning the social composit­ ion of the Roman Church in the first century A.D. 3) The Jewish traditions cited by Smallwood are garbled and late and, in particular, there in nothing to show that the proselyte Kalonymos is the same person as Flavius Clemens. q) Josephus' Antiquities only deals with events down to 66 A. D. Deductions as to the sitz im leben of Judaism in Domitian's reign, when Josephus' work was completed, are too subjective to warrant any certainty in the absence of direct references. 39. Dio 67, H. {O

146

lia, found in the vault of the Acilii, appear to belong to the mid - se­ cond century A. D. at the earliest and any connexion with Acilius Gla­ brio is ruled out. However the literary evidence from Roman and Chris­ tian sources, discussed above, is both early and sound and points to the same conclusion, viz., that Domitian was not a wholesale 'persecutor' of the Church in the sense that Nero was; rather he singled out indivi­ dual Christians who were prominent members of the Church of Rome, among them his kinsmen Flavius Clemens and Domitilla. Domitian's persecution was a succession of short, sharp, assaults - the series of sud­ den and repeated misfortunes which had prevented Clement, on behalf of his Church, from writing to the Church in Corinth. When he does write he can remind his own flock what the sins of jealousy and envy had wrought in the past and what, through Domitian, they were still capable of doin/t°. The Idea of the State in Clement 's Epistle The early Christian attitude towards the State was founded on the teaching of J esus-' Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's'. E.G. Selwyn in his commentary on I Peter has shown that c. A. D. 55 there came into being an expand­ ed catechetical 'form' or 'pattern' which was a later version of the earliest baptismal form41• This contained a Christian social code which had a section on obedience to the State which was used by Peter and Paul i n I Pet. 2, 13 - 17, Rom. 13, 1 - 7 and later by the writers of I Tim. 2, 1 - 3 and Titus 3, 1 - 3, 8. The dominating theme of this catechetical teaching was subordination to the earthly power although in I Timothy this is replaced by intercession for rulers. Both I Peter and Romans are emphatic as to the divine origin and sanction of the State and its functi­ on of restraining and punishing crime, although Paul develops both points at length and in characteristic Pauline phrases. Both writers are also agreed on the positive function of the State in encouraging well doing, an element in the catechetical pattern which also appears in Tit. 3. 1 , 8 and possible I T im. 2. 2. Christians owe the civil power an inward loyalty and not merely an external submission, and this applies even in times of bad government. All four New Testament Epistles which contain fragments of this code connect obedience to the State with the qO. 6, q 7, 1 . U . The First Ep istle of St. Peter, London 1%7, p . q26 -

rf.

147

universal element in Christianity: 'honour all men' (I Peter), 'render to all their dues' (Romans), shew meekness 'towards all men' ( Titus), offer prayers 'for all men' ( I Timothy). Selwyn, after a careful examination of the references to the State in these Epistles, concludes that the brief passage I Pet. 2, 13 - 1 7 is nearest to the original teaching given to the catechumens . Clement of Rome takes over and develops this traditional Christian teaching which would have come down to him through the tradition of the Roman Church - and in any case he was directly acquainted with I Peter and Romans, which contain the relevant passages. Clement, in fact, goes further in his attitude towards the State than anything found in the New Testament. In spite of the persecution of Nero and the sharp assaults of Domitian, Clement can model the discipline of Christi­ ans on that of the Roman Legions: 'Let us then serve in our army, brethren, with all earnestness, fol­ lowing his faultless commands. Let us consider those who serve our generals, with what good order, habitual readiness, and submis­ siveness they perform their commands. Not all are prefects, nor tribunes, nor centurions, nor in charge of fifty men, or the like, but each carries out in his rank the commands of the Emperor and of the generals'u. The climax of Clement's teaching is found in the liturgical section, Chs. 59, 3 - 61, 3, which contains a sublime prayer for temporal rulers: 'Grant that we may be obedient to thy almighty and glorious name, and to the rulers and governors upon the earth. Thou, Master, hast given the power of sovereignty to them through thy excellent and inexpressible might, that we may know the glory and honour given to them by thee, and be subject to them, in nothing resisting thy will. And to them, Lord, grant health, peace, concord, firmness that they may administer the government which thou has given them without offence. For thou, heavenly Master, king of eternity, hast given to the sons of men glory and honour and power over the things which are on the earth; do thou, 0 Lord, direct their counsels according to that which is good and pleasing before thee, that they may administer with piety in peace and gentleness the power given (a2. I Clem. 37, 1 - 3.

1 48

to them by thee, and may find mercy in thine eyes" 3. The attitude towards the Roman Government found in I Clement is distinguished by its reserve and by its development of traditional Christian teaching concerning submission to the temporal power. Cle­ ment nowhere names Nero or Domitian, although his allusions to them are unmistakable. They were bad rulers, in his eyes, animated by jea­ lousy of the Christians; yet that did not invalidate the divine origin of the State. No doubt great caution was needed as Christianity, in Cle­ ment's day, had gained converts within the Imperial household; perse­ cuted and persecutors were at close quarters and it was useless to in­ vite trouble by blatant opposition. A further point is that Corinth, the destination of the letter, was a city exclusively Roman in the first cen­ tury. It had been refounded as a Roman colony in 44 B. C. with freed­ men and Roman citizens as the colonists. These were antipathetic to the Greeks and established close relations with Rome - a loyalty that persisted into the second century A. D. N ames on inscriptions, sculpture, architecture-all were Roman". There was therefore a natural ethnic solidarity between the Roman Church and that of Corinth which would have made it impolitic, even if Clement had so wanted, to criticize Roman law and institutions and their focus in the person of the Emperor. Yet these considerations do not fully explain the attitude towards the State found in Clement's Epistle. As is the case with many of the influential men of history we dare not ignore the human element - the character of Clement himself. He was a man who eschewed violence. He saw no reason why the world should suddenly come to an end because, for the moment, it had a bad and ruthless Emperor who was unrepresentative of the Empire. The harmony and peace which he enj oined on the Corinthian Church was the fruit of his own gentle and forbearing character. Clement had learnt his religion in the hardest school of all - the school of uncertainity and in­ security when men's hearts were failing them for fear - and there shi­ nes through his pages a serene and sublime faith in God which enabled him to endure manfully all the changes and chances of this fleeting world. In this he is to be distinguished from another Christian writer whose work, at least in its present form, was occasioned by the cruelties of q3. 60, q - 61, 2. qq. R. VAN CA UWE LAERT, "L'inlervenlion de I' EgIise de Rome a Corinlhe ran 96 " , Revue d' hisloire ecclesiastique, 31, (1935) 267 306. -

vers

149

Domitian's reign. For John of Patmos the present age was dying: the Roman State was anti - Christ which was doomed to terrible tortures through which Christians alone would be preserved for bliss. No greater contrast can be imagined than that between the seer of Patmos with his hatred of the Roman Power and his use of ideas of vengeance, and the gentle leader of the Roman Church with his sense of order, sobrie­ ty of temper, sweet reasonableness and forgiving spirit in a time of great difficulty. 3 THE INFLUENCE OF JUDAISM AND JEWISH CHRISTIANITY ON EARLY ROMAN CHRISTIANITY

The work of Jean Cardinal Danielou45 has shown that a Jewish interpretation of Christianity was a far greater influence in the early period of the Church than had once been thought. While not all the examples he adduces for the persistence of a distinctive Jewish - Chris­ tian theology are cogent there is no doubt that Jewish - Christianity in the diaspora was not eclipsed by the fall of Jerusalem in 70 A. D. If, as seems likely, the Christians gained converts from among the Jewish population in Rome at an early date what evidence can be adduced for a continuing Jewish and Jewish - Christian influence well into the second century A. D. ? To our aid come two documents of considerable length: (1) The Epistle of the Church of Rome to the Church of Corinth, known as I Clement, which we have already used in assessing the extent of the persecution of Christians in Rome in the late - first century, and (2) The Shepherd of Hermas. I

CLEMENT

The background of Clement's Epistle has been the subject of con­ tinous study since the time of Lightfoot and Harnack. In particular, L. Sanders in a notable work46 sought to show that I Clement is best q5. Theology of Jewish Christianity, London 1964. F or criticisms of Danielou's thesis see Judeo - Christianisme, Recherches historiques et theologiques offertes en ho­ mage au Cardinal Jean Danielou, Recherches de Science Religieuse 60 (1 972) 1 323. Particularly relevant are the articles by W. D. DAVIES (pp. 69 - 79) and R. A . KRAFT (pp. 81 - 92). q6. L'Hellenisme de Saint Clement de Rome el Ie Paulinisme, Louvain 1 943. -

150 interpreted against a Hellenistic, rather than a Jewish, background and that Clement himself was a Gentile who was directly dependent on the Pauline theology and world - view. However, the special point.s which scholars have singled out as proving a Gentile or a Jewish au­ thorship do not carry weight. Thus the order "day and night"47 is no proof that the writer was a Gentile, as the use of this phrase in the Apo­ stolic writings shows. Again, the mention of "our generals" in 1 Clem. 37, 2 is no sure indication that he was a Roman, as this expression would have been equally appropriate on the lips of a Hellenistic Jew native to Rome. Similarly, Jewish parentage cannot be proved from the ex­ pressions "our father J acob" and "our father Abraham" ( I Clem. 4:8; 31 :2), as this language is found in early Christian literature, whether the author be Jew or Gentile. We are thus thrown back on the Epistle itself. Certainly the writer is saturated in the language of the Septua­ gint, which pervades the whole Epistle and is more in evidence than his superficial classical culture ( I Clem. 20; 25; 33; 37; 38; 55). There is no evidence, however, that Clement knew any Hebrew. He is acquainted with traditional interpretations (I Clem. 7; 9; 1 1 ; 31), and his style has a strong Hebraic tinge, but his knowledge is primarily based on the Septuagint. Words and phrases from the Greek Bible constantly appear, even when he is not directly quoting it. On general grounds this would seem to point to the author's being of Roman Jewish background. Recently in a massive work of scholarship Karlmann Beyschlag48 has studied 1 Clem. 1 - 7 in detail and believes that its background lies in late Jewish and early Jewish - ChrisLian tradition and apologetics. He shows that behind I Clem. 3:4 (cr. Wisd. 2:24) "death came into the world " - there existed a Jewish dualistic Adam legend and the Cain / Abel tradition, which appears in I Clem. 4. The double zelos /phthonos 'jealousy' {'envy' idea in chapters 3 6 follows an earlier schema. An in­ vestigation of the seven - fold list of names in 1 Clem. 4 leads to the same result. Beyschlag thinks that there was an earlier dualistically - orient­ ed list which spoke of the persecution of blood - brothers and which was known to Melito and Cyprian. This dualistic kernel was used in Jewish Christian apologetics before the time of Clement, and his undoubtedly historical references to the troubles in Corinth were fitted into this ear-

-

4. 7. I Clem. 2, 4.; 20, 2 - 3; 24., 3. 4.8. Clemens Romanus und der Fl'iikatholizismus zu 1 Clemens 1 - 7, Tiibingen 1966.

151 lier tradition, rather than being their cause. Similarly in using stasis, 'sedition', in I Clem. 1:1 (cf. 3:2) Clement was following a conventional form of speech found in the descriptions of uprisings in Tertullian and Eusebius. Eusebius' description of the confusion on the eve of Diocle­ tian's persecution has the same approach and vocabularly as appears in Clement's description of the strife in the Corinthian community. So I Clem. 1; 1 describes not only the actual course of events at Corinth but also interprets what happened in terms of an existing Jewish or Jewish - Christian tradition which spoke of schism, sedition, persecu­ tion, and martyrdom. This tradition was positive in outlook towards the world, anti - extremist, and loyal to the State. One of the most interesting sections of Beyschlag' s book is his inter­ pretation of I Clem. 5, in which he maintains that the section dealing with Nero's persecution is an addition to a traditional theme of the persecution of the j ust since the time of Cain and Abel. He notes that I Clem. 4:13 breaks off at the David and Saul episode, whereas in other sources the theme is carried through the Old Testament prophets up to the time of Christ. The rhetorical transition in I Clem. 5:1 belongs to a pre - Christian tradition. So Tertullian49 quotes the Cain !Abel se­ quence and also the analogous transition from the Old to the New Testa­ ment. At the same time in Tertullian the persecution ! suffering theme, which in I Clem. 5:6 is applied to Paul, is ascribed to Elij ah and J ere­ miah. It would seem that Clement himself applied this idea to Paul. If Beyschlag is correct then Clement, to a far greater degree than had previously been realised, was indebted to Jewish and Jewish - Chris­ tian traditions. This raises the question of the composition and charact­ er of the Roman Church at the end of the first century. We know that, as a consequence of Rome's cosmopolitanism, numerous groups of re­ sident aliens existed in the city both influencing, and being influenced by, the Roman outlook50• There was also a considerable Jewish popula­ tion. It would seem likely that there may have been similar groups among the Christians, some of which preserved their own customs and tradi­ tions51• The Church was predominantly Greek - speaking in this period, 49. Scarp. 8ff. 50. G. LA PIAN A, "Foreign Groups in Rome during the First Centuries of the Empire", Harvard Theological Review 20 (1927) 183 - 403. 51. Is it possible that the reference to 'those who dissent from us' in I Clem. 47, 7 refers not to pagans but to Christian groups within the Roman Church whose outlook was different from that of Clement?

152

and there is no trace of Latin Christianity, using that phrase in the nar­ row sense. I f Clement himself was a converted Hellenistic Jew, then we can account for his use of earlier Jewish and Jewish - Christian traditions in the first seven chapters of his letter. And we can surmise that the Jewish - Christian element in the Church of Rome at the end of the first century was of greater influence than has often been realised. This group was Greek speaking and thoroughly conversant with the Septuagint. It is unnecessary, however, to postulate that the Jewish - Christian traditions which it held were violently opposed to the Pauline theology, as apparently Beyschlag believes. He makes too rigid a distinction bet­ ween Paulinism and I Clem. 1 - 7. The fact that Paul is referred to in I Clem. 5:5 7 in appreciative terms as the greatest example of enduran­ ce is strong evidence that Clement himself saw no radical dichotomy between the apostle to the Gentiles and the Jewish traditions which he may have been using in support of his historical allusions. I t would seem that Beyschlag's conclusions as to Jewish and J e­ wish - Christian influence can be further strengthened from references outside I Clem. 1 7. Thus I Clem. 35: 1 6 reads: -

-

-

' How blessed and wonderful the gifts of God are, dear friends. Life in immortality, splendour in uprightness, truth with boldness, faith with confidence, self - control with sanctification - all these things are within our understanding. Then what are the things that are being provided for those that wait for him ? The Creator and Father of the ages, the Most Holy One himself knows their number and beauty. Let us therefore strive to be found in the number of those that wait for him, so that we may share in the gifts he has promised. But how shall this be, dear friends ? If our mind is fixed believingly on God, if we seek what is pleasing and acceptable to him, if we perform acts that are in harmony with his blameless will, and follow the way of truth, casting from us all iniquity and wickedness, covetousness, quarrelling, ill - nature and deceit, gos­ sip, slander, hatred of God, overbearingness and boastfulness, vain glory and inhospitality. For those that do these things are hate­ ful to God, and not only those that do them, but those that ap­ plaud them'. This passage has an unmistakably Jewish colouring, as is seen in the reference to God as "Creator and Father of the ages" and as the "Most Holy One ". The passage in fact bears a stron g resemblance to

1 53

the list of virtues and vices in the Qumran Manual of Discipline52 where the way of truth is contrasted to the way of perversity. The virtues and vices in the Qumran list correspond very closely to those mentioned by Clement, although they are not given in the same order. I have shown elsewhere that the Qumran list in the form of a "Two Ways" teaching was taken over and used at an early date in J ewish - Christian teaching in different oral and written formsli3• One of these later became the ba­ sis of the "Two Ways" teaching in Did. 1 - 5, Barn. 18 - 20. It would seem that Clement knew of this originally Jewish teaching and utilized it in his Epistle. Possibly it was known in the Hellenistic synagogues in Rome. A further possible illustration of Jewish - Christian traditions kno­ wn to Clement is to be found in his version o f the Parable of the Sower in I Clem. 24:4 - 5: "The sower went forth and cast (E�or.AEV) each of the seeds into the ground, and they fall on to the ground, parched and bare, and suffer decay; then from their decay the greatness of the providence of the Master raises them up, and from one grain more grow and bring forth fruit" . This seems to be a version of the parable in Mark 4:3 - 8, Matt. 13:3 - 8, and Luke 8:5 - 8 - although much truncated - with over­ tones from I Cor. 15:35 - 38. There i s , however, another version of the parable in the Gospel of Thomas, logion 8, the beginning of which reads: " J esus said: Behold, the sower went forth, he filled his hand; he cast. Some fe ll upon the road ... " It is just possible that Thomas has given a Gnostic twist to the parable, although this is not as self - evident as Grant and Freedman assumeM• What is interesting is the agreement of I Clement and Thomas against the Synoptic version in mentioning the act of casting the seeds into the ground, although Thomas' version is otherwise longer and closer to the Gospels55• Elsewhere Clement re­ fers to logia traditions known to him, which had probably come down in the oral tradition, and it seems possible that a logion which told of the casting of seeds into the ground circulated independently of the 52. I Qs 3, 13 �, 26. 53. L. W. BARNARD , Studies in the Apostolic Fathers and their Background, Ox­ ford 1966, pp. 87 - 99. See further J - P. AUD ET, La D idache. Instructions des apotres, Paris 1 958, pp. 2 - 21 and W. RORD ORF, "Un chapitre d'ethique Judeo - Chretienne. Les deux voies", in JwJeo - Christianisme ibid (n. �5) pp. 109 - 128. 5�. The Secret Sayings of Jesus, London 1 960, pp. 121 - 22. 55. W. H . C. FRE N D , "The Gospel of Thomas: Is Rehabilitation Possible?", Journal of Theological Studies 18 (1967) 13 - 26. -

154 Synoptists, being known to both Clement and Thomas. As there are strong reasons for thinking that Thomas embodies much Jewish - Chris­ tian material, it is possible that this logion was Jewish - Christian. One last illustration of Jewish influence on I Clement is found in his great liturgical prayer56• This is not a "fixed" liturgy57 but an extem­ pore prayer based on previously existing liturgical material which was known in the Roman Church and into which Clement has breathed his own devotion and faith. J . B . Lightfoot long ago in his commentary gave many highly suggestive parallels between the prayer and the J e­ wish Shemoneh' Esreh, the "Eighteen Benedictions"58. The Talmud states that the "Men of the Great Synagogue" instituted certain benedictions and prayers59 and the "eighteen" were arranged by Simeon ha - Pakoli60 in the time of Gamaliel I I (A. D. 80 - 120). Modern criticism since Light­ foot has thrown doubt on the antiquity of these traditions61, and fur­ ther study, aided by the discovery of the Genizah fragments, has shown that some of the Benedictions date from the period subsequent to the fall of the Temple in A. D. 70. We shall not, therefore, expect to find a complete parallel in early Christian worship to all the "Eighteen Bene­ dictions" of the later Synagogue. Nevertheless, there is sufficient simi­ larity between Benedictions 1 , 2, 17, and 18 and I Clement to make it highly probable that in his liturgical prayer Clement was drawing on certain of the daily blessings known and used in the Hellenistic sy­ nagogues in Rome in his day. THE

SHEPHE R D

OF

HERMAS

In the latter half of the second century there circulated in the Church a book of visions and allegories purporting to be written by one 56. 1 Clem. 59, 3 - 61, 3. 57. Considerable fluidity existed before the beginning or the third century. Even in JUST IN. 1 Apol. 65 - 7 (c. 1 50 A.D . ) , there is no fixed liturgy but an address and naming of God followed by a series of thanksgivings for creation and redemption. An element of extempore prayer still existed. L. W. BARNARD, Justin Martyr: His · Life and Thought, Cambridge 1967, pp. 1!.2 - 150. 58. Ibid (n. 24) 1, pp. 392 - 6. 59. B. Be,.. 33a. 60. B. Meg. 1 7b . 6 1 . K . KOHLER, "The Origin and Composition of the Eighteen Benedictions", Hebrew Union College Annual 1 (1924) 387 - 425 and C. W. D UGMORE, The Influence of the Synagogue upon the Divine Office', London 1 964, pp. 22 - 25.

155

Hermas, a slave, which was known as The Shepherd, after the angel of repentance who appears in the book. The work was widely accepted as inspired and it was read in public worship in many Churches. Irenaeus62 quotes it with the comment 'Well said the Scripture', a fact taken no­ tice of by Eusebius63• It seems likely that in the time of Irenaeus it was read and was well known in the Gallican Churches, as otherwise he would have named the source of his quotation. Clement of Alexandria gives about ten quotations from the book, always with an acceptance of the divine character of the revelations vouchsafed to Hermas but without any note as to who Hermas was. The great scholar Origen fre­ quently quotes the book which he regards as very useful and divinely inspired64• Yet he carefully separates his quotations from those from the Canonical Scriptures and often adds a clause giving the readllr permission to reject The Shepherd if he is so disposed. Eusebius states that the book, although rejected by some, has been publicly used in churches, that certain eminent writers had used it, and that some judged it sui­ table for those in need of elementary instruction in the faith65• Athana­ sius classes The Shepherd with some of the deutero - canonical books of the Old Testament and with the 'Teaching of the Apostles' as not cano­ nical, yet useful for catechetical instruction. The work is also found in the Codex Sinaiticus following the Epistle of Barnabas and is clearly there regarded as an appendix to the New Testament. In the West the Muratorian fragment on the Canon states that the hook had been writ­ ten during the episcopate of Pius (c. A. D. 140 50) by Hermas, a bro­ ther of that Bishop, and that it is of 'very recent date'. The fragment concludes that the book ought to be read, but not to be used publicly, in Church among the prophetical or apostolic writ.ings. This is high reco­ gnition of the value attributed to it by this writer and may suggest that in some places the use of the book had been such as to cause it to be set on a level with the canonical scriptures. Tertullian, in his earliest days, is a further witness to the importance assigned to The Shepherd. In de oratione he disputes the practice of sitting down immediately after prayer for which he knows no reason than that Hermas is said to have sat on the bed on ending prayer. A book which could influence -

hae,.. 4, 20. 63. HE 5, 8. 64. In Rom. 16, 4 . 65. HE 3, 3, 62. Adp.

1 56

the liturgical practices of churches must have enjoyed high recognition at the time. In his Montanist days TerLuIlian seems to have turned against the book but his later view does not invalidate his earlier refe­ rences. The accord given to The Shepherd in early times may seem to the modern reader somewhat fulsome. The fact is, however, that vivid imagination and graphic descriptions of mysterious experiences were not decried in the early Church and indeed were regarded as the hall­ mark of inspiration. I t may well be that the early Church was correct in its estimate of The Shepherd, for how would Bunyan's P ilgrim's Pro­ gress, Dante's Dirina Commedia and the visions of Teresa and Cathe­ rine of Siena have appeared to the hard - pressed modern scholar who had not read them before ? It may be doubted whether recent psycho­ logical advances have done much to elucidate the mystery of the vi­ sionary faculty in early Christianity. But whatever is the correct inter­ pretation of the strange mental states of certain early Christians, a sure test is the life which they lived and the sentiments which they expres­ sed. Hermas passes this test with flying colours. His strong moral ear­ nestness and didactic purpose is apparent throughout the book. He had been freed from slavery, and had become the property of one Rhoda in Rome66, had gained his freedom, and had prospered in business. Di­ saster had however come upon him and he had lost his wealth and so had become useful and profitable unto life67• The strong moral chara­ cter of Hermas' teaching is apparent in his call to repentance addressed to Christians among whom the memory of persecution is still fresh68 and over whom hangs the shadow of another great period of testing69. The theme of the whole work is the need for repentance and amend­ ment of life. This note is sounded in the first vision, with its emphasis on the sinfulness of sins of thought, to the last Parable where the great­ ness of the Shepherd, the supernatural angel, to whom is given autho­ rity over repentance in the whole world 70, is ordered to be declared to man. This is not a work of 'pottering mediocrity'71 but of a genuine if simple mind seeking to understand and use the visions vouchsafed to it. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71 .

1, 1 . Vis. 3, 6. Vis. 3, 2, 5; Sim. 9, 28. Vis. 2, 2 ; �, 2. Sim. 10, 1 . B . H . ST R E E T E R, The Primitive Church, London 1 929, p. 203. Vis.

15 7

What was Hermas' position in the Roman Church ? Was he an ac­ credited prophet or teacher or merely an earnest visionary who wrote a work of allegorical fiction as a vehicle for teaching moral truths ? The evidence given above is decisive that the Church in the latter part of the second century regarded him as an inspired writer whose visions were real. Furthermore the book itself contains directions to one Cle­ ment (Clement of Rome?) to send it to 'cities abroad', i. e., other Chur­ ches72• We need not doubt that this was carried out and stamped The Shepherd as an authoritative prophetic work. This seemS to me the only satisfactory explanation of the high regard in which it was held, second only to the Canonical Scriptures, in distant Christian communities, and the place which it occupied in public reading in the context of Christian Worship. Indications that Hermas became an accredited Christian prophet are not hard to find. In Vis. 3, 8. he is directed to go after three days and speak in the hearing of all the saints the words he had heard in his vision. Elsewhere we are given an insight as to how this was carried out. In Mand. 1 1 , 9 we are told that if a meeting of righteous men, i. e. the Christian assembly, makes intercession for an inspired man ' then the angel of the prophetic spirit rests on him and fills the man, and the man, being filled with the Holy Spirit, speaks to the congregation as the Lord wills'. The fact that the Church in Rome accepted The Shepherd as an inspired work surely indicates that Hermas eventually held the position of a recognized prophet, much as Quadratus and Ammia of Philadelphia did elsewhere, and that he delivered in public worship the message which he believed was vouchsafed to him. However the earlier parts of The Shepherd suggest that Hermas' claim to be a prophet was not easily admitted. In V is. 3, 1 there appears a most interesting reflection of his struggles to obtain public recognition. In the corne l' of the field where he was to meet the white - haired lady he saw an ivory couch with a linen cushion and fine linen cover over it. This is evidently the seat on which the presiding elders of the Church sat, but at first no person is in sight. Hermas trembles, his hair stands on end and he is stricken with panic; however a time of prayer and con­ fession of sins restores him. It seems very probable that this is a refle­ ction of his own feelings when first allowed to deliver one of his visions to the Roman Church. 72. Vis. 2, q.

158 The ancient lady, the Church, now appears and tells Hermas to sit on the seat. He replies that the elders should sit down first. She then repeats the request. Hermas continues: 'Yet when I wished to sit on the right hand she would not let me, but signed to me with her hand to sit on the left. When therefore I thought about this, and was grieved because she did not let me sit on the right hand, she said to me: "Are you sorry, Hermas ? The seat on the right is for others, who have already been found well - pleasing to God and have suffered for the Name. But you fall far short of sitting with them. But remain in your simplicity as you are doing, and you shall sit with them, and so shall all who do their deeds and bear what they also bore . . . But both (i. e. martyrs and ordinary Christians), whether they sit on the right or left, have the same gifts, and the same promises, only the former sit on the right and have somewhat of glory. And you are desirous of sitting on the right hand with them, but your failings are many'''. 73 Behind this vision we sense a certain reluctance in recognizing Hermas' prophetic gift. The Roman Church, as is the case with many readers today, must have sensed the strangeness of his visions. The composition of the work may have taken thirty to forty years and towards the end of Hermas' life, and as the second century wore on, the public exercise of prophetic powers seems to have waned. Such at least we may infer from the advent of Montanism with its challenge to the Church to become the abode of the Spirit. The controversy that ensued caused the Church to insist strongly on the distinction between the inspiration of the writers of the Canonical Scriptures and that of holy men of later times - a view held by the writer of the Muratorian fragment. But this was not the case in the earlier part of Hermas' ministry when the accredited, inspired prophet was accepted in the Christian communities. Some further indications of the position of prophets in the Church are provided by The Shepherd and are significant for the understanding of Hermas' own position. Mand. 1 1 , 1 reads: ' He showed me men sitting on a bench (subsellium), and another man sitting on a chair (cathedra), and he said to me, "Do you see 73.

Vis.

3, 1

-

2.

159 the men sitting on the bench ?" "Yes sir" , said I, "I see them" . "They", said he, "are faithful, and he who is sitting on the chair is a false prophet, who is corrupting the understanding of the ser­ vants of God. He corrupts the understanding of the double - min­ ded, not of the faithful''' . The prophet, although in this case a false one, is given a seat of honour, the chair of teaching, a cathedra, while his hearers sit before him on a subsellium. This inLerpretation is confirmed by Vis. 1 , 2, 2; 4, 1 , in which the Church, the ancient Lady, when she reads her book, sits on a cathedra - clearly the chair of teaching. We thus infer that in the Roman Church besides presbyters there were prophets who taught or prophesied from recognized seats of honour - 'teaching' chairs - and that on occasions certain of the false prophets, which plagued the ear­ ly Church, ursurped this chair of honour and sought to use it for their own ends. The only way of judging true from false was pragmatical 'test the man who has the divine spirit by his life'74.We are reminded of a si milar situation mentioned in Didache 1 1 . There was a fluidity of Church life and order in the second century, even in Rome where law was exal­ ted, which is often forgotten in our desire to read our own tidy eccle­ siastical systems into the evidence for this early period. Yet under­ lying this diversity was a deep fundamental unity of men and women who were 'in Christ'. What was the relationship of Hermas to the heresies which arose in the early second century within the Church ? According to Irenaeus75 Valentinus and Cerdo came to Rome in the episcopate of Hyginus, i. e., c. A. D. 135, and there propagated their systems. The discovery of the Gospel of Truth76, if correctly assigned to Valentinus, has shown that Gnosticism in its earlier stages was 'more Christian' and 'less Gnostic' than had formerly been believed. It was firmly soteriological and pla­ ced the Redemption wrought by Christ at the centre of its system. Only later, with the advent of Gnostic schools of thought, did the more cha­ racteristic teaching appear, and it is this later brand which is so strong­ ly condemned by the Fathers. We must not assume that Valentinus had already evolved his system of 'aeons' as early as A. D. 135. The evidence

7q. Mand. 11, 7. '] 5. Ad". haer. 3, q. 76. The Gospel of Truth, ed. MALl :'< I N E M., PUECH H.- C. QUISPEL G., Zurich 1956.

160

from The Shepherd of Hermas, such as it is, tends to support this view. The author's language concerning the pre - existence of the Church77, which finds an exact parallel in II Clement 14, does not suggest that it was based on the Gnostic aeon Ecclesia, which would have brought dis­ credit on the idea in Christian circles. Rather it appears to derive from Eph. 1 , 22 3 and possibly from a background in Judaism7s. The only references in The Shepherd which appear to refer to Gnostic or Docetic teaching are Sim. 5, 7, where the tendency to divide flesh and spirit and to regard the acts of the flesh as unimportant, is combated; and Sim. 9,22 which refers to false teachers within the bosom of the Church who are 'believers, but slow to learn and presumptuous, and pleasing themsel­ ves, wishing to know everything, and yet they know nothing at all. Because of this presumption of theirs understanding has departed from them, and senseless folly has entered into them, and they praise them­ selves for having understanding and they wish to be teachers in spite of their folly'. Yet even for these 'repentance is waiting, for they were not wicked, but rather foolish and without understanding'. Hermas is combating false speculation on the part of accredited teachers of the Church. There is however no indication whatsoever that he has any knowledge of Gnosticism in its more developed forms - we should have expected him to have referred to such if he had known it. For this reason I should not place the completion of his book later than c. A. D. 135. Most probably it was composed over a period of 30 40 years, the ear­ liest parts dating from the end of the first century. This dating is also relevant to the question of Montanist affiliation. It has often been noted that the leading ideas of Montanism and The Shepherd have an affinity. In both the difficulty was felt that the Church, which was ideally composed of holy men, in fact included many unwor­ thy people who had sinned wilfully after receiving baptism 'for the re­ mission of sins'. The question faced by both was whether it was possible to renew such repentance. The Shepherd and Montanism eagerly awai­ ted Jesus' second coming and both sought knowledge of God's ways through visions and revelations given to 'inspired' people. The fact that they dealt with similar problems and questions is however no proof of affiliation and the answers given by Hermas are quite independent of Montanism and bear the marks of an earlier period. We have already -

-

77. Vis. 2, 78. cr.

4.

Qumran IQs 2, 25; 1 1 , 7

-

8; Thanksgiving Pss. 2, 21; 6, 14; H, H - 12.

161 noted that in Hermas' day the Church was willing to accept prophetic utterances in the spirit as genuinely inspired and worthy of a hearing in public worship. This was not the case with Montanism which quickly drew upon itself the hostility of the Catholic Bishops. Moreover the Montanists refused restoration to grave offenders while Hermas offered complete forgiveness, once, for the worst of sins; they refused second marriages as a religious duty while II ermas allowed these, although it was a counsel of perfection to abstain from them. The Montanists added to the fasts of the Church; Hermas did not make fasting a matter of obligation, insisting more on the spirit in which it was observed. In these and other respects Hermas is less rigorous than the Montanists and the special teaching of Montanism, such as the 'Age of the Paraclete' is unknown to him. His book reflects a fluidity in doctrine and practice appropriate to a time before the Church in Rome had to grapple serious­ ly with the great heresies. It has been contended that The Shepherd in its angelology has con­ tacts with that form of J ewish - Christianity known as Ebionism. It is true that Hermas speaks of six chief angels but there is no indication that he regards the Son of God as a seventh, so making up the Ebionite number of seven angels79• The number seven is nowhere used in his work rather he speaks of twelve angels, six principal and six secondary ones. Hermas' Christology, while adoptionist in parts and reflecting early Roman speculation on the Person of Christ, is thoroughly Christian. The Son of God is older than all creation; was a fellow counsellor with the Father in the creation; is the rock on which the Church is built; and is the only name by which any can enter the Kingdom of GodBo• The question of the relationship of The Shepherd to Judaism pre­ sents difficult problems to the investigator. In a work consisting of visions and which abounds in allusive references and allegories we should not expect, and indeed do not find, any direct quotations from the Old Testament. The only explicit quotation in the whole book is from the lost apocryphal book of Eldad and Modat81 which is classed among the apocrypha in the Athanasian Synopsis and in the Sticho­ metry of Nicephorus, but is not now extant. In his disuse of the Old Testament Hermas differs from his near contemporaries, Clement of 79. Sim. 9. 80. Sim. 9. 12. 81. V is . 2, 3, 11

162

Rome and the writer of Barnabas, whose Epistles are steeped in the language of the LXX and reflect a J ewish background. It seems probable that Clement, Bishop of Rome, came from Jewish stock and that the author of Barnabas was a converted Rabbi or Magid who brought into the Church the exegetical methods, and p articularly the Rabbinical Midrashim, of the synagogue. The Shepherd reflects a different back­ ground. Hermas is not an exegete concerned to demonstrate the fulfil­ ment of the Old Testament in the New Testament but a Christian prop­ het who, knowing the 'freedom of the spirit' , was concerned to grapple with fundamental moral problems which were troubling the Roman Church - in particular the question of post - baptismal sin and the dan­ ger of close contact with pagan social influences. Hermas is not interes­ ted in Judaism as such. The Jewish nation and its privileges are never mentioned; neither is there anything about the distinction between Jew and Gentile - indeed an uninitiated reader of The Shepherd would not discover that the Jewish nation had ever existed. Michael is the guar­ dian angel, not of the Jews, but of the Church. The twelve tribes refer not to the tribes of Israel, nor to the Apostles, but to the division of the human race into twelve nations82• Hermas recognizes no ceremonial washings, as in Judaism, and his work is singularly free from formalism and rigorism. Christian baptism alone is the rite which is essential but this had no antecedent in Jewish circumcision. Such then is the compa­ rative neglect of Jewish institutions and traditions. Caution is however needed before we conclude that Hermas is anti Jewish. The contacts, short of direct quotation, which the book shows with the Epistle of J ames, one of the most ' Jewish' writings in the New Testament, have been frequently noticed83• Moreover the argument from silence in regard to Jewish sources is always a precarious one and the more so in the case of a Christian prophet possessed of the visionary faculty. Hermas was dealing with practical problems of Church life, rather than with doctrinal niceties, and so the question of the fulfil­ ment of the Old Testament in the coming of Christ did not come within his purview. There are, I believe, indications in The Shepherd that Hermas was 82. Sim. 9, 17. 83. Whole sections are framed with a recollection of Ep. James: e.g. Vis. 3, 9; Mand. 2, 9, 1 1 ; Sim. 5, q; cr. also Mand. 12, 5, 6= James q, 7, 12; Sim. 8, 6 = James 2, 7 .

163 acquainted with Jewish teaching and traditions not found in the New Testament or early Christian literature - an interesting indication of the persistence of Jewish influence in the Church of the late first and early second centuries. Most of this teaching occurs in the Mandates and in the first five Similitudes which follow, which in their present form, appear as a Christianized version of the Old Testament moral code. In this part of Hermas' work very few personal or family referen­ ces or precise indications of time or place occur, in comparison with Vis. 1 4. The writer is now drawing on a body of earlier teaching which had come down from the Jewish origins of the Church. We shall select just a few examples of this Jewish background. -

The emphasis on Truth In Mand. 3, 1 2 the Shepherd says to Hermas: 'Love truth: and let all truth proceed from your mouth, that the spirit which God has made to dwell in this flesh may be found true by all men, and the Lord who dwells in you shall thus be glorified, for the Lord is true in every word and with him there is no lie. They therefore who lie set the Lord at nought, and become defrauders of the Lord, not restoring to him the deposit which they received. For they received from him a spirit free from lies. I f they return this as a lying spirit, they have defiled the commandment of the Lord and have robbed him' . -

Hermas is convicted by this revelation and weeps because he has ' never yet in his life spoken a true word' - a note of false humility. He is then told that he ought to have walked in truth as God's servant, that an evil conscience ought not to dwell with the spirit of truth; from henceforth he is to keep the whole truth that he may obtain life for him­ self. This teaching is different from that found in the Fourth Gospel where 'the truth' is the Christian revelation brought by and revealed in J esus84• In the Mandates, on the other hand, there is no mention of Jesus. Neither is loving and speaking the truth mentioned in the Old Testament decalogue although it is implied in the negative command not to bear false witness against one's neighbour. Moreover in the ear­ ly Christian lists of virtues and vices found in the 'Two Ways' (in Did. M.

John. 1, 17j H, 6.

164

5 and Barn. 18 22) there is no mention of 'truth' among the precepts there listed which appear to be based on earlier Jewish - Christian or Jewish catechetical teaching. However in Jewish tradition there are many examples of the truth being identified directly with the Torah (the law) engraven on the heart85 and in the Qumran Manual of Disci­ pline 3, 13 4, 26, which appears to be a sermon accompanying the read­ ing of the Torah by the priests of the sect, we have a close parallel to this section of The Shepherd. We are told that God appointed Two Spirits - the spirits of truth and error. The origin of truth lies in the Abode of Light and that of error in the realm of darkness. These Two Spirits struggle for possession of the heart of man; 'an abomination to truth are deeds of error, and an abomination to error are all ways of truth. And contentious jealousy is on all their judgments, for they do not walk together'. While Hermas' theology does not have the dualistic emphasis of the Qumran sect there is nevertheless a correspondence between the earlier Jewish teaching and his idea of the 'truth' as being due to the activity of the spirit of truth within the human heart. There is an inwardness and a mystical side to Hermas' teaching whieh is similar to that found at Qumran; it is different from the more external and legalistic form which Jewish and Jewish - Christian teaching later took in the 'Two Ways' . This we will now consider. 1

-

-

-

The Two A ngels and the Two Ways or Paths The metaphor of two ways of life, or two paths, which men can choose to follow, is a familiar one in classical literature where it can be traced in the 'antitheses' of Heraclitus, in Hesiod, Theognis and Xeno­ phon; in the Old Testament it also is found86• This metaphor was taken up by Jesus in his famous saying recorded in Mt. 7, 13 - 14, ' Enter ye in by the narrow gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many be they that enter in thereby. For narrow is the gate, and straitened the way, that leadeth unto life, and few be they that find it' . In this teaching the emphasis is on the out­ ward following of the straight and narrow path, the way of life or light, and the avoidance of the opposite path. There is a similar emphasis 85. In Samaritan ' the Verity' (Qushtah) is a common term for the Law and in Mandaean thought Truth (Kushta) is synonymous with mystic revelation. T. H . GASTER, The Scriptures of the Dead Sea Sect, London 1 957, p. 305. 86. Deut. 11, 2 6ff; 30, 15 . 19; Jer. 21, 8; Ps. 1 .

165

in Mand. 6, 2: ' For that which is righteous has a straight path, but that which is unrighteous a crooked p ath. But do you walk in the straight path, but leave the crooked path alone'. This could easily be taken as another version of the familiar rerba Christi; cr. also John 1 1 , 9 - 10. But in Mand. 6, 2, 1 , ff. lIermas introduces the conception of two an­ gels with man, one of righteousness, one of wickedness, who dwell in men's hearts causing good and evil dispositions. In reply to the Angel of Repentance IIermas says: ' How then, sir, said I, shall I know their workings, because both angels dwell with me ? Listen, said he, and understand them. The Angel of righteousness is delicate and modest and meek and gent­ le. When, then, he comes into your heart he at once speaks with you of righteousness, of purity, of reverence, of self - control, of every righteous deed, and of all glorious virtues. When all these things come into your heart, know that the angel of righteousness is with you' . Then follows a list of the dispositions caused by the presence of the Angel of Wickedness; ill temper (was this one of Hermas' failings he often mentions it ?), bitterness, desire of many deeds, over - eating and drinking, desire for women, covetousness, haughtiness and pride. Hermas is then commanded 'to follow the angel of righteousness, but to keep away from the angel of wickedness'87. This conception of the Two Angels or Impulses, one good, one evil, (also found in 1I1and. 1 2, 1) find s an exact parallel in the Habhinic yet­ zer ha - tob and yetzer ha - ra mentoned in many Jewish writings88. The general view among the Rabbis was that the sphere where the struggle for mastery between goo d and evil impulses occurred was the heart, which stood for the volitional and intellectual element s in man. It was a man's will and mind which the evil impulse attacked, urging him to all kinds of sin. The chief means of protection against this impulse was the study of the Torah. Thus ' I n the school of R. I shmael it was taught: If this abomination meets you, drag it to the House of Study; if it is hard as stone it will be crushed; if it is hard as iron, it will be broken in pieces '89. There can be little doubt that behind the 'Two Angels' and 87. Mand. 6, 2, 9.

88. E. 89. B.

15, 1 1 30b.

g. Ecclus. Kidd.

- H; " Ezra

3, 2 1 ; 4, 30ff; Test. Asher

1,

6.

166

'Two Desires' of Hermas is much earlier Jewish teaching. The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls has confirmed this for, as we have already men­ tioned, in Manual of Discipline 3. 13 - 4, 26 Two Spirits are described as struggling for possession of men's hearts and the lists of virtues and vices (the latter perhaps based on the Vidui of the Day of Atonement) associated with the Two Spirits bear a general resemblance to Hermas' lists - indeed almost all the virtues and vices he mentions can be paral­ leled at Qumran. A further confirmation of Hermas' Jewish background is provided by his frequent use of the word 'double - mindedness' in connexion with that disunity of the heart which renders a man vulnerable to the assaults of temptation90• It is double - mindedness which causes men to forsake the true way and those who do so are following evil desires. Behind Hermas' use of this word lies the familiar Rabbinic teaching of the two lIetzarim or impluses already mentioned. What is interesting is the presence of Jewish traditions and ways of thought in the Church of Rome in the late first and early second cen­ turies. Judaism had a far greater influence on the developing thought of the early Church than is often - realized even on writers who show no great interest in J udaism. The Emphasis on Jewish Monotheism Mand. 1. 1 - 2 reads: ' First of all believe that God is one, "who made all things and per­ fected them, and made all things to be out of that which was not", and contains all things, and is himself alone uncontained. Believe then in him, and fear him, and in your fear be continent. Keep these things, and you shall cast away from yourself all wickedness, and shall put on every virtue of righteousness, and shall live to God, if you keep his commandment' . It is significant that in this introductory Mandate there is no com­ mand to love God, no mention of the Trinity, as might be expected in a Christian work which nowhere directly quotes the Old Testament, but rather a free expansion of the Decalogue's 'Thou shalt have none other Gods but Me' . The mention of the creation ex nihilo appears to be based on 2 Macc. 7, 28 and W isd. 1 , 14. 90. Vis. 2, 2, 4; 3, 7, 1; Mand. 10, 1 , 2; 2, q.

167 The command to believe and fear the One God is characteristical­ ly Jewish and is reiterated throughout the Mandates. Indeed a whole Mandate (7) is devoted to this commandment .. :the fear of the Lord is mighty and great and glorious' . Hermas even states that people with 'might' or 'power' gain the fear of the Lord (Mand. 7 . 2). Nowhere does love or meekness balance fear as in the New Testament writings. In this Hermas is at one with the Old Testament and Jewish tradition91• Life The Shepherd many times states that those who keep the command­ ments will 'live unto God' - a theme constantly reiterated throughout the work. Indeed almost every Mandate ends with this phrase. There is nothing in the book to connect this 'living with God' with the work of Christ as in the J ohannine literature. Hermas never states that this life is the gift of God mediated through Jesus Christ. It would seem that he is here drawing on a Jewish background of thought. Thus Prop. 8, 35 says of the Divine Wisdom: 'Whoso findeth me findeth life, and shall obtain favour of the Lord'. In Judaism the Torah was the supreme means of life for men; so Ecclus. 1 7, 1 1 : ' He added unto them knowledge, and gave them a law of life for a heritage' . 'The more a man studies and obeys the com mands of the Torah the more life he has' (saying ascribed to Hillel). 'As oil is life for the world so also are words of Torah life for the world' (Deut. Rabba 7. 3). It is true that the idea of life is also found in Hellenistic religions and philosophical thought - indeed a fundamental principle of Gnostic thought is that only the bestowal of knowledge can give life. But in Hellenistic thought life is not obtained through the keeping of God's commandments, as is constantly stated by H ermas. It therefore seems probable that his emphasis on ' life' and 'living unto God' comes from his familiarity with Jewish ways of thought. The Holy Spirit represented

as

Virgins

Hermas, as a Christian prophet, emphasizes the work of the H oly Spirit. Nevertheless there are indications of Jewish influence at work in the way he depicts the Third Person of the Trinity. The Hebrew for �pirit (ruach) being feminine, the Spirit was sometimes represented symbolically as a woman. Hermas goes further and resolves the one woman into seven in Vis. 3. and into twelve Virgins in Sim. 9. These 91.

ct.

Ps. 1 1 1 , 10; Ecclus. 60, 26; Pil'qe Aboth 3, 13.

168 by their plurality represent the distributions of the Holy Ghost although their oneness and significance are carefully indicated by the expression, 'clothed in the Holy Spirit of these Virgins'92. Hermas presents something of an enigma to the student of the ear­ ly Church. Many scholars openly describe him as dull, pious, stupid and vague - a perfect example of mediocrity. So W. J . Wilson can write: ' I f such men as Hermas had become the real leaders of Christianity, if such books as his had made up the New Testament., the Church could hardly have survived. For the intellectual quality of its leadership has been one large secret of Christianity's success'93. This is to underesti­ mate Hermas' achievements. He is in close contact with the Christian life as it was being lived by ordinary Church members in the Church of Rome and gives us a vaJuable insight into what people were thinking and the way they were behaving. No sadness or difficulty can quench his incurable optimism. There can be little doubt that his power of vivid narration and description, his moral earnestness and sincerity, his power of perseverance through trials which would have crushed a lesser man, ensured that his name would not be forgotten and that his literary work would gain a wide popularity among the rank and file o f the Church. Hermas is no theologian and what theology there is in his book is con­ fused. We cannot visualize him pondering the Epistle to the Romans or finding solace in the thought of a Tertullian or a Cyprian. He was essentially a visionary and prophet who sought to express, sometimes in quaint language, what he had ·seen.' These visions were real to him the very stuff of inspiration - and he copied them down in a state of intense exaltation, although before his work reached its present literary form his visions passed through a stage of conscious reflection. During this time Hermas also drew upon much Jewish tradition al teaching, known in the Hellenistic synagogues, which had come down in the tra­ dition of the Roman Church. He must not be judged too harshly or by the ecclesiastical standards of a later age. It was not only the power­ ful and lucid thinkers, the great doctors, the masters of ecclesiastical organization, who shaped the history and thought of the early Church. It was also men of the type of Hermas, who had seen visions and drea­ med dreams, who powerfully influenced the current of Christian life. Diversity of gifts, rather than a colourless uniformity, often within 92. Sim. 9 , 24., 2 . 93. Harvard Theological Review 20 (1927) 35.

169

the one Christian community, was the rule rather than the exception in those early days. 4 RECENT STUDY

We have already referred to the work of 1. Sanders and K. Beysch­ lag on I Clement. The latter scholar in particular has shown the indebted­ ness of the Church in Rome, at the end of the first century, to J ewish and Jewish - Christian traditions. Recent work has reinforced this indeb­ tedness. A. JAUBERT, Clement de Rome: Epitre au,r Corinthiens: Sources Chretiennes 1 67, Paris 197 1 , has provided a detailed introduction and textual study of the Epistle. G. BRUN N E R , Die Theologische M itt ie des Ersten Klemensbriefes. Ein Beitrag fiir I1ermeneutik friihchristlicher Frankfurt 1972 and H. B. BUMPUS, The Christoiogical A wareness of Clement of Rome and its Sources , Cambridge, Mass. 1 972 have studied the particular theological perspective of Clement. We have already argued that the Shepherd of Hermas is an impor­ tant source for the understanding of the early traditions of the Church in Rome. Recent study by scholars of this enigmatic work has been very significant and merits treatment at some length. Older scholarship tended to disparage the visions as childish and failed to put to this strange work the right questions. It is fair to say that more recent study has re - enthroned Hermas as an important wit­ ness to second - century Christianity in Rome. It may be that this work holds the key to the question how Jewish and Jewish - Christian tra­ ditions which had come down from the origins of the Church, continued ' to exercise an important influence well into the second century. Our concern here is to consider and evaluate the contributions which scho­ lars have made in the last decade or so to the interpretation of the She­ pherd. Pride of place must be given to the critical edition of the text o f Hermas published for the Berlin Academy in 1956 b y Miss Molly Whit­ taker of Nottingham University (Die griechische christliche Schriftstel­ ler der ersten drei Jahrhunderte, Band 48). As is well known the complete Greek text of the Shepherd has failed to survive in any one manuscript, which is all the more surprising in view of the vogue for Hermas in the early Christian centuries. Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, TertuIlian ,

170

and Athanasius (in his early period) regarded the work as quasi - cano­ nical; as far as Mand. 4, 3, 5 the work is included in Codex Sinaiticus after Ep. Barnabas. Con fidence in Hermas however seems to have waned in Rome during the course of the third century and in Alexandria in the fourth - no doubt the Arian use of Mand. 1 , 1 had something to do with this. Athanasius, in his later period, places Hermas outside the canon94• H. Chadwick, in a review of Miss Whittaker's book95, noted that the preservation of B erm as in Sinaiticus was itself astonishing and il­ lustrative of the force of conservatism. Miss Whittaker has taken the opportunity of providing the Shepherd with a more rational system of references, numbering the chapters con­ secutively throughout, although adding in brackets the old division into Visions, Mandates and Similitudes. This is a great help to the student. And, in reconstructing the text, she has made full use of all known au­ thorities including numerous papyrus fragments, the most famous of which is the Michigan Codex (M) of Sim. 2, 8 - 9, 5, 1 published by Dr. Campbell Bonner in 193496• Illustrative of her careful scholarship is the use made of the Latin and Ethiopic versions for the last sections of the work (107 ff. = S im. 9, 30 ff. ) where the Greek manuscript A fails. She wisely prints separately the Greek quoted by Antiochus Hom. 94, 122, 94 at Hermas 108, 3 4, 4 6, and 109, 2 - 4 and the fragment P. Oxy. 3, 404 of Hermas 1 13, 2 3, 3 - 5 (author's notation). This edition of the text fulfils the highest critical standards which we have come to expect from the B erlin Academy. Scholars have now been provided with an accurate text of the Shepherd on which to work and are thus saved the laborious task of searching learned journals and lists of papyri for tex­ tual variants. Miss Whittaker has accomplished for Hermas what West­ cott and Hort, in an earlier age, did for the text of the New Testament. The first scholar to benefit from her labours was Dr. R. J oly, who published a commentary on the text of the Shepherd in the invaluable Sources Chretiennes series (Paris, 1958). On the whole this is a conser­ vative interpretation and does not substantially enlarge on the celebra­ ted work of M. Dibelius published in 192397• However another French scholar, Professor S. Giet, of the Catholic Theological Faculty at Stras-

-

-

9q. De Decr. 18. 95. Journal of Theological Studies 8 (1957) 2']9. 96. A Papyrus Codex of the Shepherd of Hermas, University of Michigan Studies, Hum. series 22, Ann Arbor 193ft . 97. Der Hirt des Hermas, Tiibingen 1923. Handbuch z . NT.

17 1

bourg, in his book Bermas et les Pasteurs, Presses Universitaires de France, Paris 1963, propounded a new theory as to the authorship of the Shepherd which has received much attention. In contrast to J oly his is a work of wide - ranging analysis and speculation which pays p ar­ ticular attention to the linguistic and stylistic differences between dif­ ferent sections of the work. Giet holds that the existing text of Hermas consists of three different works by three authors who wrote at differ­ ent times. The first and oldest work comprised Vis. 1 - 4 and was pro­ bably written by Hermas himself. It is this work that contains the re­ ference to a certain Clement ( Vis. 2, 4) whom it seems best to identify with the Clement who wrote the well - known letter to the Corinthians c. A. D. 96. Giet has some penetrating observations to make on the idea of penitence and the Church in these Visions and also subj ects their Christology and Eschatology to a careful analysis. H e would date Vis. 1 - 4 early in the second century. The fifth Vision is an introduction to the Mandates or Commandments which follow in the text of the Shep­ herd. The second work, according to Giet's theory, comprised Sim. 9 and this, he thinks, was probably written by the brother of Pius, bishop of Rome c. 140 50. It is to this that the !t.luratorian Fragment on the Canon refers when it says that the Shepherd was written ' q uite lately in our times' (Pastorem vero nuperrime temporibus nostris in urbe Roma Bermas conscripsit, sedente cathedra urbis Romae ecclesiae Pio episcopo (ratre eius). Giet's analysis of Sim 9 is very valuable and he is certainly correct in finding a difference of emphasis in the conception of the Son of God from that found elsewhere in the work. Thc Son of God, in Sim. 9, symbolized as a rock and a gate, is older than creation yet is recently made manifest. The Church, which in Vis. 2 is older than creation, is here secondary to the Son of God. The third work, according to Giet, was of distinctly Jewish - Chris­ tian tendency and was written several years after Sim. 9, i. e. c. 155 160 A. D. This comprised the remainder of the work, viz. the Mandates and Sim. 1 - 8 and 10. The unknown third author Giet calls Pseudo Rermas who passed himself off as the original Hennas of the Visions. It is this third work which contains much Jewish and Jewish - Christian material and contains a Christology of an adoptionist tendency - e. g. the Son of God is identified with the Spirit (Sim. 5, 6). Professor Giet's theory is a speculative attempt to account for the undoubted differences between different sections of the Shepherd. It -

.

172 has long been recognized that Vis. 1 4 form a unity and stand apart from the rest of the work; thus the Shepherd, the angel of repentance, is nowhere mentioned in these visions and they seem to reflect the out­ look of a younger man. Moreover it should be noted that the Michigan Codex (M) of the second half of the third century apparently once began with the fifth Vision and contained the rest of the work to the end. It is just possible that Vis. 1 - 4 and Vis. 5 end had a separate textual history at some stage: It would seem that Giet is on strong ground in ascri­ bing Vis. 1 - 4 to Hermas proper and to a date around the turn of the first century or early second century. His further theory that Si m. 9 is by an 'orthodox' theologian, probably Pius's brother, and dates from just before the mid - second century, while Pseudo - Hermas, the third and slightly later author, substituted an adoptionist Christology for the second author's orthodox theology seems more doubtful. One can­ not help feeling that Giet is looking at the Shepherd through twentieth century eyes and with a rigid idea of the difference between orthodoxy and heresy. But it is not certain that these were opposing poles as ear­ ly as the mid - second century. The Church was then only beginning to grapple with the great heresies. Moreover the Shepherd is a rambling prophetic work which cannot easily be systematized. It may be that we should not expect to find a coherent theology running through it. Thus a Jewish - ChrisLian Christology of an adoptionist tendency could be held side by side with a theologically more advanced Christology which asserted that the Son of God was older than creation. What to us seems a contradiction was not so thought of in an age when much fluidity in doctrine and practice prevailed. Professor Giet's theory of triple authoriship is an ingenious attempt to grapple with the literary problems of the Shepherd. It would seem however that there is a greater probability that it was originally two works and not three, viz. (i) Vis. 1 4 and (ii) Vis. 5 end. The compo­ sition of (i) may be placed late in the first century and (ii) c. 135. It is significant that nowhere in the Shepherd does developed Gnostic teach­ ing appear. Moreover although the leading ideas of Montanism and Hermas have an affinity Hermas is far less rigorous and knows nothing of Montanist special teaching such as the age of the paraclete'. Probably not too much emphasis should be given to the reference in the Murato­ rian Canon to Hermas as Pius's brother for, as H. Chadwick has remind­ ed us9S, the writer is using eye - witness testimony to support a thesis. -

-

-

-

•

98. Journal of Theological Studies 8 (1957) 277. B. H. STREETER, The Primitil'e

173 There appears to be a strong case for believing that the Michigan pa­ pyrus (M) may have originally represented the text of (ii) while Codex Sinaiticus and the fifteenth - century Codex from Mount Athos (A) represented an edition in which the two separate works (i) and (ii) were combined in a single volume under the name of Hermas. Detailed literary and linguistic analysis of the Shepherd, as exem­ plified in Giet's work of 1963, was bound to provoke a reaction - much as, some thirty years ago, literary analysis of the Gospels gave way to theological interpretation which emphasized more the theological view­ point of the evangelists. In reaction to Giet, a Swedish scholar, Dr. Lage Pernveden, has entered the debate on the Shepherd of Hermas with a brilliant tour de force. The title of his book The Concept of the Church in the Shepherd of Hermas (Studia Theologica Lundensia, vol. 27 (Lund 1966) ), is an adequate indication of his approach. He believes that lite­ rary theories based on linguistic analysis are misplaced as the Shepherd was transmitted as a unity and probably existed (he believes) in that form from an early stage. We should rather seek for a unifying theologi­ cal theme which characterizes the whole work. This Pernveden finds in the concept of the Church which he holds to be the key to the unders­ tanding of the Shepherd and determines its distinctive doctrines. Thus, if the Christology of the Shepherd is considered by itself, there is a lack of systematic unity - a spirit jwisdom jnomos jangel jChristology can all be found which have usually been thought to come from different sources behind the work and, perhaps, from different authors. But once ecclesiology is seen to determine the Christology then we should not reasonably expect the latter to be systematized but only certain concepts which have a special bearing on the ecclesiology. Thus for ecclesiology it is sufficient to know that the Son of God, who was manifested in the flesh, is equally pre - existent Spirit, the lawgiver for the new people of God, and Lord and Judge of the Church. The author believes that scholars have been too prone to divide the concept of the Church in the Shepherd into an ideal, pre - existing, Church and an emp irical, human community on earth. I nstead of thin­ king of the Church as ideal and real he holds that the Church in this Church, London 1929, p. 205 spoke of scholars of the sharpest critical acumen having ' allowed themselves to be terrorized, so to speak, into the acceptance of a date (for Hermas ) which brings to confusion the history of the Church in Rome, on the eviden­ ce of an authority no better than the Muraw,.ianum'.

174

work is always one and the same, whether conceived as pre - existent, manifested or eschatological. The relationship between these stages is as follows: in the pre - existent stage the Church belongs to the celestial world; the transition to the human level is indissolubly linked with the manifestation of the Son of God. In the same way as the Church He is considered to be pre - existent and, through Him, men receive a share in the Church which takes its form in believers. Their lives become a walking in His commandments according to the law of the coming age which, for Hermas, is the Son of God. The Church is also depicted under the image of continuous building. Purification from sins takes place afresh in baptism and daily forgiveness. Teachers play an important role in the manifestation of the Church in space and time and constant co - operation between God and man brings the Church towards its completion. The third stage of the Church in the Shepherd, according to Pernveden, lies in the eschatological future when the hope is that men will be found to belong to the Church. This eschatological stage is not fully realized until the end of time, although it already affects the mani­ fested stage of the Church. Thus Hermas' message of metanoia aims at fulfilling this eschatology and it is a mistake to interpret him as the founder of a system of penance. He had no intention of founding a sy­ stem of Church discipline but rather wished to awaken men to insight about their chance of sharing in the salvation available in the Church. Pernveden's book is a brilliant attempt to interpret the Shepherd from a consistent existential - ecclcsiological position. If he is right then existing theories as to its purpose must be radically revised. However, certain questions are bound to arise in the reader's mind. The author attributes to Hermas (whoever he was) a degree of theological precision and reflection which the text o f the Shepherd hardly supports. He seeks to gloss over his well-known inconsistencies, e. g. in Christology, as of no real significance compared with his systematic concept of the Church. Yet if Hermas failed to order his Christological material into a consist­ ent whole is it really possible to believe that he was the theologian par excellence ? There would appear to be more fluidity in his ecclesiology than the author would allow and this may have come from the different Christian sources underlying the work. However, even if Pernveden's main thesis should prove unacceptable, there is much that is of value in his book which enriches our knowledge of this enigmatic work. One of his most valuable contributions is to show how close Hermas stands to late - J udaism in his Christology in Sim. 5 and 8 and also to Matthew's

175 rabbinically inclined torah - Christianity. He shows that Hermas does not reproduce Jewish ideas in toto but fits them into the Christian tra­ dition which he knew. He is Christian, rather than Jewish, in his basic outlook and the Shepherd has behind it a stream of tradition which con­ tained both J ewish and Christian elements at the same time, although the Jewish elements were often used in such a way that their origi nal meaning was obscured. It would seem that had Pernveden considered the place of Hermas in early Roman Chris tianity his observations could have been further strengthened . Thus I Clement, like Herrnas, is a Christian work which leans heavily on late - Jewish and early Jewish ­ Christian tradition and apologetics and this raises the question as to the composition of the Roman Church in the late first and early second centuries. As we have argued there would appear to be grounds for think­ ing that the influence of the Jewish - Christian element in the Church remained strong well into the second century. We have attempted , in a brief compass, to assess the contribution which recent scholarship has made to the unde l' standing of the Shepherd of Hermas. From the rather disparaging attitude of a few decade s ago the pendulum has swung to the opposite extreme and we are now asked to believe that Bermas was an ecclesiastical theologian par excellence. The truth lies somewhere between these extreme views. Hermas, whoe­ ver (he) was, was no theologian in the ac c epted sense of the term. He was primarily a visionary and a prophet who had experienced certain strange mental states and visions which he sought to express in a lite­ rary form. His visions and allegories apparently appealed to ordinary people who, in every age, form the bulk of the Chur c h . Before his work reached its pres e nt literary form his visions pas­ sed through a stage of conscious reflection. During this time Hermas seems to have drawn on much traditional Jewish and Jewish - Christian material which had come down in the tradition of the Roman Church and recent scholarship has enabled this to be identified and evaluated with greater precision. Danielou has indeed argued that much of the theology of the early Church came out of a late - Jewish background. While we should be wary of using the blanket ter m ' Jewish - Christia­ nity' in too wide and vague a senseoo nevertheless there is substance in his contention. The study of the Shepherd of Hermas in future years will, I believe, show still further the influence of J udaism on the early 99.

See n.

45.

176

Roman Church. It should not be forgotten that even so 'Greek' a philo­ sopher as Justin Martyr, who taught in Rome around the middle of the second century soon after the time of Hermas, was also much influen­ ced by Jewish tradition1oo. Later Latin Christianity is essentially the religion of Church au­ thority. Protestant scholars have asked how far we are j ustified in find­ ing this element in the Roman Church in the more fluid conditions of the first half of the second century and earlier. The answer given to this question will depend to some extent on our interpretation of the Shepherd of Hermas. That is why this work is one of the most significant documents which has come down from Christian antiquity. The further researches of scholars, both in regard to Jewish and Jewish - Christian influence on its sources, and as to whether Hermas' view of authority and discipline was a traditional one in the Roman Church, will be of no small interest to students of the early Church. 5 CHRI STIANITY IN ROME 150 - 200 A.D.

Until the end of the second century the Roman Church was predo­ minantly Greek speaking and Oriental in composition. The names of the bishops are Greek or Eastern. The inscriptions on papal tombs were mainly in Greek until near the end of the third century, while the use of Greek in the liturgy continued even longer. The use of Latin only made progress slowly for the Roman clerics who corresponded with Cyprian in the third century had no competent knowledge of it. It is possible however that there was a bi - lingual period which is suggested by inscriptions on the catacombs some of which alternate between the two languages. We know only very little about the early Rulers of the Church in Rome. There exist various lists which profess to give their names and dates but these are late and unreliable. It is possible that these lists contain genuine traditions but they have been so overlaid with later material that attempts to construct a reliable list are fraught with dif­ ficulties. Again no dependable traces remain of the origin of episcopa100. L. W. BARNARD, Juslin Martyr: His Life and Thought, Cambridge 1967, pp. 39 52 and chapter 4. of this book. -

1 77 cy in Rome. Bermas regarded the Church as ruled by presbyters101 and only with Pius c. 1 50 A. D . does the office of bishop emerge into daylight. The :Muratorian fragment calls him the brother of Hermas and s Lates that he held 'the see of the Church of Rome'. Anicetus, who may have come from Emesa in Syria, had a reign which saw visits from Hegesippus, Marcion and Polycarp . Polycarp's visit was connr.cted with differences ove), the keeping of Eas ter, a controversy which came to a head in the episcopate of Victor. Anicetus and Polycarp failed to agree on the vexed question and wisely they allowed each to continue his own practice and custom. A prominent feature of the second half of the second century was the presence in Rome of representatives of various Christian fringe move­ ments and opinions. Marcion came there to expound his version of Gno­ stic dualism c. 140. Valentinus, the greatest of the Egyptian Gnostic intellectuals, was there about the same period. Marcion met Cerdo in Rome; Marcellinus, during the episcopate of Anicetus, spread the doct­ rine of Carpocrates. J ustin Martyr, the eminent Christian philosopher and author of two celebrated Apologies, founded his 'school' in Rome c. 150 and among his disciples was Tatian from Assyria, the author of the Diatessaron, or harmony of the Gospels in Syriac. Hegessipus came to Rome c. 160. Praxcas, Epigonus and Theodotus were there. Towards the end of the second century a swarm of schools existed at Rome with eminent teachers seeking to attract converts. The majority of these teachers were asiatics and they came to Rome from Asia, Syria, Egypt and Mesopotamia102• They are an important clue to Rome's infhwnce at this time. Since the time of Augustus and Nero the city had changed. I t was now a cosmopolitan centre where all races and religions met. The Christians could not avoid contact with this clash of competing sects and beliefs and many Christians were attracted to these fringe groups. Nevertheless many Christians had, at this time, links with lead­ ing Roman families and some buried their dead on estates belonging to the Caecilii and Aurelii. Certainly the Church was gaining converts from among the indigenous population. Much as the reign of Septimius Severus marked a turning point in the fortunes of the Empire the episcopate of Victor (189 - 199) saw 101. Vis. 2, q, 3. 102. J. DANIELOU and H I . MARROU, The Ch,.istian CentUl'ies, Vol. I, London 19M, pp. 106 8. -

-

12

i78

the beginning of a new era in the Church of Rome. According to Jerome Victor was an African by birth, a writer of Latin, a man of considerable power, full of determination and contemptuous of opposition. Why then was he chosen at this stage in the history of the Roman Church ? L. E. Elliott - Binns103 argues that the reason lies in the change of character in the Roman community. Prior to Victor's time it had been recruited largely from Greeks and Orientals; now it was attracting considerable numbers of native born Romans. In addition the presence of a large body of Africans assisted the supremacy of the Latin majority among the people - and also in the Christian community. Victor found the Church in Rome split up into a number of groups whose customs were by no means uniform; there were, in addition, he­ retical teachers with their followers striving to gain influence if not control. With the latter he took a summary line. There could be no com­ munion between Catholics and unorthodox, so in due course the Monta­ nists and Theodotus, the Monarchian, were alike excommunicated. As to the rest, they must toe the line and submit to discipline, no kind of local anarchy was to be endured. In this task he seems to have been successful and in carrying it out greatly increased the power and pres­ tige of the hierarchy and laid the foundations of that monarchical epis­ copacy which would be the characteristic of later times. But Victor undertook another task of even greater significance. Up to this epoch the Roman Church, perhaps because of its own disunity, had made no attempt to interfere in the affairs of other Churches. Now it began, cautiously and not without reverses, the attempt to impose its own traditions upon them. Realism was to control the relations of Rome and the rest of Christendom. This came out especially in the Paschal Controversy which had arisen in the pontificate of Anicetusj but whe­ reas Anicetus had been content to allow the continuance of different traditions Victor felt that the whole question must be raised afresh and settled once and for all. The exact point in dispute is by no means clear and, in any case, is relatively unimportant. Some scholars think that all that was invol­ ved was the question of the date of observing the Pascha, that whilst in certain Churches of Asia this was N isan 14th, the date of the Jewish Passover, in Rome and elsewhere it was kept on the Sunday immedia­ tely following. This would explain the term Quartodecimans applied 103. The Beginnings of Western Christendom, London 194.8, p. 106.

i79

to the recalcitrants and is perhaps the best explanation. Others think that the question was whether there should be any observance of the Paschal Feast. They are of the opinion that it had not been observed in Rome, but that from early in the second century the custom had arisen of a yearly celebration of the Resurrection - already commemo­ rated by the weekly observance of Sunday. This commemoration was to be preferred to that on Nisan 14th. Victor's conduct of the controversyl04, at least in its early stages, was wise and statesmanlike. He began by obtaining from the Churches of Gaul, Palestine, Egypt, and some in Asia Minor, the approval of the Roman tradition. He then demanded that the rest should conform with it and that the observance of Nisan 14th should be abandoned. Probably at first he made this demand on the Asiatic groups in Rome only, and in this he was only partly successful, for some of them persisted in their observance, and withdrawing formed a separate Church under a cer­ tain Blastus106• They had, it must be confessed, a real grievance, after having been allowed to continue in peace for several generations, for the policy of Anicetus had been continued by his succeSSOrs. The Chur­ ches of Asia were naturally drawn into the dispute, perhaps Victor deli­ berately attacked them as the source of the whole trouble. But in doing 80 he went too far. Even those Churches which agreed with the Roman tradition were by no means ready to make its observance a matter on which the Church was to be split. Irenaeus, for example, reproves Victor for trying "to cut off whole Churches of God for observing an ancient custom handed down to them"106. Other Churches were much more homogeneous than that of Rome and doubtless failed to realize how vital the matter was to Victor and his policy of unification. When Victor wished to break off relations with the Churches of Asia he was sternly rebuked by Polycrates of Ephesus. The bishops of Palestine and Egypt likewise refused to be browbeaten. If, as seems probable, Victor owed his election to the influence of his fellow - countrymen in Rome, it is natural to suppose that African traditions would be introduced into the Roman Church and that the process of latinization would be speeded up. The Greek period was now coming to an end and room would more and more be found for the mani­ festation of the characteristic Roman virtues. It is to be remarked that 1M. Eus., HE 5, 23 · 5. 105. Eus., HE 5, 20, 1. 106. Eus., HE 5, 2�, 11.

180 after Zephyrinus and Callistus there was for a time an almost unbroken succession of popes bearing Latin names and, if the Liber Pontificalis is to be trusted, many of them were natives of Rome. None the less, there are still traces of Greek influence to be found. Greek characters were often used for Latin inscriptions and even those on the papal tombs up to Eutychian (d. 283), with the exception of Cornelius, are in Greek. During the first two centuries we see the first indications of the primacy of the Church of Rome which from the fifth century A. D. until the Reformation was accepted throughout Western Christendom. There is no indication, in this early period, of any supreme bishop at Rome ruling over the whole Church. Nevertheless the elements which were to support the claim from the time of Damasus are already present. The city of Rome, as the seat of Imperial Government, had a political importance which could not fail to affect the position of the Church. It is significant that in the Muratorian fragment, bishop Pius (141 - 155) is described as occupying the seat of the Church of the city of Rome (sedente cathedra urbis romae ecclesiae and not Cathedra Petri). The Church inherited the political experience and prestige of the Roman people and, from the earliest days, exhibited virtues and a sense of responsi­ bility for other people which were typically Roman. So Clement, late in the first century, in writing to the strife - ridden Corinthians, reflects virtues characteristic of the Roman mind - order and proportion, need for a stable organisation, a legal outlook. The Church, too, came to share in the Roman genius for adaptation. So bishop Victor was anxious to discover practical solutions to problems and to press them on others from a sense of responsibility. Allied to its inheritance from the Roman p olitical genius the Church benefited from the fact that Rome was the geographical centre of the civilised world. Men were drawn there from every quarter. The city became the natural meeting place for Christians from all quarters and this enhanced the opportunity of its Church to influence others. Finally ecclesiastical causes enhanced Rome's primacy among the churches. The fact that both Peter and Paul had been mar­ tyred in the city gave the Roman see a prestige not possessed by others. Ignatius called Rome the instructress of others in the art of dying for the faith and included in the roll are several early bishops, as well as Ignatius himself and the celebrated apologist, Justin Martyr, who died between 162 and 167. It is likely that the chain of martyrs was of more importance in the first two centuries than any appeal to the New Testa­ ment. Indeed not until the third century was the Petrine text Matt. 16, 18 appealed to as supporting any primacy of Peter.

7*

THE H E RESY OF TATIAN Tatian, the second century Christian apologist, is something of an enigma to students of early Christian history and doctrine. How far was he influenced by his teacher Justin Martyr ? What caused him to become an extreme exponent of the encratite heresy ? Did his herctical views only develop after J ustin's death, and were these the cause of his leaving Rome ? or were these views only a development of tendencies which existed from the beginning ? The answers which we give to these questions will largely depend on the view we take of, and the date we assign to, the one apologetic work of his which is extant - his Oration to the Greeks, a violent polemic against Graeco - Roman culture in the course of which Tatian reveals, in somewhat cryptic manner, his own theological views and gives a brief account of his own spiritual pilgri­ mage. The date of the Oratio has been the cause of much divergence of opinion. B. Altaner 1 assigns it to a date after the death of J ustin (which occurred somewhere between 162 and 167) and after Tatian's defection from the Church c. 172. A. Puech 2 likewise dates it c. 172. R. M. Grant 3 dates it after 176, probably late 177 or early 178, on the grounds of 'clear' chronological notices in the work itself. The most obvious of these, he believes, are Tatian's criticism of philosophers for receiving a salary of 600 aurei from the Roman emperor (Orat. xix), which refers to the subsidy of philosophic teaching at Athens by Marcus Aurelius in the autumn of 1 76; and Tatian's reference to the resurrection which will take place even though flesh is destroyed by fire, consumed in rivers or seas, or Lorn apart by wild beasts (Orat. vi) which Grant thinks refers *.

JOURNAL OF ECCLE SIASTICAL HISTORY 19 (1968) 1-10. 1. Pa!l'Ology, trans. HILDA C. GRAEF, Freiburg - London 19 60, p. 128. 2 . Les apologistes gl'ecs, Paris 1912, p. 151. 3. "The Date of Tatian's Oration", Ha,.lIard Theological Relliew, xlvi, (1 953) 99 - 101.

182 to the martyrs of Vienne and Lyons. This theory has been vigorously attacked by G. W. Clarke ' who shows that the reference to philosophers earning 600 aurei a year need not be a specific allusion to Athens, as imperial patronage occurred throughout the second century - Hadrian enriched omnes professores (S. H. A. Hadr. 16. 8) - and Tatian may sim­ ply be mentioning 'philosophers who are in imperial employ as sexagena­ rii', which could have been well before 176. Similarly, the subject of bodily resurrection was an inescapable topic for any apologist dealing with Christian eschatology - witness Athenagoras and Minucius Felix ­ in a Platonically - inclined society. And, in any event, the disposal of corpses was a rhetorical topic (Seneca, Ep. xcii, 34, Fronto, Naber, xvi). In contrast to this later date for Tatian's Oratio an older generation of scholars 6 held that the work was composed about the same time as Justin Martyr's I Apology (c. 150 - 155) and was, therefore, evidence for his views while he was still a member of the Church in Rome. In considering this divergence it is worth while to examine what Tatian and Eusebius actually say. In Orat. xix Tatian says: 'Crescens, who made his nest in the great city, surpassed all men in unnatural love, and was strongly addicted to the love of money. Yet this man, who professed to despise death, was so afraid of death, that he endeavoured to inflict on Justin and, ind eed on me, the punishment of death, as being an evil (�8e:8(e:� 1'ov 6ocvoc1'ov we; XOCL 'IoUG1'Lvov xoc6oc7te:p XOCL �(J.e o�<; xocx<J> 1'<J> 6oc­ voc1'

122 - 6.

T. ZAHN, FOl'schungen ZUl' Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons i. Tatian's Diatessaron, Erlangen 1891, p. 279; A. HARNACK, T. U. ii Leipzig 1 882, pp. 286 9. 5.

-

183 However, Eusebius (H. E., iv. 16) takes another view. After quo­ ting I I A pol. iii at length in which, he states, Justin had predicted what was going to happen, Eusebius goes on: 'Thus far Justin. But that in consequence of his freedom against Crescens, he was brought to his end, is shown by Tatian...This he related in the book against the Greeks, thus: "And that most excellent Justin justly declared that the aforesaid persons were like robbers" (a quota­ tion from Orat. xviii). Then, after some comments on these philoso­ phers, he adds the following: "Crescens, who made his nest in the great city... that he endeavoured to inflict on Justin death as a great evil (we; xoct 'IoucrrLvov, xoc6ocm:p (le:YOCA

1'<;'> 6oc'Joc1'

184

of the Encratites, goes on: 'And this has been but lately discovered by them, a certain Tatian being the first that taught the horrible doctrine. This man, who had been a hearer of Justin, as long as he was in company with him, exhibited nothing like this, but after his martyrdom, having apostacised from the Church, and elated with the conceit of a teacher, and vainly puffed up as if he surpassed all others, he established a pe­ culiar characteristic of his own doctrine, by inventing certain invisible aeons, similar to those of Valentinus. Marriage also he asserted, with Marcion and Saturninus, was only corruption and fornication. And he also devised arguments of his own against the salvation of Adam' . This clear - cut theory of Tatian's heresy, however, runs somewhat counter to Eusebius' statement that Tatian had been the teacher of Rhodon after the death of Justin - and that Rhodon combated Marcion's heresy and that Tatian had also written a book of questions in which he pro­ mised he would explain what was hidden and obscure in the biblical writings, which no doubt included the Old Testament. Rhodon himself had promised that he would give solutions to these questions in a book of his own (Eus. H. E. v. 13). This is very odd if Tatian was an arch heretic and follower of Marcion's brand of Gnosticism for there is no suggestion that Rhodon and Tatian held divergent views. Then Euse­ bius (H. E. v. 28) quotes an author opposed to the heresy of Artemon who mentions Tatian as one of the brethren older than Victor's time who wrote in defence of the truth and against the heresies then prevail­ mg. We would suggest that Irenaeus, who knew that on leaving Rome Tatian had embraced extreme views, had no real knowledge when the Oratio had been written and assumed that it belonged to the time when Tatian had defected, after Justin's death, from what Irenaeus believed was a once 'orthodox' faith which he had learnt from Justin. The facts are, however, different if, as we have argued, the Oratio is to be dated c. 160 or earlier. Irenaeus's denunciation of Tatian revolves around three points: (1) he invented certain invisible aeons like Valentinus; (2) marriage, he held, was a 'corruption' and 'fornication' as Marcion and Saturninus taught; (3) he denied the s alvation of Adam. If these views are to be found in the Oratio in embryo then Tatian must have taught them before Justin's death, i. e. in the 'orthodox' period of his life. This seems to be the case: thus (1) in Orat. xx he speaks of ' superior aeons' , beyond the finite and bounded heavens whi ch have no change of sea­ sons (the cause of diseases), which enjoy a 'happy' temperature and have

185

perpetual day and light unapproachable by men below. The wings of the soul were the perfect spirit but, through sin, men hanker after com­ nion with matter. The first men inhabited a better earth, a more ex­ cellent order of things, from which they were driven. It would seem that these 'aeons' are the Valentini an aeons, which constitute the Pleroma, and the 'better' earth is Paradise, which Theodotus identifies with the fourth heaven 6. However, it is noticeable that Tatian nowhere mentions the syzygies, the procession of pairs from the pleromaj neither does he suggest that God was not creator of the present world. Indeed, he as­ serts that matter was created by God, not by the demiurge (Orat. v). His mention of the aeons is consonant with Valentinus's teaching in the Gospel of Truth, if that be his, rather than with the later Valentinian teaching. (2) Tatian was accused in later ages of holding an encratite view of marriage and that all sexual relations were impure 7. But even in the Oratio there are indications of this view. So in Orat. viii, in referring to the Homeric gods, he couples marriage with corruption of boys and adultery as undesirable traits which hearers are prompted to follow. Aphrodite, he complains, is delighted with conjugal embraces. While philosophical criticism of the anthropomorphism of the deities was well known, and is found in other writers, it is nevertheless significant that Tatian regards marriage as on the same level as fornication and paede­ rasty. This is shown in Orat. xxxiv when, in ridiculing the statues erect­ ed by the Greeks, Tatian says: 'Why should I contemplate with admi­ ration the figure of the woman who bore thirty children, merely for the sake of the artist Periclymenus ?' A further pointer to his view of mar­ riage is, perhaps, to be seen in his lack of interest in the idea of the gene­ ration of the logos. Whereas with Justin the logos was begotten before all things as the Son, with Tatian the logos springs forth by the Will of God, which is suggestive of Gnostic emanation, rather than of beget­ ting (Orat. v). The process of begetting and the relationship of the Fa­ ther and the Son are not emphasised. Indeed, it is as logos rather than as Son, that the second person of the Trinity acts in his ministerial acti­ vity for the Father. This would suggest that Tatian had a rooted objec­ tion to the idea of generation. We shall argue that Tatian's antipathy Exc. ex Theod., 51. 1, cited by R. M. GRA NT, "The Heresy of Tatian", Jou,.­ nal of Theological Studies v (1 954.) 63 4.. 7. JEROME, Com. in Ep . ad. Gal. pi; adp. Jopin. i. 3, 6.

-

186

to marriage came from an ascetic tradition similar to that behind cer­ tain logia in the Gospel of Thomas which state that women should ref­ rain from child - bearing (saying 79) and that 'single ones' and 'solitaries' are the ones to be blessed (sayings 16, 50, 75.) (3) Tatian nowhere directly refers to Adam in the Oratio - in fact Justin is the only apologist to mention him. But in Orat. xiii Tatian argues that the soul is not in itself immortal, but only obtains immorta­ lity by forming a union with the Divine Spirit which enables it to as­ cend to the regions above. But, as in Orat. vii (cf. , xx) he has argued that the first men have lost the divine Spirit, it follows that Adam, the first man, cannot be saved. I t would, then, seem that the three points which Irenaeus makes as distinctive of Tatian's 'heresy' are already prescnt in embryo in the Oratio c. 160, but Irenaeus assumed that he only formulated these around the time of his secession from the Church. This raises the question of 'orthodoxy' and 'heresy' and his relationship to Justin Martyr's school. At this time there was no clear - cut distinction between 'orthodoxy' and 'heresy' and considerable doctrinal fluidity still prevailed. This is shown, at Rome, by the popularity of the Shepherd of Bermas, whose theology is confused to say the least. Moreover, the use of uncanonical Gospel traditions did not brand a writer as 'heretical' . Indeed, before the final adoption of the four - fold canon it was possible to use the cano­ nical Gospels and uncanonical material side by side. Similarly, a dislike of marriage was not necessarily 'heretical' as it could be a reflexion of a widespread ascetic tendency which had come down from the Jewish Christian origins of the Church. And, regarding Gnostic tendencies, it is worth remembering that it was Valentinus who separated himself from the Church, not vice - versa. In the mid - second century it was possible for a writer to adopt certain Gnostic ideas without putting himself outside of the Church. Irenaeus, c. 180 - 85, could not believe that the later extreme views of Tatian would have been tolerated by Justin and, therefore, assumed that, as long as Tatian was in Justin's company, he was free from these. I f, however, the Oratio is to be dated c. 160 these tendencies were already present in Tatian's thought at a time when he was in contact with Justin. This should cause no surprise. The Christian 'philosophic' movement in Rome was not the prerogative of a rigidly organised group but was probably the work of many groups rather loosely organised, although it is also true that these groups were aware of their membership of the Church - whic h was conscious of it-

187

self as a body separate from the surrounding pagan populace. Probably Tatian was the teacher of one of these philosophical schools as Justin, at various periods in his life, was of another. The two men were, however, different in outlook. Justin was a man of cosmopolitan culture who gathered round him a cosmopolitan group of disciples. He had himself received instruction in various philosophical schools, of which only that of the Platonists really interested him; and from Platonism he pas­ sed over into Christianity (Dial. ii - vii). I t was, indeed, from Middle Platonism that he took over many of the philosophical views which he used to support his interpretation of the biblical faith 8. Tatian, on the other hand, had a different kind of career. He had not studied in the various philosophical schools like Justin, before becoming a Christian, although he had a knowledge of rhetoric (Orat. xxxv); but he had visi­ ted many lands, had been initiated into the Mysteries and had every­ where examined religious rites before coming across 'certain barbaric writings', i. e. the Old Testament, whose unpretending cast of language impressed him (Orat. xxix). This was the cause of his being initiated and instructed as a Christian (Orat. xxx), no doubt as a catechumen. No 'old man' assists Tatian in his spiritual pilgrimage and there is no mention of the prophets or of Jesus Christ. Tatian's accouht of his 'con­ version', while superficially similar to Justin's is really quite different. He was not a profound student of philosophy but, rather, an observer of human nature and practices. Truth for him had to bring a deliverance from the bondage of daemons and from the futilities of Greek poly­ theism. No doubt his teaching in his Christian school embraced at an early stage a violent polemic against the depravities of Graeco - Roman culture. The fact that Justin was sympathetic to Greek philosophy does not necessarily place his 'school' in opposition to that of Tatian. Each teacher had his particular nuance and in Justin's and Tatian's case both engaged in literary production - we are told that Tatian left a great multitude of writings (Eus. H. E. iv. 29). It is quite possible that the literary materials from which Tatian was later to compose his Diatessaron came from this earlier activity in Rome. Moreover, we know that there were many orientals and easterners in the Roman Church at this time and, no doubt, Tatian felt close to their more radi­ cal traditions.

27

-

8. L. W. BARNARD, Justin Martyr: His Life and Tlwught, Cambridge 1 967, pp. 38.

188

If, as we have argued, Tatian in the earlier period of his life was influenced by Valentinus's belief in aeons and held that marriage was the virtual equivalent of fornication and that Adam could not be saved is there any other evidence for extreme views at this time ? R. M. Grant 9 has studied in detail a remarkable passage in Orat. xxx which immedia­ tely follows the account of Tatian's conversion: 'Therefore, being initiated and instructed in these things, I wish to put away my former errors like new - born infants. For we know that the nature of evil is like that of the smallest seeds; since it has wa­ xed strong from a small beginning, but will be destroyed again if we obey the Word of God and do not scatter ourselves. For He (i. e. the Word) has become master of all we have by means of a certain hidden treasure, which while we are digging for we are indeed covered with dust, but we secure it as our fixed possession. He who receives the whole of this treasure has obtained command of the most precious wealth. Let these things, then, be said to our friends'. Grant finds in this passage a thoroughgoing Gnosticism and he believes 'the friends' whom Tatian is addressing were not ordinary Christians but an inner Gnostic group to whom he was revealing secret doctrines. This appears to go too far. Thus, it seems more plausible to refer 'new-born' infants to the new birth in baptism (which is implied in Tatian's reference to his initiation and instruction) rather than to the idea in the Gospel of Thomas (sayings 87 and 88) : ' Jesus will appear when you undress your­ selves and are not ashamed and take your clothing and lay them under your feet like little children'. Nevertheless, there is undoubtedly a resem­ blance to the parables (in both Matthew and the Gospel of Thomas) of the grains of mustard seed, the hidden treasure and the pearl of great price ( Mt .. xiii. 32, Thomas 84; Mt. xiii. 44, Thomas 98-99; Mt. xiii. 46, Thomas 94) . Moreover the idea of digging to find the Kingdom is clearly set forth in Thomas (saying 85): ' I f the householder knows that the thief is coming, he will watch before he comes and will not let him dig into his house of his kingdom to carry off his vessels'. The reference to dust, again, could mean the fleshly element in man as in Clem. Alex. exc. ex. Theod., iii. 2. And 'Wealth' is paralleled in several sayings in the Gospel of Thomas (80, 86, 95, 99). Then there seems to be a parallel with a pas­ sage found in the Coptic text of the Gospel of Philip, 131, which speaks 9. "Tatian (Or. 30) and the Gnostics", Journal of Theological Studies 65 9, -

xv

(1964.)

189 of evil being destroyed, the logos 'digging' and the nature of evil. Grant concludes that when Tatian wrote the Oratio he was a Gnostic who was acquainted with both the Gospels of Thomas and Philip or with the kind of teaching set forth in both. The doctrine which he expounds to his 'friends' is Christian only to the extent that Valentinianism is Christian. While it is true that Tatian was influenced by certain traditions found in Thomas, Philip, and Valentinus it does not follow that he was a Gnostic Christian. Use of uncanonical Gospels and traditions in this period does not exclude the use of canonical ones. Tatian explicity quo­ tes from John's Gospel (Orat. xiii, cf. iv., 19) and his views on God as creator of matter, the Incarnation of the logos and the Holy Spirit are not in any way Gnostic. I t would seem that the Gospel of Thomas was composed in Syria about the middle of the second century or slightly earlier. Yet logia, some Jewish - Christian in character, which later found literary expression in Thomas and Philip circulated widely in the early Church. Thus, as W. H. C. Frend has shown, Clement of Rome, as early as the last decade of the first century, knew logia similar to those found in Thomas which circulated independently of the Synoptic GospelslO• We would suggest that Tatian's version of the parable of the seeds and hidden treasure for which Christians dig was one such logion tradition known in the Roman Church. It may be that its original mi­ lieu was Jewish - Christian rather than Gnostic. We know from other sources (such as the Shepherd of llermas) that Jewish - Christian tra­ ditions exercised a considerable influence on Roman Christianity until well into the second century. And it may be that Tatian's rejection of marriage came from a widespread ascetic Jewish - Christian tradition. If the above suggestions are plausible then they provide an expla­ nation as to why Tatian used the Gospel of Thomas as his 'fifth' sourcell when, later in his life, he compiled his Diatessaron. The evidence sug­ gests that he compiled this Gospel harmony c. 175 - 180, after he had returned to his homeland in the East, although it is possible that he began its compilation earlier in Rome. If Dr. Frend is right12, as I think he is, the compilation of the Gospel of Thomas must be set within the 10. "The Gospel of Thomas: Is rehabilitation possible?", Journal of Theological Studies xviii. (196 7 ) 21-2 ; cf. I . Clem. xxiv. 5 = Mt. xiii. 3 = Thomas, saying 8 . 11. G . Q UISPEL, "L' Evangile selon Thomas e t I e Diatessaron", Vigiliae Chl'is­ tianae xiii (1959) 87ff; A. BAKER, "The Gospel of Thomas and the Diatessaron", Journal of Theological Studies xvi (1 965) qq9 - M. 12. Journal of Theological Studies xviii, 1 967, p. 20.

i90 framework of a primitive ascetic Syrian Christianity where Aramaic and Syriac were the spoken languages. I f Tatian came to know the writ­ ten Gospel of Thomas after he had left Rome and on his return to the East, he would have noticed that certain of the logia in it were the same as the independently circulating logia he had known and used in Rome when writing his Oratio, and that the teaching of this Gospel was encra­ tite as much as Gnostic. So he used the Gospel as his fifth source when compiling the Diatessaron. The Jewish - Christian ascetical tendency of this Gospel exactly fitted in with his own theological views. This brings us to the question: What was Tatian's theology in his earlier Roman period ? Was he a heretic from the beginning? I t would seem that Irenaeus' view that, as long as he was under Justin's wing, all was well but that after the latter's death he embraced encratism, cannot be maintained as historical fact. Tatian was somewhat of an eclectic thinker from the beginning. His Oratio shows how a brilliant, although not a profound, mind could take over a few ideas from Valen­ tinus, who had been active in Rome only a decade or so earlier, while not seriously adopting the tenets of Gnosticism, much as he took over certain ideas about the 'spirit' from the popular philosophy of the period. R. M. Grantl3 and A. Orbe14 portray Tatian as primarily a Valentinian Gnostic, although there is much in the Oratio which runs counter to this. Valentinus was at the most a peripheral influence. M. Elze15, on the other hand, explains Tatian in terms of Middle Platonism, which was undoubtedly a strong influence on the thought of Justin Martyr6 • Again, there are superficial resemblances, particularly with Tatian's idea of God and of Truth which he regarded as divine, ancient and invisible. This proved that the 'barbarian' culture of Christianity was superior to the contradictions of Greek philosophy which had been inspired by daemons. But there is, also, much in Tatian which does not fit into Middle Platonism. I t would seem that he is best explained as an eclectic radical Christian to whom an ascetic - encratite explanation of life appealed from the outset of his career as a Christian. It is not without significance that he was an Assyrian who had come to Rome from Meso13. "The Heresy of Tatian", Journal of Theological Studies v (1 954) 62 s. 1 4 . "Variaciones gnosticas sobre las alas del Alma", Gregorianum xxxv (1954) 21 - 33. 15. Tatian und seine Theologie, GOttingen 1 960. 16. C. ANDRESEN, "Justin und der mittlere Platonismus", Zeitschrift fiir die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft xliv (1952 - 3) 157 - 95. -

191 potamia, possibly from Adiabene, a region characterised by ascetic tendencies. It is quite possible, as A. Voobus17 suggests, that in Rome Tatian met Syrians from the East. The bishop of Rome at the time when he wrote the Oratio, Anicetus ( 155 - 166), came from Emesa and the in­ fluence of eastern and oriental groups in the Roman Church was very strong at that time. Tatian would have been at home within the eastern ascetic outlook of these groups. We can envisage that from this milieu emerged his Oratio, a violent diatribe against Graeco - Roman culture. He was also influenced by Jewish - Christian traditionsl8 which circu­ lated in the Roman Church, which were elsewhere to find literary ex­ pression in the Gospels of Thomas and Philip. The Oratio shows that he had begun to propagate an ascetic - encratite interpretation of Chris­ tianity as early as 160 or before that date. This, however, did not lead to a break with the Church for encratism, like Montanism, was not a doctrinal heresy. Indeed, there is no indication that Tatian's views caused any raised eyebrows until after the death of J ustin. Most probab­ ly he left Rome because he carried his encratite views to extreme lengths. I f Jerome is to be trusted, he rejected not only marriage but also meat and wine19 and he maintained that the flesh of Christ was imaginary20, a view at variance with his earlier view of the Incarnation found in Orat. xxi. And according to a fragment of Clement of Alexandria, he said that women were punished on account of their hair and ornaments by a power placed over those things. This was radical Christianity with a vengeance and Tatian, by going to such extremes, placed himself outside the tradition of the Roman Church. So he left Rome, possibly p ausing for a while in Greece or at Alexandria where he may have taught Clement21, and then continued his journey to the east to Meso­ potamia22 where extreme asceticism and cncratism were not snspect. Here he finished the Diatessaron by using Old Syriac translations of 17. History of Asceticism in the Syrian Orient I , Louvain 1958, pp. 32 - q5. 18. He is portrayed as primarily a Jewish Christian by F. BOLGIANI, "La tradi­ zione eresiologica sull'encratismo", Att. della Academia delle scienze di Torino xci (1956 - 7) 1 - 77. 19. Ad". Jo"in. i. 3. 20. Com. in Ep. ad Gal., vi. 21. Strom. i. 1 . 22. EPIPHANIUS, Haer. xlvi. 1 . F. C . BURK ITT Journal of Theological Studies xxv (1923 - q) p. 128 ff. equated Addai with Tatian and so made him the founder of As­ syrian Christianity.

192

the Gospels and the Syriac Gospel of Thomas as his ' fifth' source. Later a Greek translation of his work23 may have been made - perhaps before 223. Tatian does not seem to have founded a school in the west. Severus is, however, said to have been among his disciples (Eus. H. E. iv. 29) and, as Severus rejected the Pauline Epistles and the Acts, it seems unlikely that he was a Gnostic or a Marcionite. Most probably he interpreted the scriptures in an encratite may and this was the 'peculiar interpreta­ tion' which Eusebius mentions. Tatian has suffered at the hands of his detractors. Ugly rumours circulated about him: 'connexio omnium haereticorum' ( l RE N . ad". Haer. iii. 23); 'encratitarum acerrimus haeresiarches' ( J E ROME, Com. in Ep. ad Gal. vi) . But in the Syriac speaking East his beliefs were not considered strange and the Diatessaron commended itself to the churches of Edes­ sa and its neighbourhood until Theodoret appeared to en1ighten them. Tatian was a man of strong individual character, a radical Christian from a region where Jewish - Christianity was strong. But in his ear­ lier period in Rome he was not adverse from adopting a few conceptions from Valentinus (who himself was influenced by Jewish speculations) and he was, perhaps, not unaffected by the popular philosophy of the day and by what he had experienced during his physical24 and spiritual pilgrimage. He should not be judged too harshly by the ecclesiastical standards of a later age. If more of his works had survived Tatian might have appeared as one o f the leading Christians of the second century. Cer­ tainly, as with the other apologists, his beliefs are not circumscribed by the purpose of his writings and we should be unwise to assume that an ascetic - encratism was the whole of his Christianity. What he has to say about the logos, in the Oratio, is very interesting and anticipates the distinction between the A6roe, ev3�OCee:TOC; and the A6roe; 1tPOCPOPLXOe" which Theophilus was later to express2li• Moreover the Holy Spirit, for Tatian, is a distinct personal being and not simply a function of the God­ head. The fact that, in the Oratio, he never mentions the names of Jesus 23. A Greek fragment containing 1q lines was found in 1933 at Dura - E uropos; cf. C. H . KRAELING, Studies and Documents, iii., Harvard - London 19 35. 2q. Tatian may hint, in Drat. xi, that he had been a soldier in the Roman Army: cf. G. F. HAWTHORN E, "Tatian's Discourse to the Greeks", Harrlard Theological Review lvii (19M), p. 163. 25. Drat. v; TH EOPII . ad Autol., ii. 10.

193 or Christ should cause no surprise as the same is true of Theophilus and Athenagoras. His work was directed at non - Christians and was not so much a defence of Christian doctrines as an answer to laughers and scoffers who sneered at them. Tatian's weapon is not sweet reason, as with Justin and Athenagoras, but the wielding of a sword. Christian philosophy is carried into the enemy's camp with banners flying.

13

8*

EARLY SY RIAC CHRISTIANITY 1. RECENT RESEARCH

Recent discoveries and scholarly discussion have underlined the importance of Eastern Christendom in the early centuries of the Chris­ tian era. For too long Church historians tended to look at the early Church through Western, i. e. Graeco - Roman eyes. So H. LIETZ­ M AN N , in his celebrated text book Geschichte der Alten Kirche, Berlin ­ Leipzig 1932 - 6, held that the Pseudo - Clementine writings were fic­ tional and provided no historical knowledge of early Jewish Christianity of a non - Pauline type 1. Moreover early Christianity in Edessa came from Antioch and was therefore of Greek Christian origin. The possi­ bility of an indigeneous Syriac Christianity of a non - Greek kind was not even considered by Lietzmann. In this Lietzmann was fol­ lowing the great scholar Eduard Schwartz who held that the Jewish Christian elements jn the Pseudo - Clementine writings such as the primacy of James, the Lord's brother, were due to fourth century writers who wished to legitimatize Jewish tendencies in the Christia­ nity of Antioch at that time 2. In line with these views was the work of Walter Bauer whose highly influential book, Rechtgliiubigkeit und Ketzerei im iiltesten Christentum, was first published in 1934 (ed. 2, 1964). Bauer held that Jewish - Christianity had no decisive influen­ ce in the development of early Syriac Christianity. The Church at Edes­ sa was 'founded' by the followers of Marcion in the second century; 'or­ thodox' Christianity did not arise in that city until the episcopate of Bishop Quna early in the fourth century. It was Quna who fabricated the Jesus - Abgar correspondence and passed on the " Syrian records" •.

Vigiliae Christianae 22 (1968) 1 61-175. 1. II. 27q. 2. "Unzeitgemasse Beobachtungen zu den Clementinen", Zeitschrift fUr Neutes­ ,amentliche Wissenschaft 31 (1932) :151 - 155.

195 to Eusebius who was at that time collecting materials for his celebrated Ecclesiastical History 3. Such thorough - going scepticism as to the exis­ tence of an Aramaic - speaking Jewish - Christianity which could have been a decisive influence on the origin of Syriac - Christianity persisted untH the publication of the work of H. J. SCHOEPS, Theologie und Ce­ schichte des Judenchristentums, Ttibingen 1949. Schoeps' book was based on an intensive study of all the relevant texts concerning early Jewish - Christianity and he was able to demonstrate that Ebionite do­ cuments, particularly the Pseudo - Clementine writings and those of Symmachus, were in a true line of descent from the teaching of the J e­ wish Christians prior to A. D. 70. The doctrine of the earliest Jewish Christians was not expressed in Greek terminology but was thoroughly adoptionist' - the baptism and resurrection of Jesus being of more im­ portance than his death. The work of Schoeps drew the attention of scholars to the existence of a type of early Christianity different from that prevailing in the Greek - speaking Gentile world of the Mediter­ ranean area. Further constructive studies soon followed. J. Danielou, in his Theologie du Judeo - Christianisme, Tournai 1958, underlined the importance of Jewish - Christianity as much more influential in the ear­ ly Christian centuries than had formerly been supposed. It had left its impression on a wide variety of early Christian documents. The Pseudo - Clementine writings, according to Danielou, only reflected a special sector of J ewish-Christianity associated with the figure of Elxai which deeply resented Paul and his beliefs. The main stream of Jewish ­ Christianity continued the tradition of Jerusalem and strongly influen­ ced early Syriac Christianity. The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls from 1947 onwards showed that Judaism itself was not a monolithic structure in the first century A. D. and this variety is also to be found in Jewish - Christianity. As long as early Syriac Christianity was believed to be derivative from the Greek speaking Christianity of Antioch then early documents stemming from Syria, such as Odes of Solomon ' and A cts of Thomas, •

3. EUSEBIUS, HE I, 13 also found in the Doct,.ine of Addai c. qOO A.D. q. The original language of the Odes is disputed. A Syrian original is supported by J. D E ZWAAN,The Edessene O,.igin of the Odes of Solomon, Quantalacumque, London, 1937, 285 - 302 and by R. M. GRANT, "The Odes of Solomon and the Church in An­ tioch", Journal of Biblical Lite,.atu,.e 63 (1 9qq) 363 - 377. See further H. CHADWICK, "Some Renections on the Character and Theology of the Odes of Solomon",Kyria­ kon; Festschrift Johannes Quasten, Munster 1972, 266 - 70. The most recent study is

196

proved difficult to fit into a coherent history of Eastern Christianity. A. F. J. Klijn in his edition of the A cts of Thomas, Leiden 1962, held that this early - third century work preserves earlier Syriac traditions although, by the wriLer's day, these had been modified by Western ideas. In particular A cts of Thomas ch. 10 reflect a genuine Syriac Chri­ stology and also are in agreement with numerous parallels from other kinds of Syriac literature. The discovery of the Gospel of Thomas, which probably emanates from Edessa in the second century, has also thrown new light on the origins of Syriac Christianity. While some scholars have maintained that this Gospel is wholly Gnostic and unhistorical 5 many exegetes now believe that it contains an archaic Jewish - Chris­ tian tradition which may be of great historical value 6. Special referen­ ce must be made to the important article of W. H. C. Frend, "The Gospel of Thomas", Journal of Theological Studies 18, 1967, 13 - 26. The result of recent research is to throw doubt on the belief, expres­ sed in classic form by H . Lietzmann, that there was no such entity as an indigenous Syriac Christianity of a non - Greek kind. I t was of course understandable that Church historians should look at the early Church through Western eyes. The New Testament itself was mainly concerned with the spread of Christianity from Jerusalem in a north ­ west direction towards the capital of the Roman Empire and most of the outstanding figures and literature of early Christian history appea­ red to be associated with the area around the Mediterranean seaboard. G. QUispel, "The Discussion of J udaic Christianity", Vigiliae Chris­ t ianae 22, 1968, 81 - 93 has forcibly argued that a new image of the ear­ ly Church is now needed with Palestine and Mesopotamia conceived as a special unit independent of, and of equal importance with, Greek and by J. H . CH ARLESWORTH, The Odes of Solomon, Oxford 1973 who holds that Syriac was the original language of the Odes which are not Gnostic but have links with Qum­ ran. These early poems are not baptismal hymns but some were used in common washing. Charlesworth dates the Odes in the first century A. D . and inclines towards Palestine as their place of composition. It is possible that there was an Aramaic edit­ ion of the Odes behind later Greek and Syriac versions. The Odes were certainly one of the oldest pieces of Christian Syriac literature antedating both the Peshitta OT and the old Syriac NT. 5. R. KASSER, L'E"angile selon Thomas, Neuchatel 1961. 6. G. QUISPEL, "The Gospel oC Thomas and the New Testament", Vigiliae Christianae 11 (1957) 189 - 207 and "Some Remarks on the Gospel of Thomas", New Testament Studies 5 (1959) 276 - 90; R. MCL. WILSO N , Studies in the Gospel of Tho­ mas, London (1960), 88, 1 1 1 .

197 Latin Christianity. Rome, Ephesus and Edessa, he argues, were the three main centres of the early Church. Quispel believes that the re­ cognition of an indigeneous Aramaic - speaking Christianity in the East has profound consequences as it shows that Christianity has been inter­ preted, in history, in different ways according to the genius of the peo­ ples to whom it came. Rome developed the legal aspects o f the new religion, the Greeks developed an ontological interpretation of God and Christ, while the Syrians understood Christianity as a Way of life ­ and largely as an ascetic Way. We will show later how Syrian asceti­ cism antedated by at least two centuries the emergence of monasticism in the Graeco - Roman world. Quispel also shows that the recogni­ tion of Syrian Christianity has consequences for the interpretation of Trinitarian doctrine for in Syria the Holy Spirit is feminine gender ­ this deriving from the Jewish origins of Syrian Christianity. These consequences have been underlined by R. M U R RA Y, Sym­ bols of Church and Kingdom, Cambridge 1 975, the latest contribution to this subject. Murray argues that the theological study of early Syriac Christian works is still in its infancy and his book is an attempt to penetrate the typology and imagery through which tho early Syriac Christians expressed their thought on the nature of the Church. Mur­ ray's book is mainly concerned with the interpretation of the fourth century Syriac Fathers, Aphrahat and Ephrem, but there is much in his book which is of interest to students of the history of Syriac Christianity in the first two centuries A. D. 2. THE ORIGINS OF CHRISTIAN ITY

The origins of Christianity in the Syriac area have been the object of detailed study for some decades, especially since the Qumran and Nag H ammadi discoveries revealed that Judaism, at the beginning of the Christian era, had assumed variegated forms which apparently in­ fluenced the early Christian communites. By Syriac area is meant nor­ thern Mesopotamia and Adiabene, the frontier province to the east. The Syriac language is a dialect of Aramaic which was the lingua fran­ ca of a wide area. Syriac as such is however the dialect of Edessa and its province Osrhoene and we must therefore study the history of Edessa in Some detail for, in the opinion of the present writer and many others, it was the cradle of Syriac Christianity. Edessa, which became the leading centre of Syriac Christianity,

i98 was the capital of the small principality of Osrhoene 7 east of the Eu­ phrates and it lay on the great trade route to the East which passed bet­ ween the Syrian desert to the South and the mountains of Armenia to the North. The principality was bounded to the west, north - west and the south - west by the Euphrates. We possess no contemporary allusions to Edessa's role on the international scene during the early Seleucid period. For the later period our knowledge comes in the main from Roman historians who only incidentally refer to the city which was far removed from the imperial capital. However whenever Rome intervened in Mesopotamia she was bound to come into contact with Edessa. The first reference to Edessa during the Christian era is to Ab­ gar V (4 Be 7 AD and 13 - 50 AD), king of Edessa, who was a member of a delegation which went to Zeugma to receive Meherdates, prince of Parthia and Roman nominee for the throne of his own country. Ab­ gar subsequently entertained Meherdates day after day in the town of Edessa and finally accompanied him on his expedition to the east, al­ though he deserted him on his defeat at the hands of the Parthians. In Roman eyes Abgar V had acted with duplicity. Similar duplicity oc­ curred when the Emperor Trajan visited Edessa in 114 A. D. The then King Abgar VII (109 - 116 AD) protested his loyalty but two years later, when Traj an was resting after his conquest of Adiabene, he j oin­ e d a general insurrection in Mesopotamia The Romans exacted swift vengeance and Edessa was laid waste by fire and sword. Even in the time of Abgar VI II (177 - 212 AD), usually called the Great, there are indications that Edessa was willing to play off the Parthians against the Romans. Septimius Severus however had confidence in Abgar and in 197 /8 recognised him as ' King of Kings' . He invited Abgar to visit Rome and his reception there was the most lavish accorded to a foreign potentate since the reign of Nero. Edessa's independence however was drawing to its close and, soon after Abgar's death in 213 /14, the city was proclaimed a colonia 8. The rulers of Edessa were largely of N abataean stock although the general population of the city was of mixed racial origin. In the sixth century AD Johannes Malalas alleged that Seleucus Nicator had des­ cribed the city as 'half - barbarian Antioch'. During the time of the mo-

H.

7. The name Osrhoene may be derived from Orhay, the native name of Edessa. 8. On these developments J. B. SEGAL, Edessa - The Blessed City, Oxford 1970,

199 narchy the vast majority of names in the extant texts are Syriac, the language which the majority of Edessa's inhabitants spoke, an Aramaic dialect akin to, but not identical with, that spoken in Palestine. However there are a few references to Latin and Hebrew names among the city's population. Edessa had a considerable Jewish population during the time of the monarchy. However the most powerful Jewish communities lived in north - east Mesopotamia - in Adiahene the ruling family adopted Judaism in the first century A. D. J . B. Segal 9 has shown that the story of Queen Helena of Adiabene and her two sons was so widely cur­ rent that it formed the model for biographies of Helena, mother of the Emperor Constantine, some three centuries later. In the second century A. D. the Jews of Adiabene were stilI numerous10• The greatest Jewish community of this region was at Nisibis where the financial contribu­ tions of Jews to the Jerusalem Temple were stored. Nisibis moreover boasted the existence of a celebrated Jewish academy whose fame spread throughout Mesopotamia and even to Palestine. Tannaite in­ fluence was strong in this city. Relations between Edessa, Nisibis and Adiabene were close not only in religious matters but also through com­ merce. They were linked by a 'silk road' that skirted the mountains by way of Edessall• The Jews of Edessa included among their number silk merchants and many were wealthy. A Synagogue stood in a prominent place in the city. The texts show that the Jews did not live in a ghetto but mixed easily with their neighbours even sharing with pagans the cemetery at Kirk Magara. Three inscriptions in Hebrew and one in Greek commemorate Jews who had a mixture of Hebrew, Macedonian, Roman and Parthian names12• It may be significant in this connexion that Tan­ niUte influence was not strong in Edessa. Jewish sympathies however seem to have been with the Parthians for they opposed the Emperor Trajan's advance in 1 1 4 - 1 1 5 A. D. with dire results. The presence of a Jewish population in Edessa was of great impor­ tance for the spread of Christianity as we will see in the next section in 9 . Ibid. U . 1 0 . J. NEUSNER, "The Conversion of Adiabene to Judaism", Journal of Biblical Literature 83 (1964) 60 - 66. 11. On the silk trade J. NEUSNER, A History of the Jews in Babylonia I. The Par­ thian Period, Leiden 1965, 88 - 93. 12. H . POG NON, Inscriptions semitiques de la Syrie, de la Mesopotamie et de la reGion de Mossoul, 1907, 78 fl.

200 considering the traditional account of the evangelisation of Edessa. Further evidence of the influence of the Jews there is provided by a passage in a Syriac treatise of the third century A. D. This states, 'the people of Mesopotamia also worshipped the Hebrew Kuthbi, who saved Bakru the patrician of Edessa from his enemies'13. Kuthbi is probably derived from the Semitic root ktb, 'to write'. We also know that the Na­ bataeans worshipped a deity Kuthba or Kuthbai (,writing' ) and writing was regarded as a special skill of the Nabataeans. It is possible that the people of Edessa knew the Jewish practice of affixing a biblical text to the doors of a house or gates of a city (mezuzah) 14, and from them derived their regard for the sacred letter. What type of paganism existed at Edessa in the first two centuries of the Christian era ? We know that its inhabitants worshipped the pla­ nets like their neighbours in Palmyra, Harran and Hierapolis. Obser­ vation of the stars was indeed the link between the popular religion and the cosmological speculations of the philosophers, such as Bardaisan. One of the gates of Edessa was called Beth Shemesh after the sun temple which stood there; the moon is also depicted on coins from this period. The planets also appear in personal names in Syriac texts and inscrip­ tions. A passage in the Doctrine of A ddai, an important text which dis­ cusses the emergence of Christianity in Edessa, describes the city at the time of the first Christian evangelisation: ' I saw this city that it abounded greatly in paganism which is against God. Who is this Nabu, a fashioned idol to which you bow down, and Bel which you honour ? Behold, there are among you those who worship Bath Nikal like the men of Harran your neighbours, and Tar' atha like the men of Mabbog, and the eagle like the Arabs, and the sun and moon as others who are like you. Do not be led astray by the rays of the luminaries or the gleaming star'1S. The worship of astral deities at Edessa was part of a widespread syncretism which incorporated many beliefs of neighbouring cult centres, such as Hierapolis. Yet during the first centuries of the Christian era 13. O,.ation to Antoninus Caesa,. incorrectly ascribed to Melito of Sardis and pro­ bably composed in Osrhoene in the third century A.D. fl.. The text Deut. 6, q 9 has been found affixed to the lintels of door - posts at Palmyra; SEGAL ibid. q3. 15. Ed. G. PHILLIPS, 1876. -

201 over a large area of Syria and Northern Mesopotamia the concept of a single godhead,
When was Christianity first planted in Edessa and further east of the Euphrates ? Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History 1, 13 records the story of Thaddaeus or Addai, one of the 7 2 disciples of Jesus, who came to Edessa from Palestine in response to a letter from King Abgar to Jesus: "So it came about that when King Abgar, a most illustrious poten­ tate of the nations beyond the Euphrates, being wasted by a ter­ rible bod ily disorder, inr.urable as far as human power goes, heard of the fame of Jesus' name and the unanimous testimony paid by all to his mighty works, he sent him a message of intreaty by a despatch - bearer, asking that he might be delivered from his disease. But Jesus did not at that time hearken to his request; howbeit he deemed him worthy of a personal letter, promising to send one of his disciples to heal his disease and, at the same time, bring sal­ vation to him and all who belonged to him. And not long afterwards, it would seem, he fulfilled that which he had promised. At all events, after his resurrection from the dead and his ascent into the heavens, Thomas, one of the twelve apostles, was moved by a divine impulse to sent forth Thaddaeus - he too had been reckoned among the 70 disciples of Christ - to Edessa as a herald and evangelist of the teaching concerning Christ. And through him all that Our Saviour had promised received its fulfilment. You have the proof of these facts also in writing, taken from the recond office at Edes­ sa, then a city and led by kings. Thus, in the public documents 16.

PHILLIPS Ibid.

202

there, which contain ancient matters and those connected with Abgar, these things have been found preserved from that day until now. But there is nothing like hearing the letters themselves, taken by us from the archives and literally translated from the Syriac, as follows'. Eusebius then quotes at length the letters written by Abgar to Jesus, Jesus' reply and an account, again translated from the Syriac, of Addai's coming to Edessa and the first evangelisation of the city. In a le tter Jesus promises that Edessa would be blessed and no enemy shall rule over it forever' (Syriac version). This significant detail suggests at least a basis in early tradition as Edessa was incorporated in the Empire in 216 A. D. and there would have been no point in adding this detail in Eusebius' day or later. However the main bulk of the correspondence is clearly legendary for, if authentic, it is difficult to explain how no earlier Christian writers knew of it. J. B . Segal calls it one of the most successful pious frauds of antiquity'17. The legend is repeated with ad­ ditions in a Syriac document known as The Doctrine of Addai which, in its present form, dates from c. 400 A. D.18. In the Doctrine part of the merchant community of Jews in the city was converted at the same public meeting at which the King, Abgar, became a Christian. Indeed, according to the Doctrine, it was a Jew Tobias, the son of one Tobias, a Palestinian Jew, who introduced Addai to the King19. In contradiction to the Jews of Palestine who are represented in an unfavourable light as the crucifiers of Jesus, and possibly the Adiabene Jews, the Edessan Jews are represented in the Doctrine as being friendly to Christianity20. This may represent a genuine historical reminiscence as Edessan Chris­ tianity, as it later developed, was strongly Jewish - Christian in outlook. •

•

1 7 . SEGAL Ibid. 64.. The correspondence is also referred to in Peregrinatio Ae­ theriae 1 7, 1; it was known to be a forgery as early as Decretum Gelasianum 5, 8. 18. Ibid. 2ft Versions have also been found in Latin, Armenian and Arabic. 19. Doctrine 5 6. Addai is likely to be a historical figure as had the Church, c. 4.00, been looking for a historical founder 'Judas Thomas', whose tomb was claimed for Edessa in the mid - third century, would have been the most probable candidate. F. C. BU RKITT, Journal of Theological Studies 25 (1924.) 1 30 equated Tatian with Addai on the grounds that the Doctrine of Addai states that Addai brought the Dia­ tessaron to Edessa. This conjecture is unlikely on philOlogical grounds and, in any case, the Doctrine contains strata of different dates. On the historicity of Addai see A. VOOBUS, History of Asceticism in the Syrian Orient 1 , Louvain 1958, 6 7. 20. It is significant that the Jews are described as sorrowing at Addai's death. -

-

203 In support of the belief that early traditions are incorporated into the Christ - Abgar legends is the fact that Eusebius knew that at that time Edessa was outside the Roman frontier. The early history of the Church in Edessa is by no means clear. In the Doctrine of Addai, Addai is stated to have died in peace, being succeeded by Aggai who was martyred, who himself was succeeded by Palut. Palut was not ordained and had to travel to Antioch for ordi­ nation by Serapion the bishop (190 - 212 A. D.). At this point the Doc­ trine contains contradictory traditions, one referring to the first cen­ tury, another to the late - second or early - third centuries and sugges­ ting a subordination to Greek - speaking Antioch. We know from the Edessene Chronicle that a Church building certainly existed in Edessa in 201 when it was damaged by a great flood. Early Syrian Christianity came to reflect a particular facet of J u­ daism, viz. the asceticism of Jewish sectarianism. We will illustrate this from the writings of Aphrahat (early fourth century), the first Syriac authority of any considerable weight. In Aphrahat we find a view of the Church different from that prevailing in Greek - speaking Christendom. For Aphrahat baptism is not the means of Christian initiation for every Christian but a privilege reserved for celibates, i. e. the spiritual aristocracy. In the early baptismal liturgy known as the D iscourse on Penitents21 Aphrahat states that marriage should be entered into before thinking of baptism, as baptism is only for virgins and celibates and is incompatible with the married state: "Anyone who has set his heart to the state of marriage let him marry before baptism, lest he will fall in the struggle and will be killed. And anyone who fears this part of the contest, let him ret­ reat, lest he will break the heart of his brethren like his own heart. Anyone who loves possessions, let him retreat from the army, lest when the battle becomes hard for him, he will remember his posses­ sions and retreat. And anyone who retreats from the struggle ­ shame belongs to him. Everyone who has not chosen himself and has not yet put on the armour, if he retreats he is not blamed. But everyone who chooses himself and puts on the armour, if he retreats from the struggle he will be laughed at. To him who empties him­ self the contest is suitable, because he does not remember someth­ ing which is behind him and does not retreat to it".22 21. Ed. W. WRI GHT a7 ff. 22. WRIGHT 3q5.

204 The Church, for Aphrahat, consists of baptized celibates, who are the real spiritual athletes, together with a larger body of adherents who remain only on the fringe of the Christian community, much as the non­ circumcized god - fearers only remained on the fringe of the synagogues in J udaism. This view is not special to Aphrahat. Early Syriac Christia­ nity is permeated with asceticism. Thus the terms bar Q'yama (son of the Covenant) and bath Q'yama (daughter of the Covenant) are found very frequently in Syriac literature, not simply in the sense 'monk' or 'nun' but referring to the baptized laity of the Church, i. e. the ascetics who have taken an oath or vow to be faithful to the Covenant with God and so have renounced the world. Subsequent to the time of Aphrahat things changed and the B'nai Q'yama became a kind of monastic order within the Christian community, not the community itself. But this was not the earliest view. It is also significant that Aphrahat, in Discourse VI, in his address to "those who have taken up the yoke of the Saints" states: "All the children of light are without fear of him, because the darkness flies from before the light. The children of the Good fear not the Evil One, for he hath given him to be trampled by their feet. When he makes himself like darkness unto them they become light; and when he creeps upon them like a serpent, they become salt, whereof he can­ not eat ... " The children of the Light are the baptized ascetics who are constantly fighting a spiritual warfare against the prince of darkness, the devil. It is not without significance that the terms uniformly used in early Syriac literature of this conflict are 'struggle' , 'fight', 'battle' and 'war' . The Martyrdom of Shamona and Curia, which dates from 297, re­ peatedly refers to the daughters of the Covenant (b'nath Q'yama) as ascetics and applies to Guria the term M'qadd'sha, 'hallowed' or 'holy'. The reason why Guria is holy is that she is celibate while Shamona, who has a daughter, is not23• An affinity with the Jewish sectarianism of Qumran is immediately noticeable in the picture of the Syrian Church provided by Aphrahat and other early Syriac documents. The Qumran community believed themselves to be the 'sons of the Covenant' and had separated themsel­ ves from ordinary Jewish life in order to seek a special holiness. It is interesting that the Manual of Discipline refers several times to God's Covenant which men enter into through embracing an ascetic form of life. So the neophytes entering the community "pass over into the Co23. F. C. BURK ITT Ibid 132.

205

venant of the presence of God". This Covenant was also, at Qumran, associated with a ' vow' , i. e. it required a total commitment which had to be renewed each year. The community's deepest purpose was "to es­ tablish the Covenant according to the eternal ordinances "24. The mem­ bers also were known as the elect, the chosen of God , the Saints who had adopted the name "children of Light"2li. They were not concerned with social duties or with marriage as such, but had come apart to seek total purity of life. They believed themselves to be engaged in a great spiri­ tual warfare against the forces of darkness - a struggle which had cosmic repercussions. It is 1ikely that Christianity had its origin in Edessa within a J e­ wish milieu, which had close associations with Palestinian sectarianism, and that the earliest converts were, in the main, Jews. It would ap­ pear not improbable that these early Jewish Christians stamped the Edessan Christian community with their own type of asceticism. An alternative to this view, not differing in essentials, is the theory of A. Voobus that an Aramaic - Christian movement, coming from Palesti­ ne, mediated this Jewish asceticism to the Syrian Church26• Be that as it may it is certain that this primitive form of asceticism continued to be a feature of Syriac Christianity down to the time of Aphrahat and later. So the Doctrine of A ddai states that "all the society of men and women were modest and decorous, and they were holy and pure, and singly and modestly were they dwelling without spot, in the watchful­ ness of the ministry decorously, in their care for the poor, in their visi­ tations of the sick"27. If then we place the origins of Christianity in Edessa within a Jewish - Christian milieu we can explain certain features in the Gospel of Thomas which is to be dated c. 140 and which probably emanated from Edessa. W. H. C. Frend28 has shown the Jewish - Christian 2q. I Qs 1 , 8, 1 6; 2, 13; 5, 10, 20 - 22. 25. I Qs 8, 6; I Qh 2, 13. 26. Ibid 1 - 1 0, 102. See also J . C. L. GIBSON, "From Qumran to Edessa or the Aramaic speaking Church before and after 70 A. D.", The Annual of the Leeds Uni­ Ilersity Oriental Society 5, Leiden 1966, 2q - 39. 27. Doctrine q7-8. The Syriac Q'yama should probably be read as 'society' rather than ·chiefs'. A.F. J. KLIJN , The Acts of Thomas, Leiden 1962, 50 doubts whether asceticism was prominent in the earliest Syrian Christianity. He believes this came in later with Tatian. However this is to overlook the close connexion with Jewish asceticism. See further R. MURRAY, ibid., 1 1 - 1 2. 28. Journal of Theological Studies 18 (1967) 13 26. -

206 character of many of the logia in Thomas. Thus the virtues stressed in that Gospel are childlikeness, singleness and simplicity, abstinence and world - renunciation29. Advance towards spiritual perfection is through the practice of ascetic virtues and repentance: "Blessed are the single ((J.ovocxol ) and the elect, for you will find the Kingdom " 30. This Gospel, in common with other Jewish - Christian documents, exalts the position of James the Just31• And it stresses the attainment of perfection through complete sexual abnegation. Thus in saying 75, which appears to be related to the Parable of the Virgins in Mt. 25, 1 13, the many who are left standing at the bridegroom' s door are not reproached for inat­ tention to their duties but merely because they were not single. Only the celibates enter the bridal chamber. The 'elect' alone are complete beings and among them sexual differences have been transcended32• It will be noted how closely these sentiments in Thomas fit into the pi­ cture of Syrian Christianity drawn by Aphrahat early in the fourth century. We can hardly doubt that from the outset the Church in Edes­ sa was permeated by asceticism of a Jewish - Christian type. This asce­ tical tradition found literary expression as early as A. D. 140, in a slight­ ly Gnosticized or dualistic form, in the Gospel of Thomas. An ascetic emphasis is found in all the various Syrian Thomas cycles, e. g. the Acts of Thomas c. 220 which prohibit baptized converts from marrying or living as man and wife. This was the earliest Christian practice in Edes­ sa. We can then postulate the founding of the Church in Edessa among Syriac speaking J ews who stamped an ascetic - encratite outlook on the nascent Church. H ow far are we justified in regarding ascetic Jewish Christianity as the only facet of the Church in the earliest period ? G. Quispel33 holds that there were no Gnostics in Edessa in the second century and that Christianity there was wholly Jewish - Christian. If we are reserving the term 'Gnostic' for a developed Gnostic system then he may well be right. However it is worth remembering that Gnostic -

29. Sayings 4., 6, 15, 23, 27, 37, 39, 4.6, 4.9, 79, 30, S1, 99, 101, 104., 105, 106, 110 and 114.. 30. Saying 4.9. 31. Saying 12. 32. Saying 22. 33. In a paper read at the Fifth International Conference on Patristic Studies, Oxford 1 967.

207 tendencies became allied to Judaism at an early date to judge from such documents as the Gospel of Truth. Both Basilides and Valentinus, the great Gnostic teachers, depend on earlier Jewish - Christian exegesis. There is thus no a priori improbability that ascetic Jewish - Christia­ nity in Edessa may not have become permeated with incipient Gnostic or Dualistic tendencies at an early period. A study of Tatian and Bar­ daisan would appear to confirm this. q. TAT IAN AND BARDAISAN

Tatian the brilliant Assyrian, whose heresy we have already studied, provides our next reference to Christianity in Edessa. He was the son of Syriac - speaking parents (Clem. Alex. Strom. 3, 12, 81; Epiph. Pan. 46, 1, 1 1 , Theodoret Haer. Fab. Compo 1, 20) and probably came from Hadiab. After leaving his Mesopotamian homeland Tatian had visited many lands and had been initiated into various Mysteries before becom­ ing converted to Christianity and settling in Rome. He seems to have been a somewhat eclectic thinker from the beginning to whom an asce­ tic explanation of life appealedM. He was not however adverse from adopting a few semi - Gnostic ideas from Valentin us, something from the popular philosophy of the day, as well as drawing on earlier Jewish Christian traditions36• There has been much scholarly discussion as to the place to which Tatian returned after leaving Rome. A. Voobus holds that this was probably his own home town of Hadiab which was an important centre late in the second century36. Older scholars, such T. Zahn37 and A. Harnack38, supported Edessa. This latter as seems more probable in view of the close association of the Diatessa­ ron with that city. If then, with Eusebius' Chronicle, we place Tatian' s return to the East c. 172 - 173 and to Edessa we must envisage that there he carried his views to extreme lengths, if this process had not begun before. So, according to Jerome Com. in Ep. ad Gal. 6, he main­ tained that the flesh of Christ was imaginary, a view at variance with 3q. CLEM. ALEX., Strom. 3, 12, 81; EpIPH., Pan. q6.1.11; THEODORET, Ilaer. Fab. Compo 1 . 20. 35. L. W. BARNARD , "The Heresy of Tatian Once Again", Journal of Ecclesiastical History 1 9 (1 968) 1 - 10. 36. Ibid (n. 19) 38 - 9. 37. Tatian Diatessaron, Erlanger 1 881, 282. 38. Chronologie I, 289. -

208 his earlier view in Orat. 21. He rejected marriage and meats39 and, like Marcion, rejected some of Paul's Epistles40• And, according to Irenaeus, he seceded from the Church, adopting certain invisible aeons, similar to those of Valentinus, denounced marriage as defilement and fornica­ tion, and denied the salvation of Adam41. Clement of Alexandria and Origen state, in rather cryp tic language, that Tatian not only inveig­ hed against generation42 but that Tatian said that the words "Let there be Light" are to be taken as a prayer rather than a command, as if God was in darkness43• This could be interpreted as marking a distinct­ ion between the Demiurge and the Good God or, at the least, as indica­ ting dualistic emphasis. I t would seem that not only a radical asceticism, but also a tendency towards dualism, were part and parcel of Tatian's extreme views. While these extreme views, if propagated during the latter part of Tatian's time in Rome, would no doubt have caused raised eyebrows it is unlikely that this was the case in Edessa. The Gospel of Thomas itself is best explained as embodying an ascetic Jewish - Christian tra­ dition which had been modified, although not fundamentally, in a dualistic direction.Tatian, eclectic thinker as he was, was primarily indeb­ ted to Jewish - Christian radical traditions and also, to a lesser extent, to dualistic ideas. His composition of the Syriac Diatessaron, or Harmony of the Gospels, which he may have carried out soon after his return to Edessa c. 1 72 - 173, is proof of this eclecticism. He used not only the four Canonical Gospels, which he had known in Greek in Rome, perhaps even in some early harmonistic form, but also a tradition which had found literary expression in Edessa some thirty or so years before his time in the Gospel of Thomas. Indeed it is likely that he already knew certain of the logia, which appear in Thomas, from his Roman days earlier in his career; undoubtedly many of these logia circulated independently in the Church and were known in widely different centres. The resear­ ches of G. Quispel have demonstrated that the semitic tradition em­ bodied in Thomas was Tatian's 'fifth' source which he drew on when com­ piling his Harmony". 39. J EROM E , Ad JOllin 1 . 3. 4.0. JEROME, Praef. in Com. ad Tit. U . Adll. Haer. 1 . 26. For doubts about Irenaeus' views see pp. 184. cr. 4.2. Strom. 3. 12. 86. 4.3. ORIG., De Drat. 4.4.. "L' evangile selon Thomas et Ie Diatessaron", Vigiliae Christianae 1 3 (1 959)

209 There is also ev idence that Tatian modified the tradition in the Canonical Gospels in an ascetic and encratite direction. Thus in Lk. 2. 36 the ordinary text speaks of the normal married life which Anna the prophetess lived with her husband seven years from her virginity. Tatian however corrected the text in the opposite direction so that it stated that Anna remained a virgin in her marriage45• There are other examples of changes, some of them very subtle, which have the effect of degrad­ ing the value of the married state (e. g. Mt. 19. 4 - 9 in the Dutch Dia­ tess. ). Several corrections illustrate Tatian' s strict condemnatory atti­ tude towards the use of wine. Even the word 'wine' in In. 15. 1 ("I am the true vine") he modified to read " I am the tree of the fruit of the truth"46. This same ascetic sLrain appears in his handling of the narra­ tive of the Last Supper in Mk. 14. 25, Mt. 26. 29 where Jesus states he will not drink of the fruit of the vine until that day when he drinks it anew in his Father's Kingdom. Tatian cleverly omitted this idea of a renewed drinking from his harmony. In the Armenian translation of Ephraem's Commentary the text of the Diatessaron ran: " from now on I shall not drink from this generation of vine until the Kingdom of my father"'l7 which is a subtle change in an encratite direction. A slight change of word order or a gloss enabled Tatian to give a radical, asce­ tic turn to the Gospel Leaching about possessions, family life, marriage and wine. And he also enhanced Jesus' teaching about carrying one's cross in Mk. 8. 34, Mt. 10. 38 by adding "on his shoulder"48. The Diatessaron became the Gospel par - excellence of Syriac ­ speaking Christianity and so it remained until the fifth century when Rabbula (bishop of Edessa 411 - 435) suppressed it and substituted a revision of the Old Syriac Canonical Gospels. Theodorct, the partisan of Nestorius, tells how he himself withdrew over two hundred copies of the Dialessaron from circulation in his diocese and replaced them by the Gospels of the four evangelists49. Tatian's Diatessaron for nearly two and a half centuries was the only version of the Gospels which was used in Syriac - speaking Christianity. The reason for this is not far to 87 - 1 17. See also his Makarius, das Thomase"angelium und das Lied "on der Perle, Leiden 1967. 4.5. Diatess. persiano p. 22, Dutch harmony in the Stuttgart MS. 4.6. Diatess . persiano p. 322. 4.7. Srboyn 2 p. 1 52. 4.8. Liege Diatess. p. 97; Persiano p. 134.. 4.9. Haer. Fab. Comp o 1, 30.

210

seek. The Diatessaron appealed to the Edessan Church because its out­ look was congruous with an ascetic - encratite tradition which was strong in that Church from the outset. So, in the Diatessaron, Tatian cut out the genealogies Mt. 1. 1 - 17 and Lk. 3. 23 - 28 and, according to Theodoret, "such other passages as shewed the Lord to have been born of the seed of David after the flesh". This dilution of the histori­ cal basis of the Gospel is undoubtedly present in the Diatessaron, as far as it can be reconstructed60, and is similar to that found in the Gospel of Thomas. Tatian, then, is best interpreted as a witness to the ascetic and eclectic character of Edessan Christianity in the latter part of the se­ cond century. This eclecticism reached its climax in the advent of Bar­ daisan61• He was one of the most remarkable figures in the early period of the Church and the standard text books on early Church History rarely do him justice. He was born in Edessa in 155 of rich parents and received his name son of Daisan from his mother who had brought him forth on the bank of the river Daisan which flows by the capital. He was brought up in the court of King Abgar where he seems to have excelled in archery62 as well as in learning. It was during the last quarter of the second century that B ardaisan became a Christian ("he embraced the faith, and received baptism; yea he taught the doctrine of the Church at Edessa" (Barheb.) and he was active as a savant until the time of his death in 223 by which time he had separated himself from the Edessan Church. Later ages were to regard him as a heretic and monastic libra­ ries did not even preserve confutations of his doctrines. His original teaching has therefore to be reconstructed from scattered notices and partisan accounts of later chroniclers. Eusebius, H. E. 4. 30, says that B ardaisan was exclusively a Syrian writer, attached at first to the school

50. Latin, Arabic, Old Dutch and Persian versions of the Diatessaron are known together with the Armenian version of Ephraem's Commehtary on it. The problem of its original language has not been solved by the discovery of a Greek fragment at Dura Europos- (ed. C. H. KRAELING, Studies and Documents 3, Harvard and Lon­ don 1935). I incline to favour a Syriac original composed by Tatian soon alter leav­ ing Rome, although the possibility of an original dual edition in Syriac and Greek is not impossible. 51. H. J. W. DRIJVERs, Bardaisan of Edessa, Assen 1 966 is the most recent stu­ dy.

52. J ULIUS APRICANUS, Cest. 29.

211

of Valentinus, but who later condemned and refuted the Valentinian my­ thology - supposing himself to have passed over to orthodoxy yet not altogether successful in washing away the stains of his old heresy. He wrote controversial dialogues against Marcion (the Marcionite movement was apparently strong in his region) and other heretics some of which had been translated into Greek. Among these was a Dialogue on Fate addressed to Antoninus, by whom Eusebius or his source may possibly have meant Caracalla. Eusebius gives no exact date forBardaisan's activity apart from placing him under Soter c. 179 which may not be far remo­ ved from the actual date of his conversion to Christianity. Ephraem states that he wrote a book 0(150 hymns and it seems probable that Bardaisan's son, Harmonius, adapted these to metrical forms and mu­ sical accompaniment; we know that these hymns and tunes continued to be used in Edessa until Ephraem's time63• Bardaisan's theology is diffjcult to evaluate. According to Euse­ bius he fought against Valentinian heresy even after his conversion to Christianity, while Epiphanius states that he was a distinguished Church teacher, accomplished in both Greek and Syriac, who became corrup­ ted by the Valentinians and fell into heresy setting forth a doctrine of "many' principles and emanations and denying the resurrection of the deadM• Hippolytus names his as a leader of the Oriental school of Va­ lentinianismoo• Certainly later ages saw in Bardaisan the lineaments of a heretic par excellence. However the scattered fragments we possess of his writings, and the Greek Dialogue on Fate which, in Syriac, was known as the Book of the Laws of the Land56, do not really support the view that he was a Valentini an. There are traces (but no more) of Gnos­ tic influence in some of his ideas although not in his main doctrines. So it is only by importing Tetrads and Ogdoads into his "system' that Bar­ daisan's extant fragments can be fitted into a Valentini an scheme. Rather what we find is a Syrian Jewish - Christian Gnosis similar to 53. SOZOMEN, H. E. 3, 16; THEOD ORET, H. E. q, 26. These writers do not actually state that H armonius adapted Bardaisan's hymnal although this is a reasonable inference. On Bardaisan's place in the history of liturgical music J. GELINEAU, An­ tiphona. Recherches sur les formes liturgiques de la psalmodie dans le8 eglises syriaques au.x lYe et Ve siecles. Paris 1960. Sq. Hae,.. 56. 55. Ref. 7. 3f. 56. M ost scholars believe that its original language was Syriac; H. J. W. DRIJ­ VERS, ibid. 60 - 76.

212

that which appears in the Gospel of Thomas. Bardaisan refutes, in a scholarly manner, in the Book of the Laws of the Land the native astro­ loger Awida and shews him that there is room in the universe for free will. One ruling principle is nature, the second is fate; yet although men cannot change either law (nature) or chance (fate) there is yet an area of existence between them in which men can exercise their free - will, which is his third ruling principle. Man can thus, to Some extent, deter­ mine his own character and destiny57. Tatian also dealt with this in Orat. i t . Bardaisan was much interested in the creation and the fall of the angels but his cosmology is quite different from that which appears in the developed Gnostic systems. He believed that God created first the different elements, separating one from another and assigning each a place; unfortunately the elements became mixed up and produced con­ fusion. God then created the universe by mixing light and darkness but after six thousand years the elements will be restored to their pristine purity. Men's bodies belong to the second world, are ruled by the stars and so will not rise again. Bardaisan is clearly an eclectic thinker who drew on widespread astrological lore and semi - Gnostic ideas. However his dualism is no more developed than that of Tatian and may be due to the ascetic tradition which greatly influenced the Church at Edessa. There are also traces of Iranian influence similar to that found in the Qumran Manual of Discipline. And there is much native Syrian theology in his writings. Thus the Holy Spirit is depicted under the image of the Mother and is identified with 'Wisdom'. The Holy Spirit as 'Mother' addresses the elder of two daughters and to them are assigned cosmogo­ nic functions68• Bardaisan is best interpreted as an ecletic thinker who was interested in astrology and cosmogony. There is nothing really to connect him with Valentinus. His origin is within the native Syrian tradition of Edessa which had its roots in a radical J ewish - Christian asceticism, although his vision took him somewhat beyond this. As H. E. W. Turner acutely points out he is half way to Mani, rather than to Valentinus59•

57. P. CARRINGTON, The Early Christian Church 2 , 1957, q02 gives mary.

58. Laws 557 - 8. 59. The Pattern of Christian Truth, London

1 9M, 9q.

a

good sum­

213 Bardaisan gives some interesting information about the Church in his day: "What then shall we say of the new race of us Christians, whom in every region the Messiah established at his coming? For 10, all of us wherever we are are called Christians by the one Name of the Mes­ siah; and on one day, the first day of the week, we assemble toge­ ther, and on specified days we abstain from food. And of these national customs, our brethren abstain from all that is contrary to their profession. Parthian Christians do not take two wives, Jewish Christians are not circumcised. Our sisters among the Bac­ trians do not practise promiscuity with strangers. Our Persian brethren do not take their daughters to wife; our Median brethren do not desert their dying relatives or bury them alive or throw them to the dogs. Nor do Christians in Edessa kill their wives or sisters that commit fornication, as the heathen Edessenes do, but they keep them apart and commit them to the judgement of God"60. Bardaisan is conscious that Christians are a new race separate from the surrounding heathen pop ulation and that they worship together corporately on Sundays. He also bears witness to the astounding moral change wrought by the coming of Christianity which is also referred to by the second century Greek apologists61. This was, in fact, part of its attraction not only in the Greek but also in the Syriac - speaking world. Christians, even the non - baptized non - ascetics, were seen to be en­ dowed with a superior moral power which was slowly pervading society. Bardaisan was an original, independent eclectic thinker - and Sy­ rian Christianity throughout its history had no surfeit of such. He ope­ rated at first from within the Christian community at Edessa but his field of vision went beyond the Old Testament and the origins of Chris­ tianity to embrace many 'borderland' ideas. Yet on the whole his extant fragments and the Book of the Laws of the Land reveal a reverence to­ wards God, the Lord of all things, gratitude for his benefits, a desire to obey the discipline of the Church, a courteous spirit towards oppo­ nents, and a firm faith in the J udge of the earth62. Most probably his independence and speculative non - biblical approach caused him to 60. Quoted in F. C. BURKITT, Early Eastern Christianity 1904., 184.. 61. cr. J USTrN, 1 Apol. 14. . 62. BURKITT, ibid. 188.

214

leave the Church. His followers however lingered on until Rabbula, two centuries and a quarter later, induced them to submit to the Church. Bardaisan himself died in 223 A. D.

5 . CHRISTIANITY FURTHER EAST.

Beyond Edessa Christianity slowly took root in the Syriac speaking world. There were bishops and sees from Kurdistan to the Persian gulf by the year 216 although Seleucia - Ctesiphon and Nisibis were only evangelized much later. From Edessa the Gospel was carried to Mesopo­ tamia, Adiabene, and to parts of Armenia63• Edessa however remained the most important centre of Christianity in the East since the trade , route from Antioch to Mesopotamia passed through the city. Early Christian traditions reflect this importance. Addai's disciple Mari is said to have gone from Edessa to Persia and Addai is alleged to have ordained his disciple Pqida as first bishop of Adiabene and Assyria. Mari is said to have evangelised Khuzistan and Seleucia and, on his way to India, Thomas supposedly stopped there. While many of these traditions are unreliable that associated with the emergence of Christia­ nity in Adiabene appears to be based on an early historical tradition. J. Neusner has examined the Arbela Chronicle which states that Addai played a role in the foundation of Christianity at Adiabene by converting Pqida, who became its first bishop. Neusner argues that Christianity reached Adiabene in much the same way as it reached Edessa, viz. through the adherence of some local Jews to the new faith6'. Certainly the second century saw a rapid expansion of Christian in­ fluence there which was particularly evident in the episcopate of Abd Mshikha (190 - 225). By the year 225 there were 20 bishops in 81 sees in the western satrapies of Iran. In striking contrast to this progress is the lack of evangelistic success in Nisibis, not far from Edessa, and in Seleucia - Ctesiphon at the heart of Babylonia. The see of Nisibis was 63. J . NEUSNER, A History of the Jews in Babylonia I. The Parthian Period, Leiden 1965, 166 - 169. 6q. 'The Conversion of Adiabene to Christianity', Numen 13, 1 966, 14.'" - 150. R. MURRAY, Symbols of Church and Kingdom, Cambridge 1 9 75, 9ff. argues that Adia­ bene was the best defined centre of early Syriac Christianity on the grounds that Aphrahat and Ephraem both attest its development there.

215

only founded in 300 A. D . Neusner points to the interesting fact that Nisibis and Seleucia - Ctesiphon were centres of Tannaitic learning66. The Tannaitic academy at Nisibis was headed by R. Judah b. Bathy­ ra during much of the second century and from 135 145 students of Rabbi Akiba lived there. We must reckon with the possibility that the success or otherwise of Christian evangelisation in the early period de­ pended on the presence of Tannaitic teachers in a city. As the earliest Syriac traditions state that the first converts in the East were Jews it is likely that the Tannaim, if established in a city, would be able to oppose Christian interpretations of the Bible and so exercise a control over local Jewry. Whenever Tannaitic influence was weak Christianity made progress. It would therefore seem that Christianity moved from Palestine into the Syriac - speaking Jewish communities of the east, succeeding in SOme places, but not in others. From Palestine it passed through Edessa across the nearby frontiers into Adiabene, part of Ar­ menia, Khuzistan, Persia and into Caucasia. In this movement Edessa held a key position, as in trade , between Palestine and the Iranian Em­ pIre. -

6. CONCLUSION

Our short investigation has shown that an indigenous Syriac Chris­ tianity developed from the seed sown by Christian evangelists who came from Palestine to Edessa, perhaps as early as the first century A. D . , and obtained converts in the Jewish colony in the city. From this seed Syriac Christianity developed along ascetic and encratite lines which early on became permeated with dualistic tendencies. Within this milieu can be placed the Gospel of Tlwmas, the Odes of Solomon, the A cts of Thomas, and the work of Tatian which culminated in the Syriac Diates­ saron. It would seem that other writings from the Gnostic library at Chenoboskion originated or were known at an early date at Edessa, such as the Gospel of Philip and the Evangelium Veritatis which, ac­ cording to P. Nagel66, reflects certain Syriacisms. Moreover we also 65. Ibid. 149 1 50. 66. Die Herkunft des Epangelium Veritatis in sprachlicher Sicht. OLZ. 1966, •

:) - tt.,

CoIs.

216

know that the eclectic sect known as the Quqites67 arose in Edessa in the second century - a sect which had connexions not only with ascetic Jewish - Christianity, particularly in its rules for purity, but also with ideas found in Bardaisan. This sect gathered under its wing many Sy­ rian - Mesopotamian cults as well as a smattering of Christianity. Pro­ bably we must envisage various groups in Edessa towards the end of the second century - a suitable milieu in which Christian Gnostic and semi - Gnostic beliefs could gain a hold. Within this eclecticism we may place the outstanding original scientific intellect of Bardaisan. However wide - ranging, independent speculation was never a Syrian strong point and it appears that he fell into disfavour. By c. 200 A. D. the Christian community, no doubt comprising various groups, must have been of some size. We have al­ ready referred to the text in the Edessene Chronicle which speaks of damage by flood to the royal palace and to the
217

We should be unwise to exaggerate the importance of early Syriac Christianity because of new discoveries. The fact that we can now push back the history of the Church in Edessa into the first century and show that it was strongly influenced by an early Jewish - Christian Gospel tradition does not revolutionize the history of the early Church, as G. Quispel suggests. But it does demonstrate that an early Christian tradition existed in Edessa, having its roots in Palestinian sectarianism, which was non - Greek in outlook. This Syrian Christianity was permea­ ted at its core by an ascetic outlook independent of, and prior to, the Christian monasticism which arose in the Roman Empire in E gypt in the fourth century72. However this original branch of Chris tianity did not long succeed in retainin g its independence. Rahbula, bishop of Edes­ sa in the early fifth century, loved above all things order and , in any event, popular sentiment induced him to choose the anti - Nestorian side in the great controversy then raging The result ,\Cas that the Church in Edessa was largely assimilated on the practical, although not on the theological, level to Antioch and the oth er maj or centres of Greek ­ speaking Christianity. Edessa, and the re s t of Syriac speaking Chris­ tianity, was no longer cut off from other Churches by its indigenous Syriac Bible, liturgy and doctrine. However Greek theology did not fit easily into the exuberant, non dogmatic Syriac outlook and the Sy­ rian Church, being without first rate intellects, was the loser. From the fifth century onwards Syria c speaking Christianity became, in the main, secondary to Greek Christendom. But that it had an original, independent existence with a theological approach of its own should not be forgotten in the study of the origins of the Church. .

-

-

-

19 66 and J. NE USNER, Aphl'ahat and Judaism, Leiden 19, 1 . A. L E V I N E , Studia Patl'istica, I Berlin 195, pp. 4.84. 91 has demonstrated the indebtedness of a Syriac Commentary on the Pentateuch (c. 900) to Rabbinic Haggadic exegesis. This commen­ tary preserves the comments and views of renowned early Syrian scholars . The or­ der of the baptismal - confirmation rites in Syria, in which chrism comes before baptism, may also owe something to Jewish usage. From the second century A. D . onwards Jewish practice was to circumcise first and then to give proselyte baptism. If there is a parallel between chrism and circumcision this may account Cor the Syrian order. It may also be significant that Ephraem compares Christian initiation to the Jewish treatment of lepers in which anointing with oil precedes washing with water. 72. The Syriac title "Abba" (father) and "Amna" (mother) continued to be used of the heads of monastic commun ities in fourth century Egypt rather than indi­ genous Egyptian names. From this came the title "Abbot", -

218

Appendix

A

THE FIGURE OF 'TRUMPETS' IN JEWISH AND SYRIAC TRAD ITION

R. Murray73 has recently drawn attention to the figure of 'trumpets' used in a baptismal context in the writings of the fourth century Syriac Fathers, Ephraem and Aphrahat. So Ephraem, 'and the oil has three na­ mes, trumpets of baptism'74. which refers to baptismal anointing in the name of the Trinity. The figure of 'trumpets' is also used by Aphrahat in a passage containing traditional elements: '0

you who are summoned to the contest, hear the sound of the ' trumpet' and take heart. To you too I speak, you trumpet - bearers, priests and scribes and wise men; Call out and say to the whole people: Whoever is afraid, let him turn back from the contest, lest he break the spirit of the brethren with his own'7&. Murray points to the Jewish background of these passages and, in particular, to the Deuteronomic 'call to holy war' with Gideon as an example. Even more significant is the developed ideology of eschatolo­ gical war in the Qumran scroll The Wars of the Sons of Light against the Sons of Darkness with its details of trumpets, banners and rituals76. In this document there is much emphasis on the blowing of trumpets by the priests. Both the Syriac Fathers and Qumran documents reflect a call to ascetical celibacy. According t o Aphrahat the figure of'trumpe­ ters' and 'heralds' is used of the clergy when they calI on candidates to decide between marriage and j oining the Qyama, Covenant. Whether, in fact, the Syriac clergy actually used trumpets is however not clear from the references in Ephraem and Aphrahat. I wish to point to a parallel to the figure of 'trumpets' in the Syriac Fathers in Athanasius' Festal Epistles. These were sent by Athanasius at each Paschal Feast to his flock in Egypt and the extant Epistles 73. Symbols of Church and Kingdom, Cambridge 1975, pp. 128, 17q; "The Exhor­ tation to Candidates for Ascetical Vows at Baptism in the Ancient Syriac Church", New Testament Studies 21 (197q) 60 3, 76. 7q. H. Virgo q. H; CSCO 223 Syr. 9q p. 1 6. 75. Dem. VII 3 H . 11 1 2 . Murray's translation. 76. Y. YAD IN, The Scroll of the War, Oxford 1962, pp. 87 - 1 13. -

-

219 (with some gaps) cover the years 329 until his death in 373. In these Athanasius refers several times to the blowing of trumpets at the Feast apparently in fulfilment of Nu. 10, 1 ffi Ps. 81 , 3; Joel 2, 15. The trumpet call symbolised a call to war, to self - denial and to fasting: 'At set seasons also He called the children of Israel to the Levi­ tical feasts by Moses, saying, 'Three times in a year you shall keep a feast to me' (one of which, my beloved, is that now at hand), the trumpets of the priests sounding and urging its observance; as the holy Psalmist commanded, saying ' Blow with the trumpet in the new moon, on the (solemn) day of your feasts' . Since this sentence enjoins upon us to blow both on the new moons, and on the solemn days, He has made a solemn day of that in which the light of the moon is perfected in the full; which was then a type, as is this of the trumpets. At one time, as has been said, they called to the feasts; at another time to fasting and to war. And this was not done without solemnity, nor by chance, but this sound of the trum­ pets was appointed, so that every man should come to that which was proclaimed ... But let us pass on to the meaning, and hence­ forth leaving the figure at a distance, come to the truth, and look upon the priestly trumpets of our Saviour, which cry out, and call us, at one time to war, ... at another the call is made to virginity, and self - denial, and conjugal harmony ... Sometimes the call is made to fasting, and sometimes to a feast. Hear again the same (apostle) blowing the trumpet, and proclaiming, 'Christ our Passover is sacrificed; therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness' . If you would listen to a trumpet much greater than all these, hear our Saviour saying; 'In that last and great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me and drink' . For it became the Saviour not simply to call us to a feast, but to 'the great feast'; if only we will be prepared to hear, and to conform to the proclamation of every trumpet'77. It is certain that trumpets were actually blown at the celebration of the Paschal Feast in Egypt at least until 347 A. D., as is shown by Epistle 19 which records that their use had now ceased: 'For this is the season of the feast, my brethren, and it is near; being not now proclai77. Ep istle I, 2 · 3 ; PG 26. 1360 · 3; cf. Ep istle 2. 5; 6. 7.

220

med by trumpets, as the history records, but being made known and brought near to us by the Saviour'7s. In Athanasius we have a similar background to that of the Syriac Fathers, viz. asceticism, a call 'to holy war', to seH - war, to self - denial and virginity. While Athanasius does not directly refer to baptism in his Festal Epistles he appears to allude to the Paschal Candle and strong­ ly emphasises the Easter eucharist as the climax of the Feast. It would appear unlikely that there is any direct dependence of Athanasius on the Syriac Fathers or vice versa in the use of the figure of 'trumpets'. Both presuppose a Jewish, and perhaps Jewish sectarian, background and illustrate the strong influence of Judaism on early Christian wri­ ters both in the Greek and Syriac Christian traditions. Both usages could have arisen independently on the basis of Old Testament referen­ ces. Perhaps too we should not neglect the shofar which could have been retained by Christians in both Syria and Egypt. Appendix B PELAGIUS AND EARLY SYRIAC CHRISTIANITY

The Pelagian controversy has long been thought to be the classic example of a conflict in which the principles at issue were crystal clear. Thus the discussion has largely turned upon the question of original sin, infant baptism, the effect of Adam's sin, free will in man, divine grace and predestination79• It is however the merit of the work of Professor P. L. R. Brownso to have placed Pelagius' teaching, and that of his followers, against the widespread striving reflected in late Roman literature, to create an aristocratic elite. Behind the counsels of perfect­ ion of Pelagius he discerns the high demands of noblesse oblige and the iron discipline of a patrician households1. The Christian of Pelagian literature was a prudens, different from the ignorant crowds2, and the 78. Ep istle 1 9 . 1 ; PG 26. 14.23 q. 79. For an older discussion Dictionary of Christian Biography IV pp. 282 - 95 and Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics IXpp. 703 1 1 . 80. " PeIagius and his Supporters: Aims and Environment", Journal of Theologi­ cal Studies, 19 (1968 ) 93-1 14. 81. Op. cit. p . 97. 82. De malis doctoribus 18. 3 ed. C. P. CASPARI, Briefe Abhandlungen und Pre­ digten, Christiana 1 890 p. 104; PL Suppl., t. I, Paris 1 9 58 , 14.50; Brown p . 97 n . 5. -

-

221

followers of Pelagius and Caelestius were to be condemned, not only for disturbing the peace, but for considering themselves superior to everyone else83. When Pelagianism is placed in its Roman environment it is seen to express the ideals of the aristocracy with its iron discipline and contempt for the weaker brethren. Brown has however studied further the ascetic element in the Pe­ lagian movement which he characterizes as the Christianity of discon­ tinuity84. He shows that Pelagius and his followers strove to be integri Christiani "authentic Christians"85 - and they harnessed their message to the idea of the Church. They sought to produce not only the perfect individual Christian but the perfect religious group86. Thus the most marked feature of the Pelagian movement was not its individualism but its insistence that every baptized Christian should accept the full code of Christian behaviour with no double standard within the Church between monks and the rank - and - file. The Christian community was, for Pelagius, defined by baptism and the experience of conversion8? A man's sinful behaviour could be reversed and bad habits broken once a man accepted ascetic discipline on being baptized. No irreversible fall of man, but only a thin wall of corrupt manners stood between the true Christian and the innocence of man's first state88. Thus Pelagius envisaged a perfectionist Church made up of the baptized who had em­ braced the full Christian Lex and were following the promises of per­ fection in obedience to the just Law of God. In this community wealth had no p art and must be shrugged off as only belonging to the evil, pagan past. Marriage must be entered into simply shunning the vulga­ rities of a fashionable Roman wedding and by recapturing the simpli­ citas of Adam and Eve 89• Yet once baptized the way forward was a stern one and a struggle against the world, the flesh and the devil. So in the Pelagian cells in Sicily the rich had to abandon family property and embrace radical standards90• This meant joining a minorit y Church -

83. Imperial Rescript 30 April U 8 ; PL 4.8, 379 - 86. 84.. Op. cit. p. 107. 85. "Hfimanae referunt Iitterae" (ed. CASPARI p. 1 8 ) ; PL Suppl. 13 78. 86. De "ita christiana 9; PL 4.0. 1038. 87. T. BOHLIN, Die Theologie des Pelagius und ihre Genesis, Uppsala 1957, pp. 29 - 4.3. 88. P. BROWN, Augustine of Hippo, London 1967, p. 382. 89. PAULlNU9 of Nola, Carmen 25; BROWN, Pelagius and his Supporters op. cit. p . 106. 90. AUGUSTINE, De gest. Pelag. H . 23; 32. 57.

222 of the elect set over against Sicilian society as a whole. Being a Chris­ tian, for Pelagius and his followers, meant embracing the ascetic life as an obligation. What was the origin of this ascetic strain in early Pelagianism ? Brown sees this as part of the general reception of oriental monastic traditions in the late fourth century A. D. which were made available in the west in the translations of Rufinus. Such traditions, he holds, admitted a high degree of human freedom and the possibility of reaching a state of Christian perfection; but they are concerned with the train­ ing of a monk, for whom perfection is a goal in the future: "The distinguishing feature of Pelagianism is that Christian per­ fection follows, or should follow, from the fact of baptism - from an event, that is, in the past experience of many full Christians and, so, that it might involve whole congregations. This ecclesio­ logical bias may explain why a movement which originated a qui­ busdam monachis (Augustine, De gest. Pelag. 35. 61 ) eventually commanded the support of 18 bishops in Italy alone"91. I would suggest that this element in the teaching of Pelagius is not quite so original as Brown supposes. When we look carefully at the idea of the Church in early Syriac Christianity we find a view simi­ lar to that of Pelagius and, like his, quite independent of the ecclesio­ logy prevailing in Greek speaking Christendom. We have already shown92 that for Aphrahat baptism is a privilege reserved for the spiritual aris­ tocracy, the celibates, who embrace the full ascetic life, renouncing mar­ riage. These are the real spiritual athletes while the rest of the adher­ ents only remain on the fringe of the Christian community until such time as they accept the claims of perfection embraced by the baptized. This view of the Church as comprised of baptized ascetics is not special to Aphrahat for early Syriac Christianity was permeated with asceticism. When we compare the early Syriac view of the Church with that of Pelagius and his followers there are significant parallels. Both strongly emphasise baptism as the dividing line between the old life and the as­ cetic life of true "Christians" who were aiming at perfection. Both re­ jected a double standard of conduct within the Church - there was to be only one standard applicable to all the baptized. Both conceived of BROWN, op. cit. 92. pp. 203 - 214..

91.

p. 105.

223 the Christian life as a struggle such that good habits would perpetuate a state of regained innocence. Austere perfectionism was the one aim of Syriac Christianity, no less than that of Pelagius. Both enjoined re­ nouncing wealth as a bar to spiritual progress. Both expounded a ra­ dical Christianity. The only substantial difference is that Pelagius did not forbid marriage, although emphasising its simplicity as against any form of ostentation. It would seem that these parallels are too close to be fortuitous and we must ask how the influence of early Syriac Chris­ tianity on Pelagius is to be accounted for. I t is interesting that Rufinus of Aquileia states that he made a journey to Edessa and Charroe (Hist. eccles. 2. 8) and, as he was largely instrumental in making available in the west eastern ascetic traditions93, it is possible that he was familiar with the ascetic ecclesiology of early Syriac Christianity and so mediated it to Pelagius. But of this we can­ not be certain. Then there is the other Rufinus, the friend of Jerome, known as Rufinus the Syrian, who settled at Bethlehen with Jerome and in the year 390 was sent by him to Rome and Milan. This Rufinus must be identified with the man of that name mentioned by Caelestius (Augustine, De Pecc. orig. 3) as having asserted that sin was not inherit­ ed. Marius Mercator goes further and asserts that it was this Rufinus who instilled into the mind of Pelagius the views that are known as Pelagian94• Is it beyond the realm of possibility that this Rufinus pas­ sed on to Pelagius a view of the Church as only comprising baptized ascetics which was . the earliest Syriac view ? We cannot be sure of direct influence. Nevertheless the substantial parallels in ecclesiology between Pelagius and Aphrahat suggest that this Syriac view of the Church was known in Rome in the late fourth and early fifth centuries along with much else from oriental sources.

93 . W. JAEGER, "Two Rediscovered Works of Ancient Christian Literature: Gregory of Nyssa and Macarius" in Harllard Institute for Classical Studies (1954) 89 - 98. 94. Lib. subnotationum in "erba Juliani 2.

I N DEFENCE OF PSEUDO - P I ONIUS' ACCOUNT OF POL YCARP'S MARTY RDOM I. "The date of the martyrdom of Polycarp has been the subj ect of controversy for nearly three centuries and it would be hazardous to say that the last word on the question had been spoken". So Lawlor and Oulton wrote in their edition of Eusebius' Ecclesiastical Historyl. The debate on this vexed question continues unabated. As a reaction against the year 155 or 156, which for long held the field, Gregoire, fol­ lowed by Telfer, Marrou and Von Campenhausen have preferred the later date of 168 or 177 2. A recent contribution by T. D. B arnes 3 has however given weighty reasons for doubting the later dates although frankly admitting that the two dates for the proconsulate of Statius Quadratus and the High - Priesthood of Philippus of Tralles, in Ep. Smyrn. 21, contradict each other. Our concern here is not so much with the date but with the actual account of the martyrdom which has only been preserved in its entirety by Ps - Pionius in the closing decades of the fourth century. In his life of Polycarp Ps - Pionius inserts the E­ pistle of the Smyrnaeans and all manuscripts, both Greek and Latin 4, of the complete text originate from this source. At the end Ps - Pionius gives an account of the transmission of the document, in which he re•

K YRIAKON : Festschrift Johannes Quasten, Miinster (19 70) 192-20q. 1. Vol. 2 p. 13t. 2. H . GREGOIRE, Analecta Bollandiana 69, 1951, P 1ff; W. TELFER, Journal of Theological Studies 3, 1 952, pp. 79ff; H . 1 . MARROU, Analecta Bollandiana 71, 19 53, p. 5ff; H. VON CA :II P E :-I H A U S E N , Bearbeitungen und Interpolationem des Polycarpmar­ tyriums, Heidelberg 1957, pp 5 - 7 . 3 . Journal of Theological Studies 18, 1 967, p p . q3 3ff. I n Vol. 1 9 , 1 968, p . 512 Barnes favours 156 /7. q. An uncial fragment of the latin version of the Passio Pioni, dating from the seventh century AD., exists in the Rheims library. This was known in the 17 th cen­ tury but has not since been used by editors of Polycarp's Martyrdom. l owe this information to Dr. Dolbeau of Paris.

225

presents his transcript as the third in genealogical succession from the copy found among the papers of Irenaeus 6. It has long been recognized that the Epistle is not one and continuous, but consists of two parts viz., the main letter of the Church of Smyrna to the Church of Philo­ melium (chs. 1 20), and some supplementary paragraphs comprising chs. 21 and 22. These paragraphs are clearly separable from the main p art of the letter. Eusebius, who is our maj or witness to the document, ends his version in H. E. 4. 15 before the close of ch. 19 and we cannot be sure whether the supplementary paragraphs existed in his copy or not. However, even if these paragraphs were added after the composition of chs. 1 - 20, as many scholars think, it does not follow that they are ne­ cessarity false or unreliable. The genuineness of the main body of the letter, and even the histo­ ricity of Polycarp's martyrdom, has been doubted by some scholars 6 on the grounds that the letter was largely interpolated or written in the third century. Against this is however the evidence of Iren. adr. Haero 3. 3. 4, who speaks of Polycarp 'departing this life at a very advanced age, by a glorious and signal martyrdom' (�vao�wc; xod �mcpocvecJ"ror:t'oc (J.or.p"t'­ 't'1)p�crocc; ) and Polycrates (Eus H. E. 3. 24 ) who refers to him as 'both bis­ hop and martyr in Smyrna' (0 �v �(J.upvlj xoct htLGX07tOC; xoct (J.ocP"t'uc; ). Mo­ reover the letter of the GaUican Churches (Eus. H. E. 5. 1), giving an account of the persecution of the Christians at Lyons and Vienne in 177, presents coincidences with Ep. Smyrn. which are too close to be acci­ dental. Cf. Ep. S myrn, 2 tlC1"t'E (J.�"t'E ypU�OCL (J.�"t'E cr"t'EVOC�OCL "t'LVOC . . . lhL 7tOCPE­ cr"t'wc; (, KUPLOC; W(J.tAEL ocu"t'o'Lc; with Ep . Gall. 51 "t'OU 'AAE�ocv3pou (J.�"t'E cr"t'EVOC­ �OCV"t'OC; (J.�"t'E ypu�ocv"t'6c; "t'L I5Awc; OCAAOC xor."t'oc xocp3tocv O(J.LAOUV"t'OC; "t'� (cr. Ep. Gall. 56 ) : Ep. S myrn. 2 3LOC (J.LOCC; tlpor.c; TIjv OCLWVLOV X6Aor.GLV !�ocyOpOC�O (J.EVOL ... 7tpO Ocp6or.A(J.WV yocp E!XOV cpuyErv "t'0 or.LWVLOV ... 7tUp with Ep. Gall. 26 {)7t0(J.vljcr6dcroc 3LOC -njc; 7tpocrxoctpou "t'L(J.WptOCC; TIjv OCLWVLOV �v ye:ewrJ XOAor.GLV : Ep. S myrn. 3 7tolloc yocp �(J.ljXocvoc"t'o xoc"t" OCU"t'WV (, 3LOC�OAOC;, oclloc XOCPLC; "t'� E)E� : xoc"t'oc 7tocv"t'wv yocp 00'1 with Ep. Gall. 5, 6 (, OCV"t'LXEt(J.EVOC; ... 3LOC 7tocv"t'wv 3L�A6EV ... OCV"t'Ecr"t'POC-rljYEL 3e � XOCPLC; "t'OU E)EOU. In both documents the phra­ se "t'ov -njc; occp6ocpcrtocc; cr"t'ecpocvov is twice used (Ep. Smyrn. 1 7, 19 ; Ep. Gall. 36, 42) 7. Moreover the Acts of Pionius, which record the martyrdom -

5. J. B. LIGHTFOOT, The Apostolic Fathers Part 2, Vol. I (1885) p. 592. 6. See especially H. MULLER, "Das Martyrium Polycarpi, Ein Beitrag zur alt­ christlichen Heiligengeschichte", Romische Quartalschrifl, 22 (1 908) 1 - 16. Against Muller see B. SEPP, Das Martyl'ium Polycal'p i (Regensburg 1 911) and W. REUNNIN G , ZUl' Erkl4rung des Polykal'pmartYl'iums (Darmstadt 1917). 7 . LIGHTFOOT op. cit. 589 90. -

15

226

of Pionius in the Decian persecution c. 250, state that he had a dream 'on the eve of the birthday of the martyr Polycarp' that he and his com­ panions would be arrested the next day. The narrative continues that while they were 'celebrating the genuine birthday of the martyr Poly­ carp' the persecution overtook them. The A cts of Pionius thus show that the day of Polycarp's martyrdom was celebrated, according to the intention of Ep. Smyrn. 18, less than a century after the traditional date of the martyr's death. Any theory which would deny a historical basis to Polycarp's martyrdom must founder on the above early evidence. However the evidence cited above, while confirming the historical fact of the martyrdom and providing certain coincidences to the lan­ guage of the letter, does not tell us much about the actual contents of Ep. Smyrn. Our earliest witness to this is Eusebius, who in his Chroni­ con 2 p. 1 70 (ed. Schone) mentions the martyrdom as 'recorded in writ­ ting' (martyrium script is memoratur). In H. E. 4. 15 Eusebius again describes the document and quotes from it at length, adding that other martyrdoms were also attached to it and formed part of the same work. After briefly describing these martyrdoms he concludes by referring his readers to the work containing the martyrdom of Pionius to which, he says, he has given a place in his Collection of A ncient Martyrdoms, one of his earlier works. It is likely that the account of Polycarp's mar­ tyrdom was included in it as this was the earliest written record of a martyrdom with which Eusebius was acquainted. The genuineness of Ep. Smyrn. thus rests on the veracity of Eu­ sebius' account in H. E. 4. 15. This has been the subject of an exhaustive examination by Hans Von Campenhausen 8 carried out with his usual critical acumen. Von Campenhausen's theory is one of successive rew­ ritings of the original Ep. Smyrn. culminating in the work of an 'Evan­ gelion -Redaktor' who produced the final and authentic text of the Mar­ tyrdom in the fourth century. The basis of this theory is that Eusebius' text in H. E. 4. 15 is shorter than the existing text of Ep. Smyrn. and best represents the original version of the letter. In this Eusebian text there was, he believes, no trace of the 'special' character of Polycarp's martyrdom, viz. that it was a model martyrdom in accordance with the Gospel closely parallel to Christ's passion even in the smallest details. Moreover the extant longer text of Ep. Smyrn. is interested in showing the folly of voluntary martyrdom not enjoined in the Gospel 8. Op.

cit.

227 and is, in fact, anti - Montanist. Hence the unfavourable view taken of the Phrygian Quintus, 'for this reason brethren we do not praise those who come forward of their own accord, since the Gospel does not teach us to do so' (Ep. Smyrn. 4). Von Campenhausen believes there are three main strata discoverable in the final version of Ep. Smyrn. preserved by Ps - Pionius in the closing decades of the fourth century: I. The original letter written by the Church at Smyrna to that at Philomelium soon after Polycarp's martyrdom. I I. An anti - rigorist, probably an anti - Montanist, rewriting of the letter in the third century. I I I . The final redaction by the Evangelion - Redaktor in the fourth century, based on ( I I ) , who seeks to demonstrate that Polycarp's pas­ sion is in accordance with the Gospel and reenacts Christ's passion even in small details. We will now subject this theory to a critical examination. In the first place it is clear that Eusebius is giving extracts, quotations and paraphrases of Ep. Smyrn., not the whole. So after quoting the exordium Eusebius says, ' Next, before they tell the story of Polycarp, they relate the events which befell the other martyrs, describing the steadfastness they displayed under the agonies', followed by a paraphrase of Ep. Smyrn. 2 containing certain words and phrases found in the full letter. This is followed by 'But they relate that the right noble Germanicus was especially preeminent...' again with a paraphrase of Ep. Smyrn. 3. Then in the account of Quintus the Phrygian Eusebius says, 'Yet the account given by the aforesaid letter shows that this man rushed for­ ward along with others .. .' Moreover at the end of the quotation of Ep. Smyrn. 7 he says, 'After this the letter concerning him (i. e. Polycarp) proceeds with the story somewhat on this manner and in these very words'. And at the conclusion of the account Eusebius says, 'Such, then, was the issue bestowed upon the events that befell the marvellous and apostolic Polycarp; the account of which the brethren of the Church of the Smyrnaeans have set forth in the letter of which I have spoken' . It is clear that Eusebius is not reproducing the whole of Ep. Smyrn. but giving extracts from it. This is also the case with his account of the Gallican martyrs of the year 177 where Eusebius distinctly states at one point the document before him contained much more than he quotes (H. E. 5. I. 62 ·t'Oo't'o�� e��c; (Jose' hspoc (j)OCCH ). It would appear improbable that Eusebius reproduces the whole of the original text of Ep. Smyrn.,

228 and that anything not found in Eusebius must represent later traditions indroduced into text by Ps - Pionius and his predecessors. However, even if we ignore this inference we must still question the theory that the parallels between Polycarp's passion and that of Jesus, found in the longer text, are a late fourth century addition to show that he died in accordance with the Gospel. To illustrate this I now give a detailed list of these parallels found in Ps - Pionius' text of Ep. Smyrn.: 1. The incidents preceding Polycarp's death show a martyrdom after the pattern of the Gospel ( I , 19). 2. The name of the officer who arrested him is Herod (6). 3. His pursuers seize two slave lads and one, under torture, reveals his master's hiding place. This boy is compared to J udas and so Poly­ carp is betrayed by his own household. He is XPLCl"'t"OU xotvwvo� (6 ). 4. As Christ prophesied his betrayal (Matt. 26. 2), so Polycarp 'three days before he was apprehended' foretold the fate that awaited him (5). 5. He waited to be betrayed, like Jesus, when he could have es­ caped (I, cf. 7), 6. He was in the country 'not far from the city' when apprehended ( 5, 6). 7. The hour of his apprehension was at night (7). 8. His pursuers came to seek him with arms 'as against a robber' (7). 9. Polycarp declared his resignation in the words 'God's Will be done' (7, cf. Matt. 26. 42, Luke 22. 42). 10. His martyrdom took place at a Jewish Festival; and the days mentioned in the Gospels in connexion with the crucufixion (Friday 1t"or.por.crxe:u� and Saturday �oc��or.'t"ov ) 1!re likewise mentioned in connexion with Polycarp's martyrdom (7, 8, 21). 11. As Polycarp enters the stadium a voice from heaven encourages him (9), much as a voice comes from heaven to Christ at the supreme crisis (John 12, 28). 12. Polycarp died by fire and not by wild beasts (12) in fulfillment of a vision three days before his arrest (5). So Christ did not die the J e­ wish death by stoning, but was handed over to the Romans for cruci­ fixion, so fulfilling his own prediction (John 18. 32). 13. At Polycarp's death his body was pierced with a dagger and blood gushed out, as in the case of Christ (16, cf. John 19. 34). 14. The eyewitnesses who narrate the unusual occurrences at the

229

martyrdom lay stress on their providential preservation that they might relate the incidents to others (15), j ust as J ohn emphasises his presen­ ce as a witness to the miraculous incidents which attended the crucifi­ xion (John 19. 35). 15. The Jews interfere in the disposal of the body (17, cf. MaU. 27. 62 ff.). 16. Every word that Polycarp uttered was fulfilled (16); cf. the ful­ fillment of the predic tions of the death of Jesus ( John 19. 28, 30). 17. Polycarp was a true 'imitator of the Lord' ([J.L[J.'YlTIJC; TOU Kuptou 1, 17). 18. He drank, in a literal sense, 'the cup of Christ' (14). Now when we compare these parallels, in the longer text of Ep. Smyrn., with the version of Eusebius in H. E. 5. 14 we find that the vast majority of them occur in Ensebius. Thus only items 1, 2 and 8 are not reproduced by Eusebius. In item 3 Eusebius has the reference to the two lads but does not specifically liken the one who betrays Polycarp un­ der torture to Judas. In item 10 Eusebius mentions the Saturday but not the Friday - no doubt because from Ep. Smyrn. 8 onwards he is quoting in full, while giving only a paraphrase of Ep. Smyrn. 2 - 7. In item 1 7 Eusebius quotes the reference to Polycarp as one of the 'disci­ ples and imitators of the Lord' 9 from Ep. Smyrn. 17, but omits the same reference in Ep. Smyrn. I , no doubt for the same reason as in item 10. The theory that the original letter contained no reference to Christ's passion is very hard to maintain in view of the above facts. Yet even if we concede that there was a final redaction and that the editor put in su ch phrases as 'in accordance with the Gospel' we are still faced with the fact that the parallels he wrote in (i. e. the Officer was named Her­ od and the slave lad was another Judas) are not very good ones. Surely a final redactor, who had a carte blanche to invent parallels at his dis­ cretion, would never have placed himself in such straits as to compare the poor slave lad, more sinned against than sinning, who under tor­ ture reveals his master's hiding place, with Judas Iscariot who volun­ tarily and recklessly betrayed Jesus for personal gain. Similarly there is only a faint resemblance between the position of Herod, the captain 9. Note the parallel with Polyc. ad Phil. 8 . 2, [LL[L'1lTCXl oov ye:vw[Le:6cx ..r,c; U7t"o[LO­ v'/ic; CXUTOU. If Polycarp himself, at an earlier stage of his life, had enjoined on others the imitatio Christi it is probable his own followers would have seen this reflected in his own martyrdom.

230

of police in Smyrna, who takes Polycarp into custody, and that Herod whose part in the passion drama was confined to mockery and who pronounced Jesus innocent of the charges brought against him (Luke 23. 15). Surely a later redactor would have secured a better parallePo. The awkwardness and violence of the parallelism in the longer text is a strong presumption that we are here dealing with an original element in the story - viz. that a literal conformity of Polycarp's sufferings to the sufferings of Christ was present in the earliest account. This kind of parallelism is found in the earliest period of the Church; so Hegesip­ pus, in his account of the martyrdom of James the Just (Eus. H. E. 2. 23), depicts the martyr as praying for his murderers in the exact lan­ guage of the Gospels, '0 Lord God, Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do'. His enemies are the scribes and pharisees, as with Jesus, and his death fulfil1s Isaiah's prophecy about the death of the righteous one (Isa. 3. 10, LXX). Similarly we are told of the martyr' Symeon, the son of Clop as ( Eus. H. E. 3. 32), apparently according to Hegesippus that 'the end which he achieved closely resembled the pas­ sion of the Lord'. And in the account of the GalIican martyrs at Lyons and Vienne, when Blandina is suspended to a tree or stake, the Christian bystanders saw with their outward eyes him who was crucified (Eus. H. E. 5. 1). Irenaeus speaks of the martyrs as conantes vestigia assequi passionis Domini (adv. Haer. 3. 18. 5) and describes Stephen as per omnia martyrii Magistrum imitans (adv. Haer. 3. 13. I). In the third century Pontius describes the sentence of condemnation before the martyrdom of Cyprian as pronouncing Cyprian to be 'the standard bearer (signifer) of the sect and the enemy of the gods' . It even contains the declaration sanguine tuo sancietur disciplinall. This language is taken by Pontius as unconsciously inspired and resembling the prophecy that Caiaphas uttered concerning. Jesus Again, when Cyprian is martyred the people, like Zacchaeus, climb up into the trees to see the sublime spectacle. This tendency to see in the deaths of the martyrs a conformity to the Gospel accounts of Christ's passion is found in all centuries - as much in the lives of medieval saints as in the period of the early Church12• Biographers have emphasised every detail of the career of their heroes which seemed to bear the faintest resemblance to their Lord 's passion. 10. LIGHTFOOT op. cit. 597 8. 11. Vita CYPl'iani. 1 2 . And in modern times with the Kikuyu martyrs in Kenya in the 1950'1. •

231 This tendency casts no discredit on the genuineness of the narratives themselves - any suspicion we may have must arise from the character of the incidents themselves in which the parallelism is sought. I f then we reject as unproved Von Campenhausen's theory that the 'special' character of Polycarp's martyrdom, as an imitation of the Passion of Christ , is due to the work of a final fourth century 'evangc­ lion redaktor'13 how are we to account for Eusebius' undoubtcd omis­ sions from Ep. Smyrn ? In the first place it is worth noting that certain of his omissions - such as the phrase ' an example of martyrdom accor­ ding to the Gospel' (Ep. Smyrn. 1 and 19) - may simply be due to a desire to concentrate on the facts rather than on the writers' comments and reflections. The incidents themselves already contained a parallelism with Christ's passion and that was sufficient for Eusebius. The rest of his omissions occur almost wholly in the section H. E. 4. 15. 4 14. Here Eusebius would seem to be paraphrasing Ep. Smyrn. 2 7 taking over many phrases from the letter although usually expressing the sense in many words where the writers use few words (see especially 4. 15. 8) and sometimes inserting additions or glosses. The result is that Euse­ bius' 'abridgement' in this section, is almost as long as the text itself14. This is strange if Eusebius preserves the original text of the lettcr which, on Von Campenhausen's theory, was shorter than the later redacted text. It would seem that Eusebius' omissions are not due to any theolo­ gical or tedentious motif but to his desire to concentrate on the factual element in the account in his abridgement. Moreover his additions and glosses are generally self explanatory. Von Campenhausen has however picked on the phrase 't'ou � OC7tO eor.M.'t"'t'1l � x�puxor.� xor.( 't'L\lOC� o�£;'i:� b�e:A(­ axou� in H. E. 4. 15. 4, which describes the tortures inflicted on the other confessors, which is not found in Ep. Smyrn. 2. This he regards as a pre - Eusebian addition to the original letter. However a simpler ex­ planation may be suggested. In Ep. S myrn. 2 the single word x�puXor.� is used which may mean 'heralds' but probably here indicates trumpet -

-

13. But apparently Von Campenhausen (op. cit. 15) allows that in the original shorter letter to Philomelium there are features which point to an imitation of the Passion and these invited development by later editors. This qualification casts grave doubt upon his theory. Why should later editor(s) develop parallels, such as the slave boy betrayer= Judas, which are quite far fetched? Surely they would have developed closer parallels with the original letter, such as with the Gethsemane in­ cident? H. LAWLER & OULTON, Vol. 2, p. 1 M.

232

shap ed shells - the greek name for a certain mollusc of the whelk fa­ mily15. Eusebius merely expands the passage from the single word X�pu Xoc.C; sea shells , potsherds and the like appear not infrequently as instruments of torture in the accounts of martyrdoms16• There would appear to be no go od reason for believing that this was a pre - Eusebian addition to the text. -

II The second plank of Von Campenhausen's theory is his belief that the 'original' letter, as preserved by Eusebius, suffered an anti - rigorist or anti - Montanist rewriting before the final fourth century editor presented the whole as a martyrdom ' according to the Gospel'. He thinks that the disparagement of persons offering themselves voluntarily for martyrdom points to a date later than the mid - second century, and in fact to the period of the reaction against Montanism which encouraged such martyrdoms. The chief example of this is the Phrygian Quintus mentioned in Ep . Smyrn. 4. Von Campenhausen thinks that this in­ cident is a later pre - Eusebian addition on the grounds that the Church of Smyrna would hardly be likely to have sent a fraternal letter to the Church of Philomelium stating that a Phrygian, newly arrived from Phrygia, had behaved with such cowardice in the recent persecution. The original letter of the Smyrnaean community, he believes, contained no reference to Quintus and was in no way anti - voluntary martyrdom. In connexion with this theory it is however worth looking at the corres­ ponding texts of Ps - Pionius and Eusebius together: Ep. Smyrn. 4.

Eusebius H. E. 15. 7 - 8.

But one man, named Quintus, a Phrygian newly arrived from Phrygia, on seeing the wild be­ asts, turned coward. He it was who had forced himself and some

Further, (they say) that when these cries were the occasion of a very great tumult, a certain Phrygian by race, named Quin­ tus, lately arrived from Phry-

15. Buccinidae; cf. ARIST., Hist. An. 5, M4., 54.6, 54.7, Part. An. 4., 679, 683; PLI­ NY, Nat. Hist. 9. 36 explains the reason for the latin name, Bucinum . . . concha ad similitudinem ejus bucini quo sonus editur, unde et causa nomini. 16. Act. S. Vincent 7 (Ruinart p. 4.03, Ratisb. 1859, comp o p. 4.08); Act. Tarach. Prob. 3; B. Felicis Conf. Vito in Bedae Op. 5. 790, ed. MI G N E .

233

others to come forward of their own free will. This man the pro­ consul by much entreaty per­ suaded to swear the oath and to offer incense. For this cause, brethren, we praise not those who deliver themselves u p, sin­ ce the Gospel does not te ach us so.

gia, on seeing the wild beasts and the threatened tortures to fol­ low, lost heart and courage, and at least gave up his salvation. Yet the account given by the aforesaid letter shows that this man rushed forward along with others to the tribunal with unu­ sual eagerness, howbeit without proper discre tion; hut that not­ withstanding when seized he ga­ ve a clear example to all, that one ought not to venture on such conduct in a foolhardy and indiscreet m anner. Such, then, was the end that overtook these men.

What we have here is surely a free paraphrase and expansion by Eusebius of Ep. Smyrn. He reproduces the basic facts, and a small amount of the original wording, although rewrit.ing the account largely in his own words. The result is a longer text without seriously distorting the original meaning. Eusebius omits, 'For this cause, brethren, we praise not those who deliver themselves up, since the Gosppl does not teach us so' as being the opinion of the writers of the letter ('we' ) - rather than factual content. Nevertheless his emphasis is the same - a condemnation of voluntary martyrdom as foolhardy and indiscreet. But whereas Ep. Smyrn. speaks of Quintus as forcing himself and others to a voluntary martyrdom, then turning coward and apostacizing, Eusebius expands by stating how Quintus and the others rushed forward with unusual eagerness but without proper discretion. This foolhardy behaviour Eu­ sebius condemns just as strongly as Ep. Smyrn. condemns it on the grounds that it is not what the Gospel teaches. It seems quite unnecessary to postulate an anti - rigorist rewriting of the original letter in the third century. As Lightfoot pointed out long ago17 any attempt to stratify temper and opinion in chronological order in matters of this kind must appear doubtful in the extreme to those 17.

Op. cit. p .

604.,

234

who listen to the lessons of experience. Enthusiasm ebbs and flows. Whenever there was extravagant zeal for self - immolation accompanied, as was inevitable, by the scandals of relapses and apostacies, there would be the counteracting warnings from the steadier and wiser heads in the Christian community. The two tempers do not necessarily point to dif­ ferent epochs for they live and speak side by side. So Clement of Ale­ xandria (Strom. 4. 16, 17) condemns both extremes - the disparagement of martyrdom and the suicidal passion for martyrdom - as prevailing in his own day. And we are told that Basilides and the Basilideans, the contemporaries of Polycarp, purchased their lives by a sacrifice of prin­ ciple18• The protest of the Smyrnaean community at Quintus' conduct is true to life. Such extravagance would have produced just such a reaction from wiser heads - even at the risk of offending the Church at Philo­ melium. And in any event what third century writer would have thought up the Quintus story, with its life-like touches ? Eusebius, in the fourth century, in his rewriting does not misstate the fact that Quintus' beha­ viour was foolhardy in the extreme. It seems in high degree improbable that the original account of the martyrdom of Polycarp would have been handed down without any attempt of the Smyrnaean Church to interpret and evaluate its meaning.

III A few further points may be noted in considering Von Campen­ hausen's theory of successive editions of Ep. Smyrn. The work of O. PerlerI9 has shown the indebtedness of the early accounts of martyrdom to 4 Maccabees and the analogies noted by Perler in respect of the ac­ count of Polycarp's martyrdom cut right across the various versions of the martyrdom, including Eusebius', which Von Campenhausen's theory postulates. Moreover the emphasis on the cult of relics in Ep. Smyrn. 18 (quoted exactly by Eusebius in H. E. 4. 15. 43 - 4) is not necessarily a aign of lateness. 4 Macc. 1 7. 8 shows that the cult existed 18. Agrippa Castor in Eus. H. E. q. 7; !REN., Ad". Haer. 1 . 2q. 6; ORIG., Comm. in Matt. 25; Irenaeus elsewhere speaks of people who disparage martyrdom (Ad". Haer 3. 18. 5). 19. 'Das vierte Makkabaerbuch, Ignatius von Antiochen und die lHtesten Marty­ rerb erichte , Rivista di archeologia cristiana 25 (1 9q9) pp. q7 - 72. .

'

235 in Hellenistic Judaism in the first century A. D.20 Tertullian, a few decades after the time of Polycarp, uses language which shows that the ceremonial commemoration of the dead was far more developed in his day than that depicted in Ep. Smyrn. (,Oblationes pro defunctis pro nata­ litiis annua die facimus' de Coron. 3). Tertullian here speaks of oblat­ ions for the dead. In Ep. Smyrn 18 there is no mention of oblations but only of a remembrance of those athletes who have already fought in the contest, and the training and preparation of those who will face martyr­ dom in the future. There is nothing in the Polycarpian cult which would be out of place in the mid second century in view of the more developed usage in the time of Tertullian. It would surely be quite natural for the Smyrnaean Christians to take up Polycarp's bones, which they regard­ ed as more valuable than precious stones and finer than refined gold, and to lay them in a suitable place where, on each anniversary of the martyrdom, they would gather to celebrate the eucharist. The fact that no such cult is mentioned in Eusebius' account of the m artyrdom at Vie nne and Lyons in A. O . 177 is no proof that it did not exist. Appa­ rently in the GaIlican persecution the gathering up of the relics of the martyrs was prevented by the action of the heathen and Eusebius, in speaking of the disposal of the bodies, distinctly states that at this point the document before him contained more than he quotes (H. E. 5. I. 62). As Lightfoot pointed out21 it is by no means improbable that the original account did refer to the frustration of the intention of the Christians to hold an annual commemoration over the graves of the martyrs. But even if this was not so no inference can be drawn from such an omission as long after the cult had become firmly established the Acta Martyrum often omit any reference to the subject. We have been arguing that the theory of successive editions of Polycarp's martyrdom is unnecessarily complicated and that Ps - Pio­ nius' text is not that of a fourth century redactor but preserves the subs­ tance of the original letter written by the Church at Smyrna to that at Philomelium within a year or two of Polycarp's martyrdom in the third quarter of the second century. If, however, it could be shown that any part of the text was an undoubted third century compilation then our position could not be maintained. J. Armitage Robinson, in a series -

20. W. H.

C. FRE N D , Journal of Theological Studies 21. Op . cit. p. 602,

9

(1958) p. 372.

236 of notes22, has in fact argued that the character of Polycarp's prayer in Ep . Smyrn. 1 4 reflects third century, rather than second century, liturgical language. His main argument is that the doxology at the end of Polycarp's prayer cannot be referred to the second century on ac­ count of the formula 'through Whom to Thee with Him and the Holy Spirit be glory both now (and ever ) and for the ages to come' (3L' oi) O'OL Il- ' !: . ,oue;; I [LE;IV\OV,OC L., ., I ocU1'<:> , - y.oc�\ n VEI)[LOC't'L ' ( XOC\L OC' E\L ) XOCL\ ELe;; OC" yLC) OOo,OC e;; XOC�I vuv cruv OCLWVOCe;; ). Armitage Robinson holds that this formula is the stereotyped formula of the Ethiopic Church being regularly used in its liturgies. Thus the Ethiopic version of Hippolytus Apostolic Tradition 4. 13 has 'through Whom to Thee, with H im and the H oly Spirit, be glory and might' in­ stead of the Lalin 'per quem tibi gloria et honor patri et filio cum san­ cto spiritu in sancta ecclesia tua'. It also occurs three times in the Ara­ bic Canons of Bippolytus, in each case as a modification to the prayers taken over from the Apostolic Tradition, and in the Liturgy of St. Mark, which certainly derives from Alexandria. As the Martyrdom of Poly­ carp is the one exception to the non - occurrence of the formula in the early period of the Church Armitage Robinson held that this could not be a second century document. However J. W. Tyrer23 has shown that Justin Martyr (c. 150), in describing the great Thanksgiving in the litur­ gy of his day, says that the 'ruler of the brethren' oc!vov xocL M�ocv T IIveu­ [LOCTL in a doxology of Hippolytus (Contr. Baer. Noet. 18), and GUV xoct T
237 o

KUPLOC; ' I1jGouC; XPLcrrOC; xod TO IIve:u(J.oc TO OCYLOV (I Clem 58. 2 ). Polycarp's

formula is only a step removed from such a formula. I believe that we can find substantial second century liturgical parallels to Polycarp' s prayer and we have set these out in the attached table. Particularly noticeable is the close parallel with the benedictions over the cup and the bread at the baptismal - eucharist in Did. 9. It is significant that the primitive term 'child' or 'servant' is used of Jesus and that it is stated that God has given men knowledge through him; with this cf. I Clem. 59 . . .'pray with eager entreaty and supplication that the Creator of the UniYerse may guard unhurt the number of his elect, that has been numbered in all the world through his beloved child Jesus Christ, through whom he has called u s from (continues on p. 239) Ep. Smyrn. 1 4

Didache (c. 100 - 130 A. D. ?)

1 . ' 0 Lord God, the Almighty, the Father of the beloved and blessed child (1toc"L c;*) Jesus Christ, through whom we have received the knowledge (E1ttyvWGLC;) con­ cerning Thee. 0 God of angels and powers and all creation, and of all of the race of the righte­ ous who live before Thee:

9: Hold Eucharist thus: First concerning the Cup, 'We give thanks to Thee, our Father, for the Holy Vine of David Thy child, which, Thou didst make known to us through Jesus Thy child (1toc"Lc;); to Thee be glory forever. And concerning the bro­ ken Bread: We give thanks, Our Father, for the life and knowled­ ge (YVWGLC;) which Thou didst make known to us through J e­ sus Thy child. To thee be glory forever. Cf. Did. 10 for 'child' used twice as a title for Jesus.

2. I bless Thee that Thou hast deemed me worthy of this day and hour, to receive my portion in the number of the martyrs, in the cup of Thy Christ, unto resurrection of life eternal, o f • 7tCXLC; is used of Jesus 4 times in the New Testament (Acts 3. 1 3; 26; ct. Matt. 12. 18) and appears to represent a primitive Christological title perhaps belonging to the earliest liturgical usage.

238 soul and body, in incorruption of Holy Spirit; Among whom may I be received before Thee this day as a rich and accepta­ ble sacrifice (8uGtoc) even as Thou hast prepared and revealed it beforehand, and fulfilled it, 0 real and true God: 3. Wherefore, for this cause, and on account of all things, I prai­ se Thee, I bless Thee, I glorify Thee, through the eternal and heavenly High Priest, Jesus Christ, Thy beloved child, through Whom, to Thee, with Him and the Holy Spirit, be glory both now and ever and for the ages to come. Amen'.

The Eucharist is described as a sacrifice (6UGLOC) in a quotation of Mal. 1. 11, 14.

10: Liturgical thanksgiving at the close of the baptismal eu­ charist but without an ascript­ ion to the Holy Spirit.

In Ep. Smyrn. 15 Polycarp's burning flesh is described as bread and is likened to the li­ turgical symbol of incense. Justin Martyr (c. 150 A.D. )

Hippolytus, Aposto­ lic Tradition (c. 215 A. D.)

Other References

I Apol. 65 At the E ucharist the Ruler of the brethren sends up praise and glory to the Father of the Universe; cf. Dial. 41. 1.

'We render thanks un­ to Thee, 0 God, thro­ ugh Thy beloved child Jesus Christ, Whom in the last times Thou didst send to us (to be) a Saviour and Re­ deemer .. .

1 Clem. 59; Apost. Const. 8. 14

'

239 Apol. 66: The cup; cf. Dial. 41. 2, after quoting Mal. 1 . 10 12, continues, ' He then speaks of those Gen­ tiles, namely us, who in every place offer sacrifices to Him ( 8u­ cr(oc) , i.e. the bread of the Eucharist and also the cup of the Eucharist' . I

I Apol. 65: 'He (L e. the Ruler of the brethren) taking them (Le. the bread and cup) sends up prai­ se and glory to the Father of the Univer­ se, through the name of the Son and the Holy Spirit ...When he has finished the pra­ yers and the Thanks­ giving the whole con­ gregation assents say­ ing, Amen' .

4. 9: The cup: men­ tioned in the anam­ nesis.

4. 13: 'that we may praise and glorify Thee through Thy (belo­ ved) child Jesus Christ through Whom glory and honour (be) unto Thee with (the Holy Spirit) in Thy holy Church now and ever and for the ages to come. Amen'.

Liturgy of St. Mark (Brightman p. 113, 134). Liturgy of St. James (Brightman p. 43).

1 Clem. 61 Const. 7. 47.

Apost.

darkness to light, from ignorance to the full knowledge of the glory of his name.' There are also significant parallels between Polycarp's prayer and Justin Martyr's account of the eucharist in I Apol. 65 - 6, cf. Dial. 41 . 1 3; it is noticable that the terms 'cup' and 'sacrifice' are applied both to Polycarp's death and Justin's eucharistic oblation. In the more deve­ loped early third - century liturgy in Hippolytus Apost. Trad. 4, which is undoubtedly based on earlier traditions known in the Roman Church, we have the same close p arallels. It would seem unlikely that Polycarp's Prayer in Ep. Smyrn. 14 is a third - century production in view of these -

240 second century, and even late first century, par allels. In fact it has all the marks of the primitive era of the Church and may be the best exam­ ple we possess of the second century eucharistic prayer which was in no way a developed liturgy. If Polycarp's prayer is any indication this was divided into three parts. The first was an address to God in the fa­ milar style of the Jewish benedictions, through Jesus the beloved 'child'; the third part was another act of thanksgiving culminating in a trini­ tarian ascription of glory24; in the second part the reference to Poly­ carp's coming martyrdom in the 'cup' of Christ as a rich and acceptable 'sacrifice' prepared by God, has replaced the mention of the Sacrifice of the eucharistic bread and cup and the anamnesis in the liturgy. We are explicitly told that Polycarp spent long periods in prayer - he spent two hours in prayer the night before his martyrdom (Ep. Smyrn. 7). The Smyrnaean' Christians would moreover have often heard Polycarp cele­ brate the eucharist and there is no difficulty in believing that he used the substance of the eucharistic prayer at the supreme crisis of his life. From it we see how the original thanksgiving of the Last Supper has been expanded with li turgical material derived from Judaism into a simple three - part flexible prayer. IV We have sought to show that Ps - Pionius' text of Polycarp's mar­ tyrdom preserves in substance the actual letter sent by the Smyrnaean Church, through one of its members Marcianus (Ep. Smyrn. 20), to the Church at Philomelium within a short period of the death of its bishop Polycarp. The narrative is a straightforward one which commends itself to the reader - even the statement of the Smyrnaean Church that its bishop's martyrdom was 'according to the Gospel' is j ust the kind of reflection we should expect concerning the most venerated Christian of his age. Similarly the cowardice of Quintus has about it a ring of truth - human nature being what it is: What later interpolator would think up such an improbable story if it had not really happened in fact ? Then we find no attempt in the letter to depict the horrors of Polycarp's martyrdom in violent terms, as in many later martyrologies. 24. Cf. the phrase ' through the eternal and heavenly High Priest, Jesus Christ' in the third part of Polycarp's prayer, with the mention of Jesus Christ as the eter­ nal Priest' in POLYC., ad Phil. 12. 2 .

241 Moreover the names of individuals mentioned in the letter will bear critical examination. Nicetes was a name often used in Smyrna2li, and his sister Alee's name is likewise found in the city, although rarely el­ sewhere. Alee is mentioned in Ep. Smyrn. 17 without comment and we may assume that she was a well known Christian woman in Smyrna. It may not be without significance that some 40 years before, Ignatius, when writing to the Smyrnaeans, greets a person of this name affectio­ nately (ad Smyrn. 13). Herodes, the son of Nicetes, as captain of the police, is the main instrument in Polycarp's martyrdom and his father abets him in this matter. What later interpolator would have conceived the idea of representing one as the brother, the other as the nephew, of this devout Christian lady - named but not further described - unless such was the case26 ? And when allied to this we have a considerable amount of material in the letter which exactly fits a second century date the arguments for the substantial authenticity of the letter carry weight. If the original account of the martyrdom had been seriously interpolated and rewritten, and had been finally redacted, we can only say that the successive rewriters acted in a very odd manner in inter­ polating so much minor detail which could have been of no conceivable interest in the third or fourth centuries.

25. C. I. G. 3H8, 3359. The name was also borne by a famous Smyrnaean sophist who lived in the time of Nerva (Philostr. Vito Soph. I . 19, 21; 2. 16). 26. LIGHTFOOT op . cit. p. 608. i6

10*

ATHENAGORAS' TREATISE ON THE RESURRECTION I.

BACKGROUND

Debates about the nature and relationship of the body and soul, i. e. anthropology, had emerged by the second century B. C. within the matrix of Graeco - Roman culture. Some three centuries earlier Hippoc­ rates, in his work On the Nature of Man, had initiated movements which produced philosophic anthropology and medical science. Aristotelianism promoted the study of the functions of the p arts of the human body and Greek medicine, particularly at Alexandria under the Prolemies, in­ voked the aid of anatomy to link function to structure. The result was that knowledge of the human body continued to advance until, in the second century A. D., the great physician Galen embraced the whole of Greek medicine into a system which dominated medical ideas for many centuries. This enhanced knowledge of the human body had profound co nse­ quences for Christianity. Christian anthropology was at first biblical, being based on the account of the creation in Genesis and on Paul's writings. God had made man in His own image and the body was to be reverenced as the temple of the Holy Spirit. Converts were to embrace a way of life sharply differentiated from that of their neighbours which was based on a different world view. However, in time, converts were obliged to come to terms with their former world of thought which possessed not only different ethical ideas but a different anthropology with a wealth of reasoned thought on the nature of man. There is no indication that Tertullian, in the West, had grappled with this problem as early as the late - second century. In his work On the Soul l he at­ tempts to refute the Gnostic view that the soul entered the body at birth by appealing to the observations of embryologists. But Tertul­ lian will not allow that Christianity needs support from medical scien­ ce, any more than from philosophy, and he used the physicians only *.

Studia Theologica 30 (1976) 1-4.2. 1. J. H. WASZI NK. Tel'tullian De Anima, 1 94.7.

243 in support of his polemical purpose. The North African Father made no attempt to come to terms with Graeco - Roman anthropology. When did Christian thought first begin to make terms with Gentile philosophy on the subject of the nature of man ? It would appear that this had occurred by the time of Origen. The surviving fragments of his Commentary on Genesis show that he drew heavily on the anthropo­ logical ideas of Posidonius 2. It is possible that Origen's successors con­ tinued this task although their works have not survived because their anthropology would have set forth Origen's theory of a pre - mundane fall of human souls - and this theory was later to come into disrepute. Gregory Nyssen's De Opificio Homin us 3 has however survived, no doubt because it disassociated itself from Origen's theory coming down on the side of traducianism. W. Telfer has however shown that Ny­ ssen made use of Gentile anthropology only to enhance orthodox doctrine or to embellish his argument that mind is the faculty in which man is most evidently Seen to be in the divine image '. Nyssen realised that mind was, to some extent, influenced by the body but he was first and foremost an ecclesiastical thinker who believed that learned Church­ men should best dispense anthropology to the faithful. So he gives, at the end of his work, an outline of the physiology of the heart, liver and brain introducing this with et 3e TL� em�"tjTOL'Yl 7tOCVTWV OCUT:WV T1jv eXXA'YlcrLocv 3LMcrXocAOV ytvecr6ocL, w� d� (J.'Yl3ev Tii c; e�weev cpwv1jc; em3e:1:cr0ocL 5. The Cappadocean Father is not seeking to develop a Christian philosophical anthropology which would be a point of contact with educated pagans of his day. His aim is not apologetic but ecclesiastical - to reinforce the faith of those within the Christian community. An essay in Christian anthropology which goes beyond the bibli­ cal data occurs in Nemesius of Emesa's work On the Nature of Man 6. Nemesius belongs to the second half of the fourth century and was probably baptized late in life, c. 390 A. D. His work is an ou tstanding piece of Christian apologetic addressed to a moderately cultured pub­ lic outside the Church which had some rudimentary knowledge of Chris. • •

2 . W. TELFER, "The Birth of Christian Anthropology", Journal of Theologicat Studies 18, 1962 p. 34.9. 3. Ed. G. H. FORB E S 1 855 - 61. q. Ibid. p. 350. 5. De Hom. Opif. 30. 6. Ed. C. F. MATTHAEI, H alle 1802. English version by W. TELFER, Library of Ch,.istian Classics, 1 955, Vol. q p. 201 - q55

244

tianity and the contents of Scripture. Nemesius' fundamental interest lay in ethics and the pursuit of virtue. However for him body and soul were one indissoluble union so before discussing the dispositions of the soul he informs his readers of the facts of the body. Nemesius is heavily indebted to the medical knowledge of Galen's works, although he is no uncritical follower of the great physician and uses at times other medical opinion - taking sides against Galen on more than one occasion. It is likely that Nemesius had studied medicine as a department of phi­ losophy, as he never appeals to his own clinical experience or gives any indication of having himself been in medical practice. If we exclude the few specifically Christian passages in On the Narture of Man, what re­ mains is a Graeco - Roman work on anthropology. It therefore seems likely that Nemesius, after becoming a bishop, rewrote a pre - conversion treatise on anthropology on which he may have worked for many years. His aim is to appeal obliquely to a non - Christian public by using mate­ rial which formed part of the thought world of his day. Yet he is no syncretist and hints at a deeper wisdom possessed by the Church, int­ roduces credal themes, and hopes to draw his readers into following his own spiritual pilgrimage, i. e. to take the leap from the Graeco ­ Roman world into that of learned Christianity. His is an authentic Christian anthropology based on a life - long interest in Greek medical science in its anthropological bearing. In essence Nemesius was attemp­ ting to construct a bridge between Christianity and non - Christian thought and his work reflects the high level of culture at the close of the fourth century. Nemesius influenced J ohn Damascene 7 and much that was characteristic of his anthropology subsequently passed into the structure of Medieval Scholasti c theology. Our survey has shown that very few Christian thinkers in the first four centuries attempted to use the insights of Graeco - Roman anthro­ pology in the service of Christian truth. This reluctance is understand­ able in view of the risks entailed. A. Harnack, in another context, said that the Church, in the Greek apologists, appeared as a great in­ surance society for the ideas of Plato and Zeno 8. More recently H. Chadwick has reminded us that the apologist always runs a risk. He must express his Christian belief in terms intelligible and acceptable to the contemporary world. But he may in the end, if he is not careful, 7. In his Exposition of the Orthodox Faith Vol. 2 8. History of Dogma Vol. 2, London 1 896, p. 228

24 5 be consciously or unconsciously importing not a little non - Christian thought and piety into the Christian tradition. Goods intended for ex­ port may find an even greater sale in the home market 9. However the attempt to use the insights of the contemporary world had to be made if Christianity was not to remain a prisoner within its own tradition. Our contention is that one such early attempt was made, in the field of Christian anthropology, in the work m:pl 'AVOCCl""t"oc cre:C04;, (De Resurrec­ tione), attributed to the late - second century A. D. apologist Athena­ goras. We will seek to show that this work is correctly attributed to Athenagoras, the author of the 1tpe:(l"�doc or Supplicatio for the Christians. Our contention is that De Resurrectione is the earliest attempt from within the Church to work out a specific Christian anthropology which goes beyond the biblical data, antedating not only the more tentative effort of Origen but also the more polished work of Nemesius by some two centuries. II. THE PROBLEM OF AUTIIOHSHIP AND DATE

The date of Athenagoras' work, the Supplicatio, can be determined within narrow limits. It is addressed to the Emperors Marcus Aurelius Antoninus and Lucius Aurelius Commodus. Commodus, the young prince, became associated with his father Marcus Aurelius as Emperor on 27 November 1 76, when he was granted imperium, and Marcus died at Vienna on 1 7 March 180. As Athenagoras caUs both men Emperors the work must have been composed somewhere between these two dates. Doubts have been raised as to the authenticity of the title of the work which appears in the tenth century Arethas Codex10• However its trustworthiness is corroborated by internal references in the body of the work to the two Emperors. Thus in Suppl. 18, 2 Athenagoras says: ' For as all things have been subjected to you, a father and a son, who have received your kingdom from above'; while in Suppl. 37, 2 he ends his work with these words: 'who pray for your reign that the succession to the kingdom may proceed from father to son, as is most j ust, and that your reign may grow and increase as aU men become subject to you'. This was a graceful compliment to the young Commodus with perhaps a hint that his succession would not be long delayed. Marcus' ill health 9. The Sentences of Sextus, Cambridge 1959, p. 161 10. C. C. RICHARDSON, Ea,.ly Ch,.istian Fathe,.s, London, 1953 p. 291

246

and weakness during the last five years of his life was common knowled­ ge and his Meditations are full of references to the nearness of death. The mention of 'Armenian victors' in the title to the Supplicatio was challenged by T. Mommsenll• and E. Schwartz12 on the grounds that this was inappropriate when applied to Commodus as he had never been awarded that title although it had been borne by Lucius Verus, son - in - law and brother of Marcus Aurelius, as well as by Marcus himself. In order to surmount the difficulty Mommsen and Schwartz proposed to change 'Ap(J.e:VLOCXOi:C; to re:p(J.OCVLxo'i:C; as the title 'German Victors' could be allowed to both Marcus Aurelius and Commodus. Ho­ wever G. Portal3 has shown from unofficial papyri and inscriptions that 'Armenian' victor was a title used by Marcus after the death of Lu­ cius Verus and that it was also given to Commodus. The Supplicatio then undoubtedly comes from the period 176 80 A. D. and consists of categorical answers to three charges frequently made against Chris­ tians in the second century, viz. atheism, cannibalism and incest. In refuting these charges Athenagoras draws on much non - Christian philosophical thought. A Malherbe has shown that the structure of the Supplicatio fits into the framework of the Middle Platonist AI­ binus' treatise Didaskalikos14• Athenagoras is acutely aware of the chal­ lenge to Christians from Graeco - Roman philosophy to understand their tradition in a philosophical way without recourse to scriptural arguments. So he appeals to a common ground shared with his readers and propounds a modus vivendi. The treatise De Resurrectione presents problems as to authorship and date. In the Arethas Codex Parisinus Graecus 451 it follows the Supplicatio and has the title Tor ArTor TIEPI ANAl:TAl:EOl: NE­ KPON. It is likely that the archetype bore only the title TIEPI ANA­ l:TAl:E!ll: NEKPQN and that either Arethas, or Baanes, prefixed Tor ArTor TIEPI to the title and added, at the end of the work, A0HN Aropor TIEPI ANAl:T Al:Enl:. The lack of independent evi­ dence for the authorship and date of the work and doubts raised by the textual tradition have led some scholars to argue that De Resurrectione -

1 1 . Theologische Jah,.biiche,. 14., 1 855, p. 250 12. T & U q. 2, 1891, p. 1 13. «La dedica e la data della TIpea�e(a di Atenagorall, Didaskalion, 5, 1-2, 1916 p. 53 - 70. Against this T. D. BARN E S, Journal of Theological Studies 26, 1975 p. 1 1 2 1q. « The Structure of Athenagoras, Supplicatio pro Christianisll, Vigiliae Chris­ lianlUl 23, 1 969, 1 20 -

247 is a later work not by Athenagoras. The most exhaustive attempt to prove this is that of R. M. Grant15 who holds that the work is a third or early fourth century production directed against Origen's doctrine of the resurrection. Recently his arguments have been supported and extended by W. R. Schoedel16• Grant believes that the view of the resurrection in De Resurrectione does not correspond to that given in the Supplicatio in that 'Spirit' is never mentioned in the former alt­ hough it is in Suppl. 31 , 4. Moreover the treatise relies mainly on Aris­ totelian arguments for the resurrection whi.le in Suppl. 36, 3 Athenagoras looks forward to Platonic and Pythagorean parallels. He holds that the work opposes Christian views of the resurrection rather than those of pagans. While this theory is worked out with great ingenuity it falls far short of proof. In the first place in Suppl. 31, 4 Athenagoras is re­ ferring to Paul's conception of the after - life in 1 Cor. 1S, 51. After death, he says, we shall live another better life - a heavenly, not. an earthly one. We shall abide with God as 'heavenly spirit' rather than as 'flesh'. In other words flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of heaven. In De Resurrectione, although the author argues from rational premises for belief in a resurrection, it is noticeable that he completes the argument of 1 Cor. 15 by alluding to Paul's view that the corrup­ tible must put on incorruption. So De Res. 18, 5: 'What follows is clear to everyone: that this corruptible and dispersible body must, according to the apostle, put on incorruptibility so that, when the dead are revi­ vified through the resurrection and what has been separated or entirely dissolved is reunited, each may receive his just recompense for what he did in the body, whether good or evil'. It is also to be noted that Athena­ goras sometimes completes quotations later within the Supplicatio it­ self; so Matth. 5, 44, quoted in Suppl. 1 1 , 2, is completed by Matth. 5, 46 in Suppl. 12, 3. Any differences in the idea of the resurrection bet­ ween the two works are, in fact, already found in 1 Cor. and are not in­ dications of difference in authorship. Grant's further argument that Athenagoras anticipates Plato­ nic and Pythagorean parallels to the resurrection at the end of the Supplicatio but Aristotelian arguments appear in De Resurrectione is based on a misunderstanding of Suppl. 36, 3. All that Athenagoras says 15. ((Athenagoras or Pseudo - Athenagoras)). Harvard Theological Review q7, 195q, 121 - 9 16. ATHE NAGORAS: Legatio and De Resurrectione, Oxford 1972 p. XXV - XXXII

248 is that there is nothing in the teaching of Pythagoras or Plato which opposes the view that when bodies dissolve they can be reconstituted from the same elements of which they were originally made. According to the doxographers Pythagoras and Plato taught that the elements could be changed into one another and it is possible that Athenagoras has this in mind. In any event he does not say in Suppl. 36, 3 that he will develop Plato's and Pythagoras' ideas in another work. Athenagoras' philosophical background lies in Middle Platonism which was an eclec­ tic amalgam of different philosophical schools with the Platonist ele­ ment uppermost. That Aristotelian arguments appear in one work and Platonic arguments in another is no proof per se of difference of author­ ship. The same Platonic terms appear in both works and even the ar­ gument for the Christian doctrine of the bodily resurrection in De Re­ surrectione is one which a Platonist would find most novel and provo­ cative. Grant's and Schoedel's view that De Resurrectione is prima­ rily directed against Origen's doctrine of the resurrection is again dif­ ficult to maintain. The treatise never mentions Origen by name, which is significant and, apart from the allusion to 1 Cor. 15, 53 in De Res. 18, 5, never directly quotes any biblical texts concerning the resurrec­ tion. This is strange if the author is confuting so great a biblical exposi­ tor as Origen. It is relevant here to appeal to Methodius, bishop of O­ lympus in the early - fourth century, who argues strongly against Ori­ gen's view of the resurrection of the body - which he holds is ultim ately Platonic - and in the process several times mentions Origen by name. Moreover Methodius constantly quotes biblical texts, particularly from the Gospels and the Pauline epistles, in confronting Origen' s allegorisms. This is in marked contrast to the approach of the author of De Re­ surrectione and it seems more likely that the latter has in mind not fol­ lowers of Origin but philosophical enquirers and disputants who were unfamiliar with the Christian belief in the resurrection or who were in an early stage of instruction. We will return to the sitz im Leben of the treatise shortly. Schoedel .places great emphasis on the problem of chain - con­ sumption which appears in De Res. 4, 3 - 4 in which the author re­ fers to those who dispute the resurrection on the grounds that men have been known to devour their own children so that the same parts cannot rise again in both sets of individuals. He argues that as this argument does not occur in Celsus' attack on the Christian view of the -

-

249

resurrection and that Tertullian only alludes to the problem of bodies being eaten by fish, animals and birds17 then it must come from a period later than the second century. He points out that Porphyry (233 c. 301 A. D.) raised the problem of chain consumption against the Chris­ tian doctrine of the resurrection and rej ected the appeal to the power of GOd18• Later Gregory Nyssen faced the argument of 'chain - consump­ tion' and rejected it. It seems to me that little can be deduced from the references given by Schoedel19• At some point a group of disputants queried the resurrection on the grounds of 'chain consumption'. On Schoedel's showing this happened in the time of Porphyry. Equally well it could have happened some sixty or seventy years earlier in the time of Athenagoras. As Celsus wrote at the same time as Athenagoras we would hardly expect him to know of new arguments which had j ust arisen. It is not to be supposed that Christians first began discussing their faith only after the time of Origen. Earlier literature shows that, in fact, disputation on many topics went on throughout the second century. I f then Grant's and Schoedel's arguments are unconvincing we must ask what evidence there is for assigning the Suppliratio and De Resurreetione to the same period, in the last quarter of the se­ cond century, and to the same hand ? In Suppl. 37, 1 Athenagoras says, , AAA' ocvocxdcr6w [J.E:V b 1te:pt ,,�c; ocvOCG-roccre:wc; Myoc;. The plain meaning of OCVOCXELcr6w [J.ev is that he intends to deal with the subject on another occasion. If De Resurreetione is not by Athenagol'as then there must have once existed another treatise on this subject by this author. But no such treatise is known. Then De Resurreetione fits the climate of the late - second century just as easily as it can be made to fit a milieu associated with discussions on the resurrection by Methodius and Gre­ gory Nyssen. So in De Res. 5 6 the author has close parallels with Ga­ len's Nat. rae. 1 , 10; 3, 13 in his view of the digestive processes and the cleansing and dissolution in the feeding process; in De Res. 18, 4 with the second century Middle Platonist Albinus Epit. 23, 3; and in De Res. 20, 2 with Lucian in his use of the rare verb e1te:�crxuXAe:LV20. Moreover the -

-

17. De Res. Cam. 32 is. Fl'. 9q, HARNACK 19. Ibid. p. xxvi xxix 20. J. H . eRE II A N , Athenagoras' Embassy for the Christians and Resurrection of the Dead, Ancient Christian Writers 23, 1956, p. 1 7 9 n. SO -

250 style of De Resurrectione closely agrees with that of the Supplicatio with the sole difference that a more formal tone sometimes appears in the former as befitted a public lecture. J . H. Crehan observes that the adjective ocv6pwmxoc; which is used for 'human' exclusively in the Sup­ plicatio is replaced by ocv6pwmvoc; or ocv6p6me�oc; in De Resurrectione21• Both works have many words in common as a cursory inspection of the index to E. Schwartz's edition shows22• Even Schoedel admits that there is no fundamental difference between the vocabulary and style of the two treatises23• A further significant point is that the same quotations appear in both works. Thus in Suppl. 12, 3 Athenagoras quotes the saying 51tV0c; xoct M.vrt:roc; 3L3up.ocove from Homer, Iliad 16, 672 and this is repeated in De Res. 16, 5, 'nvec; OC3EACPOV TOU 6OCVOCTOU 1'0'1 iS1tVov ovo(J.OC�OUo"LV. Even more interesting is the treaLment of the few Old Testament quotations in both works24. I n Suppl. 9, 2 Athenagoras quotes Exod. 20, 2, 3 (the introduction and first of the ten commandments) and also Isa. 44, 6; 43, 10, 11 and 66, 1 as a buttress for his argument for monotheism. All of these quotations are very close to the LXX with the exception of Exod. 20, 3 where Athenagoras has ou AOYLu6�GeTOCL hepoc; 1tpOC; OCUTOV for the LXX oux eGOVTOCL GOL 6eot hepoL 1tA�V E(J.OU. In the quotation of Isa. 43, 11 Athenagoras omits GW�WV presumably because he did not wish to refer to God as 'saviour' in view of the many saviour cults of the Grae­ co - Roman world. In Suppl. 10, 4 he quotes Provo 8, 22 exactly and in Suppl. 12, 3 he quotes Isa. 22, 13 (cf. 1 Cor. 15, 32 ) OCyw(J.&v xoct 1t(w­ (J.ev, ocupwv yocp oc1t06v�O"X0p.ev. These six quotations are the sum total of Athenagoras' use of the LXX in his Supplicatio. In the treatise De Resurrectione there are only two LXX quotations. The first, in De Res. 19, 3 is an exact quotation of Isa. 22, 13, already found in Suppl. 12, 3. And in De Res. 23. 3, 4 the author quotes exactly the fifth and the se­ venth commandments from Exod. 20, 12, 13 (cf. Luke 18, 20). It is no­ ticeable that the first of these, in both works, is made against a backg­ round of coming judgement. If De Resurrectione is by another later writer it is scarcely conceivable that, in his only two LXX quotations, he would 21. Ibid. p. 8 22. T & U IV 2 , Leipzig 1891, Index Verborum p. 80 - 14.3 23. Ibid. p. xxv 24.. L. W. BARN A RD , "The Old Testament and the Authorship of Athenagoras' de resurrectione", Journal of Theological Studies 18, 1967 p. 4.32 - 3

251

have chosen for the first the same quotation as is found in the Suppli­ catio and that he would use the same chapter of Exodus as already used in the other work. With such a sparse use of the Old Testament in both works it would seem that the statistical chances of this happening are very remote indeed. While certainty is impossible it would seem that the above points, when taken together, are of considerable weight and make it probable that the Supplicatio and De Resurrectione come from the same hand. It is however impossible to say what time elapsed, after Athenagoras had completed the Supplicatio, before he put into coherent form his thoughts on the nature of the resurrection. All we can say is that De Resurrectione, in its final form, must belong to the last two decades of the second century A. D. To whom did Athenagoras address his treatise ? In its present form it would seem that it was intended as a public lecture. So in De Res. 23, 6 the author says: 'We have not made it our goal to leave nothing on the subject unsaid but to show in summary form to those assembled (OCAAOC 1:0 xe:cpoc)..ocLw8w4; t)7t03e:'L�OCL 1:0'L4; mJVe:AOOUCrLV ) what one ought to think about the resurrection and to adapt to the capacity of those present the arguments leading to the truth'. In 1 , 3 the author speaks of a plea on behalf of the truth directed to those who disbelieve or dispute it, and a plea concerning the truth to those who are well disposed and receive the truth gladly. The treatise, in fact, divides into two halves corres­ ponding to this purpose, viz. 1, 3 1 1 , 2 presents arguments 'concerning' the truth. This somewhat stylised division suggests that Athenagoras has put together, in lecture form, earlier discussions and debates on this subject2li. If he is to be connected with the Alexandrian catecheti­ cal school, as Philip of Side states in a fragment preserved by Nicepho­ rus Callistus26, then these debates fall into a natural milieu. It would -

25. ARISTOTLE, Rhet. 1, 1, 1355a 4., draws a distinction between the require­ ments of rhetoric and those of constructive philosophical statements. J E R O M E , Ep. 4.8, 13 refers to the tradi tion of the schools as Aristotelian and distinguishes between rhetorical exercises intended to confute ' outside' opponents and the less sub tle ap­ proaches intended to convince 'inside' disciples: cr. also Albinus, Isag. 6; Philo of Larissa, in Stobaeus. Eel. 2, 7. Athenagoras' two - fold division into arguments 'on behalf of' and 'concerning' the truth had a long history behind it. See further S H O E D E L, Ibid. p. xxx. 26. H . DOWELL, Dissel'tationes in Irenaeum, Oxford 1 689, p. 488; MI G N E PC 6, 1 82. The reference to a shelter for camels in De Res. 12, 2 also suggests an Egyptian

252 seem that behind our present treatise lie discussions with those who deny the resurrection outright, i. e. pagans, with those Christians who dispute the doctrine and with other Christians who are shaken by these disputes - Athenagoras makes this distinction in De Res. 1, 5. In 3, 3, referring to his belief that God can re - unite the fragments of bodies torn apart by animals, he states: 'This view seems to have greatly upset some people even among those admired for their wisdom, because for some reason which I cannot grasp they regarded the doubts voiced by the crowd as strong arguments'. Behind this revealing text there lies considerable debate and discussion about the nature of the resurrection involving Christians and pagans. The way in which Athenagoras refers to the Law (23, 2), the Gospel (9, 2) and 'the apostle' (18, 5) suggests also a continuing debate within the Christian community itself and it is not to be supposed that this only began with Origen's speculations. Celsus c. A. D. 1 77 summarises pagan objections in his attack on Chris­ tianity. He calls it the hope of worms; for what sort of human soul would have any further desire for a body that had rotted ? 'The idea of resur· rection is both revolting and impossible'. The Christian answer that anything is possible to God is an outrageous refuge. Celsus accepts an eternal life for the soul, but as to the body, with Heraclitus, corpses are worse than dung27. Celsus formulates clearly the main obj ections to the Christian belief in the resurrection of the body and it is these that are dealt with in the treatise De Resurrectione. I t is also possible that Athenagoras was not insensitive to other criticisms of Christianity of the kind which appear in Celsus AA'Yl6�c; A6yoC;, as I have shown else­ where28. Even more revealing is the recently discovered Epistle to Rheginos on the Resurrection which is to be dated in the second century and pro­ bably emanates from a Valentinian group29. This presupposes widespread '

milieu as the camel was unknown in Greece and Asia Minor but in Egyp t it was used in the postal service. 2 7 . Contra Celsum 5, 1q 28. L. W. B A R N A R D , Athenagoras: A Study in Second Century Christian Apolo­ getic, TMologie Historique 18, Paris, 1 9 72 pp. 65 - 8 29. Ed. M. MAL I N I N E , H . - C. PUECH, G. QUISPEL, W. TILL, Ziirich - Stuttgart, 19 63. M. L. PE EL, The Epistle to Rheginos, London, 1969, pp. q8 - 9 argues that behind the questions raised by Rheginos are sceptical views of those who deny a resurrection in any type oC body, as well as objections raised by more ' orthodox' Chris­ tians. Peel dates ad Rheginos c. 175 - 200 AD (p. 180).

25 3 questioning (��"t"1)!1- oc ) of the doctrine of the resurrection from within the Church. The writer knew certain people 'who raise questions about their problem, whether the redeemed, if he leave behind his body, will forthwith be saved' (47). The author does not reject the resurrection of the flesh although his outlook is Gnostic in tendency. The flesh, for ad Rheginos, is taken up in the resurrection which is not a purely spi­ ritual phenomenon but comprises spirit, soul and flesh. The Nag Ham­ madi discoveries show that the belief that the Gnostics flatly denied the resurrection of the flesh is no longer tenable. In fact they were tak­ ing p art in a debate on a highly controversial theme which attracted many other Christian writers in the second century30. It would seem that Athenagoras' De Resurrectione was one contri­ bution to this long standing debate which went on throughout the se­ cond century. The Church's enemies were, in this, not primarily Gnostics (to whom Athenagoras never refers) but pagan critics and those within its own fold. This mixed character of the debate may account for what is, on the surface, a startling fact about De Resurrectione. Athenagoras attempts to demonstrate the reality of a bodily resurrection without any appeal to the resurrection of Jesus himself. In this he is one with Tatian, Theo­ philus, the compiler of the Sentences of Sextus and Minucius Felix who likewise omit any reference to Jesus' life, death and resurrection. This may have been a strength strange though it appears to our biographi­ cal interests. We know from Galen that there was considerable pagan criticism of the founders of schools with which Christians were adver­ sely compared. Origen tells us that sometimes when conversing with pagan friends, he found them so hostile to Christianity and the name of Christ that he thought it wise to conceal that his teaching was Chris­ tian until a point was reached when the person approved of his teaching then he would disclose that the doctrine was that of the Christians31• Behind De Resurrectione lay considerable discussion with pagans and Christians who denied or were troubled by the doctrine of the resurrec­ tion. The lack of any reference to Christ's resurrection was an unders­ tandable and natural omission in the milieu of the late - second century. 30. Further Gnostic references in Gospel of Philip 21, 23, 63, 67, 90. Other re­ ferences in J U STIN, Dial. 80; MINUC. FELIX, 34., 11; Acta Pauli et Thecla 5, 12; Mar­ tyr. Polye. 1 4.; THE OPHlLUS, Ad A utoZ. 1 , 13; Epist. Apost. 22 - 5; TERTULLIAN, De Res. Garn. 1 . 31. Hom. in Jer. 20, 5

254 In the late - third or early - fourth century it would have been an anach­ ronism. Jerome was to comment unfavourably on this omission when castigating Rufinus for ascribing the Sentences of Sextus to Xystus, the Christian martyr - bishop32. III. THE INFLUENCE OF GALEN

De Resurrectione contains a surprIsmg amount of medical know­ ledge which finds an exact p arallel in the writings of the great physician Galen. Galen was born at Pergamum, in Asia Minor, in A. D. 129 and died in Rome c. A. D. 199. He came to Rome in 162 and remained there for the rest of his life, apart from a short period in his native city from 166 - 169. Galen was one of the most celebrated physicians, philoso­ phers and grammarians of his day, a man of extraordinary vigour and fertility whose output of learned works was enormous - the edition of C. E. Kuhn includes one hundred and twenty works and many more are known to have once existed. It is an interesting fact that the Arabs knew more works of Galen than did the scholars of Renaissance Europe and it is the Arabic tradition which has preserved the fullest knowledge of his references to Jews and Christians. As a philosopher Galen, like Justin Martyr and Athenagoras, was strongly indebted to second - cen­ tury Middle Platonism - Albinus had been his teacher c. 150 - although, throughout his life, he refused to commit himself to any particular school in either philosophy or medicine. He preferred to remain inde­ pendent and declared his ignorance as to the immortality of the soul and eternity of the world rather than believe in them without cogent demonstration. A thorough training in scientific logic was, he held, in­ dispensable to every serious student of philosophy and medicine. Galen came into contact with both Jews and Christians in Rome. There were many Jews resident in the Imperial capital and, in the reign of Domitian in the decade before Galen's birth, we hear of many sena­ tors who looked favourably on J udaism and had Jewish friends33. Galen strongly criticised the Jewish conception of God and the divine omni­ potence holding that the days of Moses and the prophets were now over and that men must proceed by strict logic as philosophers had taught the Greek world for some five hundred years. Blind faith must, from 32. Ep. 1 33, 3 quoted in H. CHAD WICK , The Sentences of Sextus, ibid p. 120 33. H. I. BELL, Juden und Griechen im romischen Alexandreia, Leipzig 1926, p. 31 rr.

255 now on, be replaced by reasoned truth. I t would seem likely that this argument against J udaism was known to certain circles of Christian philosophy. It is significant that, whereas earlier apologists such as Justin had treated the Old Testament as a praeparatio evangelica and quoted it in detail, Athenagoras largely ignores it and concentrates on Platonism as the preparation par excellence. And as Galen was op­ posed to the allegorical interpretation of the Old Testament so Athena­ goras makes no use of it. Galen's opinion of the Christians, preserved in several texts, was unbiased, sympathetic and non - polemical. He was particularly im­ pressed by their high standard of morality, pagan evidence which con­ firms the statements of the Christian apologists as to the moral eleva­ tion which Christianity had brought into the world: 'Just as now we see people called Christians showing their faith from parables (and miracles), and yet sometimes acting in the same way (as those who philosophise ). For their contempt of death (and of its sequel ) is patent to us everyday, and likewise their restraint in cohabitation .... and they also number individuals who, in self-discipline and self - control in matters of food and drink, and in their keen pursuit of justice, have attained a pitch not inferior to that of genuine philosophers'34. Galen was also impressed by the attempt Christians were making to educate the multitude - his philosophical attitude allowed him to fit this phenomenon into the categories provided by the Academic tradi­ tion. In the opinion of R. Walzer Galen is the first pagan author who implicitly places Greek philosophy and the Christian religion on the same footingSii• Yet throughout his life he held that an uncritical faith in a particular school, whether Christian or pagan, was hostile to ge­ nuine knowledge and truth; indeed he compares the followers of Moses and Christ to the degenerate philosophical and medical schools of the second century which put loyalty to the school and its founder before loyalty to the truth36• It is significant that Athenagoras nowhere in his 3q. Preserved only in Arabic quotations; Plato Arabus 1, p 99 35. R. WALZER, Galen on Jews and Christians, Oxford 19q9, p. q3. 36. WALZER, Ibid. p. q2

256

works mentions Jesus as the founder of Christianity but only refers to him as the Son of God and Word of the Father. It is just possible that Athenagoras was aware of pagan criticisms of the founders of schools and so presented Christianity as 'the truth' rather than as a body of pre­ cepts laid down by Jesus. In this he differs in emphasis from J ustin Martyr who quotes many details from Jesus' life and teaching. Galen challenged the Christians to understand their tradition in a philosophi­ cal way without recourse to a detailed treatment of scriptural texts or to 'unphilosophical myths and miraculous tales'. R. Walzer, in his erudite work3', has put forward an ingenious theory that Galen strongly influenced a philosophically minded group of Christians in Rome c. A. D. 180, led by Theophilus of Byzantium38, who used post - Aristotelian logic in working out their theological doc­ trines. Theodotus held an adoptionist Christology which caused him to come into acute confJict with Victor, bishop of Rome. Walzer points out that in a section of a contemporary pamphlet, preserved by Euse­ bius39, directed against this group come these words: "Thus some of them make a laborious study of Euclid, they admire Aristotle and Theophrastus, and some of them almost worship Galen ( rOCA'YjVOC; '(ocp tcrwc; u7t6 'twwv xoct 7t p o(j)(UVe:L't'oc�)". Walzer believes that this group lar­ gely depended on the logic of Galen and that he was therefore instru­ mental in building up a Christian philosophy in Rome which was inde­ pendent of, and anterior to, the Alexandrian school of Clement and 0rigen. This however is to strain too far the highly rhetorical form of Eusebius' hostile fragment. I L need not be doubted that Christians in Rome were acquainted with Galen and he with them. It is however uncer­ tain how far Theodotus of Byzantium's school, if such existed, was in­ fluenced by Galen to the chagrin of the loyal Christians in Rome. Lo­ gic - chopping was a commonplace in the philosophical environment of the second century40 and the fact that adoptionists engaged in it is hardly proof that they were intent on building up a philosophical system anterior to that of Plotinus and Porphyry on the pagan side and to that of Origen on the Christian side. 37 . Ibid. p. 75 - 86 38. HIPPOLYTUS, Refutatio 7, 35; EPIPHANIUS, Hae,.. 53, 1, 3. 39. HE. 5. 28, 1 3 H 4.0. CHRYSIPPUS, Stoic. pet. f,.. 2, p. 5 - 7, 4.5 - 7, 59, 125; SEN ECA, Ep. 4.5, 6 - 10; M. AURELIUS, Med. 1, 17, 9; TE RTULLIAN, De p,.aesc,.. hae,.. 7 -

257 Is there other evidence to support the view that Athenagoras was influenced by Galen in the way he presented the Christian case in his work ? It is significant that Galen's references to Christians appear equal­ ly in his philosophical and medical works and that he wrote philoso­ phical excurses to his medical works in which he interpreted his medical knowledge in the light of contemporary philosophy. The philosophical treatise De Resurreetione records a surprising amount of medical know­ ledge which finds an exact parallel in Galen. In De Res. 4, 1 - 5, 3 the author counters the objection that if a man is eaten by beasts which then become the food of other men a separation of bodies and consequ­ ent resurrection become impossible. In De Res 5, 3 Athenagoras descri­ bes in detail the digestive properties in man in terms strongly reminis­ cent of Galen, Nat. rae. 1. 10 ff where emulsion (XUAOC;) is brought from the digestive system and, on reaching the liver, is transformed into pneuma or natural spirit, which is the sustenance of the vital principle. Athenagoras is very close to this in his description of the digestive pro­ cess that takes place in the liver and where the food undergoes trans­ formation. In De Res. 6, 1 , 2 Athenagoras describes the three cleansings and dissolutions in the feeding of a living being, i. e. presentation, ad­ hesion and assimilation or cooking, ingesting and emulsification (1tE�LC;, &vocaocnc;, XUAWGLC;) j ust as Galen describes them in Nat. rae. 2, 8, I I I ff and 3, 13, 200. Athenagoras then describes the natural process of strain­ ing (i. e. drawing off the moisture from food) in the manner of Galen, Nat. rae. 1, 15, 58 who compares the action of the kidneys to that of wicker strainers (-rOCAOCpOC;) into which curdled milk is thrown during cheese - making. In De Res. 6, 3 the stronger and weaker elements in digestion are described in terms reminiscent of the interplay of rival forms in Plato, Phaedo 102d - 106e, and Galen, Nat. rae. 1, 10, 22 who has the same metaphor explaining why meat is more nourishing to men than radishes. Then comes a description of the conversion of food in the belly into humours or j uices (xu(J.ot) which is similar to that of Galen who held it to be the work of many organs. In De Res. 7, 1 Athenagoras states his belief in the resurrection of the body in these words: 'In fact, even if one admits that food from such sources - let us use the normal term food - though contrary to nature, is broken up and transformed into one of the substances which are wet or dry or hot or cold, even so t7

258

our opponents can gain advantage from such concessions. Bodies which arise are reconstituted from their own parts. None of the things to which we have referred is such a part nor does it possess anything like the nature or function of a part. Moreover it will not remain permanently in the parts of the body now being nourished nor will it arise with the parts that arise ; since in that state blood, phlegm, bile, or breath will make no further contribution to life. For then bodies will not need the nourishment they once needed, since the usefulness of what nourished them will disappear when these organisms have no further need of nourish­ ment and have undergone dissolution41. In Galen's system the opposites of wet and dry, hot and cold play an important role (De Aliment 1). Galen too refers to the four humours of blood, phlegm, yellow bile and black bile (Nat. Hom. 1. 18) and this may have originally stood in Athenagoras' text. The above quotations show that Athenagoras had a good knowledge of medical science to which he attempted to relate theology. Our sugges­ tion is that he was familiar with Galen's attempt to use his wide medical knowledge within a system of philosophy. Indeed it is possible that he knew some of Galen's works or had knowledge of his medical and philo­ sophical teaching. There were constant contacts between Rome and Alexandria which were facilitated by the well known trade route through Puteoli. Codices, like persons, were easily conveyed from the one city to the other. It is a remarkable fact that in the century after Athenago­ ras' time, there was little or no interest in Galen among Christians. Gre­ gory Nyssen, in his sermon In Sanctum Pascha42 'however draws on Galen's medical theory. More significant is Nemesius of Emesa (late fourth century) who had read deeply in the great physician and was profoundly influenced by his treatises. After Nemesius' time J ohn Phi­ loponus43, a figure in the Alexandrian Christian philosophy of the sixth century, found support from Galen in refuting by philosophical arguU.

Cf. also AUG USTINE, Serm. 2q3, 7 and S.

THOMAS, I V Sent. qq, 1 , 2, 3 ad 2.

q2. Ed. E. GEBHARDT, Gregorii Nysseni Opera: Sermones, Pars I, Leiden pp. 2q5 70 q3. De aetemitate mundi contra Proclum, published in AD 529. -

1967,

259 ments the Aristotelian and Neoplatonic doctrine of the eternity of the world. This type of Christian philosophy was to influence profoundly Islamic religious thought. Athenagoras however anticipated this attempt by several centuries in his work De Resurrectione. Like Galen he opposed an uncritical faith that had no place for genuine knowledge. True Chris­ tianity for him was not only opposed to pagan polythcism but also to those Christians who opposed logic and scientific medicine. In this Athenagoras was a pioneer Christian thinker. IV. ANTHROPOLOGY AND THE IMMORTALITY OF T H E SOUL

1. A nthropology Athenagoras' doctrine of man follows logically from his belief con­ cerning the Primary Cause. The origin of the human race is either de­ pendent on no cause at all or on God44• One has to choose between the two and Athenagoras has no doubt where the choice should lay. God made the bodies of men at their first formation as He brought into being the original elements of which they were to consist. Man in his former state however did not come into being at the first crcation45• Athenago­ ras states the possibility of an evolution of human bodies from a primal matter created by God in De Res. 3, 2:
260

favoured an origin from a common matter, Anaxagoras and Asclepiades from irreductible elements while Galen held the idea of an origin from seed'7. While he offers no opinion on these theories Athenagoras clearly holds that the evolution of man from primary matter is possible and does not violate Christian doctrine nor the principles of right reason. The treatise De Resurrectione, like the works of Justin Martyr, says nothing about the origin of the soul. But since Athenagoras mentions the possibility of the body being the result of evolution from primary matter he excludes that possibility for the soul which he states is im­ mortal and will endure even apart from the body after death. The soul is the seat of personality and the rational faculty, the focus of personal existence, the life - giving principle of body wherein resides the image of the Creator. Probably Athenagoras thought of the soul as the immediate creation of God. Following J ustin he rejects, with Middle Platonism, the Aristotelian belief47cx that the soul was an attribute of the body and could not exist without it. H owever he differs from Justin in emphasis­ ing that man is not soul alone, nor body alone, but a composite being of the two elements fused into one. Body and soul are two incomplete but supporting realities in man each of which pays its share of tribute (dmpopoc) to the common stock of existence. The function of the soul towards the body is that of driver or commander whose bridle rein curbs the body - here Athenagoras is close to Plato - yet in essence the two are conjoined to form one composite being48 so that to the one being is attributed all the actions of the soul and the body. The soul itself feels no appetite, no motion, no evil impulses while the body alone can­ not be held guilty of crimes committed as a result of these impulses because it has no power of j udgement and thus no responsibility. Ra­ ther passions and perfections do not belong to the body alone, nor to the soul alone, but to the composite being, man, because his life is a unity although composed of two elements, body and soul. Athenagoras constantly re - iterates in De Resurrectione that it is the compositum, the composite of body and soul, to which all deeds wrought by a given body and soul must be attributed49• This composite is endowed with reason, intelligence and judgement. Moreover man, the compositum, has freeq7.

Nat. rae. 1, 6

q7cx. :Ew(Lcx-r6c; 'n ; De Anima U 7a. q 8 . De Res. 12, 8

q9.

De Res. 15, 3; 21, 1

-

8

261 dom to choose virtue Or vice as is shown by the common opinion of men. Thus those in authority would honour the good or punish the b ad un­ less virtue and vice were in the power of those deserving praise or blame. Athenagoras believed that the image of God was a constituent part of man's nature, and not something conferred upon him at b aptism or by grace. But this image of God in man was not a static thing, indelibly given at the soul's creation, but was rather a developing or growth to­ wards a pattern of existence. The more a man resembles God the more he is himself; and God, having imparted to him this tendency to become himself and win his soul, cannot possibly will his annihilation. It is possible that this view owes some thing to the Middle Platonist use of the Stoic "naturally formed concepts"50. Athenagoras' anthropology differs somewhat from that of Justin who held that the divine element in man was a part of the logos or of the spermatic logos. J ustin believed in the traditional three - fold di­ vision of human nature into body, soul and II veu[J.ilC. or [J.EpOC; TOU cmEP­ [J.ilC.TLXOU A6you5I- a division which was also found in Middle Platonism. Athenagoras however does not reproduce this three - fold division but emphasises more the composite nature of man as body and soul, the compositum. In this, and in spite of once stating the Platonic view of the soul as the driver of the body, he is closer to the Christian under­ standing of man than is J ustin. This Christian understanding of man itself rested on the Hebrew conception that man has not a body but is a body with no rigid distinction between physical and spiritual. Man in his totality, for this Hebrew - Christian view, is not a discarnate spirit but a spiritual entity. Athenagoras would have endorsed this - an in­ dication that he would not adopt from Greek thought any conception which ran counter to the Christian understanding of man which he had received. 2. The immortality of the soul Athenagoras held that man had been created for a purpose: 'If man, then, was not created without purpose or in vain (for noth­ ing created by God is vain at least as far as the original intention 99.

50. L. W. BARNARD, Justin Martyr; His Life and Thought, Cambridge 1967, p. fji. Dial

c.

Trypho 6; cr. 2 Apol. 10, 8; 13, 3

262

of the Creator is concerned), and was not created for the use of the Maker Himself or of any other of God's creations, it is clear that in terms of the primary and more general reason God made man for His own sake and out of the goodness and wisdom which is reflected throughout creation'52. Man, it will be noted, was not created by God for His own use, for He is in no need of any creature, nor can any creature contribute anyth­ ing to God. Neither was man made for the sake of other creatures, for nothing that is endowed with reason and j udgement has been or is creat­ ed for the use of another, whether greater or less than itself. Reason cannot discover any use which might be a cause for the creation of man. And the fact that man was not created to serve man follows from the same line of argument. As far as God is concerned man is well ordered, both by his original nature, which has one common character for all, and by the constitution of his body, which does not transgress the law imposed upon it, and by the termination of his life, which remains equal and common to all. He is governed, in general, by the laws of nature. And in that his compositum is partly material he is governed by the de­ crees in operation in the world and so his physical life on earth will one day come to an end. Yet it is proper that the universe, the product of an Intelligent Being, should contain creatures possessing intelligen­ ce reflecting the Wisdom of the Creator. God made man for the sake of the life that is in him, the life of reason and j udgement. This is the final end of man, that in the universe there should exist creatures who, through the possession of intelligence, understanding and j udgement, reflect the wisdom and intelligence of God in the most perfect manner possible. Athenagoras is the first Christian thinker to state unequivo­ cably that the end of creation is the manifestation of God's perfection in the goodness He imparts to his creatures. Theophilus of Antioch53, his near contemporary, is much vaguer on this question. The Scholastic thinkers were later to develop Athenagoras' belief in greater detailM• From Athenagoras' teaching that the purpose of man's creation is simply to live a life naturally suited to him as an intelligent being, followed his doctrine concerning the immortality of the soul which is assumed throughout the treatise De Resurrectione. The final cause of 52. De Res. 12, 5 53. Ad Autol 2, 10

M. J. H. CREHAN, op. cit. (n. 20) p. 1 7 (a

an intelligent life and rational judgement is to be occupied unceasingly with those objects to which the natural reason is chiefly and primarily adapted, and to delight in the unceasing contemplation of Him and of all that He has decreed55• "Then again, what is created for the sake of its own life and its existence according to nature, could never admit of any cause completely annihilating its being, because the cause it­ self would be comprehended within the nature and would be regarded only in the aspect of one that exists"56. But since this cause is seen to lie in perpetual existence, the being so created must be preserved fore­ ver. The soul, the seat of the rational faculty in man, is therefore by virtue of its nature and its final cause, indestructible and immortal and will continue in existence, even after its separation at death from the compositum. The argument for the perpetual endurance in being of the human soul is put by Athenagoras in De Res. 12 in the form that was to become traditional in the scholastic schools. When he says that "the cause itself would be comprehended within the nature and would be regarded only in the aspect of one that exists" he is saying that God, man's cause, is Being, and that Being is related by an intrinsic analogy to the being man is said to possess, so that the two propositions: God exists - and Man exists, are both true and, to some extent, true in the same sense. Existence enters into the idea of God, for His nature is to exist, and it is ascertainable of men, though not entering into the idea of man. Yet when man is known to exist his existence is seen, because man bears the image of God, to be related by analogy to the existence of God. There is no such analogy in animals, trees or plants because, according to A­ thenagoras, there is no image of God in them, and therefore no reason for their exemption from annihilation. J. H. Crehan very acutely points out that Athenagoras anticipates all that is true in the philosophy of existentialism57 ."" Athenagoras gives no explicit teaching about the qualities of the soul, its simplicity, unity or distinction between its faculties . His main concern is to argue for the resurrection of the body and he introduces his views of the soul only in so far as they assist the establishment of his main thesis. •

55. De Res. 25, £,. 56. De Res. 12, 7 57. ACW 23, (n. 20) p. 1 7£", n. £"3

264 v.

THE RESURRECTION OF THE BOD 'l

De Resurrectione is entirely devoted to proving that the bodies of men will be reassembled and reconstituted after death and that each human individual will once more become a compositum&8, i. e. a composite of body and soul as he or she was on earth. This compositum will be changed not in substance but in length of existence as it will now be clothed with incorruptibility. The stress laid by Athenagoras and other apologists on the resurrection of the body may seem to the medern reader excessive. Yet we must remember that the reaction of Paul's Athenian audience to the proclamation of the resurrection of the dead was mockery59. Consequently, in presenting the Gospel to the Greek world, Christian thinkers were at some pains to defend this belief. Ho­ wever a change occurred in the second century in that the Pauline b e­ lief in the transformation of the body60 was replaced by a belief in rea­ nimation. So Justin states: "we expect to receive again our own bodies, though they may be dead and cast into the earth61." Tatian could boast: "Even though fire destroy all traces of my flesh, the world receives the vaporized matter, and though dispersed through rivers and seas, or torn in pieces by wild beasts, I am laid up in the store­ house of a wealthy God. And although the poor and the godless know not what is stored up yet the Sovereign God, when He pleases will restore the substance, that is visible to Him alone, to its p osi­ tive condition"62. This was to take the resurrection appearances of Christ in the body as the first fruits of the destiny of His individual followers. So Irenaeus contended that since man is a unity of body, soul and spirit, his salva­ tion would be incomplete without the physical frame; that since our bodies are temples of the Spirit, it is blasphemous to assert that they would not be raised; that God would not be omnipotent were He unable to restore the body to life63. 58. :I:uvcx!Lql6�pov (De Res. 18, q ) . Athenagoras is the first Christian thinker to use the term although it is found in the Middle Platonist ALBI N U S, Ep it. 23, 3. 59. Act. 17, 32 60. 1 Co,.. 15, qq 61. 1 Apol. 1 8 62. 0,.. 6 63. Adv. Hae,.. q, 18, 5; 5, 1, 1; 5, 6, 12

265

Athenagoras' arguments for the resurrection of the body are syste­ matically set out in De Resurrectione. The doctrine, he says, means this: that the bodies of men which have suffered dissolution from their souls at death will once more be re - united with those souls to endure thereaf­ ter perpetually. The death of human beings is therefore not on the same level with that of irrational animals, nor is the continuance of men like that of the immortals. But with the irrational animals, man must under­ go dissolution of the body, yet with the immortals he shares in immorta­ lity through his soul. It is as a human being, not as a disembodied soul, that man will and must continue forever. Athenagoras argues that for a resurrection to be impossible it is necessary that it is either beyond the power of God, or contrary to His Will, to reunite the particles of bodies after dissolution to form the same persons. But as no - one can prove that it is beyond the power of God or is contrary to His Will then a resurrection is not impossible. After the dissolution of m an's body, God will not be ignorant of the wherea­ bouts of the particles which He used for the creation of each. The resur­ rection offers no obstacle to the Wisdom and knowledge of God, nor is it beyond His Power. As H e made both the bodies of men and their original elements He will be able, with equal ease, to raise them again after their dissolution in whatever manner that may have taken place. Similarly the resurrection cannot be shown to be contrary to the Will of God. To be so it must be either unjust or unworthy of Him. I f it is unjust it must be so either in regard to the being who is to rise or to some other being. Spiritual natures cannot be injured by the resurrect­ ion of man for it is no hindrance to their existence nor is any loss or violence inflicted on them thereby. Irrational and inanimate beings sustain no wrong through the resurrection of man, for they will have no existence after the resurrection and no wrong can be done to a non existing thing any more than they can suffer an inj ustice because they have no notion of j ustice. Neither can the resurrection be unjust for man, for he suffers no wrong thereby in soul or body. As the soul suffers no wrong now, although conjoined to a body which is subject to corrup­ tion and suffering, much less will it do so when it exists with a body free from corruption and suffering. Similarly if no wrong is done to the body now much less will it be wronged when as an incorruptible it is joined with an incorruptible thing. Moreover the resurrection is not unworthy of God, for if to create a body subject to corruption and suffering were

266 not unworthy of Him, so neither is it unworthy of Him to resurrect that body as an incorruptible and impassible oneMo In giving positive arguments for the resurrection Athenagoras does not rest his case solely on the fact of a future jUdgement. This would be a fallacy as, although all men who die will rise again, not all will be judged, e. g. those who die as babies. His argument proceeds from a consideration of the final cause of man's creation to that of the nature of man as strengthening the first; then a consideration of divine justice, and finally that of the final cause of man's existence. Athenagoras points out that the final cause of man's creation, i. e. the living of a life of intelligence and judgement, can never admit of any cause which will utterly annihilate the existence of such a being. God fashioned man with a body and an immortal soul - hence the final cause of his creation is a pledge of man's perpetual continuance, and this continuance is a pledge of the resurrection, for without a resurrection man could not continue to exist. From this argument Athenagoras proceeds to consider the nature and constitution of man. Man consists of immortal soul and body and God has assigned a life of reason and j udgement, not to each part individually, but to the compositum, soul and body conjoined. I f reason and judgement were given to men for the discernment of things perceived by the understanding, and not of existences only but also of the goodness, wisdom and rectitude of their Giver, it follows that since those things, for the sake of which the ratio­ nal judgement is given, continue in existence, the judgement given for those things should also continue. But this is impossible unless the nature which has received the judgement, in which it inheres, continues. But that which has received both understanding and reason is man, not the soul alone. Man must therefore continue for ever, and this is impossible without a resurrection. In confirmation of this conclusion Athenagoras appeals again to the principle - no work of wisdom is in vain. If the nature of man does not continue, the conj oining of the soul to the body and its experiences is in vain; in vain has the body been fettered; in vain is the understanding, wisdom, observance of justice and practice of every virtue; in vain is all that is noble in man - indeed in vain is the very creation and nature of man. But since vanity must be excluded from the works of God, the conclusion is inevitable that along with the perpetual duration of the soul there must be a perpetual 64. .

De Res 10, 6

267 continuance of the body; and this is impossible without a resurrection. Athenagoras' next argument begins from the axiom; man, being rational, requires a process of judgement. Yet it is not proper that the soul alone should receive the judgement, nor the body alone, but man, the compositum. Reason does not find that this takes place in this life, since the inequality of the lot of the good and the evil is apparent to all; nor, after death, for the body and soul no longer exist together. So, in order that each man may receive in accordance with justice the due retribution for deeds wrought in the body, each must be resurrect­ ed as a human being composed again of body and soul. Athenagoras insists that a j udgement will take place and he reinforces his argument by a reductio ad absurdum. If no jUdgement is passed on the actions of men, then men are in a worse state than that of irrational beings; for if no judgement occurs then the life of animal pleasure would be best, virtue would be absurd, and the threat of a coming jUdgement a matter for great laugh ter. I ndulgence of every kind of pleasure would be the highest good, all standards of right reason would be nonsense and reason, instead of being an aid to man, would be his most pernici­ ous betrayer. Moreover, according to Athenagoras, the justice of God makes a resurrection necessary. God has assigned laws to be the norms of man's conduct, some of which are adapted to man as a corporal being, for the transgression of these is possibly only through the body. It is irrational to impose these laws on men and then to assign to their souls alone the recompense of their lawful or unlawful deeds. Without the resurrection of the body, equity is wanting in the jUdgement. But as God's judgement cannot be wanting in equity it follows that man, as a compositum of body and soul, will be rewarded or punished in the final j udgement and this necessarily involves a resurrection of the body. Athenagoras' final argument for the resurrection is drawn from the final purpose of man's existence. This, he avers, is to be occupied uninter­ ruptedly with those objects to which the natural reason is primarily adapted, and to delight unceasingly in the contemplation of Him Who gave it - notwithstanding the fact that the maj ority of men pass through life without attaining this obj ect. Since this purpose is proper to man, the composite of body and soul, and not to the soul alone, it is absolutely necessary that it should appear in some reconstitution, after their sepa­ ration, of the two together, and of the same living being. But it is impos­ sible for the same men to be reconstituted unless the same bodies are

268

restored to the same souls and this involves a resurrection. Earlier in his treatise Athenagoras considers two obj ections against the resurrection. The first is: how is it possible to separate bodies that have become parts of other bodies either through cannibalism or through animals feeding on the flesh of men and then being used as food by them ? After a long discussion on the digestive processes, which seems to owe something to Galen, he concludes, somewhat unconvincingly, that hu­ man flesh cannot ever be the nourishment of human beings as it is not their proper food and hence cannot be assimilated into another man's body. The other obj ection is that of those who argue from man's im­ potency to reconstruct an object of handicraft from the identical partic­ les, when it has been broken or worn out. This objection he regards as absurd or blasphemous; it is more probable, more absolutely true to say that what is impossible with man is possible with God. We have given a summary of Athenagoras' arguments for the re­ surrection of the body at some length because they illustrate how a Christian philosopher, schooled in Middle Platonism, and owing so much to Plato, yet reacted strongly against the Greek doctrine that the body was a prison - house of the soul and against the Platonic theory of the transmigration of souls. Athenagoras moreover tells us that sceptics were in evidence everywhere and that those who disbelieved in the resurrection, if they declared their views, merely played into the hands of those who denied the doctrine for a life of pleasure65• We must place his strong defence of this belief against the background of attacks of such pagans as Celsus who described the doctrine of the resurrection as "such a hope as might be cherished by worms"66. It was because of this kind of onslaught, and in order to sustain the antidocetic polemic, that this particular doctrine continued to be given prominence in Chris­ tian literature well into the third century. What Athenagoras says about the resurrection of the body fits in with the views of Justin Martyr; Ter­ tullian (who however went to the extreme in saying that in the resur­ rection we shall have hair, eyes and teeth de Res. carn.)67; and Cyprian , who advanced the odd argument that women should not wear cosmetics -

65. De Res, 2, 2; cf. Polyc. ad. Phil. 7, 1 66. G. Gels. 5, 1l. 67. Tertullian, unlike Athen agoras, seems to depend for his argument in De Res. cam. concerning the resurrection on the arguments of the Rabbis. J . MASSINGBERD FORD, Journal of Eccles iastical History 17, 1966, p. 15 7

2 69 since God might not recognise them at the resurrection68• Yet it is noti­ ceable that Athenagoras, while he believed in the re - animation of the particles of this body, does not wallow in a crass materialism. Thus he quotes the Pauline text I Cor. 15, 53 that this scattered and corruptible body must put on incorruption (de Res. 18); and in de Res. 12 he describes the body as under going destined changes, along with other changes in age, appearance and size, and finally undergoing resurrection-the last of such changes and a change for the better. While this is not exactly Origen's argument that the body is like a river which preserves a cer­ tain form, although its matter is constantly changing69, Athenagoras may have been feeling his way towards a doctrine of bio - spiritual evolution such as Origen held70 and which was to incur the wrath of Methodius. But he is too strongly under the influence of the New Testa­ ment, and too conscious of the attacks of sceptics against belief in the resurrection of the body, to carry his thoughts further.

VI. KNOWLEDGE AND BEING

1. Knowledge According to Athenagoras knowledge comes to man because he partakes, in a limited sense, in the intelligence of God and he can arrive at the truth because he possesses a rational nature. Although man, as a fallen creature, does not come to a perfect knowledge of God and the things pertaining to Him, because he applies himself by way of conje­ cture when left to his own devices, yet there is no surrender to scepti­ cism in Athenagoras' writings. Thus his argument from things caused to the Uncaused first Cause; from the harmony and arrangement of the creation to an infinite Intelligence; from his chief end to the certainty of a resurrection of the body and an immortal life, are patent disavo­ wals of scepticism. It is indeed the purpose of man's rational nature that he should come to knowledge, particularly of God, through contemp­ lating the Wisdom of the Creator manifested in His creation. Knowledge is clearly within the capability of man. 68. De Virgo 1 7 . JEROM E , too (c. loh. Hier. 3) is thoroughly materialistic. Gregory Nyssen attempts to refine this materialism (cr. De Anima e! Res.) 69. G. Gels. 5, 18; 6, 29; 7 , 32 70. C . Gels. 5, 23; 7, 32

270 Athenagoras recognises one source of truth, God, who reveals truth in two ways, viz. by direct inspiration and by endowing man with natu­ ral faculties for the apprehension of knowledge. Inspiration, particular­ ly revealed through the prophets, is for him the ultimate criterion of truth. But he recognises that not all things have been revealed, and so the knowledge of things which do not pertain directly to the end of man and his ultimate destiny is given through the use of the human intelligence. How then can we be sure that the human mind will not go astray in the search for truth ? Athenagoras answers this by appealing to axioms or first principles of nature and the conclusions derived from them in logical sequence: The demonstration of true doctrines of which the truth consists, or of any matters whatsoever put forward for examination, if it is to confer an unwavering confidence in what is said, has no outside source nor does it rely on what some men think or have thought, but comes from universal and natural notions or from logical de­ pendence of conclusions on axioms. It is either a question of axioms, and then all that is necessary is to put men in mind of them to excite the natural notion (xod 3e:'L f1.6v1jc; {)1tof1.v� cre:wc; rijc; -rl)v cpumx�v OCVor.XL­ vouCTrJC; �vvmor.v ) ; or else it is a question about natural conclusions, axioms and logical implication, and then one needs to observe the right order in such things, showing, what truly follows from the axioms and initial positions, so as not to be unmindful of the truth and its guarantee, nor confounding things which nature has ap­ pointed to be distinct, nor yet disturbing the natural sequence71• The truth must therefore be derived, not from what certain persons have thought or now think, but from the universal or notions of the matter or from the logical connexion of secondary truths with primary axioms. Truth is intrinsic to the object of Knowledge and can be discovered by the human mind only in the very nature of the obj ect or by reasoning, from axioms or first principles of nature. Truth is thus to be found in objective evidence, not in subjective thought. Athenagoras, in stating that there are primary truths and axioms upon which truth is based, refers to the necessity of putting men in mind of them, i. e. "recalling" or "reminding" them so as to excite or stir up the natural notion. His use of the word {)7t6 f1.v1jmc; is of some interest 7 1 . De Res. H, 1 2 -

271 because of its obvious affinity to the Platonic idea of "re - call" or "re­ miniscence" (ocVOC[J.V'YjGLC;). How far in fact was Athenagoras using Plato's theory? A. E. Taylor describes the theory in these words: 'The doctrine is that our soul is immortal and our present life only one episode in its history. I f this is so the soul must long ago have "learned" everything, and only needs to be "put in mind" of some­ thing it has temporarily forgotten in order to regain its knowledge by diligent following of the clue provided by "reminiscence". Learn­ ing, in fact, is just a process of "re - call" (ocVOC[J.V'YjGLC;), and for this reason the sophistic argument to show that it is impossible to learn a new truth is a mere appeal to mental indolence. As we are encoun­ tering the doctrine of "recollection" for the first time, it is worth­ while to note what the exact point is. It must be observed that it is not a theory of "innate ideas", or "innate knowledge", in the popular sense of the words. We are not supposed to bring any ac­ tual knowledge into the world ready - made with us. On the cont­ rary, we are said to "have learned" truth but to have lost it again, and we have to recover what we have lost. The recovery requires a real and prolonged effort of steady thinking; what "recollection", or more accurately "being reminded", does for us is to provide the starting point for this effort. In the Phaedo, this is illustrated by the way in which chance "associations" will start a train of think­ ing, as when the sight of an absent friend' s belongings or his port­ rait sets us thinking of the friend himself. The main emphasis thus falls not on the Orphic doctrine of pre - existence and re - incarnat­ ion, which Socrates professes to have learned from poets and priests, but on the function of sense - experience as suggestive of and pregn­ ant with truths of an intelligible order which it does not itself ad­ equately embody or establish. And the philosophical importance of the doctrine is not that it proves the immortality of the soul, but that it shows that the acquisition of knowledge is not a matter of passively receiving "instructions", but one of following up a personal effort of thinking once started by an arresting sense - ex­ perience. But for this "suggestiveness" of sense - experience the igna"a ratio of the eristic, "you cannot learn the truth from any teacher, because unless you know it already, you will not recognise for the truth when he utters it" , would be valid. We see, then, why both Socrates and Plato hold that "knowledge" can only be won

272 by personal participation in "research"; it cannot simply be hand­ ed on from one man to another' 72. There are obvious differences between Athenagoras' view, as he states it in De Res. 14, 1, 2, and the Platonic theory. In the first place there is nothing in his two works to suggest that he accepted a belief in the pre - existence of souls. I ndeed he insists that man is a compositum of body and soul, not soul alone, and his whole argument for the resurrection is based on this. In using tmo(J.v'Yj cnc; for "re - call" he cannot then be referring to the recalling of the knowledge of axioms possessed by the soul before the present life began. However, as A. E. Taylor points out in the passage quoted, Plato's emphasis is not so much on the Or­ phic doctrine of the pre - -existence of the soul, but on the personal ef­ fort of thinking for which "being reminded" provides the starting point. This cannot be learnt from any outside source such as a teacher or an inherited tradition. Athenagoras seems to be alluding to this when he says that the demonstration of the truth cannot depend on any outside source, nor on what men think or have thought in the past. But he dif­ fers from the Platonic theory in introducing into his argument the Stoic conception of universal and natural notions (XOLvoct xoct cpucnxocl �VVOLOCL) which are axioms or first principles of nature which are incapable of demonstration. The conclusions derived from them are produced by elp(J.6c;, or strict logical sequence, which Athenagoras has referred to in the previous chapter (De Res. 13, 3). Athenagoras suggests that these axioms cannot be demonstrated to enquirers or to opponents. All one can do is put men "in mind of" these axioms or "re - call" them to their attention. Men will grasp the point if their awareness of such axioms is clarified. Athenagoras certainly believed that the conclusions which were to be derived from these axioms required determined mental ef­ fort. Following the passage from De Res. 14, quoted above, come these words: I t is then right, I think, for those who are in earnest about such matters and who are ready to make a prudent j udgement whether the resurrection happens or not, first of all to make a tho­ rough examination of the cogency of those arguments which cont­ ribute to this demonstration and to see what place each holds, which of them is first, which second or third, and which last. 72. Plato: The Man and His Work, London 19 26, p. 136

-

7

273

I t would appear that Athenagoras knew of the Platonic theory of "recall" or "reminiscence" (oc'Joc(J.v'Yj(nc;) but that he did not use Plato's technical term for it perhaps because of its association with his theory of the pre - existence and re - incarnation of the soul. Instead he substituted his own word tl7t6(J.v'Yjcnc; which had no technical over­ tones73• H e took from Plato only what suited his purpose, viz. the im­ portance of personal intellectual effort and the fact that the demons­ tration of the truth cannot depend on an outside source but is something which every man must work out for himself. But the guarantee of the truth lies, for him, in the orderliness of the process of reasoning by which it is derived from the axioms or first principles, and this does not de­ pend on the subjective state of the mind. Athenagoras had a precedent for combining the Stoic conception of universal and natural notions with Platonic ideas as this had already been effected by such Middle Platonists as Albinus. Indeed, the strong Middle Platonist emphasis on the Platonic Weltanschauung, and even its argument against Stoicism, did not prevent the absorption of many of the Stoic conceptions of ethics and providence. Athenagoras' back­ ground, in De Res. 14, lies in this eclectic Middle Platonism although he ignores what does not suit his purpose - so equally rej ecting the Platonic theory of the pre - existence and transmigration of souls and Stoic fata­ lism. Athenagoras holds strongly to the view that the purpose of man's nature is that he should have knowledge - and particularly knowledge of God. This knowledge is within the capabilities of man qua man en­ dowed with reason. The Christian apologist was however aware that error occured in human knowledge and, in particular, in the reasoning of some poets and philosophers. These men worked by conjecture and were unable to comprehend the truth in its fulness - to find the reality - because they did not learn about God from God but from one another. So each of them came to form different beliefs about God and matter, about forms and the nature of the universe. Athenagoras expounds his view further in his treatise De Resurrectione. With every doctrine and for every reasois used of a ((reminding)) in Thuc. q, 1 7 , 95 ; PLATO himself calls cill' u'ltOILvljO'ew� qlcXPILCXItOv in Phaedr. 275 A. The word is used of

73. 'T'lt6ILVllO'�

writing ou ILvljlLl'j� .to suggest. a thing in X E N . Gyr. 3, 3, 38 and «to make mentiom of a thing in Thuc. 2, 88 ; 3, 5q. Cf. also U'It' ItCXItWV (a tale of woe) in EUR. Or. 1032. It clearly had no technical meaning, unlike IivcXlLvl'jat�. l8

274

ned argument, he says, some falsehood grows alongside the truth they contain. This error does not arise from any fundamental principle in the universe but is fostered by men who set a value on spurious knowledge to the detriment of the truth. One can discover this from the confusion that exists in philosophic enquiry: "Men like these have left no truth that was not overshadowed by falsehood, not the nature of God, not His knowledge and activity, nor the manifold consequences of the truths deduced from these, nor the religious doctrine which we ourselves hold. Some indeed completely reject the truth about these things once for all, others go wandering off after their own opinions, while others again set out to doubt what is manifest" 7'. Then error can result from ignoran­ ce in simple and docile souls who are inexperienced in sound ways of thinking. The daemons which rule matter lead them astray and sow in their minds mistaken fancies. Again error is the result of deception and the corruption of truth by others. Thus the sources from which error springs are the finite nature of the human mind, which makes men in­ capable of fully comprehending reality; the perversity of men and dae­ mons in leading others astray; and the gullibility of the untrained mind which makes it an easy prey to false teachings. 2. Being The works of Athenagoras, being apologetic in character, do not contain a specific treatment of Being. He distinguishes between God and matter, although not over emphasising the gulf between the two; both, he holds, are really existent, the latter created by God and exi­ sting as an inert mass until formed into the elements of the sensible world by God through the agency of the logos. There is a fundamental distinction between these two orders of being, the uncreated, eternal, changeless, impassible God, the Creator, and created, changeable beings who are the products of the Creator's Power and Intelligence. In de­ scribing this distinction Athenagoras usually uses language approximating to the Aristotelian doctrine of actuality and potentiality although, in one place, he quotes from Plato the teaching that enduring reality is unoriginated while that which has no reality, the sensible, comes to be and ceaSes to exist7&. It is odd that so accurate a thinker should repro7(a. De Res. 1, 75.

Suppl. 19.

2

275

duce here the Platonic teaching of the unreality of the world of pheno­ mena which he elsewhere rej ects. Most probably he was drawing on a text which was popular among Christians as it is twice used by Euse­ bius (Praep. elJang. 1 1 , 2, 4 and 1 1 , 10, 10), once by Ps. - Justin (Cohort. 22) and by Numenius. H owever Athenagoras' main emphasis is that God or that which exists, is actuality, while matter which does not exist, until given existence by God, is pure potentiality for it is capable of receiving forms and shapes. This seems to imply the Aristotelian distinction be­ tween actuality and potentiality although Athenagoras does not further elaborate the theory. It is significant that the Aristotelian idea of God had been adopted by certain Middle Platonist circles before the time of Athenagoras. Most probably this happened j ust before or soon after the beginning of the Christian era. It seems likely that the first Plato­ nist to use the Aristotelian theology was Eudorus of Alexandria who wrote a Commentary on the Metaphysics and emphasised the Trans­ cendence of the Supreme God or TO €V 76. From then on Aristotle's theo­ logy was generally favoured by Platonists and became part of the tradit­ ion of the Middle Platonist schools. It is this tradition which Albinus, Justin Martyr and Athenagoras reflect. Most p robably Athenagoras took over the Aristotelian distinction between actuality and potentia­ lity, while at the same time adapting Plato to his own needs, from eclec­ tic Middle Platonism. Athenagoras believed strongly in certain orders of being. He divided creatures into intelligent beings and irrational things. The order of creat­ ed beings includes angels and daemons; man, who is a compositum of soul and body; and animals, plants and non - living things which are material or dependent on matter for existence. The different orders of being are upheld by God's creative Power and Will and His providential care reaches to the most insignificant of them. Athenagoras speaks of matter, from which the visible universe is formed, as passive and changeable77• H e uses the expression all - receiving matter (� 7tor.v3e:X�c; \)A'Yj) as indicat­ ing a potentiality of matter to receive a designated form or shape al­ though, as Lucks points out, this is not quite the same as the scholastic materia prima which did not exist7s• Another term which Athenagoras 76. R. E . WITT, Albinus and the History of Middle Platonism, Cambridge 1937. p. 126 77. Suppl. 22. 78. H. A. LUCKS. The Philosophy of Athenagoras: Its Sources and Value, Wa­ shington 1 936. p. 75. cr. J. C. T. OTTO, Athenagoras Philosophi Athenciensis Opera

276

uses in connexion with matter is form ( e:!3oc;) , which is not so much the technical forma of later scholasticism but the totality of accidental forms individualised in a given object. Thus the form given to clay vessels, through the skill of the potter, is analogous to the forms given to matter by God79• Athenagoras held that nothing comes into being without a cause. A being is either uncaused or caused; the uncaused does not become but is; while the caused is not, but becomes through the agency of another. He states that to attribute the origin of men to no cause is a notion easily refuted80• The principle of causality runs like a golden thread through his writings and he appears to distinguish between that which brings things into being or effects a change, that out of which a thing is made, that according to which a thing is made, and that for which a thing is made - much as Aristotle distinguishes between TO X�V'YjTLX6v, � \))..'Yj , TO el�o.; and TO OU lvexo:. But the primary efficient cause, for Athenagoras, is God Himself and secondary efficient causes are the works of men, in the analogy of the craftsman and his material, and the providence in the universe attributed to the ministering spirits. H e emphasises strongly that nothing has been made by God without a final cause or purpose which is evident in the tiniest of creatures and in the highest orders of being. Irrational creatures serve the rational and the rational was fas­ hioned for the sake of itself. Athenagoras was not expounding a formal system of philosophy and we should not expect to find a specific treatment of the causes in his works. Nevertheless underlying his thought there is a clear under­ standing of the doctrine of causality as it was systematized by Aristotle and as it was known in Middle Platonism. VII. THE TH EOLOGY OF THE TREATISE

De Resurrectione is not a systematic theological treatise but an in Corpus Apologetarum Christianorum Saeculi II, Vol. 7, J ena 1858, p 67 n. 5: Ma­ teriam passim Athenagoras pocat omne corpus sipe simplex. id est elementum sipe ex elementis compositum : mox pero � 7rcxv8sx7jc; UAl) ab eo dicitur materia prima tantum. omnium scilicet formarum capax, chaos poelarum, terra inanis et informis in sacris literis. Gesner. 79. Suppl. 15; 22. The full theory of the analogy of being was worked out by Athanasius and the Cappadocean Fathers; see further P. GRENET, Les Origines de " analogie philosophique dans les dialogues de Platon, Paris 1 94.8 80. De Res. 24., 1 - 4..

277

attempt to state arguments ' on behalf of' and 'concerning the truth of' the resurrection. It presupposes a continuing debate on this subject both outside and inside the Church. H owever the mind of a Christian theologian is revealed incidently in the work, e. g. in the author's dis­ cussion of Providence in the universe. Athenagoras finds order and purpose everywhere in the Universe. This order and arrangement are eloquent proofs of the nature of the Creator who exercises a general and creative providence over all. God's particular providence works towards truth for those worthy of it while the rest of nature is the object of providence in a general way according to the law of reason. The conviction that order exists, upheld by God's Providence, is found throughout Athenagoras' works. The clay used by the craftsman cannot become vessels without his skill working on it, so matter that is potentially all things did not receive its differentiation and shape and order without God the Creator. The world is a tuneful instrument struck rhythmically moving in well - measured time at the behest of the Creator who "put it in tune and plucked the strings and sang the harmonious accompaniment ... The stewards at the games do not pass over the lyreplayer in the contest and go and crown their lyres. If, as Plato says, this world is God's craft, then marvelling at its beauty, I go to worship the craftsman81". Athenagoras castigates those who believe that the visible world is the random product of disorderly chance: "They failed to realize that there is nothing disorderly or random about the materials that go to make up this universe, but that each one of them was made in reasonable fashion and thus they do not contravene their appointed order. Man too is a well - ordered being in his origin, with a nature which at the outset p resents one and the same kind of rationa­ lity in all. His is a disposition which, according to his nature, does not transgress the law that is appointed for it, and a term of life that remains steady and constant"82. The fact that purpose, closely allied to the notion of order, is pres­ ent in the world follows from a consideration of the work of God who is wise - and no work of wisdom can be devoid of purpose. As a ship, al­ though decked out with all things needful, is of no use without a helms81. Suppl. 16. MA XIMUS TYRE 19, 3 and the author of De MundQ 399a, H compa­ re the universe to a great lyre. Cf also TERT. ad Nat. 2, 5, 9. PLATO, Tim. 33C holds that the world is the result of skilled craftsmanship (Elt -rE)(\I'IJ<; ytyo\l�\I ). 82. Suppl. 25

278

man, so the elements of nature are of no use apart from the providence of God. In His wisdom God has arranged the food appropriate to the nature and kind of each living creature. Each species of nature is se­ parate and God is in control of all activities 'forwarding each towards all that He wishes and guiding it in that direction' . Purpose pervades all ranks of creatures in the visible world from the highest to the lowest and each has an end which is in accordance with nature. So there is one end for farmers, one for doctors, one for plants, another for animals and so on. The end varies according to the natural and artificial powers and actions which arise from them. For Athenagoras blind chance or a random and disorderly element do not exist in the universe. There are definite orders of Creator and creature, of intelligent and non - rational beings, of animate and inani­ mate in which the lower is subservient to the higher in the case of unin­ telligent creatures. While it is true that certain individuals of specific orders may fail to accomplish their end and outrage their own nature yet God's order and purpose in the general sense are maintained and preserved. The failure of individuals endowed with free - will, the waste and extravagance of nature do not, in the end, obstruct this purpose. Thus the human eye is intended to be a light to men and that will remain forever its purpose, although any one individual may use it for an im­ proper purpose such as an adulterous glance. The fact that some fail to reach their appointed end does not frustrate the ultimate purpose of God. Athenagoras' view of the orders of nature anticipates the later scholastic schema. Moreover, his view that purpose is maintained in the universe, despite much failure and waste, and that each specific order of being is intended to accomplish its own end in accordance with its nature, while owing something to Aristotle, anticipates the work of certain modern thinkers - such as Pere Teilhard de Chardin in our own day. Teilhard believes that evolutionary phenomena, including m an, cannot be described solely in terms of their origin but must be defined by their direction and inherent possibilities. The universe, for him, is a gigantic process of becoming, of attaining new levels of existence, organi­ sation and purpose83• Everything eventually will converge on the Omega Point, the cosmic Christ. While Athenagoras had no knowledge of the 83. Sir Julian Huxley in the Introduction to The Phenomenon of Man, London

t. 959.

pp. 12

-

13.

279

theory of evolution, as understood by modern thinkers, his is a remarkably broad view, for his time, of the order and purpose existing in the universe which pervades each order of being enabling each to fulfil its appointed end. Athenagoras' treatment of the teleological argument reinforces this position. He ascribes to man an end sharply distinguished from that of other creatures. The latter were brought into existence for the sake of something else whereas man was created by God for his own sake as an expression of His goodness and wisdom. These other creatures cease to exist when that for which they were created ceases. Man, on the other hand, endures since reason can find nothing for the sake of which man was created84• Athenagoras was a pioneer Christian thinker. He was the first to seek to harmonise the medical knowledge of his day with Christian theo­ logy and to grasp that true Christianity was not only opposed to pagan polytheism but also to those Christians who refused to accept logic and scientific medicine. Moreover in De Resurrectione occurs the earliest Christian use of the analogy of being in a philosophical argument. God is Being and so is related to the being which man possesses. Athenagoras also discovered in man's nature a unity, a compositum of the material body and the immortal soul, which the scholastic thinkers were later to embody in their definition of person. VII I . ANALYSIS OF DE RESURRECT lONE

Introduction: Discussion of the resurrection demands two modes of approach (1, 1 5). -

I.

Arguments 'on behalf of' the resurrection. (2, 1 - 11, 2) 1. God's power and will and objections to their exercise In the resurrection (2, 1 6. 2. God can raise the dead by reuniting the elements of decomposed bodies or the parts consumed by different animals (3, 1 3). 3. Objections restated: parts of the body may be united with ani­ mals - the problem of ' chain - consumption' (4, 1 4). -

-

-

84. W. R. SCHOEDEL, Athenagoras: Legatio and De Resurrectione, Oxford 1 �7 ; . . Pl'· xxxi xxxii, .

-

280

4. Obj ections rebuffed: there are permanent and impermanent ele­ ments in the body (5, 1 - 7, 3). 5. Conclusion: men cannot assimilate human flesh and bodies bu­ ried in the earth as most provide food for other creatures (7, 4-8, 1). 6. Moral argument: only if it can be shown that men assimilate human flesh is cannibalism rational (8, 2 - 3). 7. Conclusion (8, 4 - 9, 2). 8. The possible injustice of the resurrection as regards animals and men (10, 1 - 5). 9. The possible unworthiness of the resurrection as a work of God (10, 6). 10. Conclusion (11, 1 2). -

II. Arguments 'concerning' the truth (11, 3 - 25, 5). The two in order of approach reconsidered ( 1 1 , 3 - 6). 1. Arguments from first principles - man created for his own sake ( 1 1 , 7 - 13, 2). 2. The relation between the arguments (1 3, 3 - 15, 1). 3. Man as a compositum (15, 2 - 7). 4. The permanence of man (16, 1 - 17, 4). 5. The argument from rewards and penalties: just j udgement: providence (18, 1 - 19, 7). 6. Reward is possible only if the compositum survives (20, 1 - 22, 5). 7. The soul is not alone subject to the moral law (23, 1 - 5). 8. Explanation of procedure to the audience (23, 6). 9. Man's true end (24, 1 - 25, 5). IX. THE TEXTUAL TRADITION 1. The Establishing of the Archetype The serious study of the textual tradition underlying Athenagoras' two works was begun by A. von Harnack who used e xtensively the incomplete textual notes in the edition of J . C. T. Otto which had not been based on first hand knowledge of the manuscripts85• Otto had, 85. HARNACK, Die Uberlieferung del' Griechischen Apologeten des zweiten Jahr­ hunderts in del' alten Kirche und im Mittelalter, T+ U. 1 , 1 - 2, Leipzig, 1882, p. 176 190. OTTO, Corpus Apologetarum Christianorum Saeculi Secundi, vii, Jena, 1 858.

281 in

fact, received the collation of Athenagoras' two texts from C. B. Hase which was later proved by O. von Gebhardt to be unreliable86• Harnack's achievement was to show that the Arethas Codex Parisinus 451 was the archetype of all existing manuscripts of Athenagoras' works. Harnack's work was continued by O. von Gebhardt who made a detailed investigation of this Codex and was able to confirm, in the main, Harnack's results. Von Gebhardt was able to pay him this tribute: He (Harnack) thereby proceeded from the supposition that the assertions made by Otto are appropriate to accord a correct insight into the relation of the manuscripts to one another. But this supposition, as we are in a position to prove, is not correct. If Harnack nevertheless succeeded in differentiating with ade­ quate certainty between what is reliable and what is worthless, then all credit is due to his acuteness. But his results could only hold good insofar as they prove themselves in a renewed and re­ liable collection and examination of the entire material. And in the main, it may be said in advance, they i ndeed do hold good. Yes, and what is more, the correct and full knowledge of the existence of the manuscripts serves to guarantee incontestably the main result of Harnack's research which has already been praised87• E. Schwartz, in the introduction to his edition of Athenagoras' works88, carried further O. von Gebhardt's was able to explain satisfac Lorily the interdependence manuscripts. More recent editors, such as P. Ubaldi 89 SchoedelDo, are heavily indebted to Schwartz's work.

the text of results and of the later and W. R.

2. Codex Parisinus 451. This Codex was written for Arethas, Archbishop of Caesarea, by a scribe Baanes in 914 A. D. as is established by the inscription to the Codex. The Codex was a corp us of early Christian apologies and origi86. Zur handschriftlichen Uberlieferung der griechischen Apologeten: 1, Der Are­ thascodex Paris Gr. 4.51, TU. 1, 3 Leipzig, 18 83, p. 158 - 61. 87. Ibid. p. 154. - 55. 88. Athenagoras Libellus Pro Christian is, Oratio de Resurrectione Cada(Jerum, T U, 4., 2 , Leipzig, 1891. 89. P. UBALDI and M. PELLEGRINO, Athenagora: La Supplica per i Cristiani, Della risurrezione dei morti, Corona Patrum Salesiana is, Torino, 1 9'.7. 90. Athenagoras: Legatio and De Resur,.ectione, Oxford, 1972.

282 nally contained the apologetic works of Clement of Alexandria, Justin Martyr (as was then supposed), Tatian, Eusebius and Athenagoras. The work originally consisted of 59 Quaternionen and one group of 2 sides, totalling 474 sides in all, although now only 393 sides remain91• Geb­ hardt's careful examination has shown that no complete apologetic text is now missing from the Codex apart from Tatian's Oratio92• Codex Parisinus 451 is set out with a relatively wide border. The length of the p age is 24, 3 centim., the width 18, 8 centim. ,and the length of the column (26 lines) only 14, 5 to 14, 8 centimo with a width of 11 12 centimo Arethas apparently required that the text should have such a wide border in order that in the margin corrections and comments on the text might be written. The text was written by Baanes in small letters. Gebhardt suggested that, while some of the corrections and comments are due to Baanes, most are the work of Arethas himself in spite of the undoubted fact that the marginal notes exhibit great variations in the use of semi - uncials. He argues that Arethas himself worked on the Codex over a period of years between 914 and 932 A. D. and this accounts for the variations. Proof of this is provided by the full marginal notes and comments to Athenagoras' De Resurrectione existing in the Codex93• Arethas concerned himself more thoroughly with the revision of the text of De Resurrectione than with any other writing in Codex Pari­ sinus 451 . He not only supplied it with numerous annotations but di­ vided it into chapters with a detailed analysis of the contents appended . to every chapter. The larger part of the annotations are written in semi uncials in a comparatively fine hand approaching the style of Baanes, like the scholia to Clement of Alexandria's works. The analysis of cont­ ents is however a longer writing and was evidently written uniformly and uninterruptedly with a thicker pen. This can be seen from the distribution of space in the margin. The beginning of a new chapter is, as a rule, shown by placing the first letter on a new line if the beginning of the chapter does not coincide with the beginning of a line. A number corresponds with the chapter number at the edge, above the respective analysis; moreover it is accompanied line for line with the symbol+in order to differentiate it from the other observationslN• 91. GEBHARDT, Ibid. p. 163. 92. Ibid. p. 16q. 93. Ibid. p. 168. \l � , GEBHARDT, Ibid. p. 186,

283

I t is interesting to observe that Arethas was not always satisfied with what he had written down and sometimes sought to rectify it through erasure and correction. So he would allow the first rough draft to stand and begin afresh on the lower edge. So there sometimes now stands in the margin of De Resurrectione in Codex Parisinus 451 the final draft of the analysis of the contents next to the rej ected one. This was understood by the writer of Codex Parisinus 174, who copied only the corrected draft95• The hand which wrote the comments and corrections in the margin of De Resurrectione has the same characteristics as that which wrote the explanation of Gen. 49, 11 in the text of Clem. Alex. Paed. 1 , 5 in the last two pages of the Codex. That this hand was that of Arethas is shown by a marginal note in Codex Laurentianus where the explanation bears the heading ocpe6or. ocpx.�e:mcrxo1tou. The same scholia is appended in Cod. Mutinensis I I I . D. 7 at the same point. Since we know that Cod. Muti­ nensis I I I. D. 7 was copied from Cod. Parisinus 451 it seems possible that both this and Cod. Laur. used Cod. 451 when it was still complete and that it contained a heading ocpe6or. ocpx.�e:mO"x61tou96. Arethas thus marked individual scholia with his name. Finally it was Arethas himself who noted under the subscription to fol. 401 the costs which the prepa­ ration of the Codex and the acquisition of the parchment had entailed. The age of the archetype of Cod . Parisinus 451 is difficult to de­ termine. In the opinion of Gebhard t it originated not later than the seventh century A. D.97. This archetype contained a number of scholia which Baanes incorporated into his copy, but these do not extend beyond the two writings of Clement of Alexandria. The marginal comments to De Resurrectione are the work of Arethas alone. The works contained in Cod. 451 have clearly had a different tex­ tual history in the period between the originals and archetype. Athena­ goras Supplicatio contains so many faults that editors have been for­ ced to emend frequently. De Resurrectione, on the other hand, was hand­ ed down more or less without fault so that probably very few copies intervene between original and archetype98• The archetype of De Resurrectione bore only the simple title llEPI ANA:ETA:EE!l:E NEKP!lN. However at some stage this was prefixed '

95. 96. 97. 98.

GEBHARDT, Ibid. p. 1 7 1 - 72. GEBHARDT, Ibid. p. 1 69, 170, 1 76. Ibid. p. 1 7 7 E. SCHWARTZ, Ibid. p. iv

284

by TOl' Al'TOl' and to the end of the treatise was added A0HNA­ ropol' IIEPI ANA:ETA:EEQ:E. The hand which appended these words was certainly identical with that which supplied the Supplicatio, which preceded De Resurrectione in Cod. 451 , with a heading and signature. Orthographically this hand dates from the time of the writing of Cod. 451 . As corrections and annotations to the Codex belong at the earliest to the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries A. D. it seems likely that either Arethas or Baanes ascribed the two works to Athenagoras. Whe­ ther Arethas found the two works united in a single volume is now im­ possible to determine99• The question of the authorship of the Suppli­ catio is not in doubt as Methodius in his De Resurrectione A nimarum against Origen (early 3rd cent. A. D.) quotes Supplicatio 37, 1 with Athenagoras' name appended and Epiphanius, Haer. 64, 21 and Photius, Bibl. Cod. 234 also reproduce the fragment from Methodius and quote Athenagoras' name. However the authorship of De Resurrectione must be decided on other grounds, as we have shown earlier. However it may be significant that the second - century Valen­ tinian treatise on the Resurrection, recently discovered, has the heading Epistle to Rheginos concerning the Resurrectionloo. It is thus just possible that Arethas or B aanes was following an older tradition which has now been lost. 3. The later Manuscript Tradition. All later manuscripts of Athenagoras' works derive directly, or indirectly, from Codex Parisinus 451 (Arethas A, corr. A I ) as has been shown by E. Schwartz 101 . From A I were derived Codex Mutinensis I I I . D. 7 (n), Codex Parisinus 1 74 (p), Codex Parisinus 450 (c) and a now lost Codex of uncertain date. From n were derived Codex Argento­ ratensis (s) which was destroyed by fire in 1870 and five other minor manuscripts. From p were derived ten lesser manuscripts. We have shown the genesis of the Codices in the chart opposite. Their relation­ ship constitutes one of the clearest genealogies of manuscripts known to scholars.

99. SCHWARTZ, Ibid. p. iv. 100. W. C. VAN UNN1K, «The Newly Discovered Gnostic Epistle to Rheginos on the Resurrection)), Journal of Ecclesiastical History 15, 1 964., p. 14.4.. 101. Ibid. p. vii.

285 GENEALOGY OF THE CODICES OF ATHENAGORAS' WORKS

�I � Cod Paris. 451 A orr.

Mutinensi. 111. D. 7

I

Argentorar. 9 Ollobooianus 275

-

Paris. Mutinensis

174

Illl.

D,. 20

Ottobonianus 9 4

Neapolitanus II. A a . 1 3

Ottobonianus 274

Angelicus B. I . IO

Paris. 450

I

Laurentianus IV. 3 Claromontanus 82

Lost Cod••

I

M onaccnsis 8t Laubanensis Parisinus S·Jppl. 1 4 3

Vaticanus 1 2 6 1

Claromontanus 8 3

Ora.tor;(;1')is

Bcgotianus

Florentinus

Petrin us

Sirletianus

Bononiensis

lIJ

Bodkianus Baroc.98 Bodleianus Baroc.145 Etonensis 88 Florentinus S. Marci 69J - Laurentianus X . 32.

4. Printed Editions of Athenagoras' Works. The earliest printed edition is that of Peter Nannius, Louvain 1541 which contained only the treatise De Resurrectione in Greek and Latin. The most recent edition is that of W. R. Schoedel, Oxford 1972 which contains the Greek text of both works with English translation. Editions containing the Supplicatio and De Resurrectione a) Greek and Latin Texts: Gesner - Stephens, Leipzig, 1557. Gesner - Stephens, Zurich, 1559 Plantine Edition, Antwerp, 1560; 1583; 1588. Morell, F., Paris, 1615, 1636; Cologne, 1686. Ducaeus, F., Paris, 1624. Fell, J . , Oxford, 1682. Rechenberg L., Leipzig, 1684 - 85. De Chair E., Oxford, 1706 Maran P., Paris, 1742; Venice, 1747; in Migne PC, 1857. Gallandus, A. Venice, 1766; Wiirttemberg, 1 788. Oberthur, F. Wiirttemberg, 1 799. Otto, J . C. T., J ena, 1858. b) Greek Texts: March, F. A., New York, 1876 Schwartz, E., Leipzig, 1891 Schoedel, W. R., Oxford, 1 972.

286 c) Latin Texts:

Bibliotheca Patrum, Paris, 1576; 1589; 1610; 1775. Bibliotheca Patrum, Cologne, 1618. Bibliotheca Maxima Patrum I I , Lyons, 1677. Select Collections of Fathers of the Church, Paris, 1829. d) Italian Texts: Gallicciolli, G. , Venice, 1801. Ubaldi, P., 1920, 1933, (with M. Pellegrino) 1947. e) French Texts: Gaussart, G. , Paris, 1574. Ferrier, A. du, Bourdeaux, 1577. f) German Texts:

Roessler, F., Leipzig, 1 776. (Excerpts in Bibliothek der Kirchen Vaeter). Saemmtliche Werke der Kirchenvaeter II, Kempten, 1830. Bieringer, A., Kempten, 1875. Koesel, J. Munich und Kempten, 1913. g) English Texts: Humphreys, D., London, 1 714. Pratten, B. P. L . Ante - Nicene Library, Edinburgh, 1867. Crehan, J . H., London, 1 956. h) Spanish Texts: Bueno, D . , Madrid, 1 954. Sep arate Editions of the Supplicatio. a) Greek and Latin Texts: Grynaeus, S., Basle, 1 551. Gesner, C., Zurich, 1557. Gesner - Benenatus, Paris, 1577. b) Greek Texts: Lindner, J . , Langensalza, Saxony, 1774; 1775. Paul, L., Halle, 1856. Geffcken, J . , Leipzig and Berlin (Teubner), 1907. Goodspeed, E. J . , Gottingen, 1914. c) Latin Texts: Petrus Suffridus, Cologne, 1567.

287

Lang, J., Basle, 1565. d) French Texts: Flamignon, G. E., Paris, 1574; 1838 (in Genoud, A. E., Les peres de l'eglise). e) English Text: Richardson C. C., London, 1953. Separate Editions of the Treatise, De Resurrectione a) Greek and Latin Texts: Nannius, P., Louvain 1541 ; Paris, 1541; Basle, 1550; 1555. Wechel, C., Paris, 1541. b) Greek Text: Plantinian Edition, Leyden, 1588. c) Latin Texts: Vall, G., Venice, 1498. Ficinus, M. (excerpts only), Paris, 1498; Basle, 1516; Cologne, 1522. Gelenius, S., Basle, 1553; 1561 . d) Italian Texts: Faleti, G., Venice, 1556; Verona, 1735. e) French Text: Renier, P. L., Breslau, 1753. f) Dutch and Greek Text: Beek, J. van, Leyden, 1908.

g) English Text: Porder, R., London, 1573. 5.

Spurious Works attributed to Athenagoras

Athenagoras has suffered less than other early Christian writers in that his name was not apparently attached in antiquity to spurious works, possibly because he was virtually unknown. In this the contrast with the earlier second - century apologist, Justin Martyr, is marked for Justin had many spurious works attributed to him some of which found their way into codex Parisinus 451. The earliest indication that there may have existed twelve unknown works of Athenagoras, with

288 t he title nept 't'WV e:t� EOCU't'OV, was apparently due to a careless expression of C. Gesner in his edition of the Supplicatio printed in 1557: Postula­ bant haec eo tempore, et A ntoninus imperator apud quem peroravit, summus erat Philosophus: quod ve ex libris illis XII, qui etiam nunc graece ab eo conscripti Dept 't'WV de; EOCU't'OV apud me extant, patel. This erroneous idea was seriously entertained by Scultatus and Tentze}102, altough it is plain that the ab eo conscripti refers to Antoninus Imperator. See further A. P. Leyser and J . H arboe, Dissertatio A thenagora Atheniensi Philosopho Christiano, Leipzig, 1736, p. 47 ff. At the close of the sixteenth century in 1599, a French romance appeared with the title, 'Du vray et parfait Amour', purporting to be by Athenagoras and translated by M. Fumee, Seigneur de S. Genille. No Greek original of this supposed work has ever been found and its authorship has usually been attributed to Fumee himself103. Its main object was apparently to show off the writer' s somewhat florid architec­ tural and alchemistic knowledge. I ts many anachronisms and character suit a sixteenth century date. Further texts of the work were issued by M. Sonnius, Paris 1599 and D. Guillemot, Paris 1612.

102. Dictionary of Christian Biography 1 , London 1877, p . 2 0 7 103. C. NaD lER, Bibliotheque sacree grecque - latine, Paris, 1826, p . 151 waxes indignant about the hoax: 'C'est par une supposition blamable que Martin Fumee, sieur de GenilIe, a publie sous son nom (Alhenagoras) un roman fort insipide, inti­ tuM: Du llray et parfait Amour . . . : .

11*

THE ANTECEDENTS OF ARIUS I. PHILOSOPHICAL The evaluation of the philosophical antecedents of Arius, the fourth - century Alexandrian Christian heretic, presents considerable difficulties. In spite of much that has been written, in fact we know little of the philosophy current in Alexandria in the early fourth - centu­ ry. There is a lamentable gap in our knowledge after the time of Plotinus (mid - third century) until the advent of Theon, father of the ill - fated Hypatia, who taught in Alexandria during the reign of the Emperor Theodosius (379 - 95). Theon, we are told, was associated with the Mu­ seum 1 which was an ' Institute of Advanced Study' - a community of scholars whose studies were supported by the State. But we have no knowledge of a continuous school of philosophy in Alexandria before Theon's time although Professor H.-I. Marrou, in an authoritative stu­ dy 2, has argued that there were municipal chairs of philosophy in Ale­ xandria much as in other principal cities of the Empire. These chairs however did not form a continuous succession (3LOC3oX�) as was the case at Athens: 'all we can say, on our present knowledge, is that we find in Alexandria, from the fourth to the sixth centuries, philosophers and teachers of philosophy'3. This judgement is also true of the second half of the third century; one such teacher from that period known to us is Anatolius, later bishop of Laodicea in Syria, who taught the Aristo­ telian tradition there in the late - third century '. His p agan fellow citiz­ ens had elected him to his post. Unfortunately we know nothing of his influence. •

Theologische Zeitschrift 28 (1972) 110-1 1 7; Vigiliae Ch,.istianae 2q (19 70) 1 72-188. 1. 0�w\l, 0 be 't'Ou Mouoctou, Souda 205 ; Adle,. 2, 702. 2. The Conflict between Paganism and Ch,.istianity in the Fou,.th Century, ed. A. MOMIGLIANO (Oxford 1963) p. 131 5 3. Op. cit. p. 13q q. E us. H. E. 7. 32. 6 : @\I EvexlX, lelXl �t; hr' '.AA&:�IX\l3pe:ktt; ·AptO't'cmAOUt; 3L1X30xiil; 'r1j\l 8LIX'I'P L()1j\l A6yol; �eL 7l"po<; 'I'W\I 1'jj3e 7l"OAt't'WV ou<7'djalX06IXL IXU't'O\l cX�Lw6ii\lIXL. We have no knowledge of this 'school' continuing after Anatolius' day. -

19

290

Much has been written about the Platonic and Aristotelian origins of Arius' philosophy which assumes that there were Platonic and Aris­ totelian schools of philosophy in existence in Alexandria in his day. We must rigidly eschew such a presumption. Nevertheless that Arius may have come into contact with individual non - Christian philosophers is a possibility - and indeed perhaps a probability - although the general impression that we gain of his teaching is that it was sui generis although drawing on and working over older material. During the period which saw the rise of Arianism the influence of Platonism, in its Middle and later forms, was everywhere predominant. Small groups of sceptics here and there might resist Platonic teaching. Yet if a Christian thinker, starting from within the tradition of the Church, wished to interpret the Christian Faith philosophically he would undoubtedly find an ally in Platonism. I t was not the question of a simple choice between Plato, Aristotle and the Stoa but between Pla­ tonists who had embraced Aristotelian and Stoic ideas 5 and those who had rejected them. It is worth remembering that Platonism was not a unified philosophical system in the early - fourth century and the Master himself might well have been astonished with what passed muster under his name. How far are we justified in tracing specific Platonic influence on Arius' thought ? Arius twice uses the philosophical term (kovae; of God in his letter to Alexander, bishop of Alexandria 6: (a) oM' we; I:oc�eAAwe; �v (kovoc3oc 3�oc�pwv, ut07toc't'opoc e:Lm:v d ' 0 , ., ., ' • , l ' ' I G (b ) OCIV\ we; (kovoce; xoc�"� OCpX'j 7tocv't'wv, OU't'WC; 0 � eo e; 7tpU 7tocv't'wv ecr't'L. C. Stead 7 refers to the implications of this which are paralleled in Philos. God could be called 'the Monad' ( 1 ) as unique, or (2) as the ultimate origin of things, or (3) as simple and indivisible. In the first passage from Arius (3) is clearly implied; Sabellius had been guilty of dividing what is es­ sentially indivisible. In the second (2) is implied; God is before all things as 'monad', i.e. as ultimate Origin. From this it would seem that for Arius ,

,

•

5. The first Platonist to use the Aristotelian philosophy was Eudorus of Ale­ xandria who wrote a commentary on the Metaphysics and emphasised the Trans­ cendence of the Supreme God or TO Iv; R. E . WITT, Albinus and the History of Middle Platonism, Cambridge 1 937 p. 126. 6. ATHAN, de Synodis 16. Monas is the special feminine of !L6\1oc;. 7. Journal of Theological Studies 1 5, 19M, p. 18. 8 . Leg. All 2. 3

291 (J.ovocc; is a theological, rather than a philosophical, title. Arius is appeal­

ing not directly to Plato but to an earlier Alexandrian tradition found in Philo, Athenagoras, Clement and Origen; 9 and it is significant that in arguing that God is (J.ovocc; Arius does not exclude His biblical attribut­ eslO• It is also interesting that Arius uses the term 3uocc; for the Son. In the Thaliall he says: O"uve:c;, o"n � (J.ovocc; �v · � 3uocc; 3e: ou" �v, 1tplv tl7t&;p�1l. This could be taken in the Platonic sense of imperfection - something belonging to the world of sense. However, as Stead points out12, it seems more probable that Arius uses 3uocc; as meaning 'the number two', a syno­ nym for 3e:unpoc; as used by the second - century Greek apologists for 'second in rank'13. It is of course true that for Arius the Son is a subordi­ nate, created being and, in that sense, inferior to the Monad. Philoso­ phically this corresponds to marked trends in Middle and Later Plato­ nism in which the Absolute becomes the Ultimate Principle, the logos taking second place and the Stoic anima mundi being the third and lower principle (Cf. Numenius' doctrine of the highest God and the inferior creator - God (fragments 20 9) and Albinus' distinction between the Soul, the superior Mind and the highest mind (Epit. 10. 2)). However it seems unlikely that Arius began from (J.ovocc; as the Absolute of the philosophical schools into which he fitted some Chris­ tian elements. Rather he began from the Christian Platonist tradition exemplified by Athenagoras14, Clement and Origen, in which (J.ovocc; is a theological title, and had no difficulty in using this of the biblical God. Thus there is a correspondence with Platonism and a use of Pla­ tonic terms but not, I would hold, direct influence. Arius' Platonism was mediated through the Christian tradition. I n this Arius differs little from Athanasius who also draws on the earlier Christian tradition and makes no sharp dichotomy between the Platonic Absolute and the Living God of the Bible. So Athanasius can interpret Exod. 3. 14 LXX, eyw -

9. PHILO, Leg. All. 2 . 3; AT H E :i . Suppl. 6; CLE M . ALE X. Paed. 1. 71.1; Origen, de Princ 1.1.6 ; Cr. also ILoVIXC; in PLATO, Phd. 101 c ; 105c, ARIST. Metaph. 1089b 35. 10. Five of the phrases used by Arius of God in the introduction to the letter to Alexander (Athen. de Synodis 1 6) are scriptural and three others are well established in tradition; Stead op. cit. p. 1 7 . 1 1 . ATH A N . de Synodis 15. 12. Op. cit. 1 9 13. Cf. JUSTIN, 1 Apol. 1 3 H . I believe that Anus was directly acquainted with Athenagoras' Supplicatio, lee pp. 296-299.

292 £[!L� {, Cflv in a Platonic way15. By (, Cflv he means that God is Unchan­ geable in the Platonic sensel6• It is the merit of recent study to have de­ monstrated that Athanasius makes use of the Middle Platonic idea of God in which the highest divine Principle is identified with the real and unchangeable Being17. In this he was close to Arius. Yet neither begin from the Platonic Absolute. They begin from the biblical idea of God and interpret this in Platonic terms. Their differences do not lie primari­ ly in their idea of God considered philosophically. In other respects Arius is not much indebted to Platonism. This is shown from a comparison of Arius' view of the creation of the cosmos with that of the Platonists. The latter interpret the Timaeus in various ways. The predominant view was that the cosmos had always existed, the account of the creation being a kind of parable. This view, known as early as Aristotle and Xenocrates, was held by Plotinus and his suc­ cessors18. It is obviously far removed from the view of Arius which stressed the Priority and Aloneness of the Father. A second view, held by many Platonists19, was that the cosmos was created out of formless matter ( Timaeus 27b). This was certainly known to the second - century Apo­ logists2o• Arius however appears not to follow this line of thought as, in his view, the Son is oG-re (J.€POC; Beou oGn e� u1toxe�(J.evou -r�vbc;. Rather he held that the cosmos was created ex nihilo which was the view of Athanasius21• However it is significant that this view is not found in Middle or later Platonism and is unknown outside the Christian tra­ dition. It would therefore seem that Arius, in this important particular, is not drawing on Platonic interpretations of the Timaeus. Starting from the premise of the Priority of the Father he believed that he was reas­ serting traditional Christian positions. While his scheme runs parallel to philosophical tendencies in Platonism, found e. g. in Atticus and Me­ thodius, and while he uses Platonic terminology in respect of God, direct influence need not be postulated. Arius was drawing on the early Chris15. 16. 17. thes is? 18. 19. 20. 21.

De Deer. 22; De Synod. 35 c. Arian. 3. 63 E. P. MEIJERING, Orthodoxy and Platonism in Athanasius: Synthesis or Anti(Leiden 1968 ) p. 126 CALCIDlUS in Tim. 23 - 25, 300 PROCLUS, in Tim. 1 . 276 31 fr. JUSTIN, 1 Apol. 10; ATH E N AGORAS, Suppl. 19. Letter to Eus. Nic. H. G. OPITZ, Urkunden 1. 5

293

tian Platonist tradition and was primarily a religious thinker rather than a philosopher per se. There is however no doubt that direct Platonist influence is tra­ ceable in later Arian ideas. R. Arnou22 has noted the claim of the later Arians to a knowledge of the Divine Essence. Gregory Nazianzus23 speaks of the unbridled contemplation (6e:wptor.) of Eunomius and Arnou finds here an allusion to the Platonic doctrine of contemplation. Gregory Nyssen24 also states that Eunomius held that those who believe in the Lord rise beyond anything sensible or intelligible - even beyond the generation of the logos - since desire for eternal life inspires the soul to attain to the knowledge of the ingenerate God. This passage is full of Neoplatonic echoes25. In E unomius we find a greater dependence on Greek philosophy, particularly logic, than is the case with Arius himself. The influence of Aristotle on Arianism must now be discussed. If Platonism made an immediate appeal to some Christian thinkers Ari­ stotelianism was far less attractive. However a revival of interest in Aristotle seems to have taken place in the fourth century or a little earlier. Porphyry wrote an introduction to Aristotle's Logic and, as already mentioned, Anatolius set up a school of Aristotelian studies in Alexandria in the late - third century A. D. It has often been suggest­ ed that Arianism was primarily an affair of the schools. While it is true that its propaganda breathes the spirit of formal logic - the later Arian leaders were sophists to a man - caution is needed before we ascribe to Arius himself the cult of Pure Form. This is the mistake of H . A. Wolfson who reads back later evidence into the origin of the controver­ sy26. R. Arnou likewise has argued that the controversy arose from the use of Aristotelian dialectic on the part of the orthodox with perhaps Dionysius of Alexandria or Novatian in mind27• J . De Ghellinck, like G. C. Stead, thinks of actual debates between contending parties of philosophers28• These positions are deduced from the fact that Arius, 22. 23. 24.. 25. 22q 26. 27. 28. 28, 30

«Platonisme des Peres)), D. T. C. 1 2 cols. 2320 - 1 Drat. 39. 8 c. Eum. 10; cf. THEOD O RET, Haer. Fob. Compo q. 3. Noted by H. E. W. TURNER, The Pattern of Christian Truth, London 19M p . Religious Philosophy, Cambridge Mass. 1 961 p. 126 - 57 «Arius et la doctrine des relations trinitaires)), Gregorianum H, 19 33. p. 296 - 72 De GHELLINCK, Miscellanea GiofJanni Mercati 1 . p. 1 2 7 qq. Stead op. cit. p . -

294 in rejecting the doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son, refers to the doctrine of relations: oU3e &(J.oc 1'<jl noc1'pt 1'0 dvoc� �xe�, Clc; 1'�vec; AEyoucn 1'oc 1tpOc; 1'�29. The technical term 1'oc 1tpOC; 1'L goes back to Aristotle, Cate­ gories 7. It is however significant that the term does not occur in the extant fragments of Dionysius of Alexandria and it is unlikely that No­ vatian's writings were known in Alexandria in Arius' day. Arius' exact contemporary Peter the Martyr, who represents a reaction against Ori­ gen, knows nothing of a use of dialectic although he does refer to strife between pro and anti - Origenist factions in his day30. It may be that Arius is simply pointing out that the doctrine of relations is, in his view, irrelevant to theology31. It is true that, according to Sozomen, Arius possessed 'no inconsiderable logical acumen' and was 'a most expert 10gician'32, but he uses these descriptions only with reference to Arius' op­ position to SabeIlianism and his initial preaching in Church of his views about the Son of God. There is no indication that Aristotelian logic is in mind, as the context is religious rather than purely philosophical. Sozo­ men means little more than that Arius was clever in argument. Aristotelian logic however came to the fore with the later Arians and may have been mediated through Stoic channels33• Bas il the Great, Gregory Nysse n, Socrates and Epiphanius34 all mention Aristotle as the source of this later Arian teaching. Asterius is described as 'the many headed sophist'36 and Eunomius 'the artificer of syllogisms'36. Aristote­ lian dialectic reached its high - water mark in Aetius and Eunomius and it is to be noted that Aetius was a professional sophist trained in the Aristotelian school before he became an Arian37. I n the hands of these teachers later Arian theology became a form of technolo gy (1'exvo29. EPIPH. Haer. 69. 8. 2; ATHAN. de Synodis 16; H I L AR Y de Trin. q. 12 - 13 30. See pp. 306-308. 31. G. C. S T EA D Op. cit. 29 - 30 argues that Anus' argument against the doctrine of relations is fonnd in the Platonist tradition exemplified by Methodius (cf. de Aut­ ex 22 and Eus D. E". q. 3 . 5 6. (However it is worth noting that Methodius is con­ cerned with the Father's relationship to the world, not to the Son, and it must remain uncertain whether Arius is indebted to him in this matter. 32. H. E. 1 . 5; 1 . 1 5 33. H. E . W. TURNER, op. cit. 228 3q. BASIL, c . Eun. 1 . 5; GRE G. Nyss ., C. Eun. 1 ; SOCRATES, H. E. 2. 35; EI'IPH., Hacr 69. 69 35. ATHAN., de Synodis 18 36. BOZOMEN., H. E. 6. 26 37. SOCRATES, H. E. 2. 35; BOZOMEN, H. E. 3. 15 -

295 AOj'tOC) and the term Look on a disreputable connotation in the Church Fathers38. 't'EXVOAOj'tOC was the use of logic as an end in itself and could be applied to the subject matter without any restraint. It was said that the Anomoeans wished to deduce God from Aristotelian and geometrical syllogisms39• Metaphysics became subordinated to logic with disastrous consequences for Christian faith and life - a tendency paralleled in the literature of the second Sophist movement. In later Arianism religious mystery was replaced by logical paradox and this was the cause of the j ibe that Aristotle was 'the bishop of the Arians'40. A clear distinction must however be drawn between Arius and his later followers. There is no trace in the extant fragments of Arius of Aristotelian logic as a Form controlling content as there certainly is in the writings of the later Arian sophists. Rather we must credit Arius with the religious intention of conserving belief in the Unity of God such as had been taught by Philo41. This intention need not have led necessarily to the separation of Monotheism from a spiritual context as happened with the later A­ rian sophists. I believe that we must credit Arius with conservative intentions in this matter. However Aristotelian logic came into its own in later Arianism and gradually gained momentum throughout the fifth and subsequent centuries reaching its climax in Medieval Thomism. Such a development could not have been foreseen in the early - fourth century. 2. THEOLOGICAL

The problem of the theological antecedents of Arianism has been the subject of several studies during the past decade, without decisive agreement. On the one hand T. E. Pollard42 has argued that Arius' thought cannot be understood apart from Antiochene influence, exemp­ lified by Lucian - an explanation in terms of an Alexandrian b ackground 38. GRE G . Nyss., c. Eun. 1, 7, 1 2 39. EPIPH., Haer. Ana 6 4.0. FA USTl�US, de Trin. 2 4.1. H . A. WOLFSON, Religious Philosophy op. cit. p. 14.4. - 5; The Philosophy of the Church Fathers, Vol. 1 , Cambridge Mass. 19 64., pp. 585 7 4.2. "Logos and Son in Origen, Arius and Athanasius", Studia Patristica Vol. 2, T. und U. 65 Berlin 1957, 282 - 7 ; 'The Origins of Arianism', Journal of Theological Studies 9, 1 9 58 pp. 103 - 1 1 . Professor Pollard has kindly allowed me to read, in photostat, a further contribution of his on this subject. -

,

296 being insufficient to account for Arius' literal type of exegesis, his ext­ reme emphasis on the Oneness of God, and the distinction which he makes between Logos and Son. Professor Pollard's arguments were subjected to a critical evaluation by M. F. Wiles43 who concluded that the claim that Arianism could not be understood in terms of a purely Alexandrian heritage had not been established. A similar conclusion was reached by G. C. Stead44 who, in an important study of Arius' phi­ losophical background, concluded that Arius drew on a Platonic tra­ dition evolving within the Alexandrian Church - and, indeed, his theo­ logy may have been shaped by a dialogue with non - Christian Platonist contemporaries in the Egyptian metropolis. Both Wiles and Stead un­ derline the influence of an anti - Origenist and literalist tradition exist­ ing within the Alexandrian Church which was developed to an extreme degree by Arius. Our purpose here is to study the Christian thinkers of Alexandria from the time of Athenagoras to Peter the Martyr, who was Arius' exact contemporary. Our aim is to discover whether they witness to a common theological tradition on which Arius could have drawn; or whether it is more probable that Arius himself was a somewhat eclectic thinker who picked up ideas from his predecessors which he then worked into a comprehensive and logical system of his own. In discussions of Arian antecedents, Athenagoras, who wrote two . works c. 176 180, the I1pe:cr�doc (or Supplicatio) for the Christians and a treatise on the Resurrection I1e:pt 'Avoccr't"occre:wc; (De Resurrectione)45, has usually been forgotten. This may be due to the fact that he was vir­ tually unknown in Christian antiquity46. An Alexandrian origin for Athenagoras is, however, suggested by a notice in a fragment preser­ bed by Nicephorus Callistus, or some other late Greek historian, and attributed to Philip of Side47• This states that Athenagoras was the first head of the catechical school at Alexandria and that Clement was his pupil, Pantaenus being the pupil of Clement. There are obvious mis­ takes in the passage which, to some scholars, render it suspect48• Yet Eusebius H. E. 5. 10 suggests that Pantaenus had two periods as head -

q3. "In Defence of Arius", Journal of Theological Studies 13, 1962, pp. 339 - q7. qq. "The Platonism of Arius", (n. 1) pp. 16 - 3145. On the dating and authorship of De Resurrectione see further pp. 246-251q6. The first and almost only Patristic writer to quote him is Melhodius, De Res. Anim. 37. 1 . q7. DODWELL, Dissertationes in Irenaeum 1 689, p. 488; P. G. 6 . 1 8 2 . q8. S o C. C . RICHARDSON, Earlv Christian Fathers, London 1953, p . 290.

297 of the school broken by a missionary tour to the East and India and it is possible that Clement may have taken over during this time. It is also noteworthy that Alexander of Jerusalem, in his letter to Origen (Eus. H. E. 6. 14) speaks of Pantaenus and Clement as if they were both known to Origen and had each been his master. These notices suggest that Philip of Side's account may contain elements of historical truth. Certainly, Philip's knowledge of the Alexandrian School could have been more trustworthy than his knowledge about other periods of Church history, as the school had continued in existence to his own day when it was transferred to Side, his birthplace. Another small piece of eviden­ ce connecting Athenagoras with Egypt occurs in De Res. 12, where Athenagoras casually mentions a shelter for camels. The camel was unknown in Greece and Asia Minor (where Athenagoras has sometimes been located) but in Egypt it was a familiar sight, being used in the postal service49• I turn now to Athenagoras' thought. This is strongly dualistic, God being radically distinguished from the world and matter. So Suppl. 4: ' Now when we make a distinction between matter and God and show that mat­ ter is one being while God is quite other completely separated from the former - for the divine is unbegotten and invisible, beheld only by mind . and thought, while matter is subject to generation and corruption ­ surely it is unreasonable of them to charge us with atheism ?' God is separated from matter by a vast gulf and alone reigns in his unique Oneness. So in Suppl. 10 Athenagoras accumulates phrases to emphasise the unique position occupied by the One God: ' I have given sufficient proof that we are not atheists, but hold God to be one, unbegotten, eternal, invisible, suffering nothing, comprehended by none, circumscribed by none, apprehended by mind and reasoning alone, girt about with light and beauty and spirit and power indescribable, Creator of all things by his Word, their embellisher and master' 50. In Suppl. 6, Athenagoras states that Christians are not the only ones to Noted by J. H. CREHAN, A . C. W. 23, p. S. The camel was also known in Syria but this is an unlikely location for Athenagoras. 50. To ILev oi'iv &6EOI IL� e:tVot:l Evot: -rOv cXybnj,,:,ov )tot:! cXt810v )tot:! cX6?ot:'t'ov )tot:! cX7l'ot:67j )tot:l cXKot:-rtXAl)7l"t'OV )tot:! cXXWPl)TOV, vc;, IL6vcr )tot:! A6ycr )tot:'t'ot:Aot:IL�ot:v6!LEVOV, CP(,)'t'! xJt.t )t&'AAEI )tot:! 7l'veUILot:'t'l )tot:! 8uv&.ftEl cXvElt81l)n't'cr 7l'e:ple:x6ILEVOV, ocp' 01) ye:y&Vl)'t"ot:l ":'0 n-iiv 81eX ('t'oG 7I'ot:p' ) «UTOU Myou mt 8Iot:ltElt60'!Ll)'t'ot:l )tot:! auYXPot:":'Ei't'ot:l, 0e:ov &yOV":'E�, l)tot:vw; !LOt 8&8e:!)t't"ot:l. q9.

298 confine God to a Monad {OCt-A' bte�o� ocouvor:t'ov oe�xvue�v ocveu 7tocpoc6ecrecoc; , \ , , } , � .., , � ' t: ' ,� \ [L'rj\ [.Lovo� e�c; [.Lovocooc 't"ov xoc't"ocxl\ew[L€V, em 't"occ; oo�occ; oV0[.Loc't"cov o't"� e't"poc7t6[.L1jv ) . Plato too held that the unbegotten and unseen God is One. This strong emphasis on the 'Oneness' of God is also found in Arius. The let Ler of Arius to Alexander begins as follows5I : Ol:ooc[.Lev EVOC 0e6v, "/ � ",\ e ' , ' , [.Lovov ocyevv'rj't"ov, OCI\1j �vov, [.LO'Jov oc' 6ocvoccnocv OC�OW\I, [.Lovov ocvocP'X0v, [Joovov [.Lovov e'Xov't"oc, [.L6vov aorpov, [.Lovov ocyoc96v, [.Lovov ouvoca,'rjv. 52 This accumulation of phrases is similar to, although more emphatic than, the list in Athenagoras Suppl. 10. Similarly, Arins uses [LOVOCC; of the indivisibility of the Godhead in the same letter: OCAA' WC; [.LOVOCC; xocl ocP'X� 7tocv't"cov, o(hcoc; 0 eeoc; 7tpO 7tocv't"wv Ea':'L ( God is be fore all things, as Monad and Beginning of all' )53. Athenagoras' emphasis on the 'Oneness' of God and his use of the term [.LOVOCC; might suggest that both he and Arius began with the 'Abso­ lute' of the philosophers - a 'bare' Unity - and then introduced a veneer of Christianity into their systems. However, this would appear to be too one - sided a view. Athenagoras, while arguing for the Oneness of God, also gives full recognition to his biblical attributes. So in the same chapter in which the accumulation of 'Oneness' phrases occurs, he says: 'The Father and the Son are One . The Son being in the Father and the Father in the Son by the powerful union of the Spirit...for God was from the beginning, being eternal mind, and had His Word within Himself, being from eternity possessed of a Word'54. This may seem to be in con­ flict with the conception of God as [.LOVOCC; and far removed from the po­ sition of Arius: yet is it ? Arius, it is true, taught a bare Unity of God {[.LOVOCC;)55. His criticism of SabeIIius for asserting a ut07toc't"opoc 56 and as TIjv [.LOVOCOOC OLOC�PWV is, however, mainly directed against economic tri­ nitarianism57. It does not mean that Arius excluded all distinctions through his emphasis on the bare Unity. Arius' Trinity in fact arises \

I

I

I

,I

'

51. ATH AN ASJ US, De Synodis 16; OPITZ, Urkunden 6. 2 . 52. The last five phrases are scriptural (In. 1 7 . 3 ; 1 Tim. 6 . 1 6 , 1 . 17; Mark 10. 18; 1 Tim. 6. 15) and the others are well established in tradition. G. C. STEAD, op. cit. p. 17 53. Cf. the further passage in Suppl. 10 : e� ocpxtic; ydt:p b eEOC;. 5!• . Suppl. 10. Note, too, the biblical attributes in Suppl. 9 where Athen agoras quotes Exod. 20. 2f.; [sa. V•. 6, 43, 1 0f., 66. 1 . 55. cr. CLE H., A L E X . Strom. 5. 71 . 2 , where God is compared to a point wi thou t locat i on. 56. ATHA N . , De Synod. 16; Hil. De Trin. 4. 12 57. G. C. ST E A D , op . cit. pp. 18, 19.

299

through the creation of distinct and subordinate beings by the original monad - a delegation of functions. What reason is there for thinking that Arius was directly acquaint­ ed with Athenagoras or the tradition which he represents ? The emphasis on the 'Oneness' of God in both may of course simply derive from a com­ mon Middle Platonist background58• Nevertheless, both differ from the more biblical monotheism of the Antiochene school and also from the graded system of Origen which emphasised di fferent levels of the divine Being. Another point in common is that Athenagoras, unlike the other Apologists, carefully avoided applying the term 'generation' to the logos in order to emphasise that the Godhead was not involved, like pagan deities, in procreative acts. Similarly, Arius violently reacted against any idea that God was involved in natural or physical processes. As we have no certain knowledge of a tradition about the 'Oneness' of God (which avoided the idea of generation) running through Alexandrian thought to the time of Arius, is it altogether impossible that Arius may have known Athenagoras directly ? Did Athenagoras' em phasis on 'One­ ness' and non-generation of the logos go against him after the tim e of Origen ? Was this the reason why he was almost totally neglected within the Church, only being known to the Christian Platonist Methodius who also (perhaps) influenced Arius ? Be that as it may, we find both in Athenagoras and Arius an emphasis on 'Oneness', 'Monad' , 'Priority' ap­ plied to the Divine Being - although both develop their Trinity in dif­ ferent ways. Our next point of reference is Clement and Origen. We shall have little to say about them as Arius reacted strongly against Origen's aUegorism and his doctrine of the Eternal Generation of the Son. Never­ theless, his main debt to Origen is his subordinationist doctrine o f the Son which he intensifies and divests of the qualifications made by Ori­ gen. It would appear to be uncertain whether, in Origen's day, there was a definite tradition which asserted that ' there was when the Son was not' as professor Wiles argues from Origen' s explicit repudiation of the phrase69• More likely, Origen was merely underlining his theory of the Eternal Generation of the Son against earlier Dynamic Monarchian theories. Similarly, Origen's antipathy to those who think the logos is 58. PHILO, Leg. All. 2. 3; CLEM . ALEX., Paed. 1. 7 1 . 1. 59. De Prine. 4. 4. 1. Wiles op . cit. p . 341 . Cr. also ATll E N AG ORAS, Suppl. 10 : Wt; yev6!Levov.

oU"/.

300

made up of syllables60 may simply be exasperation with those members of the Alexandrian Church who could not follow his speculations rather than as a witness to Buch a tradition which continued among the simp­ liciores from the time of Origen right down to Arius' day (for which there is no other evidence. ) When we turn t o Dionysius of Alexandria (head o f the catechetical school A. D. 231 - 2, 247 - 8), we are on firmer ground. Dio­ nysius is clearly important for Arian antecedents. Arius himself appealcd to Dionysius in support of his views61, especially those contained in the letter 7tpOc; Eucppocvopoc xoct 'AfLfLWVLOV, and this was the cause of the not altogether happy defence of Dionysius by Athanasius in De Sent. Dion. Dionysius' opinions , which later appealed to Arius, were to result in a celebrated controversy with Dionysius of Rome concerning SabeIIian­ ism. It was in 257 that Dionysius called the attention of Bishop Xystus I I to this trinitarian deviation which had now arisen at Ptolemais in the Pentapolis. He appears to be unaware that Sabellianism had an older history. In Libya, in the mid - third century, it had gained such a hold that certain bishops had become infected with it such that
301 "

"� , . '••' d " , 6,J:, !l ' ,J:, " 1tP�V ye:vv'Yj 1), OCM 'Iv 7t01'e: u1'e: OUX 'Iv' OU yocp OC�OLO� e:cr,�v OCFV\ ucrnpOV e:7tLye:yove:v : De Sent. Dion. 14 ) ; the (3 ) he named the Father without the Son and the Son without " • ' ., ' , ' "t' � � ' 1. . •t " F ath er ( 7tOC"t"e:poc r..e:ywv OUX OVO[.Loc"e:� 1'uv u�uv XOC� 7t(JfJ\�V ULuV r..e:yCJJ V OUX 0'10[.LcX�e:L 1'0'1 7tOC1'EPOC : De Sent. Dion. 1 6 ) . ; (4 ) he virtually rejected the term O[.LOoucrwe; used of the Son (7tpocr, , - .1, - � d ((le:poucr�V e:,fy xr... 'Yj [.LOC XOC1', e:[.LOU 'i'e:Uooe; w� OU r... e:yov'w; "t"OV Xp�cr"rOV O[.LOOUcrLOV e:!VOCL 1'0 8e:0 : De Sent. Dion. 1 8 ) ; (5) he spoke of the Son as a creature of the Father and used mis­ leading illustrations of their relationship (7tob)[.Loc xocl. y e:v'Yj1'ov e:!voc� 1'0'1 utov 1'OU 0e:ou, [.L�1'e: 3& ((lUcre:L �3LOV, OCAAOC �EVOV xoc1" oUcrf.ocv ocu1'ov e:!voc� 1'OU n oc" , e:cr1'LV 0 ye:wpyo� 1'P 6e;, W(l"7te:p 7tpO� 't"YjV OC[.L7te:r..'\ OV XOCL 0 VOCU7t'Yjyo� 7tpOe; TO crxoc((lo� , xocl. yocp we; 7to t'Yj[.LOC WV OUX �V 7tpl.v yEv'Yj1'OCL : De Sent. Dion. 4 ) . Dionysius o f Rome appears to have convened a Synod to consider the complaint which duly condemned the expressions used65• He then addressed a formal letter to the Alexandrian Church on the subject of SabeIlianism66 while writing privately to Dionysius for an explanation. Dionysius' reply was the "E)..,e:yxo e; xocl. 'A7to)..,0Y[oc in four books referred to by Eusebius67, which contains SOme special pleading. His defence of the five points listed above, was as follows: (1) Dionysius denies he separated the Father and the Son: 'Each of the names mentioned by me is inseparable and indivisible from its neighbour ... Thus each is each, the one being different from the other: and being two, they are one'. (2) God was always the Father, and therefore Christ was always the Son, j ust as, if the sun were eternal the daylight would also be eter­ nal. The Son derives his being from the Father and is related to the Fa­ ther as the rays are to the light. (3) Already refuted under ( 1 ). (4) As to the non - employment of the term o [.Looucrw e; Dionysius admits that he did not use it as it was non - scriptural. Nevertheless he maintains that he has employed figures suggesting a similar relation­ ship between the Father and the Son, e.g. the figure of parent and child who are O[.Loye:ve:"Le; and seed and root and plant which are o [.Lo tpu� , and •

'

"

�

\

\

"

'

'

\

(

'

,

"

'

\

'

65. ATH A N . , De Synod. 4.3, 4.5. 66. AT HAN., De Deeret. Nic. Sym. 26; ct. De Sent Dion. 13 67. H. E. 7. 26. 1 : cruVT&:'t"'t"EL Be m:pt Tlic; cxu�c; tm06sO"EwC; (KCXTcX :ECX�EM(O\) ) KCXt (iN.OX -rSO"O"cxpcx cruYYP&:ftILCXTCX,

&.

Ti;l KCXTdt 'PWIL1)v 0ILWVUftCJl �LOVUO"(CJl 7tpOO"tpWVE"L.

302 source and stream, and b EV xocp 3tqr. )..Oyoc, and b 3�oc YAwcr(Jf)C, votic; 7tpo7t1l3w'J. Dionysius is here following the East in envisaging three personae of the same genus and natura rather than the Western tradition of one substan­ tia existing in three personae68 • (5) Dionysius' defence of his use of 7tOL1l(J.OC, illustrated by the ye:wp­ yoc, with his vine and the VOCU7t1lY0C, with his boat, is that these were un­ doubtedly unsuitable figures used somewhat casually - yet they were not the only ones used. Others more apposite had been used ((4) above), yet his critics had fastened only on these in order to assail him69• How far was Arius justified in appealing to Dionysius? In the mid third A. D. century there was clearly much theological fluidity in the Alexandrian Church. Dionysius held that the use of a variety of illust­ rations in describing abstruse concepts was not only permissible but desirable. His opponents did not agree with this and felt that statements, even about the Godhead, should bear a plain literal meaning. Further explanation of his views on Dionysius' part apparently satisfied his critics at the time. It is, however, significant that Dionysius, in his defence of his use of 7to (1)(J.oc , does not withdraw the term - neither does he withdraw ye:wpyoC; nor vocu7t1ly6c;. Athanasius, in defending Dionysius70, is clearly embarrassed and at times is reduced to special pleading; so he attempts to explain away Dionysius' doubtful expressions by referring them to the human nature of Christ - an explanation which has no sup­ port elsewhere in the "EAeyxo� )Cai ' AnoAoyla and which is inherently un­ likely. He will not see anything in Dionysius which could support A­ rianism71• Basil of Caesarea is however much cooler in his defence of Dionysius. In Ep. 1. 9, addressed to Maximus the philosopher who had consulted him about the orthodoxy of Dionysius, Basil says: 'We do not admire all the man says, some things indeed we distinctly contradict. For he is, so far as we know, the first man who sowed the seed of the im piet y now prevailing as to 1:0 ocv o(J. owv. Yet I do not think wickedness of purpose is the cause but his vehement desire to oppose SabeIlius'. Basil then proceeds to compare Dionysius to a gardener who, in trying to straighten the branch of a tree, pulls it too much the other way: 'the 68. C. L. FELTOE, The Letters and Other Remains of Dionysius of Alexandria, Cambridge 190ft p . 1 72. 69. According to AT HAN., De Sent. Dion. 1ft this was the substance of Dionysius' complaint - that his critics did not take his utterances as whole . 70. De Sent. Dion. 7 1 . Dionysius himself held that 7ro(1)!J.<X - 7rOI1)TI) <; could have a variety of meanings.

303

result is that he exchanges one evil for another and misses the Op6oTI)4; TaU Abrou. Consequently he is very variable in his compositions, some­ times rej ecting TO OP.OOU17LOV, because his opponent had used it to dis­ prove the U7tOo"Toccre�4;, and sometimes adopting it where he is answering his namesake72• And moreover about the Spirit also he has uttered words which are by no means becoming to the Spirit, banishing H im from the adorable Godhead and reckoning Him in a lower rank with created and subject nature. Such therefore is the man' . Arius' appeal to Dionysius for support for his views would appear to have been legitimate. There is little doubt that Dionysius used language which suggested that the Son was distinct from the Father and that he was a 7tot'Ylp.oc - although this was but one term among a number of imag­ es and quali fications which could be used to deal with abstruse con­ cepts73. It is significant that Arius held that the Son is a creature 'but not as one of the creatures' 74, which suggests a similar use of qualifying language75• So Basil was therefore quite justified in seeing in Dionysius a forerunner of Arianism. It is interesting that Basil notes that Diony­ sius was 'very variable in his compositions' , although he does not grasp that this was inherent in Dionysius' theological method of applying .variable imagery to the Father and Son. It is, I think, in theological method, rather than in exact correspondences, that Arius approaches Dionysius most closely. I n this sense he can regard himself as a traditio­ nalist . We turn now to Theognostus (head of the catechetical school 247 /8 - 282) of whose life almost nothing is known. Only four fragments survive of the work of this most interesting man, although Photius76 has preserved an account of a work consisting of seven books with the title TOU (LcXxcXplou E>eoyvwO"ToU 'AAe�ocv3pEw,; xocl e�'1)Y'1)':'ou 'Y7to't'U7tWO"e:�4;­ apparently a comprehensive account in outline of Christian doctrine. From Photius it would seem that the account dealt with such subjects as the Father, Son, Holy Spirit, Angels and daemons, the I ncarnation of the Saviour and the Creation. Theognostus apparently had Origenist sympathies. He denied the eternity of matter; he regarded the Son as a creature (XTto"(J.OC) and confined his authority and operation to ratio72. 73. 7q. 75. 76.

This is inaccurate. Dionysius never used the term. Dionysius does not use the term It't'tO'ILCX. Opitz. Urkunden 6 (12. 9f) Wiles, op. cit. p. 3�3 5. Cod. 106. Routh, Rei. Sac. 3. U2 H . -

-

304 nal beings; he distinguished between the teaching of the Son and the teaching of the Spirit; attributed a bodily existence to angels and dea­ mons; and limited the personal presence of the Son to the incarnation. All of these ideas can be paralleled in Origen. For our purposes, most significant is the fact that, according to Photius, Theognostus referred to the Son as a creature (utov 3& )..J:ywv X'rLcr(J.oc OCUTOV oc1tocpocLve:�). Whether Photius was quoting an exact word of Theognostus or merely giving the gist of what he taught cannot be determined. But it is clear that Theog­ nostus did use xTLcr(J.oc or something similar, from the fact that Photius is very embarrassed and does his best to give Theognostus the benefit of the doubt - so he may have been stating an argument rather than lay­ ing down a doctrine; or accommodating himself to the lower level of a hearer unfamiliar with the Christian religion; or perhaps he held back part of the truth in the belief that any sort of knowledge of the Son was better than absolute unfamiliarity and ignorance. Photius, however, had no exact knowledge of the meaning of XTLcr(J.OC - XTL�W in Theognost­ us' day - or, for that matter, in Arius' time. Origen77 may have used the term xTLcr(J.oc before Theognostus but it is too facile a procedure to read a clear - cut meaning into the term in the third and early - fourth cen­ turies. KTLcr(J.OC for Theognostus meant what 1to('Yl(J.oc did for Dionysius. It was a metaphor, capable of being used in various senses, which was used of the basic relationship of the Father and the Son. Arius took up this term in describing the relationship between the oucr(oc of the Father and the OUcrLOC of the Son. The Son was essentially the expression of the Father's Will and X"t"Lcr(J.OC - XTL�W expressed this. Athanasius78 appealed to the 'learned Theognostus' as using the phrase EX -rij � OUcrLOC� of the Father in reference to the Son which, in Atha­ nasius' opinion, excluded Arianism. This, however, is to read later ideas into the more fluid thoughts of Theognostus. It is significant that the Arians themselves appealed to Theognostus as an authority on their side. Gregory Nyssen remarks that the extreme Arian Eunomius was not alone in describing the Son as an instrument in the work of creation, for the like error is found in the writings of Theognostus, who says that 'God, wishing to frame this world, first set the Son before Him as a kind of standard of creation'79. These words, if genuine, undoubtedly could 77. De Princ. 4. 4. 1 78. De Decret. 25. 79. c. Eunom. 3. 3 : -rOv 0e:ov ()ou).6!'EVOV T68e: TO Ttiiv ltCXTcxaxe:u&'aOtl TtpWTOV TOV u!ov ot6v TIVCX ltcxv6vcx Tijt; 8'1l!L1oupytcxc; TtpotiTtOO"t'ijacxaOcxl.

305

suggest that the Son was created as the preparation for the creation of the Universe, an idea which Arius developed. Arius distinguished between the Logos and Son and Pollard sees in this a direct contradiction to the teaching of Origen and the Alexand­ rian tradition80• Wiles, however, has shown81 that the drift of Arius' thought is not so far removed from that of Origen as is sometimes ima­ gined. The same may be said of Theognostus. 'The Scriptures' writes Theognostus, 'give the Son the names of Logos and Wisdom. H e is cal­ led Logos as issuing from the mind of the Father of the Universe, for it is plain that Logos is the noblest offspring of mind. But Logos is also an image (dxwv), for Logos alone is entrusted with the outward con­ veyance of the thoughts that exist in the Mind. Words, however, in us men are but a partial enunciation of such things as are capable of enun­ ciation, and they leave some things unspoken, treasured in the mind alone. But the living Logos o f God < interprets all the Mind of God>.Where­ fore < Logos> is also called Wisdom, as that name is better able to indicate the multitude of thoughts contained in Him'82. The entrusting of the Logos with the work of revelation may be an echo of Origen's subor­ dinationism. A6yoc" for Theognostus, denotes the offspring of the Fa­ ther's mind, while I:ocptoc is used to denote the Son as the complete expres­ sion of the Father's mind. The words, in Theognostus, fall into pa irs83

(&'1t6PPOLOC ) A6yoc, (OC1tocuyOCG(J.oc) (e£xwv ) GOcp(oc (x&:t'01t't'pov )

=

=

ori gin and distinctnes resemblance and representation

Theognostus makes Son the personal name of the second hypostasis in the Godhead. Logos and Sophia are titles of the 'Son'. This m ay not be far removed from Arius' thought. Arius said that the Son could be said to be Logos 'in a lesser, relative sense' (xoc't'OCXP'YlCl"'t'LXWc,)84, and treated the concept Logos as one of the many E1ttVOLOCL of the Son, parallel to

80. 81. 82. 83. Sq.

Op. cit. (n. q2) 106 - 11 Op. cit. (n. q3) pp. 3U - 3. Fragment of Hypotyposeis, published by F. DIEKAMP, T. Q., 1 902. L. B. RA D F ORD , Theognostus, Pie,.ius and Pete,., Cambridge, 1908, p. 2q. ATHAN., 0,.. c. A,.. 1. 5. :10

306 Wisdom and truth86. This could be merely an extension of Theognostus' belief that Logos, Sophia are titles of the Son. In some ways, Arius is nearer to Theognostus than to Origen and may have found support for his views in Theognostus' use of K't'(cr(J.OC in his idea of the Son as 'the standard of creation', and in his use of Logos as a title of the Son and, in that sense, derivative. However, there is much in Theognostus which does not fit into Arius' system. Nevertheless, it is possible that, as with Dionysius, Arius picked up one strand in Theognostus' thought and developed it with remorseless logic within his own philosophical scheme. We now turn to Pierius who was distinguished alike as an as­ cetic, teacher and preacher. He was a presbyter of the Alexandrian Church under Theonas (bishop 281 /2 - 300)86. Although we know more about his life and work than we do of Theognostus, the fragments of his writings which have survived are few and make the reconstruction of his theology difficult. Pierius was ca11ed ' Origen the younger'87 and apparently talked mysteriously about 'the pre - existence of souls'88. Although, according to Photius, his language about the Father and the Son was 'reverent' there was one exception: he spoke of two oUcrLOCL and two cpucreLC; of the Father and Son and also asserted that the Spirit was inferior in glory to the Father and the Son89. Pierius clearly followed Origen's subordinationism. The lineaments of the later Semi - Arian denial of the deity of the Spirit may also possibly be found here. Too little, however, is known of Pierius to draw any firm conclusions as to any possible debt of Arius to him. Nevertheless, it is not impossible that Arius may have developed further the somewhat fluid terminolo­ gy found in Pierius' extant fragments into a system in which the ' Oneness' of God is contrasted with the creativity and 'other' status of the Son. With Peter the Martyr, Arius' exact contemporary, we are on firmer ground. He was head of the catechetical school, probably in succession to Serapion, although we do not know whether he resigned that office when he succeeded Theonas as bishop of Alexandria in 300 A. D. Eusebius praises his piety and biblical knowledge and describes 85. ATHAN., De Synodis 15 Thalia : rnlVoe:!-rCXt youv ILup(CXte; lIo-cxte; rnlVo£CXte; 7tVe:UILcx, 8uVCXILte;, o-ocptcx, 86�cx 0e:ou, ciA�6e:ta. -re: xcxt e:btwv Kcxt Myo<; oi'i-roc;. 86. E u s . , H. E. 7. 32. 87. J E ROM E , De Vi,.. III. 76: ut Origenes iunior vocaretur 88. PHOTlUS, Cod. 119. 89. Cod. 119.

307

him as 'a splendid example of a teacher of the Christian Faith'90. The exact order o f events in Peter's life is not clear, but it seems that, at one stage, he had to flee from Egypt and only returned c. 305 6 after a long absence91. Eventually he was martyred on 25 November 311 dur­ ing Maximinus' persecution, possibly in retaliation for the insubordinat­ ion of the Christian populace. Peter represents a reaction against Origenism such as is exemplified by Pierius. He repudiated Origen's teaching on the allegorical interpre­ tation of Scripture92; the belief in the pre - existence of souls93; and Ori­ gen's denial of the material identity of the resurrection body with the earthly body94 - in this approaching the pre - Origen tradition of Athe­ nagoras. Of particular interest for our purpose is Peter's evidence that in his day, i.e. contemporary with Arius, there was strong opposition to Origen in Alexandria. In the A cta Martyrum of Peter, there is one notice which at least witnesses to the prevalent impression of Peter's theological attitude. In his farewell address, in which he foretells tri­ bulation for the Church and recalls its past troubles, Peter refers, in these words, to the time of the blessed bishops Heracles and Demetrius ... 'What trials they endured from the madness of Origen, who gave rise to schisms in the Church which stir up strife here unto this day'95. If this is an authentic notice, then there was strife between Origenist and anti Origenist factions in the Alexandrian Church in Peter's time. This can­ not refer to Meletianism which was a rigorist, not a doctrinal, schism. Most probably Peter represented a literalist scriptural approach which was opposed by followers of Origen's views. Not too much should be made of Peter's supposed antagonism to Greek philosophy expressed in the second Greek fragment in this single sentence: ' It is not possible for souls to sin in heaven before (their union with) bodies, since they have not even existed before bodies. This teaching belongs to Greek philoso-

H. E. 8. 1 3 . 7. For Peter's remains A. C. O. 1 . 1. 2 . 9 1 . Peter represented the more liberal wing in the conflict with Meletius over the restoration of the lapsi of the Great Persecution. See H. ACHELIS, Das Christen­ tum in den ersten drei Jahrhunderten 1912, 2, p. 308 - 11 and W. TELFER, Analeeta Bollancliana 67, 1%9 p. 125, who points out that Peter's flight goes far to explain the success of Meletianism. 92. PROCOPIUS, Comm. in Gen. 3. 21. 93. Fragment in Routh, Rei. Sac. !t. q8, q9. 9q. PITltA, Analeeta Sacra q. 187 - 19q. 95. VJTBAU, Passions des Saints Eeaterine et Pierre d'Ale.xandrie, (1 897) p. 75. 90.

308 phy, which is foreign and alien to those who desire to live a godly life in Christ'96. However, in the last of the Syriac fragments edited by Pitra, Peter says: 'it is the proper task of Christianity to give to each age in succession a knowledge free from error, and to lead to happiness of life those who are being perfected by that knowledge'97. Peter was therefore no bare biblical literalist with little or no interest in philosophy. Only he emphasised that learning must be true to its spiritual end - and he did not believe Origen's was. What then of any possible influence on Arius ? Peter and Arius were associated for a time but Peter excommunicated Arius, probably for complicity in the Meletian cause, i.e. for supporting a rigorist conception of a 'Church of the Martyrs' and the validity of its baptisms. Bishops loyal to Peter tried to win Arius from the hands of the Meletians and, just before Peter's death, Arius made his peace with him; for this act of reconciliation the Meletians regarded Arius as a traitor and a few years later were to bring against him a charge of heresy98. Peter clearly could have influenced Arius at a formative stage in his theological development. What evidence is there to suggest that this was the case ? Peter's literalist biblicism, which was at the opposite extreme to the allegorism of Origen and his supporters, might have in­ fluenced Arius who appealed to LXX proof texts for his rather litera­ list exegesis. However, this is not quite certain. Peter was not the only early Christian to adopt a literalist attitude towards the Bible. This tradition had a long history in Antioch. More significant is Peter's evi­ dence that in his day there was strife between pro and anti - Origenist factions in the Alexandrian Church. The debate over the disposal of Origen's effects still continued when Arius began to evolve his system. If, then, we look back on Arius' possible Alexandrian antecedents, we get the following picture: Athenagoras : Strongly dualistic. Emphasises 'Soleness', ' Oneness' , 'Priority' of God (!Lovocc;) who is himself separated from matter by a vast gulf. Avoids idea of generation in respect of the Logos, although develops his trinitarian thought in a different way to Arius. Arius may owe most to him among Christian Platonists. 96. ROUTH, Rei. Sac. q. q6, q7. Analecta Sacra q. 187 - 1 %. 98. Peter had originally excommunicated Arius: SOZOMEN , H. E. 1 . 15. W. TEL­ FER, Harllard Theological Relliew q6, 19 55, p. 231 connects this with Peter's decla­ ration of the invalidity of Meletian baptisms. 97.

309 Origen : Arius' main debt is to his subordinationist doctrine of the Son. Dionysius of Alexandria : Used a variety of illustrations in describing the Godhead (e.g. ye:wpyoC; vocu7tlJy 6c; ) ; language which sug­ gested that the Son was distinct from the Father; and held that the Son was a 7tot'Yl(J.oc, although this was but one term among a number of ima­ ges and qualifications which could be used to deal with abstract concepts. Main influence on Arius is in theological method, rather than in exact correspondences. Theognostus : Origenist sympathies. The Son is a X'dcr(J.oc (a metaphor capable of being used in various senses) and also the standard of creation (possibly created as a preparation for the creation of the Universe ?). Logos and Sophia are titles of the Son and, in that sense, derivative. Arius may have been indebted to Theognostus and may have extended further his subordination ism. Pierius: Followed Origen' s subordinationism. Used fluid termino­ logy. Too little is known of him to draw any conclusion as to his possible influence on Arius. Peter: Anti - Origenist. Used a literal, scriptural exegesis, al­ though not wholly anti - philosophical in outlook. Witnesses to the strife between Origenist and anti - Origenist factions in early fourth century Alexandria. Influence on Arius uncertain. In the light of the above investigation, how far are we justified in speaking of an 'Alexandrian theological tradition' to which Arius appeal­ ed ? It is true that Arius himself claimed to be a conservative Christian. His letter to Alexander of Alexandria contains this statement: 'This is our faith which has come down from our ancestors and which we have also received from you, blessed Pope'99. His profession of faith which he addressed to the Emperor Constantine contains a similar protestat­ ion: 'Wherefore we entreat thy piety, most devout Emperor, since we are Churchmen and hold the faith and mind of the Church and the H oly Scriptures, to reconcile us through thy peaceable and devout piety to our Mother, the Church'loo. Moreover, the opening verses of the Thalia read as follows: 'According to the faith of the elect of God, the prudent of God, holy sons, right dividers of the word of truth who received the -

99. ATHA N., De Synod. 16. The passage however does not occur in the Latin ver­ sion of Hilary of Poitiers, De Trin. 4.. 1 2 - 13. 100. SOCRATES, H. E. 1. 26; SOZOMEN , H. E. 2. 27.

310

Holy Spirit of God, this I have learnt from thos e who partake of wisdom, cultured, taught of God and wise in all respects' IOI. This appeal to a con­ servative tradition might be justified if there was a strong 'proto - Arian' tradition discernible in the writings of the Alexandrian thinkers we have examinedlo2• However, we have shown that this is doubtful. Arius was, in fact, an eclectic thinker who took elements from earlier thinkers and pushed them to extremes in working out his system. So his idea of God strongly resembles that of the Middle Platonist Athenagoras. His con­ cept of the Son is Origenist, although divested of the qualifications which Origen introduced (so the most distinctive feature of Origen's thought, the Eternal Generation of the Son, is foreign to him). His theological method is similar to that of Dionysius. H e extended further Theognos­ tus's subordinationism. The influence of other Alexandrian thinkers is uncertain. This is hardly the use of an Alexandrian 'theological tra­ dition' but rather 'eclecticism'. Arius, in fact, took what he wanted from earlier thinkers, who themselves witness to the fluid state of Alexandrian theology in the third century, and worked them into his system with remorseless logic. He began with a concept of God as (J.ovocc; (which, ho­ wever, did not exclude his biblical attributes) and fitted his soteriology and Christo logy into this. Arius' philosophical presuppositions deter­ mined the direction which his theological speculation took. At the most we can regard him as developing further a subordinationism found in several Alexandrian thinkers - although not exclusively in them. In this sense, Ariu s is correctly described as a left - wing Origenist103• What of other theological influences ? Pollard has argued strongly for an Antiochene influence mediated by Paul of Samosata and Lucian to which Arius was heirI04• While there is nothing to connect Arius with PauP06 and our knowledge of Lucian's theology is woefully inadequate, there is no doubt that Arius found support in the group of left - wing Origenists known by the name of Collucianistslo6• However, if the Lu101. ATHAN., 0,.. c. A,.. 1. 5. 102. Similar appeals to tradition were made by other heretics and cannot be taken at their face value unless supported by convincing evidence. 103. F. LOOFS, Leitfaden zum Studium de,. Dogmengeschichte p. 23q. 10q. Journal of Theological Studies (n. q2) pp. op. cit. 103, 1M. 105. Paul contrasted the Wisdom of God with the human saviour Jesus, whereas for Arius even the lower, generated, Wisdom had existed from before the Creation. G. C. STEAD, op. cit. p. 21. For the charge that Arius drew upon the teaching of Paul, see ALEXANDER OF ALEXAND RIA in THEODORET, H. E. 1. q. 35. 106. G. BARDY, Reche,.ches sur Lucien d'Antioche et son ecole, 1936, pp. 185 - 216.

311 ClallIc creed underlies the formula ratified at the Dedication Council held at Antioch in the summer of 341 ,107 it seems unlikely that Arius would have found support for his theological views from Lucian himself, apart from his use of a literalist, exegetical method similar to that found in Peter of Alexandria. More to the point is the evidence of Eusebius of Caesarea, whose importance for an understanding of the origins of Arianism has often been under - estimated. The keystone of Eusebius' system, which had been worked out before the Arian controrersy began, was the transcendence of the Father, the indivisible Monad, who is alone self - existent and without beginning. The Son, for Eusebius, is not co - eternal with the Father, who alone is ocyevv'Yj":oc; and prior to the Son. The Son's existence depends on a specific act of the Father's Will. This is radical subordinationist Origenism, similar to that of Arius whose cause Eusebius embraced at an early stage of the controversy. Both Arius and Eusebius (prior to his theological rehabilitation at the Coun­ cil of Nicaea) had an overriding interest in soteriology, although this did not exclude Christology. To sum up the results of our investigation, Arianism was foremost a matter of philosophical dualism. In the early - fourth century any attempt to construct a theological system which allowed a position for the Son, while keeping such an initial philosophical position intact, was bound to lead to something like Arianism. The latter's roots were not, I think, primarily in Alexandria or in Antioch per se. Arius drew on no 'proto-Arian' tradition already evolving within the Church. His system was simply philosophical dualism108 - although, as we have shown ear­ lier, any attempt to find a precise philosophical origin for Arianism in Platonism, Aristotelianism or, for that matter, in Stoicism is fraught with uncertainty. While Arius' hierarchy of Being corresponds to trends in later Platonism, and may use Platonic terminology, we cannot de­ monstrate any decisive influence on him. His system was simply a phi­ losophical dualism of its own kind, although not without a biblical co­ louring in its idea of the Sole, Unoriginate God, to which was allied a left ­ wing Origenism. The sum total was decked out with an eclectic mixture of elements taken over from a variety of thinkers mainly, but not wholly, Alexandrian. These were fused together by Arius into a logical whole. 107. G. BARDY, op. cit. 85 132; J. N. D. KELLY, Early Christian Creeds, 1960, pp. 268 - 71; H . E. W. TURNER, The Pattern of Christian T,.uth, 1954., p. 14.6. 108. While it is true that Arius shared with Athenagoras, Alexander and Athana­ sius this basic dualism, the latter three thinkers do violence to their philosophical dualism in order to establish a position for the Son which is theologically and devo­ tionally adequate. Arius would have none of this. -

12*

ATHANASIUS AND THE ROMAN STATE Athanasius wrote no appreciation or critique of the Roman State. In the fourth century A. D. Christian historiography was more concern­ ed with the history of the Church and the biography of Saints than with an interpretation of the relation of Church and State, or with a Christian interpretation of political history 1. This is understandable inasmuch as we cannot, in the lifetime of Athanasius (c. A. D. 295 - 373) yet speak of a Christian State. That only came into being from c. 382 when Gra­ tian severed the imperial office from paganism by rejecting the office and functions of pontifex maximus and when, by the decrees Cunctos populos and Ep iscop is tradi, he, Valentinian and Theodosius enforced adherence to the Nicene Faith on the peoples living within the Empire. Constantine and his successors, before the time of Gratian, followed somewhat ambivalent, and perhaps intentionally ambiguous, policies. Outwardly the Emperors were Christians. Yet they continued to dis-. charge the office of pontifex maxim us and allowed State support for the pagan priesthood and rituals. It is true that Constantine issued an edict urging pagan subjects to adopt Christianity - yet he allowed them free­ dom of worship and forbad Christians to molest them. Indeed there is evidence that he made efforts to remain on good terms with pagans, particularly in Rome 2. Even Constantius I I , who issued fierce edicts • Politique et Theologie chez Athanase d'Alexandrie, Paris (1974.) 1 27-14.3; Latomus 36 (1 977) 4.22-4.37. 1. A. MOMIGLIANO, The Conflict between Paganism and Christianity in the Fourth Century, Oxford 19 63, 88. 2. Constantine referred to the Christian God as 'the highest god' (summa divi­ nitas, summus deus, potentissimus deus) with no reference to Christ. T he t riumpha arch dedicated to Constantine by the Senate in 315 also shows an accommodation to pagan and Christian ideas. The Emperor seems to have visualised Christ as sol, the sun god, and, even after his conversion, he appears on coins as sol comes, so mak­ ing it possible for pagans to identify the neoplatonic idea of God with that of th e Christians. Even Constantine's donations to the Church had the same significance as the State support for traditional cults. On this see J . ST R AU B , ((Constantine as 'xo�VOt; t7t£ax07l'O�'11 Dumbarton Oaks Papers 21, 1967, 39-55 and A. ALFODI, The Con­ pers ion of Constantine and Pagan Rome, Oxford 194.8, 110 ff. H. DORRIES, Constan-

313 against pagan practices, never enforced them 3. Valentinian I granted general toleration to all subjects of the Empire such that even the pagans praised him. Valens likewise allowed the pagans full religious freedom. It was Theodosius who made the first determined effort to establish orthodox Christianity as the unchallenged religion of the State. Not until the 380's and 390's can we speak of a Christian Empire 4. Thus in Athanasius' lifetime Church - State relations were not yet defined and Emperor and Church had to experiment. In Constantine's reign it was not yet clear whether the Christian Church should be governed by the same ius publicum as governed the State religion. This only became the case in Theodosius' reign who was 'son of the Church' and not, like Con­ stantine and his successors, pontifex maximus. It is then not surprising that Athanasius' attitude towards the Ro­ man State has to be inferred from scattered and incidental references in his writings. He was dealing with the transition of the Empire from paganism to Christianity, not with an established Christian State. There was not one imperial religious policy with which he had to deal, but the religious policies of several Emperors. The edicts of one Emperor might overturn those of his predecessors and pagan, heretical and orthodox Emperors could deal with religious groups as they thought fit. Athana­ sius therefore had to move with great circumspection. On the other hand the Christian Emperors, faced with heresy within the Church and the hostility of rival groups, could not be expected to know which form of Christianity would eventually triumph. Even Constantius II can be judged too harshly if we rely only on the writings of Athanasius and Hilary D. How far did the fourth century Emperors twist theology and ec­ clesiastical institutions to serve imperial interests or their own personal convictions ? The most celebrated example occured in the reign of Con­ stantius I I who attempted by force to obtain universal approval for an Arian creed and ecclesiastical deposition of orthodox bishops. Athathe Great, New York 1972, 1 86 ff. appears to go too far in holding that Constan­ tine's tolerance of paganism was due to his conviction that in the realm of faith only freedom mattered. More to the point is the fact that Constantine was homo politi­ cus and could not discard overnight his traditional Roman frame of reference. 3. SYMMACH US, Relatio 8; PL 16, 968. q. K. F. MORRISON, «Rome and the City of God)), Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, M Pt. 1 , Philadelphia 196q, 27. 5. A. H. M. J O:-iES The Decline of the Ancient World, London 1966, 58.

tine

314 nasius sensed the danger when he stated that Constantius was attempt­ ing to transform the Church into a civil senate. Yet it is significant that Athanasius accused Constantius, not of destroying the canons, but of subverting them, i. e. keeping the letter but vitiating the spirit 6. Even in this E mperor's reign the Church preserved at least the facade of independent jurisdiction in matters of faith and episcopal administrat­ IOn. Athanasius' first contact with the Emperor Constantine was at the Council of Nicaea in 325 which Athanasius attended as aide to bishop Alexander 7. The Emperor seems to have been well informed about ecclesiastical developments in Egypt from c. 3 1 9 and in view of the dete­ riorating situation in regard to Arianism he sent Ossius, his ecclesiasti­ cal adviser, to mediate between bishop Alexander and the Arian fact­ ion - but without success. After Ossius had summoned a Council at Antioch early in 325, which revealed the small support for Arianism then existing in the East, Constantine summoned the first so called 'ecumeni­ cal' council of bishops at Nicaea in 325. The Emperor scrupulously avoid­ ed usurping episcopal authority. There was to be no imperial court ­ but instead a synod of bishops. This procedure was to be the usual se­ natorial one used by Church and State which the churches of Rome and Africa had made their own. The Emperor presided at the sessions of the Council, as he presided over the Senate, and after making his relatio, inaugural speech, he called upon the members to state their points of view. The introduction of the homoousion was already on the agenda. This procedure no doubt suited both Constantine and the bishops, al­ though the autonomy of the latter in doctrinal matters was guarded by the fact that the Emperor did not vote in the Senate - only the Senators did. So there is no trace of Constantine voting with the bishops but only confirming their decisions. This was acceptable to the Emperor as it had historical precedence 8. The Emperor, while guarding his own rights as basileus, was fair to the bishops and undoubtedly he was pleas­ ed with their near unanimous decisions. However the advent of the two Eusebii (Caesarea and Nicomedia), the latter as the Emperor's eccle­ siastical adviser, marked a resurgence of Arian influence the outcome of 6. Historia Arianorum M. J. ATHANASIUS, De dec. Nic. syn. 3; Apol. c. A,.ian. 6; SOCRATES, HE 1, 8 . 8. F. DVOR�IK, Early Christian and Byzantine Political Philosophy, Washington 1966, II, 64.1.

315 which was a demand for Arius' readmission to communion. Athanasius' election as archbishop of Alexandria on 8 June 328 was disputed. I have shown elsewhere 9 that the statement in Apol. c. Arian 6, 5 ff., that Athanasius was elected to the see of Alexandria by a majo­ rity of the bishops in the sight, and with the acclamation, of the plebs cannot be taken at its face value. The tradition of a disputed election, preserved by both orthodox and non - orthodox writers, is too strong to be easily set aside and is confirmed by the fact that Athanasius had to seek confirmation of his election from the Emperor. H owever the exact details of Athanasius' consecration cannot now be recovered with certainty, although the tradition that he was consecrated by only a small number of bishops would account for his extensive j ourneys through his see immediately after his election. What purpose could these have had but to seek confirmation of his position which was clearly not a strong one ? Moreover the Meletian schism was still a problem in Egypt and the Eusebian party was rallying support against Athanasius. Soon after his election Constantine addressed a letter to the archbishop, a fragment of which is preserved in Apol. c. Arian. 59: ' Having therefore knowledge of my will, grant free admission to all who wish to enter the Church. For if I learn that you have hindered or excluded any who claim to be admitted into communion with the Church, I will immediately send someone who will depose you by my command, and will remove you from your place'. H . Nordberg10 argues that Constantine is here referring to the Melet­ ians, not the Arians, who were in 329 still a considerable threat in Egypt. This would appear unlikely as in Apol. c. Arian. 60 Athanasius states that, on receiving this letter, he answered endeavouring to convince the Emperor that 'that anti - Christian heresy had no communion with the Catholic Church' which seems to refer to Arianism which had been con­ demned at Nicaea - since Meletianism was not a doctrinal heresy. This was an emphatic imperial order to reinstate the Arians into Church communion perhaps as a result of a second session of the Council of Nicaea in 327. Athanasius was now in direct conflict with the Emperor, although he was neither deposed nor banished as a result of his answer no doubt because of his strong following in Egypt. The problem of the 9. See pp. 329-336. 10. Gommentationes Humanarum Litterarum 30, 3, Helsinki 19 63, 19

-

21.

316

Eusebians at this juncture was to gain a numerical preponderance over the orthodox - only this would fully impress the Emperor. This they suc­ ceeded in doing. Athanasius had a second encounter with the Emperor over his treatment of the Meletians. A deputation of three Meletian bishops appeared before Constantine and accused him of bribery and assault on Ischyras, a Meletian presbyter, in Mareotis. Athanasius, it was said, had sent a presbyter named Macarius who had attacked the altar with such violence that a communion cup had been broken. Whatever the precise historical facts, that such accusations could be made shows a hardening of relations between Athanasius and the Meletians issuing in mutual recriminations. We know from the Coptic documents published by H. I . Bellll that Athanasius was not averse to adopting strong arm methods against the Meletians who themselves had shown much violence and persecution towards the orthodox. In the case of Ischyras Athanasius' case was pleaded by two Alexandrian presbyters, Apis and Macarius (Apol. c. Arianos 60). Nordberg (op. cit. 22) points out the importance of this information for already, before bishop Ale­ xander's death, the presbyter Apis had been Athanasius' envoy at Con­ stantine's court and no doubt provided a means of gaining the Emperor's ear. The other p resbyter Macarius was clearly sent by Athanasius to account personally for the incident at the court. He may be the same person as the presbyter of the same name from the village of Parembole mentioned in the Breviarium Melitii in which case Athanasius was using a converted schismatic to refute an attack on the Meletians - a clever move in line with his later action at the Council of Tyre. Constantine however was not convinced by these two presbyters -

1 1 . Jews and Ch,.istians in Egypt, London 1924.. W. E. CRUM, ((Some Further Meletian Documents», Jnl. Egyptian A,.chaeology 13, 1927, 19 -26. Papyri Nos. 191314., dating from March 33r. and May - June 335, show that charges that Athanasius had engaged in violence, oppression and reprisals against the Meletians were not without foundation. In Papyrus No. 1914. CaIlistus, a Meletian monk, gives a cir­ cumstantial account of the sufferings of the Meletians at the hands of Athanasius and his followers. Athanasius had caused distress by imprisoning one of the Mele­ tian bishops in Lower Egypt in a meat market, a priest of the same district in the applicitum and a deacon in the principal prison. In addition he had banished or pro­ cured the banishment of seven Meletian bishops. There are suggestions in this Pa­ pyrus that Athanasius had interfered with the corn supply (cr., Apol. c. A,.ian. 87). A. H. M. JON ES, The Decline of the Ancient Wo,.ld ibid. (n. 5) r.5 refers to 'Ath anasius' bullies',

317 and requested Athanasius to appear before him in person to account for the incident. This Athanasius did at Nicomedia in 331 and entirely convinced the Emperor of his innocence of the charges made against him. Indeed he carried home with him a letter in which Constantine confirms the dubiousness of the accusations and praises Athanasius as a man of God12• However Athanasius was not to enjoy peace for long. In 333 the Arian controversy flared up again as a result of the intense activity of the Eusebians. Arius himself now addressed Constantine claiming that the people supported him. He requested that he should be allowed to form his own separatist congregation if Athanasius still refused his re - instatement in the Church. Constantine firmly rejected these proposals and reprimanded Arius in no uncertain terms. Behind this was not only the Emperor's feeling that the orthodox were still in the maj ority but also the fact that the corn supply from Egypt was of prime importance. The new capital of Constantinople, begun in 324, made great demands on the trade of the Empire. According to the Church historian Socrates13 the inhabitants of the new city were accus­ tomed to receive a daily corn ration of 80,000 modii. Corn was mainly supplied through Alexandria and the Emperor may have wished to keep on good terms with the Archbishop of the Egyptian metropolis. Athanasius, on his part, knew the importance of this factor in political bargaining. Athanasius' position, when he returned to Alexandria in March 332 with the Emperor's backing, had been a strong one. The Meletians however kept up the attack by accusing him of murdering the Mele­ tian bishop Arsenius. The Emperor ordered an investigation, but in the meantime, one of Athanasius' deacons had discovered Arsenius alive in a monastery in Upper Egypt. Athanasius immediately informed Constantine of the circumstances and the Emperor sent a letter warmly congratulating him. Athanasius had not only saved his reputation in the Emperor's eyes but had also won a victory over the Eusebian - Meletian combination. The latter however did not give up the attack. John Ar­ chaph, the Meletian leader, sent a letter of apology to the Emperor, no doubt playing on the latter's susceptibility to flattery. The Eusebians were keen on a personal audience with the Emperor which they correct­ ly surmised would lead to marks in their favour. So J ohn was invited 12. Apol. c. A,.ian. 61, 13. HE 2, 13.

3 18 to visit Constantine at the beginning of 334. The Emperor however had summoned a Council to meet at Caesarea to investigate fully the Mele­ tian accusations against Athanasius. Eusebius of Caesarea was to pre­ side while Eusebius of Nicomedia, who was cleverly playing his hand at court politics, was to be an influential member. They were out for Atha­ nasius' blood which however they did not get as he failed to appear at the Council. Nevertheless the Eusebians had now reached a position of maj ority strength and this was important in the Emperor's eyes. They persuaded Constantine to summon a Council at Tyre and to issue a summons to Athanasius to attend. This he did accompanied by 47 sup­ porters of whom at least 1 7 were former Meletians. This again illustrates Athanasius' political sense in seeking to confound his adversaries with their own kin14. H owever he was sentenced to be deposed and banished and was forced to flee from Tyre in order to appeal directly to the Emper­ or at Constantinople. Constantine however was unwilling to give him a hearing as he correctly surmised that a maj ority in the Church now favoured the Eusebian position. This was characteristic of the Emperor's method of handling Church affairs. According to Sozomen Constantine said, 'it was scarcely likely that a large assembly of respected and dis­ tinguished bishops would have passed sentence with hatred and favour'10. Athanasius was sentenced to exile and departed in November 335 to Treves, the noble home of the Emperor on the banks of the Mosel. Although in exile he retained strong links with the Egyptian Church and in Alexandria his supporters were strong enough to prevent the election of a new Archbishop in his stead. Athanasius remained in pos­ session of his see so that, after Constantine's death in May 337, he was able to return as soon as his banishment was annulled16. We have dealt with Athanasius' fortunes in Constantine's reign in order to illustrate Athanasius' method of dealing with the Roman State and also Constantine's attitude towards the Archbishop. The Emperor was outwardly and in his own eyes a Christian. He showered gifts on the Church, paid for the copying of the Scriptures and erected noble chur­ ches at the State's expense. He reduced barbarous punishments and H. ATHANASIUS, as late as 34.7, used former Meletians in appointing bishops; cf. Paschal Ep. 19. 15. HE 2, 31. 16. Constantius II's statement, immediately after his father's death, that Atha­ nasins had been sent to TI'eves merely to keep him out of danger should be received cum grano .alis; cf. Apol. c. Arian. 87.

319 made prOVISIOn for the observance of Sunday. Christian officials, he ordered, need no longer participate in pagan ceremonies associated with their offices. Magic and divination he prohibited and closed shrines of immoral cultsl7• Constantine's letters and speeches express his adoption of Christianity - although he also tolerated, to an extent, paganism and retained the title pontifex maximus. He is God's servant and a fellow servant with the bishops. The State's welfare depends on true religion to pervert which is to court the wrath of heaven. Constantine himself believed he had a religious mission to all men: 'God scattered the powers of evil that mankind should be recalled to true religion being taught through my agency'. To the bishops assembled at Tyre Constantine wrote: 'Even the barbarians themselves now on account of me, the sin­ cere servant of God, have recognised God and have learned to reverence Him who, as they realise from His very acts, protects me and every­ where cares for me' IS. He regarded himself as a bishop of those outside the Church as Christian bishops were of those insidel9• Why then was Constantine's relationship with Athanasius such a chequered one ? The reason lies, as we have indicated, in the political background of the age. Although he had a comprehensive conception of his religious duties and rights Constantine was not over - concerned with theological or doctrinal matters. He was concerned that Christia­ nity should be the religion of the Empire - but what kind of Christianity was not his main concern as long as unity and peace (concordia) were preserved. So in his dealings with Christians he was guided by Church majorities; that is why at first he supported Athanasius, when he had a majority behind him, but wavered once he discovered the strength of the Eusebians and the eastern bishops influenced by them. Athanasius, for his part, sought to gain the Emperor's confidence and support for his actions through personal contact at the Imperial court through his 17. PL 8; On the question oC Constantine's religious legislation see M. A. H UTT­ JlANN, The Establishment of Christianity and the Proscription of Paganism, 19a and H. DORRIES ibid. (n. 2) 51 - 67. 18. For the letters and speeches N. H . BAYN ES, Constantine the Great and the Clvistian Church, OxCord 1 972, 12 Cr. S. L. GRE EN SLADE, Church and State from Con­ .eantine to Theodosius, London 195q, 21 - 2. 19. Eus. V ita Comt. q, 2q; On this much disputed text see J. Straub, ((Constantine as ')(OL� hdaxo'lto;'11 (ibid. n. 2 ) 51-2 , who thinks Constantine considered himselC ordained by God over all inhabitants oC the Empire, whether Christian or pagan. Thus his sacra maiestas is equal to episcopal dignity.

320 envoy there. Moreover, as we have seen, he was quite willing to adopt clever tactics to impress the Emperor such as using ex - Meletian pres­ byters and bishops as witnesses for his case. There is no evidence ho­ wever that Athanasius ever wavered in his devotion to Constantine. What was Athanasius' view of the Christian Emperor ? During the reign of Constantine, i.e. up to 337, his view of the Emperor was not substantially different from that of Eusebius of Caesarea who was the first to enunciate a theology of the Emperor. For Eusebius polytheism went with polyarchy and anarchy, monotheism with monarchy. The unity of the Christian Faith was thus parallel to the Unity of the Im­ perial Government - and these are precisely the images used by Atha­ nasius in contra Gentes 38, 43. For Eusebius the victory of Constantine over Maxentius and Licinius were acts of God. The Emperor himself is the image of the Logos as Christ, the Logos, is the image of the Fa­ ther. According to E usebius the Logos is especial1y active in Constantine who leads men to a higher knowledge: 'This only begotten Word of God reigns, from ages that had no beginning to infinite and endless ages, the p artner of His Father's Kingdom. He (our Emperor) ever his friend, who derives imperial power from above and is made strong by being called after the di­ vine name, has consolidated the empire of the world for many years. Again, the Saviour of all things makes the sky and earth and the Kingdom of heaven worthy of His own Father. Thus his friend brings those whom he governs on earth to the only begotten Word and Saviour and renders them fit subjects of his Kingdom ... He who is the pre - existent Word, the Saviour of all things, imparts to his disciples the seeds of true wisdom and salvation and enlightens them and gives them understanding in the knowledge of His Fa­ ther's Kingdom. Similarly his friend, acting as interpreter of the Word of God, aims at recalling the whole human race to the know­ ledge of God, proclaiming with clear voice the laws of truth and godliness to all who dwell on earth. Once more, the universal Sa­ viour opens the heavenly gates of His Father's kingdom to those whose course is thitherward from this world. And this (our Emperor), emulating His divine example, having purged his earthly Kingdom from every stain of impious error, invites all holy and pious wor­ shippers within the imperial basilicas, earnestly desiring to save

321 with all its crew that mighty vessel of which he is the appointed pilOt'20. Eusebius' idealised and propagandist portrait of the Christian Em� peror and his imperium may owe something to hellenistic ideas of king� ship which had been invested with the Logos doctrine of the Christian apologists, as N. H. Baynes21 and F. Dvornik22 have argued. Constantine represented the divinity on earth and as such was expected to lead men to God. But events are hard taskmasters and have a habit of tempering idealism. It was so with this view of the Christian Emperor. Athanasius began with substantially Eusebius' view and there is no evidence that he modified it during Constantine's lifetime for the freedom of the Church was not yet materially threatened. In the early years of Constan­ tius' reign he suffered grievously at the hands of the State yet his view of the Emperor is still respectful. In his encyclical letter to his fellow bishops c. 339 he refers to Constantius as 'the most God - beloved Au­ gustus (0 eUGe�£cr-ror:t'oc; �ocGrJ...eoc;)'23- and this in the midst of bitter cont­ roversy at the beginning of his second exile. In his Apologia contra A­ riarws he compares the Council of Sardica of 343 favourably with the Council of Tyre of 335 on the grounds that no counts or soldiers had at­ tended the former. Yet he is glad to include in this work every document which testified to imperial words or acts in his own favour, such as the letters of Constantius to authorities in Egypt ordering his restoration in 345 which are followed by the exhortation of a Jerusalem Council to the Alexandrians to 'pray for the piety of our most God - beloved Em­ perors, who, when they knew your earnest longings after Athanasius, and his innocency, determined to restore him to you with all honour'24. In 356 /7 Athanasius wrote his Apologia ad Constantium and, if we may take his statements at face value, he is still respectful towards the most God - beloved Augustus (eeocp�A£O"'t"OC't"Oc; AuyoUG-roc;), in spite of the fact that at successive synods at ArIes (353) and Milan (355) Constantius II had extracted a condemnation of Athanasius fro m compliant bishops. 20. Laus Gonstantini 2; PG 20, 1325. 21. «Eusebius and the Christian Empire)), Melanges Bidez, 1934., 13 - 1 8; F. E. CIlANZ, ((Kingdom and Polity in Eusebius of Caesarea» , Ba,.lIa,.d Theol. Rell. q5, 1952, 4. 7 66. 22. Early Clvistian and Byzantine Political Philosophy ibid. (n. 8) cbs. 10 and 12. 23. Epist. encycl. ad episcopos 5. 2q. Apol. c. A,.ian. 36, 54.. -

322

Indeed Athanasius falls over backwards to be deferential: 'Observing these things, I do not give sentence against myself, but hastened to Come to your Piety, with this my defence, knowing your goodness, and re­ membering your faithful promises, and being confident that, as it is written in the divine Proverbs, 'J ust speeches are acceptable to a gracious king'2li. He disclaims any disobedience - indeed he would not even resist the quaestor of a city. Athanasius denies he has ever slandered Constan­ tius to his brother Constans, for how could he be possessed of such mad­ ness as to abuse an Emperor before an Emperor26 ? The imperial titles of hellenistic Kingship continue to appear in this Apologia, qn),ocvOpw7t[oc, e:UM�e:LOC, e:ucre�e:Lor.. Constantius is the spiritual successor of David and Solomon. Athanasius even approves the apotheosis of deceased Empe­ rors " the memory of Constans is 'blessed and eterna1'27. He recognises the Emperor's right to remove a bishop from his see if he thinks this is in the interests of the peace of the Church. When accused of disobeying an imperial summons to Italy Athanasius slyly answers that he had never received any such summons: ' I therefore seeing they produced no letters from you, considered it improbable that a mere verbal communication should be made to them, especially as the letter of your Grace had charged me not to give ear to such persons. 1 acted rightly then, most religious Au- . gustus, that as 1 had returned to my country under the authority of your letters, so I should only leave it by your command'28. Athanasius concludes the Apologia ad Constantium by imploring the Emperor, whom he addresses in flattering terms, to restore the deposed bishops and clergy to their countries and churches29. Athanasius, then, as late as 357 from his desert hiding place rules out rebellion against the State as a viable Christian position. The theological opinions of Constantius 1 I are of some significance in this connexion. Constantius was personally moral and religious to the point of superstition. According to Theodoret30 before fighting the usurper Magnentius Constantius mustered the whole of his army, or25. Apol. ad Const. 26. Apol. ad Const. 27. Apol. ad Const. 28. Apol. ad Const. 29. Apol. ad Const. 30. HE 3, 3.

27. 5. 11. 2q. 35.

323 dering them to receive the baptismal robe. Any who declined baptism were dismissed, for the Emperor chose not to fight with any who had no part or lot in the Christian rites. While it is unlikely that this speech as a whole is genuine, nevertheless it may reflect a broadly Christian piety. Is it possible that Constantius' predilection for Arianism owed something to his philosophy of kingship to which the views of Themis­ tius may have contributed ? Certainly Ammianus Marcellinus' portrait of Constantius supports this. Ammianus describes Constant ius approach­ ing Rome for the vincennalia as though he were imitating the impas­ sible Ruler of heaven, 'turning his eyes neither to the right nor to the left, as if he had been a statue .. .' The same historian says that Constan­ tius spoke of his own aeternitas and 'in writing letters in his own hand would style himself lord of the whole world'. His imperial successes had so strengthened his confidence in the divine rightness of his cause that he thought himself raised to an equality with heaven. In his harangue before the soldiers on the Persian front Constantius confidently appeal­ ed to the present help of the most high deity31. It is possible that Arian­ ism commended itself to Constantius as the most rational form of Chris­ tian monotheism. Perhaps too much emphasis can be placed on the machinations of the Arian court bishops although it is true that they were more accomodating than the Nicenes. In a hierarchical society Arianism had its attractions and it is sometimes forgotten that Con­ stantius did not know which version of the Christian faith would even­ tually be accepted as true. Athanasius' attitude towards Constantius I I began to change in late 357 or early 358. This is, I submit, shown by the only reference to the Emperors in his Vita A ntoni which is decidedly cool: 'The fame of Antony came even unto Emperors. For Constantine Augustus, and his sons Constantius and Constans the Augusti, wrote letters to him, as to a father, and begged an answer from him. But he made nothing very much of the letters, nor did he rejoice at the messages, but was the same as he had been before the Emper­ ors wrote to him. But when they brought him the letters he called the monks and said, "Do not be astonished if an Emperor writes to us, for he is a man; but rather wonder that God wrote the Law 31 . {al/o,.e numinis summi p,.aesente. References in G. H. WILLIAMS , ((Christo\ogy and Church - State Relations in the Fourth Century)), Chu,.ch History 20, 3, 1951 , who has some interesting remarks on the influence of Thcmistius (ibid. 21 3). -

324 for men and has spoken to us through His own Son" . And so he was unwilling to receive the letters, saying that he did not know how to write an answer to such things'32. However urged by the monks that the Emperors, being Christians, might take offence on the grounds that they had been spurned Antony, ac­ cording to Athanasius, consented that the Emperors' letters be read and wrote an answer approving them as worshippers of Christ - although they were not semi - divine or more than mere men (a premonition of Julian ?). This somewhat reserved yet respectful tone, if it reflects Atha­ nasius' own attitude at the time of writing Vita Antoni, as I think it does, fits in with the references in his Apologia de fuga. However within a short time Athanasius' tone had changed abruptly and late in 358 he finally realised that Constantius I I was irrevocably committed to Aria­ nism. This is shown by his references to this Emperor in his H istoria Arianorum although it must be borne in mind that he wrote this work for private circulation among the Egyptian monks. The revolutionary and vitriolic nature of his remarks in this work no doubt reveal what had long been simmering in his mind. It is all the more remarkable that he was never betrayed to the authorities and even returned to Alexand­ ria at one stage of his exile. The Historia Arianorum retains some touches of Athanasius' older position such as when he gives Constantius credit for convening the Synod of Sardica33. However the tone has changed sharply. Constantius is now a parricide, a forerunner of Antichrist, worse than Achab, Balt­ hazar, Saul, the Pharoahs and Pilate34• Such an Emperor can have no rights or jurisdiction over Church affairs. Athanasius quotes with ap­ proval Ossius of Cordova's words to Constantius: -

' Intrude not yourself into ecclesiastical matters, neither give com­ mands to us concerning them; but learn them from us. God has put 32. Vita Antoni 81; cf. Antony's vision of senseless beasts seizing the Church: ' These things the old man saw, and after two years the present inroad of the Arians and the plunder of the churches took place ... Then we all understood these kicks of the mules signified to Antony what the Arians, senselessly like beasts, are now doing'. This seems to refer to the troubles of 356 after which Athanasius fled to the des­ ert where he was harboured by the monks. I t was there that he wrote Vita Antoni and, in 358, his Historia Arianorum. In the latter he adopts a violent tone towards Constantius. 33. Hist. A,.ian. 15. 34. Hist. Arian. 30, 34, 45, 67, 68.

325 into your hands the kingdom, to us He has entrusted the affairs of His Church. And as he who would steal the E mpire from you would resist the ordinance of God, so likewise fear on your part lest by taking upon yourself the government of the Church, you become guilty of a great offence. It is written, " Render unto Cae­ sar the things that are Caesar's and unto God the things that are God's". Neither therefore is it permitted to us to exercise an earth­ ly rule, nor have you, Lord, any authority to burn incense' 35. Ossius admonished Constantius with the example of Ozias, the King of Israel, who was struck with leprosy when he broke into the Holy of Holies and burnt incense. Athanasius compared the Arians with Jews who cried out at Jesus' trial, "We have no king but Caesar, " and he accused Constantius in these words: ' He, being without argument of reason, forces all men by his power, that it may be shown to all, that their wisdom is not according to God, but merely human, and that they who favour the Arian doct­ rines have indeed no king but Caesar; for by his means these ene­ mies of Christ accomplish whatever they wish to do'a6 . Hilary of Poitiers went even further in accusing Constantius of denying the Incarnation of God and throwing the Church into confusion and so he "set his hands against Christ Himse}f"37. Athanasius claimed the right of the Church . to m anage its own affairs without imperial inter­ ference - indeed the sum total of his charges against Constantius derive from the one premise that the Emperor had infringed ecclesiastical or­ der and mingled Roman sovereignty and the constitution of the Church. Athanasius asks why the Emperor, while pretending to respect the canons of the Church, has ordered the whole course of his conduct in opposition to them ? He had intruded bishops into sees, allowed sol­ diers to invade churches, set counts and eunuchs over ecclesiastical cases and declared by imperial edict the judgement of bishops: , When was such a thing heard of before the beginning of the world ? When did a judgement of the Church receive its validity from the Emperor, or rather, when was his decree ever recognised by the 35. Hist. Arian. qq. 36. Hist. Arian. 32, 33. 37. In ips um Christurn manus missae,

c.

Conslantium II;

PL

10, 589.

326 Church ? There have been many councils held heretofore; and many judgements p assed by the Church. But the Fathers never sought the consent of the Emperor to them, nor did the Emperor busy himself with the affairs of the Church ...Whom has Constantius failed to banish upon charges which they brought against them ? . . Where i s there a Church which now enjoys the privilege o f wors­ hipping Christ freely ? . .While the Emperor, who is the patron of heresy, and wishes to pervert the truth, as Ahab wished to change the vineyard into a garden of herbs, does whatever they desire him to do, for the suggestions he received from them are agreeable to his own wishes·as. The earlier Eusebian eulogy of the Emperor, with which Athanasius began, had now turned full circle and had been radically modified by the harsh facts of his episcopal life and his relentless struggle against Aria­ nism39• However we need to bear in mind the fact that the Historia Arianorum was written for private circulation. In public men are wont to qualify vitriolic remarks committed to paper in private. Bitter though Athanasius' attack was he does not in fact deny Constantius' right to intervene in Church matters where there is good cause. His disappoint­ ment with Constantius, and his excessively harsh and unfair view of the Emperor, was the result of Constantius' attitude towards the Ni­ cene Symbol. The Emperor had become convinced, not without reason, that the Nicene Symbol had been the cause of violent upheavals and controversies among Christians and his obj ective was to find a compromi­ se formula on which the largest number of Christians could agree - and this meant accommodating the Arians. Athanasius could not accept this and, late in Constantius' reign, was forced to emphasise, like Ossius, the distinction between Church and Empire and to disregard much earlier fourth - century history. 38. Hist. Al'ian. 51 3. 39. The Eusebian and earlier Athanasian conception of the Emperor was not discarded everywhere. Optatus, a contemporary of Valentinian I and Valens, held the older view. Cf. also the Latin Christian writer Julius Firmicus Maternus (mid fourth century), who approached Eusebius' view of the Emperor as the representa­ tive of God, and the writer Flavius Vegetius Renatus who compiled, at the beginning of the firth century, the work De I'e m ilital'i Both these writers illustrate the continuing popularity of the heIIenistic basileia among the Romans. F. DVORNIK, ibid. (n. 8) 628 30. -

.

-

327

Athanasius' dealings with the next Emperors Julian, Jovian and Valens may be briefly mentioned at this point. On 24 October 362 Julian issued an edict ordering Athanasius to leave Alexandria and as the bishop went into exile for the fourth time he is reported as uttering the celeb­ rated words, ' It is but a little cloud and will soon pass'. This prophecy was soon to be fulfilled by the death of Julian on 26 June 363 from a lance wound received on the Persian front. Under his successor Jovian Atha­ nasius fared better. He lost no time in meeting Jovian in September 363 at Hierapolis when, in the presence of many bishops, he presented Jovian with his creed A d lovianum. Jovian duly nullified the Julian proscription of Christianity and ordered that only the highest God and Christ were to be worshipped. From Hierapolis Jovian set out with Atha­ nasius for Edessa and at this stage in his chequered career the arch­ bishop appears as J ovian's closest theological adviser holding a position which Eusebius of Nicomedia enjoyed under Constantine and Constan­ tius. He is always found in the vicinity of the Emperor's camp. However Athanasius was too wily a Church leader to become dependent on the Emperor's will and in February 364 he returned to Alexandria where he summoned a Council of Egyptian bishops to confirm his resumption of official duties. By the time of J ovian's death (17 February 364) the Church had recovered all it had lost during Julian's reign. The swansong of Athanasius' career occured during the reign of the Emperor Valens. He was driven into exile for the fifth t ime (October 364) only to return, at the behest of the Emperor who feared trouble in the West, in February 366. Athanasius now became the unchallen­ ged leader of the Eastern Church and was unmolested until his death on 2 May 373. The dealings of Athanasius with the Roman State, covering the years 325 - 73, saw the birth and death of Arianism in the East. Athana­ sius accepted imperial jurisdiction in civil matters and did not even cont­ tradict the power of the Emperor to repudiate and banish bishops if the civil power acted according to canonical principles. The case was ho­ wever very different in matters which touched the essence of the Chris­ tian faith. Here Athanasius was uncompromising. He held that the Church was a sacramental body with a mystical character with which the Emperor could have nothing to d040• Under Constantius I I Athana40. Athanasius was no doubt aware that Constantine never partook of the eu­ charist, the central Christian rite, but was content with prayer and intercession.

328

sius was forced to emphasise the distinction between Church and State as Ossius had done before him and as the Donatists had done when they realised that Constantine had rejected their claims41• However it is, I think, unlikely that Athanasius' goal was a complete dualistic severance of Church and State. Indeed when it suited him he had no qualms in appealing to the imperial court. His ideal was probably cooperation bet­ ween Church and State with the bishops having freedom to decide Church matters in their own gatherings and the Emperor having the right to maintain the peace of the Church and to defend its faith. That this became a fact in Byzantium is due, more than anyone else, to Atha­ nasius' long and stubborn struggle. Without Athanasius the Christian Church might well have developed along the lines of an imperial church subservient to the State.

•

According to EUSE BIUS, Vita Const. 4, 22 Constantine behaved ot& 'n; ILhoXo; tepwv 6py«J)v in his religious observances in his palace, Le. he prayed and celebrated church festivals as if he were a member of the Church and as if his palace were a church of God. U . A. H . M. JONES, The Decline of the Ancient World ibid. (n. 5) 124 holds that 'the decline of toleration and religious liberty was in fact preached only by the de­ feated p arties in ecclesiastical conflicts'. H owever this is to overlook the fact that Athanasius' primary objection to Constantius I I was not corruption of true belief but the transformation of the Church into a branch of the civil government which led to that corruption. This led Athanasius to emphasise the distinction between Church and State. This however was not a 'defeat' hut followed inevitably from Atha­ nllSius' conception of the Church.

13 *

TWO NOTES ON ATHANASIUS 1.

ATHANASIUS' ELECTION AS ARCH BISHOP OF ALEXAN D RIA

In the third century episcopal elections were shared among the local presbyters, the local plebs and the neighbouring bishops. So Hippolytus states in Apost. Trad. 2, 1 2 that a bishop should be chosen by all the people and that the choice should be approved by the assembled bishops and presbyters; cf. Origen: Requiritur enim in ordinando sacer­ dote et praesentia populi, ut sciant omnes et cerli sint quia qui praestantior est ex omni populo 1; Cyprian: Ut ad ordinationes rite celebrandas, ad eam plebem cui praepositus ordinatur episcopi eiusdem pro()inciae proximi quique conveniant et episcopus deligatur plebe praesente 2. The j oint suf­ frage of local presbyters, plebs and bishops continued in the East until the fifth century and even later in the West. So in 325 AD the bishops at the Council of Nicaea wrote to the Church of Alexandria and to the churches of Egypt concerning the reconciliation of Meletian bishops: -

. . .

"When it happens that any one of those holding office in the Church die, then let such as have recently been admitted into orders, i.e. Meletians, be preferred to the dignity of the deceased provided they should appear worthy, and that the people should elect them, the bishop of Alexandria also confirming and ratifying their choi­ ce" a. This notice stresses the traditional exercise of lay suffrage. A shift of emphasis however occured in the East by which the neigh­ bouring bishops came to exercise a dominant voice in episcopal elections. This can be illustrated from the account of Athanasius' election to the episcopate given in the encyclical letter of the Egyptian bishops of ear• Orientalia Christiana Periodica 4.1 (1975) M�-356. 1. In Lelliticum Homilia 6, 3; GCS 6, 36, 3 2. Ep. 67, 5; CSEL 3, 739 3. SOCRATES, HE 1 . 9; THODORET, HE 1, 9; H. G. OPITZ, Urkunden 23, �7

-

51

330 ly 339 preserved in Ap ol . c. A r ianos 4. H. Hess 5 points out that the rapid development of provincial organisation in the East and the exer­ cise of jurisdictional rights by the provincial Synod and the metropo­ litan bishop resulted in effective suffrage passing to the body of provin­ cial bishops with the people exercising a less important role. This is reflected in Canons 18 of Ancyra, 4 of Nicaea, 19 & 23 of Antioch and 13 of Laodicea. I t is also the explanation of the divergences between the Greek and Latin versions of Canon 5 of the Council of Sardica. 6 In the West however the limitation of the power of the plebs in episcopal elect­ ions did not take place until later than the fifth century 7. The account of Athanasius' election on 8 June 328 fits in with the development of provincial organisation in the East although elevation direct from the diaconate was unusual in Egypt. According to the or­ thodox tradition bishop Alexander, before he died, made arrangements for Athanasius' election and for the changing of the procedure. In the account in Apologia contra Arianos, the college of presbyters in Ale­ xandria is unmentioned - stress is rather placed on the part played by the bishops of the Egyptian ecclesiastical provinces and the acclamation of the plebs. The reason for this was the success of the Meletians who had gained control of much of the Nile Valley. It was therefore essential to associate the loyal bishops of the Egyptian provinces with the election of the new archbishop as successor to Alexander. The election of Athanasius as described in the Encyclical of the Egypt­ ian bishops early in 339, i.e.a decade after the event, is an ex parte ac­ count. The appointment of Athanasius is ascribed to divine choice: "God raised him to the episcopate" (6, 3). The purpose of the account however is to justify Athanasius' election against the propaganda of the Eusebians that it was irregular: "For they say that after the death of bishop Alexander, a certain few having mentioned the name of Athaq. "O't"L 8E 7\"Ae:(O\le:C; �IL(;i\l cxu't"O\l txe:Lpo't"6VTjocx\l U1tO 't"cxic; 't"(;i\l mX\I't"w\I IIIjIe:OL )tcxt �ocxrc;, ILcXP't"UPe:C; 'ltcXAW �ILe:ic; &'�Lo7l"Lo't"6't"EpOL 't"(;i\l &'7\"6\1't"w\I )tcxt 1jIe:u80ILSvWV ol Xe:LpO't"OvI)OCX\l't"e:c; (Apol. c. Arianos 6, 6 ) . 5. Canons of the Council of Sardica, Oxford 1958, 93 6. HESS, ibid 90 - 100 7. So Pope Siricius, Exinde iam accessu temporum, presbyterium eel episcopatum, si eum cieri ac plebis edecumarit elect io, non immerito sortietur (Ep . 1 , 10; PL 13, 1 1 4.3); JEROME, Comm. in Ezek. 10 , 33, PL 25, 319A; the election of AMBROSE (Ru­ F I N US HE 2, 1 1 , PL 21, 521 - 2); Pope Celestine, Ep. q, 5, PL 50, q34.; LEO, Ep. 14., 5, PL 5q, 673. The Western Canons make no mention of the method used for epis­ copal elections.

331 nasius, six or seven bishops elected him clandestinely in a secret place" (6, 4). According to the bishops, contrary to this, Athanasius was elected openly by a majority of bishops in the sight and with the acclamation of the plebs who cried and shouted out that Athanasius should be bishop of their church (6, 5 ff). It seems certain that the election was disputed. Alexander died shortly after Easter 328 and we would have expected that the election of his sUCcessor would have taken place at the latest at the church festival of Whitsun; in fact it took place a week later. Moreover ordinary elections of bishops were not usually confirmed by the Emperor but Athanasius' was officially confirmed by Constantine B . It is also significant that Athanasius set out, immediately after his election, on extensive travels through his see. The reason for this surely was to gain the bishops' confirmation of his election. There was no point in the journey if the maj ority of bishops had come to Alexandria for his election. The statement in Apologia contra Arianos 6, 6 that the majority of the bishops elected him in Alexandria may therefore be a later read­ ing back of their ratification of his election during hi s tour of Egypt. In any event the account leaves room for a minority of malcontents. A brief notice in the historian Socrates9 refers to the E usebian ac­ cusation that Athanasius' election was irregular: " I n the first place they objected to the ordination of Athanasius partly as a person unworthy of the prelacy, and partly because he had been elected by disqualified persons". A fuller version is however given by SozomenlO who states that Alexander, before his death, appointed Athanasius to succeed him. Athanasius however sought to avoid office by flight but was discovered in his place of hiding and only unwillingly was constrained to accept the bishopric. This tradition Sozomen ascribes to a certain Apolinarius, the Syrian, who is otherwise unknown. Sozomen then continues: "The Arians assert that after the death of Alexander, the respecti­ ve followers of that bishop and of Meletius held communion toge­ ther, and fifty - four bishops from Thebes and other parts of Egypt assembled together, and agreed by oath to choose by a common vote the man who could advantageously administer the Church of Alexandria; but that seven of the bishops, in violation of their oath, and contrary to the opinion of ali, secretly ordained Athana8. OPITZ. Ath. Wel'ke I I I , 9. HE 1 , 23 10. HE 2, 1 7

I doc. 45

332

sius; and that on this account many of the people and of the Egypt­ ian clergy seceded from communion with him. For my part I am convinced that it was by divine appointment that Athanasius suc­ ceeded to the high - priesthood; for he was eloquent and intellig­ ent, and capable of opposing plots, and of such a man the times had the greatest need". Sozomen concludes by quoting a legend of Athanasius' early life, preser­ ved also in Rufinus, HE. I , 14, concerning his exercise of ecclesiastical functions when a child. Sozomen's account is our only source for the story of the fifty - four bishops, although the seven who are alleged to have secretly consecrat­ ed Athanasius agrees, in part, with the account in Apol. c. Arianos 6, 4. It is also significant that Sozomen ascribes Athanasius' election to succeed Alexander to divine choice, which agrees with the view of the Egyptian bishops in their encyclical letter already quoted. However not only was his election directed by the divine will - this was also instru­ mental in discovering his place of concealment after his flight and also foretold, through Alexander, that the succession was to devolve on Atha­ nasius. Sozomen's is clearly an ex parte account written from the orthodox, Nicene point of view. His repeated and emphatic attempts to justify Athanasius' election suggests that there may been more in the tradition of a disputed consecration, in which Athanasius acquiesced, than meets the eye. The repeated appeal to divine choice suggests that the orthodox did not possess incontrovertible evidence concerning the election and were unsure of their ground. It is certainly odd that Sozomen does not reproduce the tradition of Apol. c. Arianos 6 that Athanasius was elect­ ed by the maj ority of the bishops with the acclamation of the plebs; instead he simply states that the divine will directed the vote. There is nothing in Sozomen's account to suggest that he had any direct histo­ rical knowledge as to how Athanasius was elected. Our next point of reference is in Philostorgius' Ecclesiastical History preserved in the Ep itome of Photius, the ninth century AD patriarch of Constantinople. Philostorgius published his work between 425 and 433 as a continuation of Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History and covering the period 300 425. PhiIostorgius has had a bad press being usually depict­ ed as an Arian sy mpathiser and a retailer of calumnies agains� Athana-

333

sius. H owever recently W. G. Ruschll has argued that Philostorgius has preserved genuine historical traditions about Athanasius, although of a non - orthodox kind, which should not be neglected by historians. It is certainly difficult to maintain that Philostorgius was an out - and out Arian sympathiser: cf. Bx. 1 , 3 "Arius preferred Alexander to him­ self"; cf. Bx 1, 9 where Philostorgius admits that the Arians consented to the faith of the Council o f Nicaea with "a fraudulent and treacherous purpose"; in Bx 2, 3 Philostorgius asserts that Arius is involved in ab­ surd errors. Philostorgius' account of Athanasius' election is as follows: "After the death of Alexander, bishop of Alexandria, the votes of the prelates were not unanimous, and that when there was a di­ versity of sentiment, and a considerable amount of time had been spent in altercation, the divine Athanasius ('t'ov Oe:'Lov AOor.voccnov) suddenly appeared one evening in the church called after Diony­ sius, and finding there two Egyptian bishops, firmly closed the doors with the assistance of some of his followers, and so was or­ dained by them, though strongly against the will of the ordainers. For a power from above fell upon them, and so constrained their will and powers that what Athanasius wished was at once done. Philostorgius adds, that the remainder of the bishops then present anathematized Athanasius on account of the transaction" (Bx. 2, 1 1 ). •

Philostorgius' account of the election is not pro - Arian per se. The Euse­ bians are not mentioned as they are in the accounts in Apol. c. Arianos 6 and Sozomen - which suggests that Philostol'gius' account is not deri­ ved directly from that quarter. His account of Athanasius' taking mat­ ters into his own hands is difficult to evaluate. Certainly there are other references to Athanasius' high - handedness as in the Meletian documents published by H . I . Bell12• That the election was disputed is stated by all the documents we have considered, both orthodox and non - orthodox, and probably represents an authentic historical tradition. That was why Athanasius immediately went on a tour to consolidate his rather shaky position and why he also felt it necessary to gain Imperial rati11. Politique et Th�ologie chez Athanase d'Alexandrie (ed. C. Kannengiesser) Paris 1973, 1 61 1 7 7 1 2 . Jews and Christians in Egypt, London 192q (especially papyri Nos. 1913 · q). •

334 fication of his election. It is also significant that in Philostorgius' account, as in Apol. c. Arianos 6 and Sozomen, the divine will assists the cause of Athanasius and not that of his opponents. According to Philostorgius this guides the two Egyptian bishops to consecrate Athanasius, albeit against their own wills, while in the other two accounts the divine will works through other circumstances finally guiding the vote of the bis­ hops. Philostorgius' further statement that the question of the election was brought to the notice of Constantine is corroborated by Chronicon to the Festal Epistles ad. a. 33113; finally the matter was considered at the Synod of Tyre. However it is possible that Philostorgius' statement that only two Egyptian bishops consecrated Athanasius may be a sland­ er alluding to Canon 4 of the Council of Nicaea which states that a bi­ shop should be made by all the bishops of a province although, if there is an obstacle to this (time or distance) at least three bishops should con­ secrate and only then with the written consent of the absent bishops. Philostorgius' account thus emphasises the uncanonical nature of the election although otherwise stating that divine power assisted Atha­ nasi us' cause. The only other early Christian writer to deal with this problem is Epiphanius, bishop of Salamis, who has two stories appertaining to the election to the Alexandrian see. In H aero 68, 7, 2 4 he states tha.t the Meletians elected a certain Theonas as bishop after the death of Alexanderl4• If this was the case it is odd that the list of Meletian bis­ hops in the Breriarium iVlelitii15 does not contain the name of Theonas. It is of course just possible that the malcontents did elect a rival bishop although it is certainly strange that only Epiphanius should know of this. Confidence in Epiphanius' story is not strengthened by his second story (Haer. 69, 1 1 , 4 6) that the Arians elected a certain Achillas as bishop16. This again is unsupported and is open to the insuperable ob­ jection that Achillas was bishop of Alexandria before, and not after, Alexander. It would seem likely that both stories emerged from an at-

-

13. 'Ev TOUT'll (i.e. at the end of 331 ) yap &'7l'e:8T.ILl'j1nV de; TO lt0IL1T&''t'OV 7l'pOe; Kwv­ a-rcxvTivov �CXOIASCX, 6e; ILE't'e:7l'SILtjlCXTO cxuT6v, be:l ot t;(6pol ltcx't'l'jy6pl'jocxv CXUTOU we; VSOV !\V't'cx Xe:IPOTOVIJ67iVCXI ; Epist. Ammonis 1 3, ed. F. HALKIN, Sancti Pachomii Ilitae graecae, Subsid. hagiogr, 19, 13 : 7l'po�cxAA6fL£\101 ..tie; �Alltbte; CXI'JTOU TO vsov ie. at Psamatheia in 332. H. K. H OLL, GCS 37, 1933, EPIPHAN IUS, Panarion I I I, 1q7 15. Apol. C. Arianos 71 16. HOLL, ibid 161

335 tempt to account for the interval between Alexander's death and Atha­ nasius' election as bishop. W. Telfer in two articles17 has argued that after the death of Ale­ xander Meletius himself had an arguable claim to be bishop of Alexand­ ria and that he had himself consecrated single - handed the 28 bishops mentioned in the Breviarium Melitii. Athanasius, according to Telfer, was not an Alexandrian presbyter, did not bury his predecessor, and was not consecrated by the imposition of the dead bishop's hand. Rather he was the first to be consecrated by living hands. The Emperor Constantine had before this realised the flaw in the Synodal letter which the Nicene Council sent to the Egyptian Church in that it held out no hope that the Meletian "Church of the Martyrs" might place a bishop on the throne of S. Mark and so finally heal the schism with the Catholics. Telfer ar­ gues that Constantine interpreted the terms of the settlement so as to give J ohn Arcaph, the Meletian bishop of Memphis, prospective rights not to the see of Memphis but to that of Alexandria. When this failed to materialise it was the end and Meletianism went its own way. Telfer holds that Meletius himself underwent rites of enthronement and in­ vestiture as Alexandrian anti-pope at the hands of the Meletian pres­ byters, when Peter had forfeited his office, and was thus the legitimate successor of Alexander. In our j udgement Telfer' s ingenious reconstruction will not bear critical investigation resting, as it does, mainly on conj ecture rather that contemporary evidence. There is in fact no evidence that Meletius was consecrated by his presbyters as an anti - pope and no evidence that Athanasius was the first to be made bishop of Alexandria by the imposition of living episcopal hands rather than by the hand of a dead bishop. The texts Telfer adduces in support of this macabre rite are garbled and much later than the fourth century17",. We would have expected some contemporary, or near contemporary, evidence for so remarkable an innovation if such had occured so soon after the Council of Nicaea. As to the position of Constantine there is no evidence that he wished to give John Arcaph prospective rights to the Alexandrian . -------

17. "Episcopal Succession in Egypt", Jnl. Ecclesiastical History 3, 19 52 1 - 1 3 and "Meletius of Lycopolis and Episcopal Succession in Egypt", Harvard Theol. Review �8, 1955, 227 - 37 17a. LIBERATUS, PL 68, 1036 7 6th century AD; Passio Petri Alexandriae (ed. J. VITEAU, Passions des saints Ecaterina et Pierre d'Alexandrie, Barbara et Anysia, 1897} paraphrase c. 600 AD -

-

-

336 see - his one concern was to reconcile Catholics and Meletians so that peace might reign in the Empire, Apol. c. Arianos 70. The Emperor was little concerned with the ecclesiastical rights of John or the Meletians, although he was concerned that they should not be subject to oppres­ sion. In any event the Emperor was probably aware of the political consequences of a continuance of the Meletian schism18• Our conclusion concerning Athanasius' election is as follows: The statement, in Apol. c. Arianos 6, 5ff, that Athanasius was elected to the see of Alexandria by a majority of the bishops in the sight, and with the acclamation, of the plebs, cannot be taken at its face value. The tradition of a disputed election, preserved by both orthodox and non - orthodox writers, is too strong to be easily set aside and is confir­ med by the fact that A thanasius had to seek confirmation of the vali­ dity of his election from the Emperor. However the actual details of Athanasius' consecration cannot now be recovered with certainty, al­ though the tradition that he was consecrated by only a small number of bishops would account for his extensive journeys through his see im­ mediately after his election. What purpose could these have had but to seek confirmation of his position which was clearly not a strong one ? The period between Alexander's death and Athanasius' election present­ ed difficulties for later writers who tended to embellish the . details. Egyptian psychology should not be neglected in this matter for there was a long tradition in Egypt that the King's successor had to be enth­ roned immediately on his death in order to avert cosmic and political chaos. Something of this outlook undoubtedly rubbed off on to the E­ gyptian Christians and lies behind Epiphanius' statement that it was the Alexandrian custom that when a bishop died his successor should be immediately appointed for the sake of the peace of the Church and to avoid disturbances among the people19• Athanasius' disputed election did not satisfy this criterion.

2. THE CI RCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING THE ENCYCLICAL LETTER OF THE EGYPTIAN BISHOPS

(A pol

.

c.

Arianos 3, 1

-

19, 5)

Athanasius' first exile began on 7 November 335 when he departed -

18. L., W. BARNARD, Jnl. Egyptian Archaeology 59, 1973, 181 - 9 19. Panarion 69, II; OLL, ibid 161

-.

337 for Triwes. According to Sozomen20 the Emperor Constantine said, "it was scarcely likely that such a large assembly of respected and distin­ guished bishops would have passes a sentence with hatred or favours". This was in accord with the Emperor's policy, faithfully adhered to, of allowing Church majorities to settle Church disputes. The date when Athanasius left Treves has been disputed by scholars. According to Eduard Schwartz21 this was on 1 7 June 337 in the wake of his connexion with Constantine II who gave Athanasius a letter declaring that it was his father's wish that Athanasius' exile should be ended22• While this date is j ust possible it leaves less than a month between Constantine's death on 22 May 337 and Athanasius' supposed release. H. Nordberg23 acutely points out that it is unlikely that the first measures taken by Constantine I I would have been concerned with Athanasius. The Emperor had far more pressing problems on his hands and indeed deferred the procla­ mation of Constantine's sons as A ugusti until 9 September 337. It is significant that the letter of Constantine I I to the Church of Alexandria annulling Athanasius' exile gives no year but only the day and month of the letter24. Schwartz argued that as Constantine I I , in this letter , refers to himself as Caesar, not Augustus (87, 4), then the year must have been 337. This however does not necessarily follow as other references exist for the use of the title Caesar for an Augustus25• Theodoret26 states that Athanasius stayed in Treves for two years and four months which would bring his actual return to Alexandria to the date 23 November 338. I t would seem then that Athanasius left Treves on 1 7 June 338, not 337, immediately after the Imperial meeting of Constantine I I , Constantius and Constans at Viminacinm on 12 J une 33827 as we cannot envisage that A thanasius left Alexandria for Moesia so soon after his return. If this had occured we would have expected some reference to 20. HE 2, 31; PG 67, 1025a 2 1 . Nachrichten lion der k. Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Gottingen phil. hist. Masse, 1911, 4.73 (= Zur Geschichte des Athanasius, Berlin 19 59, 269 70) 22. Apol. c. Arianos 87, 4. 7 23. "Athanasius and the Emperor", Commentatjones Humanarum Litterarum, Helsinki 1963, 33 24.. Apol. c. Arianos 87, 4. 7 ; cf. �36!hj 7l"pO 8EKcx7l"&v� xcxAcxv8wv 'Io\)A(wv � Tp�­ -

-

-

�OL;.

25. NORD BERG ibid 34. · 26. HE 2, 1 27. Cod. Theod. 10, 4.; T. MOMMSEN, Theodos iani libri 1, 54.1 22

338 it in Athanasius' voluminous writings. It seems likely that, as Nordberg argues28, Athanasius' repatriation was the immediate result of the Im­ perial meeting and that he had gained the approval of Constantine I I during his exile in Treves. Constantius was too busy with the Persian compaign to risk disturbances in Egypt which would certainly have followed any opposition towards Athanasius' return. However the Eu­ sebians were not deterred in their implacable opposition. On his way home Athanasius had made a journey through Asia Minor and Syria and, at this time, the Eusebians established a permanent council in Antioch where Constantius had his winter quarters. Eusebius of Nico­ media was still Constantius' theological adviser and on Christmas Eve 338 was translated to Constantinople29• The Eusebians were now strong enough to renew their assault on Athanasius and, early in 339, they elected the Arian Gregory of Laodicea as bishop of Alexandria in Atha­ nasius' place. When news of this reached Athanasius a council of Egypt­ ian bishops was summoned at Alexandria who sanctioned the reinstate­ ment of Athanasius as bishop and issued an encyclical letter. On 18 March 339 the Praefectus Aegypti, Flavius Philagrius, read an Imperial decree appointing Gregory as Successor to the deposed Athanasius. This measure aroused violent opposition on the part of those loyal to Athanasius which was suppressed by military force - the fact that Phj­ lagrius was an apostate from Christianity is significant in this matter and Athanasius himself was forced to flee on 1 9 March. On 22 March Gregory and a military escort entered Alexandria. Athanasius did not remain inactive. Shortly after his flight from exile he published the Encyclical Letter of the Egyptian Bishops mention­ ed above. We agree with Nordberg3° that this must have been in late March or April 339 and not 340 as many scholars hold. Athanasius gives the text of this Encyclical in Apol. c. Arianos 3, 1 19, 5 and the style of the document suggests Athanasian authorship. He specifically states in 3, 1 that it was the first of a series by which he sought to in­ fluence opinion in his favours1• It is unlikely that he would have waited -

28. Ibid M 29. E . SCHWARTZ, Nachl'ichten, ibid q80 ff 30. Ibid 37 31. OPITZ, Ul'k. 80. The document is also mentioned in SOCRAT E S HE 2, 17, 6; Encyclical of the Council of Sardica i(ch. qq); HILARY, Colt. A ntial'iana Pal'isina 3, 2 (CSEL 65, 156); letter of Julius of Rome (ch. 2 7 ) . The following documents were attached to the Encyclical Letter: i. Excerpt from the Records of the Prefect (5, 4)

339 for a year before issuing the Encyclical. It was necessary for him to move fast and to issue this before his second exile in Italy. The conclusion of the Encyclical runs : Tocu't"oc [.LE\I ot ti1tO 't"�C; Atyu1t't"ou 1tpOC; 1tOC\l't"OCC; xocl 1tpOC; IouA�ov 1:0\1 e1t[crxo1to\l 't'ijc; P w[.L'YlC; (Apol. c. A rianos 20, 1). It was thus sent to Julius and the Western bishops in the first instance and the result was apparently an invitation for Athanasius to come to Rome . He arrived there late in 339 and Julius summoned a Council of Italian bishops in January 340 which declared the banish ment of Athanasius invalid, The upshot was that Julius invited the Eusebians to a new Councip2 to settle the issue which they did not answer for a year. The reasons for this are obscure but probably the political situation was mainly responsible for this delay. The Eusebians had al­ ligned themselves with Constantius who was heavily occupied with the Persian war and so no doubt was unwilling to risk a major Church uphea­ val at Rome knowing that Constantine II and Constans might well support Athanasius. Athanasius, on the other hand, skillfully used the political situation to his advantage. He had not alligned himself direct­ ly with Constantine I I , who was overthrown in April 340, and was the­ refore unaffected by the Emperor's fall. But he had concentrated on establishing his position vis - a - vis the Western Church which he rea­ lised could influence Constans in his favour. The Encyclical Letter of the Egyptian bi�hops of early 339 is a signi­ ficant document as the first in a series wili�h Athana:l ius pu blished in support of his position. I t is interesting that there is no mention direc tly of the Emperor Constantius in the document although Athanasius must have known that his own deposition and Gregory of Laodicea's appoint­ ment was carried through with Constantius' connivance. The whole ,

•

ii. Letter of Constantine to Alhanasius (ch. 68, cf. 9, 5) iii. Letter of Alexander of Thessalonica to Count Dionysius (ch. 80, cf. 1 7 , 1) iv. Letter of Ischyras to Athanasius (ch. 64., cf. 17, 1) v. The protests of the clergy of Alexandria and Mareotis to the Synod of Tyre and the commission of enquiry set up by the latter, and also to the Prefect Philagrius (ch. 73 - 76, cr. 1 7 , 1 ) vi. Testimonies of the Egyptian and Libyan bishops in respect of the ac­ cusations levelled against Athanasius by Constantius, cf. 19, 1 vii. Letter of the Synod of Jerusalem in 335 (ch. 84., cf. 19, 2) In the Encyclical letter reference is also made to a series of additional documents but it is uncertain if these were ever attached to it; cr. OPITZ, Apologia Secunda 89. 32. SOlOME N , HE 3, 8; PG 67, 1053

340

weight of the Encyclical is concentrated on the machinations of the Eusebians rather than on the Emperors. In this is seen the political wisdom of Athanasius who did not wish to risk any direct clash with Constantius at this stage (339) and so make the Emperor his determined opponent. Indeed the few references to the Emperors in the Encyclical are respectful in tone33• Nevertheless Constantius' responsibility for Athanasius' deposition can be inferred from the mention of the decree read by the Prefect Philagrius which must have derived from Constant­ ius himself and from the fact that Gregory arrived at Alexandria from Antioch where Constantius had his winter quarters. Moreover the men­ tion of the accusation that Athanasius had interfered with the corn sup­ ply to Constantinople (which may not have been without foundation) links up with the fact that Constantius had already criticized Athanasius concerning the distribution of corn in Alexandria. Then in Historia A­ rianorum, which was written after Apol. c. Arianos for private circulat­ ion among the Egyptian monks, Athanasius directly accuses Constant­ ius as being responsible for what happened at this time: "Accordingly Constantius at once writes letters, and commences a persecution a­ gainst all, and sends Philagrius as Perfect with one Arsacius a eunuch; he sends also Gregory with a military force"34. His reticence concerning the figure of Constantius in the Encyclical must therefore be ascribed to diplomatic considerations and a desire not to make the Eastern Emperor a future enemy. I have shown elsewhere35 that Athanasius' view of Constantius began to change late in 357 or early in 358 when he fi­ nally realised that Constantius was irrevocably committed to Arianism. He may have had doubts as early as the Encyclical of 339 although he wanted, as far as possible, to avoid a head - on collision between Church and State. His aim was to triumph by concentrating on the ecclesiasti­ cal question alone and to use political events only in so far as they could be made to support this aim. This Athanasius succeeded in doing.

33. "the ear of royalty", "a kind Emperor", "the most religious father of the Emperors", "the most religious Emperor", "the pious Emperor", "the most religious Emperors" inter alia. The view of the Emperors elsewhere in Apol. c. Ariano8 is the same, cr. 1, 2 ; 36, 1 ol 0co<:pr.Aea-rCX't'OL �cxcnMi<; KWVO't'IXV't'IO<; ltcxL KcIlva-rcxv<;. 34.. H ist. Arianorum 10, 1 35. pp. 323-326.

14*

POPE JULIUS, MARCELLUS of ANCY RA, AND THE COUNCIL OF SA RDICA - A RECONSIDERATION I The relationship between Pope Julius I, bishop of Rome from 6 February 337 to 12 April 352, and Marcellus of Ancyra is in need of a reappraisal. Julius certainly accepted Marcellus as orthodox and, indeed, linked him with Athanasius referring to both bishops as 'our brothers· l• In his letter to the Eusebians c. 340 A.D. Julius wrote: 'With respect to Marcellus, forasmuch as you have charged him also of impiety towards Christ, I am anxious to inform you, that when he was here, he positively declared that what you had wri t­ ten concerning him was not true; but being nevertheless requested by us to give an account of his faith, he answered in his own per­ son with the utmost boldness, so that we recognised that he maint­ ains nothing outside the truth. He made a confession of the same godly doctrines concerning our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ as the Catholic Church confesses; and he affirmed that he had held these opinions for a very long time, and had not recently adopted them: as indeed our presbyters 2, who were at a former date pre­ sent at the Council of Nicaea, testified to his orthodoxy; for he maintained then, as he has done now, his opposition to Arianism (on which points it is right to admonish you, lest any of you admit such heresy, instead of abominating it as alien from sound doctrine). Seeing then that he professed orthodox opinions, and had testimony to his orthodoxy, what, I ask again in his case, ought we to have done, except to receive him as a bishop, as we did, and not reject him from our communion ?'3 This is clear enough. J ulius accepted Marcellus' orthodoxy on the basis •

Recherches de Theologie ancienne et miJdievale 38 (1971 ) 69-79. 1. AT H A !'l . , Apol. c. Ar. 27 . 2. i.e. Vicentius and Vito. S. ATHA N . Apol. c. Ar. 32

342

of his anti - Arian stand at Nicaea and the creed which he put forward to Julius in person as the basis of his theological position. Marcellus is considered heretical by Epiphanius, Basil, Chrysostom and Theodoret 4. The explanation given at the Council of Sardica 5 (of which more later) is that Marcellus at first advanced certain opinions by way of enquiry but the Eusebians had represented these as his professed views. Julius may in fact have known more about Marcellus than his presumptory acquittal suggests. But the fact that Marcellus was on the orthodox side at Nicaea and had himself suffered grievously at the hands of the East­ erns apparently satisfied him. Moreover, as we shall see, Marcellus was adept at facing both ways and this may have swayed the Pope's judge­ ment. In any event it is not to be presumed that Julius was a theological simpleton. He may have known something of Marcellus' peculiar views but held these to be outweighed by Marcellus' own profession of faith. Julius was satisfied insofar as was relevant to Marcellus' acceptance into commUnIon. The letter of Pope J uHus to the Eusebians 6, sent in the year 340 in answer to a letter from the Eusebian bishops, has been described as 'one of the ablest documents in the entire Arian controversy'7. This may be so - yet it leaves much unsaid. The Arian controversy from the beginning was bedevilled by the inability of the two sides to understand each other. Arius rapidly became the arch - heretic and Athanasius the embodiment of orthodoxy. That both shared certain theological presup­ positions - in particular dualism 8 was never appreciated in Christian antiquity. This theological gulf is also to be found in J ulius' relationship to the Eusebians, at least in the main part of his letter. The Pope did not understand the Eastern objection to Sabellianism and their precise theological position. He only knew that irregularities had occured in the appointments to Eastern sees. The main part of his letter is in a -

q. EPIPH ., Pan. 72; BASIL Epp. 69, 125, 263, 265; CHRY SOSTO M, in Heb. Hom. 2. 2; THEOD ORET, Haer. 2. 10. The main body oC Oralio contra Arianos, attributed to Athanasius but oC unknown authorship, is directed against Marcellus and his followers. See Curther A. STE G M A N N , Die pseudoathanasianische '[ Vte Rede gegen die Arianer' als ltCXTOC ' Ape:�cx\lwv A6yoC;, ein Apollinarisgul, (Rottenburg 19 1 7 ) ; T. E. POLLA RD, "Marcellus of Ancyra: A Neglected Father", Epektasis, Paris 1972, p p . 1 87-196. 5. ATH AN., Apol. c. A,.. 47 6. Preserved in ATHA N., Apol. c. Ar. 20 35. 7. A. ROBERTSO N, Nicene and Post - Nicene Fathers (Oxford 1892) xliv. 8. M. F. WILES, 'In Defence of Arius', Journal oC Theological Studies, 13 (1962) pp. 339 q7. -

-

34.1

hostile tone. In this connexion it may be significant that Athanasiu8 tw ice says that the Synod of more than fifty bishops which had assemb­ led in Rome dictated to Julius the terms of his rejoinder to the Euse­ bians and that it was in fact more theirs than his 9. In other words the bluster in the letter is to satisfy the bishops behind J nlius. However in s pite of the anti - Eusebian tone of much of the letter there is one pas­ sage which suggests a more independent and conciliatory line on J ulius' part: 'Wherefore, as the God and Father of our Lord J esus Christ knows, it was from a regard for your good name, and with prayers that the Churches might not fall into confusion, but might continue as they were regulated by the apostles, that I thought it necessary to write thus unto you, to the end that you might at length put to shame those who through the effects of their mutual enmity have brought the Churches to this condition. For I have heard, that it is only a certain few who are the authors of aU these things. Now, as having bowels of mercy, take ye care to correct, as I said before, the irregularities which have been committed contrary to the canon, so that if any mischief has already befallen, it may be healed through your zeal. And write not that I have preferred the communion of Marcellus and A thanasius to yours, for such like complaints are no indications of peace, but of contentiousness and hatred of the brethren. For this cause I have written the foregoing, that you may understand that we acted not unj ustly in admitting them to our communion, and so may cease this strife. If YOIl had come hither, and they had been condemned, and had appeared unable to produce reasonable evidence in support of their cause, you would have done well in writing thus. But seeing that, as I said before, we acted agreeably to the canon, and not unjustly, in holding communion with them, I beseech you for the sake of Christ, suffer not the members of Christ to be torn asunder, neither trust to prejudices, but seek rather the peace of the Lord. It is neither holy nor j ust, in order to gratify the petty feeling of a few persons, to reject those who have never been condemned, and thereby grieve the Spirit. But if you think that you are able to prove anything against them, and to confute them face to face, let those of you 9 . Apol.

c.

A r, 20 and 36,

who please come hither: for they also promised that they would be ready to establish completely the truth of those things which they have reported to US ·IO• It is significant that, in this p assage, Julius writes in his own name rather f han in the name of the Roman council of bishops - and, I submit, in a m0. conciliatory tone. It would seem likely that Athanasius did not see J Ulill , ' �tter at the time it was written although he was then in Rome. I f he had seen it he would surely have commented on Julius' apparent laxity. But Athanasius nowhere says he has seen the original and, no doubt, saw a copy of it, along with other documents, after his second return from exile when the sitz - im - Leben of the letter belonged to the past. Adverse criticism would be by then unwise. Julius' conciliatory gesture, inviting the Eusebians to reopen their theological case, suggests that Julius knew that there was more to be said for their position than the rest of the letter (written also for home consumption by the council of bishops) would suggest. This is, I submit, shown by the fact that al­ though Julius accepted the credentials of Marcellus at no time does he suggest restoring Marcellus (or for that matter Athanasius) to his seell. The Eusebians had hit J ulius hard. Their precedents were of considera­ ble weight. In 251 Cornelius had condemned Novatianism and the East had acquiesced. In 269 at Antioch the Easterns had condemned the doctrines of Paul of Samosata and the West had acquiesced. Moreover at the last Roman synod Donatus had appealed against the j udgement given for Caecilian and his appeal had been allowed. Julius' precedents were not good and the Pope took good care not to refer to them. So Ju­ lius, while appearing to support and to express the bluster of the Italian bishops behind him, would only go so far. If the Eusebians can prove anything against him they should come and confute him to his face. They should ask Marcellus for reasonable evidence in support of his case. By refusing to come to Rome earlier (no doubt through fear of being outvoted) the Eusebians had already put themselves at a disad10. Apol." t;. A,.. 34.. 11. Professor S. L. Greenslade of Oxford. who has kindly read this article, points out that Julius refers to Marcellus and Athanasius throughout as bishops (i.e., as never having ceased to be the lawful bishops of Ancyra and Alexandria) . However it would seem clear from the last letter that Julius recognised their dispositions, i.e. that others were de facto holders of their sees. It would not be unreasonable to expect some discussion of their restoration had that been in Julius' mind at this time.

345

vantage. So Julius felt quite j ustified; on the basis of what Marcellus had said, in restoring him to communion. In doing this Julius had not preferred the communion of Marcellus and Athanasius to the Easterns the Easterns simply had not come to put forward their case. This pas­ sage in Julius' letter suggests that the Pope was aware that there was more to be said for the Easterns than appeared on the surface. Why then was he prepared to accept Marcellus' confession of faith in the first place ? The character of Marcellus is obviously relevant. Marcellus was an arch intriguer who did not hesitate to ingratiate himself with Julius. The Eusebians had had enough of him before he ever came to Rome. They were piqued at his absence from the Synod of Tyre and from the Dedication of the Church of the Holy Sepulchr e in Jerusalem in 335 cal­ ling upon him to render an account of his opini o ns which he appare n tly set forth in a book. For refusing to burn this book t.here and then Mar­ cellus was deposed at the Synod of Constantinople in 336, Ensebius of Caesarea being charged with the task of refuting his opinions. It was after his condemnation at Constantinople that Marcel lus went to Rome. Epiphanius has preserved a letter from Marcellus to 'his blessed collea­ gue Julius' in which he states:

-.

'Because some of those who previously took an un favourable view of the orthodoxy of my beliefs ( with whom I engaged in debate at the Council of Nicaea) have undertaken to write against me to your Holiness, as if my opinions were still not in keeping with the orthodox teaching of the Church, although they are now anxious to modify their accusation against me, it seemed to me to be neces­ sary in the light of this, to come to Rome to remind you, so that my critics could be summoned to a meeting with me where I might refute them on both counts, namely that the things they have writ­ ten against me happen to be quite false, and that even now they still persist in their former error and certain of them make so bold as to take issue with the Churches of God and with us their leaders. However, since they were not willing to meet us, and as you had sent presbyters to them and I had . been here in Rome a year and three whole months in connexion with this business, I thought it would be a good idea, now that I am on the verge of leaving the city, to provide you with a written record, written in my own hand with all truth, of my faith, the faith which I was taught and learnt from the Holy Scriptures, so that you might know with what kind of

346

false statements my opponents are trying to obscure the real truth' 12. There follows an apologia in the form of a detailed statement of his be­ liefs. In the middle of this document a short creed occurs13 which is closely related to the creed which can be reconstructed from Rufinus' treatise Commentarius in symbolum apostolorumI4• Archbishop Ussher long ago identified this as the contemporary creed of the Roman Church. Ussher thought that its interpolation by Marcellus into his apologia was an ingenious move to pro\'e to julius his orthodoxy-i.e. the Pope's own baptismal creed was the perfect expression of his faith15• The de­ viations of Marcellus' creed from Rufinus' are of a minor nature. The word 'Father' is om itted in the first paragraph and 'life everlasting' is added after the clause 'resurrection of the flesh'. F. J . Badcock16 has argued, against Ussher, that Marcellus is simply quoting the creed of his own Church of Ancyra-the Roman creed was not in his mind at all. This is shown by his explicit statements, ' I thought it would be a good idea . . . to provide you with a written record, writ­ ten in my own hand with all truth, of my faith, the faith which 1 was taught and learnt from the holy scriptures . . .'. 'This is the faith which 1 received from holy Scripture, which 1 was taught by my parents in religion, and which I preach in the Church of God' I'. J. N. D. KeIly18 however has shown convincingly that Badcock's argument does not hold water. Marcellus' creed does not conform to any known type of creed from Asia Minor. Moreover, Marcellus' references to ' m y faith', 'the faith which I was taught... the faith which 1 received, which I was taught' refer, not to his credal formula, but to his theological position in the wider sense. Kelly points out that his apologia, which is lengthy and skilful taking up some 45 lines in Holl's Berlin Edition, comprises a re­ ply to his Arian detractors and a detailed exposition of his own constru­ ctive attitude. The reference to Marcellus' faith, at the beginning of the letter, must be taken as covering the whole of the two paragraphs in 12. Pan. 72. 2. 1. (HaIl III. 256 7 ) . 1 3. Pan. 72. 3 . 1. (Hall I I I , 258 ) . 1 4 . MIG N E PL. 2 1 , 335 - 86. 15. J. USSH E R , De Romanae ecclesiae symbolo apostolico r>etere aliisque fidei for­ mulis diatriba, London, 1647. 16. The History of the Creeds (2 Ed. London, 193 8) pp . 58 - 63; Journal of Theo­ logical Studies 23 (1922) 362 - 89. 17. EPIPH., Pan. 72. 2 3; 3. 4 ( HoH I l I 257 8 ) . 18. Early Christian Creeds (London 2nd Ed. 1960 ) pp. 108 . 9 . -

-

-

347

which he develops his own theological views. The whole is packed with citations from Scripture - this bearing out Marcellus' argument that his teaching had a biblical basis. It is difficult to restrict 'my faith' and 'this faith' to the singl e small item of the creed which he reproduces. Marcellus was referring to the general content of his beliefs concerning the Father and the Son. What then are we to make of Marcellus' creed ? I f we agree that it was the contemporary Roman b ap tismal creed which Marcellus presented to J ulius we are faced with the pertinent question why the Pope did not apparently recognise the adoption o f his own formula ? Moreover why did not Athanasius characterize its origin ? We will never know. But its production sufficed to obtain the Pope's good will. Marcellus even had the audacity to ask J ulius to en­ close copies of it to those bishops with whom he was corre sponding in order that any who did not know Marcellus might be disabused of wrong ideas about him. It is an odd fact that Marcellus' creed was never made public or appealed to again by him - not even at the Council of Sardica in 343. It cannot even be proved to have been brought before the fif Ly bi shops afterwards assembled in Council at Rome. B u t apparently it satisfied Julius at the time although he was not prepared to do more than admit Marcellus to communion - there is no mention of restoring him to his see. Marcellus, an i mport ant figure in the Arian controversy, was an arch trimmer. Heir to the older Antiochene - Jewish tradition he was quite willing to be a Western to the Westerns and an Eastern to the Easterns when it suited his purpose. It would seem that he duped Julius and perhaps, even more, Athanasius. Basil of Caesarea had no illusions about himl9• The fact that J ulius had gone a certain way and admitted him to communion Marcellus never forgot. He traded on it throughout his life with whatever errors he was charqed: se communio ne lulii et Athanasii, Romanae et Alexandrinae urbis pontificum, esse muni­ tum20• The welcome given in 340 to Marcellus and Athanasius by Julius exacerbated the growing hostility between East and West. Rome had accepted bishops formally excommunicated by Greek Synods. To Mar­ cellus and Athanasius these synodical j udgements were invalid since their accusers were heretics - and the East could not accept this. The right of Rome to act as a court of appeal was not self evident to the 19. Epp . 69, 12 5, 239, 252, 265. 20. JEROME , De Vi,.. Illust. 86.

348

Greeks in view of the relative obscurity of the Roman see before the pontificate of Julius. The outcome was that on 6 January 341 ninety ­ seven Eastern bishops met at the Council of the Dedication of Con­ stantine's "Golden" Church at Antioch21 in the presence of the Emperor Constantius. Eusebius of Nicomedia (translated to Constantinople) was there with most of the Arian leaders. Yet of the bishops who at­ tended the majority were conservative in feeling. Hilary called it " a Synod o f Saints" 22 and its canons passed into the accepted body o f Church law. The reply t o Julius is not now extant but according to later Church historians it was not conciliatory23. II We now pass to the Council o f Sardica which met in the autumn of 343. There is little doubt that this was called on the initiative of the orthodox. The results which they hoped to obtain are to be seen in the Synodical Letter addressed to Pope Julius: Tria fuerunt, quae tractanda eram... ut de integro universa discussa disputarentur et ante omnia de sancta fide et de integritate veritatis, quam violaverunt, secunda de personis, quos dicebant esse deiectos de iniquo iudicio, ut, si potuissent probare, iusta fieret confirmatio, tertia vero quaestio, quae vere quaestio appeUanda est, quod graves et acerb as iniurias, intolerabiles etiam ct nefarias contumelias eecle­ siis fecissent, cum raperent episcopos, presbiteros, diacones et omnes clericos in exilium mitterent... et qui ante fuerant deiecte, non solum recepti sunt, sed etiam ad clericalem dignitatem promoti et acceperunt praemium falsitatis24• The bishops' aims were the preservation of Nicene doctrine, the attain­ ment of justice for the victims of Eusebian oppression and the re ­ establishment of j urisdictional order. J ulius did not go to Sardica but was represented by two presby­ ters Archidamus and Philoxenus. The Council got off to a bad start as 21. Eus., Vito Const. iii. 50. 22. De Syn. 32. 23. SOCRAT ES, H E ii. 1 5, 1 7 ; SOZOM EN, HE. iii. 8 , 10. 2,.. C.S.E.L. 65 128 - 9, quoted i n H . H E SS, The Canons of the Council of Sardica (Oxford 1958) 7 .

349 the Western bishops, who had arrived first, promptly admitted Athana­ Bius and Marcellus to communion in accordance with the previous Ro­ man decision. This was unwise for Pope Julius had previously been careful to qualify the decision by not prejudging the case of the two bishops - if only the Eusebians would come to Rome then their theolo­ gical position could be re - opened. Now however the Eusebians insisted that Marcellus, Athanasius and others whose cases were to be reviewed should be treated as excommunicate from the outset on the grounds that their reception into communion would be a violation of Synods that had deposed them and contrary to the tradition of the Church. The Easterns had good cause for unease. The Synods of Tyre and Antioch had as much j urisdiction in the case as that of Rome. The Eusebians pointed out that the gathering at Antioch which had deposed Paul of Samosata in 268 had been recognised in the West and was, in fact, a kind of precedent for the Synods which had deposed Athanasius and Marcellus. The status of these two bishops, they held, should have re­ mained indeterminate until the Council of Sardica had given its decis­ ion. After repeated efforts to persuade the Eastern bishops to join the Western body Ossius of Cordova invited them to bring their proofs against Athanasius and Marcellus to him personally. This also the Eu­ sebians refused to do probably smelling a trap - the likelihood of ma­ j ority opinion turning against them. Nothing more could be done and the Easterns duly departed - after holding a rival Synod of their own. The Encyclical issued by this Synod condemned Athanasius, Marcellus and all who had received them into communion - Pope Julius, Ossius, Protogenes and other orthodox leaders2li. Meanwhile after the departure of the Eusebians the Western bishops continued their deliberations. The charges against Athanasius and Marcellus were investigated. The bis­ hops were declared innocent and restored to their former sees while the appointments of their successors were declared invalid. Sentences of excommunication were passed against the leaders of the Eusebians for their commission of slander and violence. Marcellus' theological position was also investigated by the Western bishops. No reference was made to Marcellus' creed which he had pre­ viously put forward at Rome - in substance the old Roman baptismal creed. Instead a book was read which apparently Eusebius of Caesarea 25.

Preserved by HILARY, De Synodis 34.

350 had maligned. This book was pronounced as consistent with orthodoxy. ' For what Marcellus had advanced by way of enquiry, they falsely repre­ sented as his professed opinion; but when the subsequent parts of the book were read, and the parts preceding the queries themselves, his faith was found to be correct. He had never pretended, as they positi­ vely affirmed, that the Word of God had His beginning from Holy Mary, nor that His Kingdom had an end; on the contrary he had written that His Kingdom was both without beginning and without end'26. Hilary also states that his examination of the book bears out their decision, adding that Marcellus was never again tried or condemned in any sub­ sequent Synod27• The reference to this book is interesting. It is not to be equated with l\larcellus' statement of his faith containing the Old Roman Creed preserved by Epiphanius - there is no mention of the latter at Sardica and, significantly, no mention of the book at Rome in the dealings with J ulius. It seems probable that Marcellus himself put it into the hands of the Western bishops at Sardica - perhaps realising that something more than the production of a creed was needed to clear him of the taint of heresy. According to Hilary Marcellus subsequently fell into heresy through some rash utterances28• 'What these rash utterances were we do not know. Probably these included the statement that the Word of God did not become Son until the Incarnation29, and that Christ's Lordship would one day he terminatcd30 - i.e. an expansionist modaJism by which the divine Monad expands into a Triad and eventually re­ turns to its original Unity. But at Sardica Marcellus apparently put forward these ideas as only questions worth discussing - rather than his own opinions. Once more he had succeeded in trimming his sails to the prevailing winds. The result of Sardica was a severance of Communion between East and West. The line of division was the boundary between the Empires. This was undoubtedly an initial contribution to the conditions which, 26. AT H A N . , Apol. c. Ar. 47. 27. fro 2. 21 - 3. 28. fro 2. 23. The publication of Marcellus' controversial work against the Arian Asterius in 334 was the original cause of his deposition by the Eusebians. This book has not been preserved. 29. fro 4 - 7, 42, 48, 91 , 109 in E. KLOSTERMAN:;, Eusebius Werke, G.C.S. 4. (Leipzig 1 906) pp. 185 · 215. 30. fro III ft. op. cit. p. 208 ff.

351

centuries later, would result in the permanent schism which has not yet been healed. Sardica was a major tragedy in the history of the Early Church. The tension between East and West, which had been growing for some years, there reached bursting point. It is an interesting speculat­ ion whether, if Pope Julius had himself been present, an open split might have been avoided in view of the conciliatory passage in his letter to the Eusebians of the year 340. As it was the aged Ossius of Cordova was a major influence at Sardica and he was strongly anti - Eusebian31• The Westerns acted unwisely in prej udging the case of Athanasius and Marcellus at Sardica. The Easterns were no less unwise. They chan­ ged their minds over their request for a general Council to se ttIe the question in 339 - 40 and declined Julius' invitation on the grounds that it was against ecclesiastical law that he should interfere in what they regarded as a purely Eastern affair. The real reason, never openly stat­ ed, was no doubt the same as their subsequent refusal to meet with the orthodox at Sardica - the realisation that the decision of a general coun­ cil would go against them. The Eusebians claimed that the act s of every Synod were irreversible and that the first judges would be dishonoured if their sentence should be examined by others. The Eastern encyclical issued from their own Synod at Sardica states: eeclesiae regula sanetaque parentum traditio atque iudueia in per­ petuum firma solidaque permaneant nee novis emergentibus sectis traditionibusque perversis, maxime in constituendis episeop is vel in exponend£s · . . . 32 This denial o f the right o f appeal t o a larger Synod drove a wedge bet­ ween East and West, put a temporary end to the development of the authority of collective j urisdictional judgement and forced the p apacy into a more active participation in the controversy. What was Athanasius' attitude to Marcellus in this developing situation ? He never formally associated Marcellus' teaching with Sa­ bellianism. T. E. Pollard33 has argued that Athanasius' attitude was not simply motivated by personal loyalty to his co - defender of the Nicene Symbol but that he understood and appreciated the real intent of Mar31. An excellent study of Ossius is given by V. C. DE C L E RCQ, Ossius of Cordova, A Contribution to the History of the Constantin ian Period, (Washington 1 95 � ) . 32. C. S. E. L . 65, quoted in Hess, op. cit. p . 1 H. 33. Op . cit. (n. �).

352

cellus' theology with which he had much sympathy. This would seem to go too far in view of the fact that Marcellus was adept at adjusting his views to the needs of the hour. While it is true that until his death in 374 he remained in communion with the sees of Rome and Alexandria he was of very little importance after the Council of Sardica. The West largely dropped his cause. III It is difficult to assess the personal influence of Pope J ulius on the developing historical situation. We have sought to show that there were two conflicting attitudes at work. The Pope, in 340, with the Italian bishops behind him and perhaps dictating his policy, appears to pronoun­ ce decisively in favour of Marcellus and Athanasius. However another more conciliatory note, somewhat at variance with this, appears in Julius' letter to the Eusebians. The Easterns should merely bring for­ ward reasonable evidence in support of their case. He had not prefer­ red the communion of Marcellus to that of the Easterns - the latter had simply not put forward their case. The whole theological question could be re - opened if only they would do this. We have suspected that J ulius realised there was more to be said for the Eastern position that the rest of his letter would suggest. It is one of the tragedies of the fourth century that the division between East and West hardened so rapidly in the six years between 337 and 343. Both sides were at fault. Pope Julius was too ready to accept Marcellus' credentials and too easy beguiled by Marcellus' variab­ leness. It is unlikely that he fully appreciated the Eastern fear of Sa­ bellianism and Modalism. He tried to avoid an open schism but the split went too deep. His conciliatory gesture of 340 was not taken up and the break of three years later became inevitable. The Easterns for their part were also to blame. They had a case in objecting to the actions of the Roman Synod of 340 and the prema­ ture acceptance of its decisions by the Western bishops at Sardica in 343. But their consistent refusal, from 339 onwards, to discuss their case openly and rationally militated against them. Their use of brute force, of which unimpeachable evidence existed34, also hardened the split. 34. ATHA N . , Apol.

c.

Ar. 45.

353 In a sense we have the history of fifteen years before repeating itself. The great tragedy of the Arian controversy was the inability of either side to understand what the other was talking about. Arius and Athanasius in fact shared more theological presuppositions than they themselves realised. Similarly, Pope J ulius and the Western bishops and the Eusebians had more in common than a cursory reading of the history of the years 337 - 343 would suggest. If Julius had succeeded in inducing the Easterns to re - open their case in Rome in 339 /40 the subsequent history of the Eastern and Western Churches might have been very different. As it was the deadlock of Sardica was only loosened under Imperial pressure. The East agreed to the reinstatement of Atha­ nasiu8 at Alexandria while the West ignored Marcellus. However this was only an uneasy truce. At the Synods of ArIes (353) and Milan (355) the Emperor Constantius extracted from the bishops a condemnation of Athanasius. Thus the golden decade of Athanasius (346 - 356) came to an end.

23

is'''

BEDE AND EUSEB IUS AS C H U RCH HISTORIANS I Bede and Eusebius are two of the most renowned names in the long tist of historians of the Christian Church. Both were pioneers. Eusebius, in the early - fourth century A. D., was the first to present the history of the Church as a unit standing in its own right and to trace its rela­ lionship to the Roman Empire up to his own time. His method was to appeal to the evidence of ancient documents which he quotes at length. Many of these documents have not otherwise survived and simply on the level of preservation of early Christian literature Eusebius' achieve­ ment was outstanding. His labours have won him the gratitude of subsequent scholars. Bede, some three centuries later, lived in a period when there was a decline of historiography everywhere in the western world. Although there had been several continuations of Eusebius' Chro­ nicle, as translated by J erome, hardly one was added after the sixth century. The Celts had produced no historiography of any significance. Gildas can hardly be classed as a historiographer. While hagiography flourished everywhere in Christendom in the late - seventh century historiography was in decay 1. Bede, for a moment, gave it a fresh im­ pulse before the darkness of the Viking invasions fell upon his native land . The depth to which scholarship fell after Bede's death is expres­ sed in the epitaph quoted by William of Malmesbury 2: Presbyter hic Beda requiescit carne sepultus Dona Christi, animan in celis gaudere per euum, Daque illum sophiae debriari fonte, cum iam Suspirauit ouans intento semper amore. Bede, in his Historia ecclesiastica Brittaniarum et maxime gent is Ang•

Famulus Christi, London (1976) 106-124.. 1. W. LEVISON, 'Bede as Historian' in Bede, His Life, Times and Writings (ed. A. HAMILTON THOMPSON), Oxford (1935) 1 1 1 . 2 . Gesta Regum 1 . 63.

355 lorum, intended to write a British and Anglo - Saxon supplement to Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History and so produce the first local history of an occidental people. He mentions Eusebius' work very often 3, which he knew in Rufinus' Latin version, and from it he may well have got the idea of quoting verbatim the wording of letters and synodal acts which in fact constitute one seventh part of his History. Bede knew how to give a summary of a document when required, but he also knew the value of quoting important texts. In the Preface to his History he tells how Nothhelm, a priest of the Church in London, searched the archives of the Church in Rome for letters of the Popes, finding letters of Gregory and other Popes, copies of which he brought to Bede for inclusion in his work 4. I t is clear that Bede's aim, like that of Eusebius his model, was to tell a documented story. The plan of both historians was based upon the idea of the succes­ sion of bishops from the apostles as fundamental to a history of the Chris­ tian Church. Bede's words, in his Preface, are reminiscent of Eusebius: EUSEBIUS

H. E.

/. 1

(Preface)

RU FIN U S

BAEDAE

I. 1

Praefatio

H. E.

Exinde autem usque ad Tocc; -rwv te:pwv OC7toO"-ro- Successiones sanctAWV 3�oc30xocc;, GUV xoct orum apostolorum et tempora praesentia, 3. List of quotations in C. PLU M :II E R , Venerahilis Baedae Opera Historica I Oxford (1 896) Ii. I t was from Rufinus' version of Eusebius l/E I l l . 29. 1 - 4 that he obtained his reference to Clement of Alexandria's acc oun t of Lhe origin of the Ni­ colaitans quoted in his Commentary on Re\)elalion ii. 15. And from the same sOUrce he obtained his quotation from Ignatius, ' I am the wheat of God and I am ground by the teeth of beasts that I may be made pure bread' (Hufinus HE I I I . 36. 1 2 ) . Bede's phrase beat us Ignatius fertur dixisse would seem to exclude any knowledge of the original Greek Ignatian source (ad Rom iv); C. B O N N E R , Saint Bede in the Tradition of Western Apocalyptic Commentary, J arrow Lecture (19 66 ) 1 8 n. ,0. I t is inlerest­ ing that Bede knew Rufinus' version of E U S E B I U S HE long before he began writi ng his Ecclesiastical Hi.�tory as his Commentary on Revelation is one of his earliest com­ mentaries on Scripture probably written between 703 and j09. 4 . The Preface was written after the History was completed and gives an ac­ count of Bede's methods as an histor i an ; cf. qui, quod uera lex historiae est, simpli­ citer ea quae fama uulgante collegimus ad instructionem posteritatis liueris mandare studuimus. The phrase quae uera historiae lex est is used by Bede in his Commentary on Luke and is borrowed from Jerome. Cr. C. W. J O :'i E S , Saints Li\)es and Chron icles in Early England, �ew York (1947) 83 n. 7 and PL X X I I I . 1 8 7 - 8, quoted in Bede's Ecclesiastical History of the English People, ed. B. C O L G R A V E and R. B. M V N ORS, Oxford (1969) 7 n. 4. I have used the Colgrave - Mynors text in this paper.

356

'rore; &'1'0 'rou I:w'tijpoc; �(Jowv xoct de; �(Joocc; 3�'Yt VUG(Joevo�e; Xp6vo�c;, gGOC ... ore xoc � 't"YJ /\ �X oc l' P ocy(Jo oc'reU6-'Ylvoc� xOC'roc 't"YJv exx/\... 'Yl G�OCG1:'�x'YlV �G1:'0P � ocv )..eye1:'oc�, xoct gcro� 1:'oc6't"YJ e; 3�oc1'pe1'We; EV 1:'or.'i:c; (Jo OC.../\Lcr't"oc em G'Yl (JoO 1:'OC1:'oc� c; 11:OCPOLX�oc�e; 'YlY1l Gor.V1:'O 't'e xor.t 1'poeG't"YJGor.v \

'

\

\

'

\

.

,

,

'

,

,

c

,

,

temp ora, quae a Sal­ vatore nostro ad nos usque decursa sunt, quae que et qualia in his erga ecclesiae sta­ tum gesta sint, qui etiam insignes viri in locis maxime celeber­ rimis ecclesiis prae fuerunt.

quae In ecclesia Can­ tuariorum per discipu­ los beati papae Gregorii Sive successorcs eorum . . . gesta sint... At vero in provincia Lindissi quae sint gesta erga fidem Christi, quaeve successio sacerdotalis extiterit ...

.••

Bede was much interested in chronology and became heavily in­ volved in the Paschal question and, in particular, the method of deter­ mining the date of Easter. In his History Bede reproduces the full text of a long letter which was sent by Ceolfrith to Nechtan, King of the Picts, in which the history of the Easter question is lucidly explained 5. By this time (c. 710) Bede had already written his work on chronology, De Temporibus. It is difficult to determine how far the letter is the work of Bede or Ceolfrith but the result was decisive Nechtan declared himself cominced by the arguments set forward and he ordered the suppression of the Old Easter tables, based on the 84 - year cycle, and the adoption of the more accurate Roman 19 - year cycle which had been used in the English Church since the Synod of Whitby. It is interesting that in this letter Ceolfrith states: Hic autem, quem uobis sequendum monstramus, computus paschae decennouenali circulo continentur; qui dudum quidem, hoc est ipsis apostolorum temporib us, iam seruari in ecclesia coep it, maxime Romae et Aegypti, ut supra iam diximus. Sed per industriam Eusebii, qui a beato martyre Pamphylo cognomen habet, distinctius in ordinem compositus est. ut quod eatenus per Alexandriae pontificem singulis annis per omnes ecclesias mandari consuerat. iam deinde congesta in ordinem serie lunae quartae decimae facillime posset ab omnibus sc£n. .

.

What was the source of Ceolfrith's (or Bede's) information that Eusebius had reduced the computation of the 19 - year cycle to a plainer system 5. HE V. 21.

357 (distinct ius in ordinem compositus est) ? We know that Bede used Jerome's translation of Eusebius' Chronicon but the extant vcrsion does not con­ tain an Easter cycle. Jerome states 6, in referring to H ippolytus, that Eusebius composed a 19 - year Paschal cycle. Gennadius states that Hip­ polytus, Eusebius, Theophilus and Prosper were authors of Easter cycles7• It is therefore possible that Eusebius' Chronicon may have ori­ ginally contained an Easter cycle of its own. Another explanation could be that Jerome is referring to a work which Eusebius sent to Constantine giving a mystical explanation of the significance of the Festival ( V ita Const. IV. 35, 36). A fragm ent of this work was recovered by A. Mai in a Vatican MS and was printed in Migne PC XX IV. 693 - 706. This frag­ ment does not in fact contain an Easter cycle although the words Et quidem nos etiam initium huius solemnitatis cyclorum periodis singulis annis instauramus (col. 698) suggest this. It therefore seems likely that Ceolfrith's or Bede's information was based on knowledge of a work on the Easter cycle mediated through Jerome which Eusebius had compos­ ed. It is significant that Berlin MS Lat. 128, Phill. 1831 (Verona, saec. ix 1), fol. 128r, and Paris MS B. N., Lat. 7296 (saec. ix 1), fol. 1 1 1 v give a table of Easter terms in four columns of Latinorum, Crecorum, Vi­ ctorii, Eusebii. The only deviation between Eusebii and Latinorum (Dionysius Exiguus) is in the first and fifth years when the Paschal full moon is given one day later by Eusebius. Thus the only difference bet­ ween the rules of Eusebius and Theophilus - Cyril - Dionysius was a small variation in the arrangement of 'full' and 'hollow' monthss. There is no essential difference in technique and, if this truly represents Euse­ bius' position, it is difficult to see how he was reducing the earlier tradit­ ion to 'a plainer system' . However we cannot dogmatise on the basis of this MS evidence; it is quite possible that Eusebius did in fact introduce some clarity into a notoriously difficult computation. Bede's use of Eusebius was not uncritical. In his exposition of Acts i. 13 he states, in a revealing passage: I have written, too, in the same work, following the commentary of Jerome also concerning J ude the brother of J ames who was also called Thaddaeus, that he was sent to Abgar King of Osroene, as 6. De Virus Illustribus 6f. 7. De Scriptoribus Ecclesiasticis 88. 8. C. W. JONES Bedae Opera de Temporibus, Cambridge, Mass. (194.3) 24.

n.

2.

35 8

the Ecclesiastical History had handed down; but inspectin g sub­ sequently the Ecclesiastical History itself more diligently I found that it was not written there that it was Thaddaeus the apostle , one of the twelve, but Thaddaeus, one of the seventy discip les, who was sent to the aforementioned king. . . But I do not think that error ought to be imputed to me when following the authority of great doctors I thought that I should adopt without scruple what I found in their works 9. Bede had been led astray through quoting Eusebius at second hand. It is possible that another MS of Eusebius' HE had arrived at Bede's monastery in the meantime which caused Bede to revise what he had written. Whether Bede knew the works of Eusebius in Greek as well as in the Latin of Rufinus and Jerome is uncertain. The well known passage in his Epistle to Plegwin in which he states that Eusebius, in his 'description of times', did not follow in all things either the Hebraica (leritas or the LXX does not quite prove WO. On the other hand it is certain that Bede's library did contain a number of Greek MSS. II We pass now to the case against Eusebius and Bede as Church historians. Scientific history, that is the belief that a purely objective history of the p ast could be written, was the invention of the nineteenth century. There is no such thing as pure history'. We may of course dif­ ferentiate Thucydides from the propagandists of his time, trustworthy chroniclers from those addicted to fiction - yet all historians are influen­ ced, in varying degrees, by personal and cultural considerations and, in the case of Church historians, often by theological considerations ­ whether they admit it or not. Eusebius and Bede were no exceptions. One of their shortcomings was a failure to deal adequately with social, political and economic factors as these affected the Christian Church in the periods they were covering. Eusebius lived in a literate civilisation, yet he largely ignores the factors in this background which assisted the •

9. Expositio Actuum Apostolorum et retractio, ed. M. L. W. LAlST:>i ER, MediefJal Academy of America Publication No. 35, Cambridge, Mass. (1939). 10. Epistola ad Pleguinam ed. C. W. JONES, Bedae Opera de Temporibus, Camb­ ridge, Mass. (1943) 305 - 15; C. JE NKINS, «Bede as Exegete and Theologian)) in Bede. His Life, Times and Writings op. cit. 1 62 .

359

spread of the Church preferring instead to p ass moralistic judgements on men and events. Bede lived close to paganism yet he does not really examine the state of society in his time, addicted though he is to record­ ing what people believed. He gives no allusion to the prevalent vices of lay people although he does not fail to draw a dark picture of the vices of some of the clergy. Bede's omission of the social factors affecting the development of the English Church is perhaps understandable. He had a deep sense of his remoteness from the centre of events - of living on what William of Malmesbury was to call Lhe furthest shore of an island which Some called alter orbis because there were not many geographers who had discovered its existencell. Eusebius, on the other hand, lived at the centre of events as bishop of Caesarea. He was in Palestine dur­ ing the first eight years of the Great Persecution (303 1 1 ) ; he then went to Egypt where he found the letter of the Egyptian bishop Phileas, a long extract of which appears in H. E. VI I I 10. I n 312 he returned to Caesarea where he was consecrated bishop. In his later years he became the close friend of the Emperor Constantine taking a leading part in the discussions at the Council of Nicaea in 325 where he apparently attempt­ ed his own theological rehabilitation12• He died in 339 j ust two years after his mentor, the Emperor Constantine. How far did apologetic bias affect the Histories of Eusebius and Bede so as to distort their recond of what happened ? I n the case of Eusebius the evidence is clear13. He sees the j udgement of God within the historical process - what he calls Providence - vindicating Saints and crushing those whom he believes to be sinners. He rewrites Imperial history to fit in with this schema. So in the preface to H. E. V Eusebius states that Soter, bishop of the Church of Rome, was succeeded by Eleu­ therus, twelfth from the apostles, 'in the seventeenth year of the Emperor Antoninus Verus' . The arrangement of the book shows that Eusebius -

1 1 . Gesta Regum 1. 59. 12. The exact role of Eusebius at Nicaea has been hotly debated. A recent reap­ praisal, while acknowledging lhat Eusebius was provisionally excommunicated at the Synod of Antioch earlier in 325, sees him as a more moderate figure who fell in with Constantine's policy of comprehensiveness; cf. G. C. STEAD «Eusebius and the Council of Nicaea)), Journal of Theological Studies XXIV (1973) 85 100. 13. I am much indebted in this section to an unpublished article by Professor R. M. GRANT of Chicago, «The Case Against Eusebius - Or, Did the Father of Church History Write History?)) given at the Oxford International Patristic Conference in -

1971 .

360

meant Marcus Aurelius (Antoninus) Verus and the date is accordingly c. 177. Eusebius then gives a long extract from an account of the Chris­ tians at Lyons condemned to death by this Emperor, concluding with the words: 'Such, then, were the events that happened to the churches of Christ under the aforesaid Emperor; from which one may reasonably conj ecture also the occurrences in the other provinces' (V. 2. 1). This presumably means Marcus Aurelius; yet Eusebius turns to the account of the Roman legion saved by the prayers of Christian soldiers which he states occurred under Antoninus' brother, Marcus Aurelius Caesar (V. 5. 1). Eusebius is shifting the blame for the persecution away from Marcus Aurelius to Lucius Verus already dead in 169. In Eusebius' view the 'good' Emperor, Marcus Aurelius, could not have been a persecutor. In fact he was a persecutor and despised the Christians, as his Meditat­ ions show. Eusebius thus sacrifices historical fact to a tendentious 'black and white' view of history. Other examples could be given such as Euse­ bius' view of Licinius. Before he became a persecutor of Christians Lici­ nius was 'the beloved of God', 'hcnoured for understanding and piety'­ almost a devout Christian14• After he became a persecutor Licinius is a 'hater of mankind', a rapacious and lascivious drunkard. Indeed, accor­ ding to Eusebius, Licinius went mad when he opposed Constantine15• It is hard to believe that in fact Licinius' character changed so rapidly. Maxentius, defeated by Constantine in 312, comes off no better. We know that this Emperor tolerated Christians and restored Church pro­ perties. According to Eusebius he only pretended to be a Christian and stopped the persecution only because he was trying to please the Roman populace16• Maxentius was little more than a depraved monster in Euse­ bius' eyes17• It is in his view of the Emperor Constantine that Eusebius' apolo­ getic bias reaches its greatest heights. He sees the underlying movement of human history in the progression Abraham - Christ - Constantine. The roots of Christianity lay for him in the era of the Jewish patriarchs. This era was distinct from both Hellenism and Mosaic Judaism. It had H. HE I X. 1. 15. X. 8 9. Eusebius, when he wrote Book X, did not withdraw his laudation of Licinius in Book IX and indeed retains in Book X the fulsome adulation of him in the Tyrian panegyric; H. J. LAWLOR and J. E. L. OULTON, Eusebius, The Eccle­ siastical History and the Marty,.s of Palestine II, London (1954) 30. 1 6 . HE VI II. 14. 1 . 1 7 . VI II. H . 2 6, -

-

"361 its own characteristic stamp, something of the greatest antiquity, some­ thing natural and familiar to the godly men before the time of Moses. Eusebius shows the sensitivity of Christians of his day to the criticism that their religion was of recent origin. For Eusebius the remnant men­ tioned in the Old Testament prophets linked the Jewish patriarchs to the Christians and to the fact of Christ. Eusebius does not however stop there. The fulfilment of the Promise had come about in his own time in the person of the Emperor Constantine. This idea emerged in Eusebius' mind c. 321, although earlier than this he had acknowledged the Church's debt to the Pax Romana. From c. 313 onwards Eusebius saw the divine calling of the Roman Empire more clearly. Constantine becomes the second Abraham and the Roman Empire God - given : 'But Constantine the most mighty Victor, resplendent with every virtue that godliness bestows, together with his son Crispus, an Emperor most dear to God and in all respects like unto his father, recovered the East that belonged to them, and formed the Roman Empire, as in the days of old, into a single united whole, bringing under their peaceful rule all of it, from the rising sun round about in two directions, north as well as south, even to the uttermost limits of the declining day'ls. 'So the nations of the world were guided as though by a single pilot. They accepted the governorship of the servant of God. The Roman administration was no longer subj ected to disturbance. Men carried on their lives amid order and peace'19. Norman Baynes claimed that the source of Eusebius' view of the signi­ ficance of Constantine lay in the hellenistic idea of kingship in which the Imperial rule became a copy of God's rule in heaven2o• The logos guides - indeed is incarnate - in the earthly Ruler. So Eusebius speaks �n laudatory terms of Constantine: ' I f he had occasion to speak on matters of theology, he stood erect and his face was grave and his voice subdued. He gave the impres­ sion of a man who was seeking with the greatest reverence to ini­ tiate his audience into God - possessed teaching. When his listeners 18. HE X. 9. 6. 19. Vita Constantini IV. 14. 20. "Eusebius and the Christian Empire" , Byzantine Studies and Other Essay" London (1955) 168 72. -

362

acclaimed him with shouts, he bade them look heavenward, and he commanded them to reserve their awe and admiration for the universal Ruler alone and to honour Him with worshipful praise·21• The Emperor could do no wrong as the logos on earth. His rule was an imitation of the rule of heaven. . .' from whom and by whom our divinely favoured Emperor, receiving as it were a transcript of the divine so­ vereignty, directs, in imitation of God himself, the administration of this world's affairs'. Eusebius simply rewrote Imperial history to serve his purpose, viz. that Constantine's adoption of Christianity was the climax of the histo­ rical process. He never considers Constantine's motives which have been so variously estimated by modern scholars. He never considers Constantine's character which caused him to put to death members of his own family. Constantine can do no wrong in Eusebius' eyes. It is possible that Constantine attached importance to Eusebius' support ­ knowing his reputation as a scholar. He may have treated Eusebius with due deference. And it is possible that Eusebius' view of Constantine owed something to oriental court etiquette. But even if this was the case it is hardly a justification for Eusebius' crude moralistic view of Roman history as it affected the Church. Not much better is Eusebius' treatment of the history of the Church as such. Heretics are simply representatives of the Devil and cannot have taught anything that was true. Eusebius never allows a heretic to state his views in his own words; usually he quotes a few lines from Irenaeus about a heretic with little or no account of the heretic's system. The passage devoted to Saturninus and Basilides22 tells us almost nothing of their beliefs. This view of the history of the Church is also revealed in Eusebius' selection of heroes. In the late third and early fourth cen­ turies the spiritualising, speculative theology of Origen was under fire and c. 309 Pamphilus, in prison at Caesarea, obtained Eusebius' coope­ ration in an Apology for Origen. Unfortunately this work is now lost but much of it appears to underly Eusebius H. E. Book VI, in which Euse­ bius treats Origen as a great saint of the faith. By concentrating his attention upon Origen and the Alexandrian school Eusebius was giving prominence to one strand in early Christian teaching23• But it was not 2 1 . Vita constantini IV. 29. 22. HE IV. 7. 1 8 23. Note how Eusebius refers to Pierius. an Alexandrian teacher of Origenist -

363

the only strand. Many of the early Fathers accepted chiliasm , the belief in Christ's coming reign on earth. Eusebius played down its importance and, in consequence, was able to portray the Constantinian Empire as an extension of the Kingdom of Christ, so preparing the way for his V ita Constantini. His antipathy to chiliasm is revealed in his treatment of the Revelation of John which contains the well known picture of the reign of Christ on earth for a thousand years24• Eusebius cannot gainsay the fact that many Christians used and revered the Apocalypse. Never­ theless his antipathy comes through in his treatment of the grandsons of Jude, of the Lord's family, whom a legendary tradition describes as brought before the Emperor Domitian. They are commended by Euse­ bius because they held that Christ's Kingdom was not of the world, nor earthly, but heavenly and angelic. Domitian too was suitably impressed, released them and ceased to persecute the Church25• J n other texts Eu­ sebius criticises chiliasm as a misinterpretation of the apostolic accounts. Then there is the interesting fact that Eusebius states that the chiliastic beliefs of the heretic Cerinthus were supported by 'revelations purported to be written by a great apostle'26, i. e. in the Apocalypse of John. There is little doubt that for Eusebius, true Christianity was of an Origenistic kind without an apocalyptic element. This faith is supported by the apostolic tradition handed down by bishops who were successors of the apostles. He has little understanding of the complexity of the earlier Christian tradition and the fact that the line between Orthodoxy and heresy was often a blurred one. So he even played down dissensions among Christians, even those closest to his own time: 'But as to these, it is not our part to describe their melancholy mis­ fortunes in the issue, even as we do not think it proper to hand down to memory their dissensions and unnatural conduct to one another before the (Great) persecution. Therefore we resolved to place on record nothing more about them than would justify the divine j udgement. Accordingly we determined not even to mention views, as an excellent and devoted theologian and teacher - one possessed of rare qualities; HE VII. 32. 26 - 7. A papyrus published in 1964. shows that, in fact, Pie­ rius had offered sacrifice to the gods during the persecution; Papyrus Bodmer XX, ed. V. Martin, Geneva (1964.). 24.. Rev. xx. 4. - 6. 25. HE III. 20. 1 - 6. 26. III. 28. 2.

364

those who have been tried by the persecution, or have made utter shipwreck of their salvation, and of their own free will were plun­ ged in the depths of the billows; but we shall add to the general history only such things as be profitable, first to ourselves, and then to those who COme after US·27• Regarding the conflicts during the persecutions Eusebius says: 'The lust for power, moreover, that possessed the many, the rash and unlawful ordinations, and the schisms among the confessors themselves; all that the young agitators eagerly devised against the remnants of the Church, heaping fresh innovations on what were still novelties, adding with an unsparing hand to the misfor­ tunes of the persecution, and building evil upon evil - all this I purpose to omit'28. This is an oblique reference to the Meletian schism which was to assume considerable proportions in Egypt where it came to have more signifi­ cance than Arianism29. In the same way Eusebius virtually ignores the Donatist schism confining himself to the text of the letters of Constantine directed against the Donatists30• Eusebius' apologetic view of the history of the Church has been described by Professor R. M. Grant, in a pregnant phrase, as his 'survi­ val kit'31. It was written so that he could survive not only as a subject of the Emperor but as a Christian bishop in a period of trouble. Just at the time when Eusebius hoped that Church and State would be uni­ ted in an indissoluble union the Arian controversy arose and rent the Eastern Church in two. In fact Eusebius compromised his theological position and had to fight hard for his rehabilitation at the Council of Nicaea in 325. Unlike Eusebius Bede possessed a devout, religious mind. Kindly, compassionate, steady in perseverance he was of a truly Christian dispo­ sition. Genuinely patriotic he was not like 27. HE VI II. 3. 3. 28. Martyrs of Palestine X I I (short recension). 2 9 . I have examined this schism in detail in {(Athanasius and the Meletian Schism in E gyp t)), Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 59, 19 73, pp. 181 - 189. 30. HE X . 5. 1 8 24.. 31. In an unpublished article. -

365 'The idiot who praises with enthusiastic tone, All centuries but this, and every country but his own' (Gilbert and Sullivan, The Mikado). Bede was the most widely read scholar of his age - his monastery con­ tained some two hundred manuscripts - and he had a life - long interest in chronology and hagiography which prepared the way for his Eccle­ siastical History. In the composition of H. E. I . 1 22 Bede relied on earlier writers such as Orosius, Prosper of Aquitaine, a Life of Germanos and other hagiographical material now not extant. His own work be­ gins in I . 23 with the mission of Augustine to Kent. Bede explains in his Preface the pains he had taken to find reliable sources for his History, mentioning Albinus, abbot of the monastery o f SS. Peter and Paul at Canterbury, Daniel, bishop of the West Saxons,the monks of Lastingham abbey and Nothhelm, a London priest. In addition Bede acknowledges the earlier written sources he had utilized and occasionally refers to informants, such as Deda, abbot of Partney, who had given him infor­ mation about some special topic32• Bede's careful methods have preser­ ved many interesting traditions which would otherwise have been lost. However Bede's information was limited to the Western Church. To­ wards the end of his life he knew that the Saracens were pressing hard on Christian Europe. He lived long enough to know of the repulse of the Muslims by Charles Martel at the battle of Tours in 732. He even mentions this battle in H. E. V. 23 (Quo tempore grauissima Sarraceno­ rum lues Callias misera caede uastabat, et ipsi non multo post in eadem provincia dignas suae perfidiae poenas luebant), perhaps inserting this sentence after he had finished his work, while the first copies were being made in the Wearmouth J arrow scriptoria. But he has no knowledge of the earlier victory of the Byzantine Emperor Leo I I I over the Sara­ cens in 717 /18 when they were repulsed from the walls of Constantino­ ple with resounding losses33• It is arguable that this Byzantine victory was one of the decisive battles of world history for it ensured the safety of Europe. Bede however has no knowledge of the Eastern Empire nor the treasures of Byzantine civilisation. An impenetrable curtain existed between the two halves of Christendom. Bede's descriptive powers are of a high order as is evidenced by -

-

32 . HE 11. 1 6 . 33. For a description of the siege, R . GU!LLAN D , «L'expedition de Maslama contre Constantinople (717 - 1 S } ll, Etudes Byzantines (1959) 109 33. -

366

his most familiar stories - those of Gregory the Great and the English boys, Oswald and Aidan, Caedmon, Paulinus, Wilfrith, Ethelhum, Eg­ bert and many others. The Ecclesiastical History became at once an authoritative work and enjoyed great popularity on the Continent. The extant MSS number more that one hundred - and - sixty and, in addit­ ion, brief fragments exist. The History is frequently found in the cata­ logues of medieval libraries34• What, then, is the case against Bede ? Bede, like Eusebius, presents a moralistic view of history in which the jUdgements of God overtake those whom Bede happens to dislike, or whom he j udges to be unor­ thodox. Thus in 684, when Bede was a youth Ecgfrith, King of Northum­ bria, attacked Ireland; when Bede wrote up this incident in his H istory35 half - a - cenlury later he condemned this attack in severe language as unwarranted against a people who had always been very friendly to the English. In his view Ecgfrith's death in battle the following year was an example of the vengeance of God36 - a severe condemnation for one who had given the l and on which the monasteries of Wearmouth and J arrow had been founded37• Another example of Bede's moralistic view of history is seen in his treatment of the unfortunate Britons which is consistent throughout his work. Bede attached great importance to the period from the sack of Rome by the Goths in 410 to the start of Augus­ tine's journey to England in 586 and his account is largely derived from the work of Gildas, who wrote c. 550, and the Life of Germanus, bishop of Auxerre, who had visited Britain in 429. Bede viewed the conquest of Britain by the Anglo - Saxons in the same light as Gildas - the ven­ geance of God coming upon a corrupt people. Consider this passage38; 'After the enemy's depredations had ceased, there was so great 34. M. L. W. LA lsn E R and H . H . K l :'> G , A Hand List of Bede 2ll an u8cripls, Cor­ nell ( 1 943 ) ; M. L. W. LAIST:'> ER, Tho ught and Letters in Western Europe A . D. 500 · 900, Cornell (1966) 1 66. 35. HE IV. 26. 36. Creditum est tamen quod hi qui mer ito impietatis suae maledicebantur, ocius Domino uindice poenas sui reatus luerent (ibid. IV. 26). 37. Another instance of Bede's moralistic view of his tory is his treatment of the unCortunate monks of Bangor whose fate reveals the vengeance of God for the obs­ tinacy of their predecessors in failing to meet the demands of Augustine who, by his success in bringing sight to a blind man, had shown himself qualified to bring spiritual enlightenment to others. HE II. 2. P. HUNTER BLAIR, The World of Bede, London (1 970) 82. 38. HE 1. 14.

367 an abundance of corn in the island as had never before been known. With this affluence came an increase of luxury, followed by every kind of foul crime; in particular, cruelty and hatred of the truth and love of lying increased so that if anyone appeared to be milder than the rest and somewhat more inclined to the truth, the rest, without consideration, rained execrations and missiles upon him as if he had been an enemy of Britain. Not only were laymen guil­ ty of these offences but even the Lord's own flock and their pas­ tors. They cast off Christ's easy yoke and thrust their necks un­ der the burden of drunkenness hatred, quarrelling, strife, and envy and other similar crimes. In the meantine a virulent plague sudden­ ly fell upon these corrupt people which quickly laid low so large a number that there were not enough people left alive to bury the dead . Yet those who survived could not be awakened from the spi­ ritual death which their sins had brought upon them either by the death of their kinsmen or by fear of their own death. For this rea­ son a still more terrible retribution afterwards overtook this sin­ ful people for their fearful crimes. They consulted as to what they should do and where they should seek help to p revent or repel the fierce and very frequent attacks of the northern nations; all, in­ cluding their king Vortigern39, agr eed that they should call the Saxons to their aid from across the seas. As events plainly showed , this was ordained by the will of God so that evil might fall upon these miscreants' . ,

Added to this was a further crime that the Britons had failed to preach the Christian Gospel to the Saxons and Angles who lived among them. As a consequence God appointed ' much worthier heralds of t h e truth to bring this people to the faith'40. At the end of his History Bede repeated his charge of neglect: 'On the other hand the Britons who would not proclaim to the English the knowledge of the Christian faith which they had still persist in their error and stumble in their ways, so that no ton­ sure is to be seen on their head s and they celebrate Christ's solemn festi­ vals differently from the fellowship of the Church of Christ, while the ,

,

39. Vortigern is a title meaning 'chief lord', H . M. CHADWICK, «Vortigernll, Stll­ dies in Early British History, Cambridge (195�) 27. Vortigern may also lie behind a similar event in North Wales. C. THO!ll AS, Britain and Ireland in Early Christian Times AD qOO - 800, London (1971) 33. 40. I . 22.

368 English are not only believers but are fully instructed in the rules of the Catholic faith'41. Bede is referring to the fact that in 731 the British cler­ gy still observed usages which put them beyond the pale of Catholic orthodoxy. Bede's account of the Britons is undoubtedly tedentious and mani­ festly unfair. He was first and foremost an apologist for the Roman Church and a passionate traditionalist. He never attempts to think through the Sitz im - Leben of the Britons in the period he describes. It would seem likely that the Saxon conquest of Britain was a slow, piecemeal process probably achieved by small bands of men of mi­ xed racial origin under leaders who attracted followers by their pro­ wess in war. The precise significance of the Vortigern affair, described by Bede, is difficult to evaluate and may have been no more than one episode in the long process by which the shores of Belgium, Gaul and Britain were occupied by the Saxons42. Bede's apologetic motif is also to be seen in his treatment of the Easter question to which we have already referred. The date for keeping Easter was vehemently disputed in the seventh and eighth centuries by the Roman and Celtic Churches43. The English Church decided in favour of Rome at the Synod of Whitby in 664 but the Celts continued with their own usage. Undoubtedly this dispute affected the unity of Christian worship. When the Court of Northumbria under Oswiu was keeping Easter according to Irish usage, the Queen Eanflaed, who had been brought up under the Roman system, was still fasting in Holy Week - which was hardly likely to assist practical convenience". Bede was a passionate defender of the Roman observance, and as Plummer observes, the question occupied a place in his mind out of all proport­ ion to its real importance45. His well known tribute to the saintliness of Aidan is marred by this note: 'I have written these things about the cha­ racter and work of Aidan, not by any means commending or praising his lack of knowledge in the matter of the observance of Easter; indeed I heartily detest it, as I have clearly shown in the book which I wrote called De Temporibus, but, as a truthful historian, I have described in -

q2. P. HUNTER BLAIR, The World of Bede op. cit. 26 7. q3. For a full discussion of the Easter question C. W. JONES, Baedae Opera de Temporibus op. cit. 6 104. qq. HE I I I . 25. q5. Vene,.abilis Baedae I. op. cit. xl. -

-

369

a straight forward manner those things which were done by him or through him, praising such of his qualities as are worthy of praise and preser­ ving their memory for the benefit of my readers" 6. Bede even went as far as to describe the conversion of the Iona monks by Egbert to the Roman dating of Easter as a fulfilment of the words of Christ: 'So the most reverend father, being assured of their conversion, rej oiced to see the day of the Lord; he saw it and was glad' ". Bede's attitude to heresy is one of vehement opposition. There is hardly any form of heresy known in his time which he does not attempt to refute, the two most frequently attacked being Arianism and Pela­ gianism's. It is probable that he knew Vincent of Lerins' Commonitorium which places Pelagius in the company of Arius, Sabellius and Priscillian. Yet Bede never attempted to understand Pelagianism on its own terms it was simply a heresy which 'had corrupted the faith of Britain with its foul taint" 9, an evil belief. Like Eusebius Bede never gives the teach­ ing of a heretic in his own words. In his view the different forms of error often mutually destroy one another. However more important than Bede's view of heresy50, which in any case followed directly from his passionate orthodoxy, is his emphasis on peace. Bede tended to sup­ press controversy and to play down quarrels between individuals within his living memory. In doing this he seriously distorts the history of his times. The most glaring example of this is his treatment of Wilfrid for whom apparently he had little sympathy. One has only to compare Bede's account with the biography of Wilfrid by Eddius - Stephanus ( Vita Wilfridi) which gives an account of the bishop's stormy carcer51• Bede is highly · discreet and largely suppresses the quarrels in which Wilfrid was involved such as the parting of Wilfrid and Benedict Bis106. HE III. 1 7 . t. 7 . John viii. 56; HE V. 22. t.S. List in PLUMMER, Venerabilis Baedae l op. cit. lxii - lxiii n. 3. Bede makes many allusions to the madness of Arius (CJesania Arrii), usually taken over from ear­ lier sources; e.g. the reference to Arius' ghastly end, PL xcii. 9t.t. c, comes from Ru­ finus X. H; the allusions to Arian doctrine, PL xcii. 251 A, 950 B, are copied from Jerome, in Matt. (PL xxvi. 157 C) and Comm. in psalmos (ed. Morin) SO, 10 - 16. t.9. HE I . 1 7 . 50. Bede several times criticises Origen's views as heretical; PL xci. 9 1 A - C; cf. PG X X X . 887 B - c. 51. The Life of Bishop Wilfrid by Eddius Stephanus, ed. B. COLGRAVE , Camb­ ridge (192 7). 24

370 cop

at Lyons52• It is interesting that Bede, who recounts many miracles of his heroes, only relates one of Wilfrid although Eddius' Life records many; and this is one in which Wilfrid is associated with Bede's friend Acca, bishop of Hexham53• It would seem that Bede almost refrains from relating any miracles about a man who had been a bitter enemy of many of his heroes. Bede's predilection for peace at any cost is shown not only in his discreet account of Wilfrid, but also in his account of Ceolfrith. When Benedict Biscop was away in Gaul difficulties arose at Wearmouth with certain high - born members of the community who would not submit to monastic discipline. Ceolfrith, having had enough, decided to return to Ripon. Bede entirely omits to mention these troubles, of which he must known at first hand, and we learn of them only from the Life of Ceolfrith54• Bede lived and worked in a period of relative political stability before the Viking invasions struck. He tend­ ed to project this outward political stability into his account of the Church in his own times. Himself a man of peace Bede suppressed the harsh facts of internal quarrels and so portrayed the growth of the Eng­ lish Church as a direct continuation of the Roman mission, much as he stressed the unity of the small Kingdoms in the one, great English nation. III Our concern in this chapter has not been to enumerate the virtues of Eusebius and Bede as Church historians. Eusebius, as is well known, was the first Christian writer to present a history of the Church as a unit standing in its own right based on the evidence of ancient docu52. HE I I I . 25, 2S; IV. 2, 3, 12, 13. On Bede's omissions see the note in PLUM­ M E R, Venerabilis Baedae II op. cit. 315 - 16. William of Malmesbury comments, multa ex historia Bedae uacant (Life of Wilfrid, GP. 210). But Bede records Wilfrid's epitaph mentioning his victory in the Easter question: Paschalis qui etiam sollemnia tempora cursus Catholici ad iustum correxit dogma canon is, Quem statuere patres, dubioque errore remoto Certa suae genti ostendit moderamina ritus; (HE V. 1 9 ) . 53. Noted by B. COLGRAVE, uBede's Miracle Stories)), Bede, His Life, Times and Writings, op. cit. 206. Sq. Vita Ceolfridi c. 16, ed. C. PL UMM ER, Venerabilis Baedae l op. cit., 388 40q, tr. D. WH ITELOCK, English Historical Documents No. 155 I, London (1955) 697 - 70S . -

371 ments. The fact that he attempted this, however inadequately, is to his lasting credit and his labours have won the gratitude of subsequent scholars, ancient and modern. Without his Ecclesiastical History the story of the Christian Church in the first three centuries would have been difficult to disentangle. However admiration for his achievement should not blind us to his defects which are many. Eusebius' tenden­ tious, moralistic view of Church his tory seriously distorts historical fact as we have shown earlier. Gibbon's verdict that Eusebius 'indirect­ ly confesses that he has related whatever might redound to the glory, and that he has suppressed all that could tend to the disgrace, of relig­ ion'55 should not necessarily be taken cum grano salis. So Eusebius gloats over the deaths of persecutors and heretics while tacitly ignoring ble­ mishes in his heroes, such as Origen and Constantine. Eusebius' judgement is that of a worldly, pragmatist politician. Bede's virtues are obvious to the reader. I t is easy to underestimate the achievement of this modest and humble man. Devotion to the Bib­ le, sound learning, a firm grasp of the movement of history, a strong and tenacious patriotism, a love of the picturesque and dramatic, the use of eyewitness testimony are among his distinctive features. A scholar who died learning Bede himself is however greater than his works. Self - dedication to duty loyally pursued is his abiding example. However his virtues should not blind us to his defects as a historian. Bede was almost too pleasant a man to be a great historian. While he was not uncritical in his use of sources his sense of unity and peace blinded him, at times, to the vagaries of human nature. And the extensive weight which he placed upon tradition , while not blinding him to the virtues of the Celtic Saints, nevertheless seriously distorted his view of the Brit­ ons, as of those who persisted in following a different computation for the date of Easter. Bede however, unlike Eusebius, never gloats over the deaths of those with whom he disagrees. His charitable spirit for­ bids this. There is no arrogance in his work. Eusebius and Bede have both cast a blight on the work of succeed­ ing ages. For too long the history of the early Church was read through the eyes of Eusebius and it is only in our own time that the maj or here­ siarchs have been rehabilitated and we have obtained a juster view of the complex relationship between orthodoxy and heresy in the early period. Bede likewise exercised an enormous influence on succeeding 55. Decline and Fall of the Roman Emp ire, c. X VI ed. Bury II. 1qq.

372 ages - an influence out of all proportion to his more modest, if conside­ rable, achievement. Indeed the Ecclesiastical History, by its comprehen­ siveness, may have unwittingly caused the loss of a large amount of earlier English historical material56• At the period of the thirteen hund­ redth anniversary of his birth we do him no j ustice by such high - sound­ ing epithets as 'the Father of the Middle Ages'. We might well confine ourselves to the more modest 'Father of English History'.

56. PLUMMER, Venerabilis Baedae l op. cit. xlvii comments: ' I t would have been matter for regret had Bcde's works supplanted wholly the works of his predecessors. The fewness of the MSS. in which these works exist shows that this contingency was very near occurring'.

16*

T H E J EWS AN D THE BYZANTI NE ICONOCLASTIC CONTROVERSY The Jews were on the whole a tolerated minority in the Byzantine Empire and only three emperors, in the period from the death of the Emperor Heracliuf! (641 ) to the sack of Constantinople during the Fourth Crusade (1 204), actively persecuted the Jews and outlawed Judaism; and these three emperors treated other dissid ent groups� such as the Paulicians, with an equal or even greater severity. The position of the Jews in Byzantium was more favourable than in Latin Christendom although, from time to time, they experienced some local persecution. Moreover they were on occasions disqualified from public office and suffered numerous restrictions or disabilities, although many of these were of a minor nature. The Emperor Basil I , in A. D. 873 4, caused many Jews to be baptized by force 1. Theophanes vividly describes the Emperor's attitude and action: -

First he drew into submission to Christ the Jewish nation . . . II e summoned them to come to disputations prepared to j ust.ify their faith, and either to prove that it was firm and irrefuLable, or hav­ ing been convinced that Christ is the head of the Law and the Pro­ phets ... to enter into the Lord's teaching and be baptized. To those who would come forward he made offers of appointment to office . He also promised to exem pt them from the burden of the former t axes (TOU [3ocpouc; TWV 7tpOTEPWV &.7tocAAOC�or.C; cpopwv) and to make honou•

Eastern Churches Review 5 ( 1 9 73) 125-135. 1. Basilius siquidem Imperator... multos ludaeorum per vim baptizari fecit, ex q uibus ammodum pauci parvo post tempore spontanei praebuerunt assensum credenti in Christum et evangelica mandata pariterque apostoiica documenta, ut moris est, custodire libenter professi sunt, attamen nemo eo rum iterum baptizatus est (Auxilius, De ordinationibus a Formoso papa factis), ed. E. D U M M L E R, A uxilius unt Vulgar ius (Leipzig 1866) . pp. 1 09 cr. I have used the collection of sources in J. STARR, The Jews in the Byzantine Emp ire (Athens 1 93 9 ) . For a recent study see A. SHARF, Byzantine Jewry from J ustinian to the Fourth Crusade (London 1971 ) .

3 74 rable men of ignoble ones (&:d!Lcov). He thus freed many from their cloak of stubbornness, and brought them to faith in Christ 2. The term 1�:n(J.oL suggests that the state of these Byzantine Jews may have been comparable to that of Roman citizens who had suffer­ ed the loss of major rights by capitis deminutio. However we are hard­ ly justified in applying this indiscriminately to the whole period. While it is clear that the Jews were disqualified from public office by Basil, the sources show that in other periods they suffered no interference with fundamental rights in economic and social life. Their tax burden was on the whole no greater than that of the Christians and they were not especially exploited 3. During the period of the iconoclastic controversy (726 843) the Byzantine Jews were actively persecuted by the Emperor Leo I I I who initiated the great struggle. Leo was an able, inspiring and energetic ruler who saved Byzantium from being overwhelmed by the Arab in­ vaders. His brilliant defence of Constantinoplo in the years 717 18 was a maj or turning point in world history. Yet in his fifth year (721 - 2) Leo moved against the Jews: -

-

In

this year the Emperor compelled the Jews and the Montan­ ists to undergo Baptism. The Jews, though unwi1ling ( OC7tpOOCLpe­ TCO�), accepted Baptism and then washed it off. They partook of the Holy Communion after having eaten and thus polluted the faith 4. In that year Leo, the Emperor of Byzantium, undertook to convert to Christianity the dissenting sects of his Empire, and the non · Christians. He began by christianizing the Jewish people and the hr's and the converts were called ' New Christians' 5. At this time Leo began a persecution of all those resident in his realm who where alien to his faith. Many thereupon fled to Arab 2. THEOPHANES CONTINUATUS, V, 95 (MPG, cix, col. 357B). 3. STARR, op. cit., p. 1 7 q . THEOPHANES, Chronographia q01 (MPG, cviii, col. 809c: cf. Georgius Cad­ renus, MPG, cxxi, col. 869). 5. AGAP JUS (10th century, in Arabic Hahbub), Kitab al -' Unwan, ed A. A. VASILIEV, PO xiii, p. 50q. Is it possible that h,.'s is relatedto Syriac hrs and means 'magicians' ? This might be appropriate in a context of unpopUlar minority groups which are expelled or persecuted. ( l owe this suggestion to Fr. Robert Murray) . However, this is not quite certain.

375

territory ... Some ot the Jews accepted Baptism and became Chris­ stians; these were called veoL 1tOALTOCL which is to say ' New Chris­ tians·6• These notices show that Leo' s persecution of the Jews was part of a wider movement against all dissenting sects in the Byzantine Empire, although he began with them. The historical roots of this policy go back to the 4th - century Emperor Constantius I I who made religious into­ lerance a cornerstone of his rule. The reasons which prompted Leo to this drastic move are, however, unknown. Theophanes refers to the appearance of a Syrian pseudo - Messiah who is said to have posed befo­ re the Jews as Christ, the Son o f God. This Messianic movement appa­ rently began in Mesopotamia but did not spread beyond Asia Minor 7. There is no evidence that this pseudo - Messiah appeared in Constan­ tinople or had any contact with Leo. It is true that Messianic excite­ ment was endemic among the Jewish population of the Empire 8 and, from time to time, took bizarre forms; but historical evidence is lacking for any direct connexion with Leo's forcible baptism of the Jewish population. It may be that Leo, following the successful defence of Con­ stantinople against the Muslims in 7 1 7 18, simply wished to purify Byzantine life from what he regarded as superstitions in the light of the continuing Arab threat. He probably realized that dissenting sects might not prove to be loyal to the state. What of Leo's iconoclastic edict of the year 730 ? Was the Byzan­ tine Emperor in any way influenced by Jewish antipathy to images ? I n adopting iconoclasm did he wish to silence criticism from that quar­ ' ter ? Patriarch Germanos, on the eve of the controversy, states that the Jews on many occasions presented icon worship to the Christians as a source of shame 9. This reproach is also attested in the period immedia-

J. B. CHABOT, La Chroniqlle de Michel le Syrien (Paris 1899 - 1 9 1 0 ) , iv. 4.52; ii. 4.89ff.; cr. Bar Hebraeus (13th century), Makhtebhiinuth zabhne. ed. P. BEDJAN (Paris 18 90) , p. 118. 7. J . ST A RR , «Le mouvement messianique au debut du viii-ieme siecle)), Rel'ue des Etudes Juil'es, cii (1 937), pp. 81 - 82. 8. On this see H. GRAETZ, Geschichte der Juden, 4.th ed. (Leipzig 1909), v. pp' 169r., 4.5'7 - 60, and S. KRAUSS, Studien zur byzantinisch - jiidischen Geschichte (Leipz­ ig 1914), pp. 38 - 4.0. 9 . MPG, xcviii, col. 168. A copy was apparently sent to the Pope: cr. E. CASPAR, ((Papst Gregor II und der Bilderstreibl, Zeitschri(t fur Kirchengeschichte Iii (19M), p. 33. 6.

376 tely preceding the iconoclastic era by Leontius, Bishop of Neapolislo. Then there is the story of Leo being influenced by a Jew who predicts that he will overthrow images: The first man to give the inspiration to this heresy was named Konon, but adopted the name Leo. He acquired that dark notion from the Hebrews. Before his accession, while he was out for a walk, a Hebrew said to him, 'You shall become Emperor and if you will adhere to the advice which I now give you, your reign and glory will be long - lasting. Discard your present name and call yourself Leo, for during your reign the images, in which the Chris­ tians believe, will be overthrown. So give me your word to overth­ row them during your reign'. Taken by this the dragon of the deep promised accordingly . . . Ten years after his accession, upon going out, he met his guide to destruction, who handed him a paper, no doubt containing his request. The Emperor recognised the Hebrew, immediately invited him into the palace, and accepted him from then on as collaborator in his impious workll. There are several versions of this legend. In another Leo's imperial dignity and long reign are foretold by Jewish magicians but this is con­ nected with the iconoclastic edict of Yazid I pz. The origin of this cycle of stories appears to be in the reports of the Second Council of Nicaea of 787, of Theophanes and Nicephorus about Yazid I I and his Jewish advisers. Little credence can be placed on it. Moreover it seems impro­ bable that Leo, having ordered the forcible baptism of Jews, would have moved against the icons at their behest. It would seem that the Jews acquired a reputation for slave - trad­ ing, to judge from Canon 8 of the Second Council of Nicaea of 787 which restored orthodoxy to the Byzantine Church: Certain deceitful adherents of the religion of the Hebrews, thinking to mock Christ our Lord, pretend to be Christians while secretly denying him and stealthily observing the Sabbath and other J e­ wish customs. We prescribe that they be admitted neither to Com­ munion, nor to prayer, nor into the Church, but that the Hebrews 10. MPG, xciii, cols. 1597 - 1 609. 11. Ps.- DAMASCE NE, Oratio, MPG, xcv, cols. 336 ff. (c. 780 A.D.), wrongly at­ tributed to John of Damascus by J. STARR, The Jews in the Byzantine Empire, p. 91. 12. Ps. DAMASCENE, Ep istola, MPG, xcv, cols. 356 ff. -

377

should live openly according to their own religion, neither baptiz­ ing their children, or purchasing slaves, nor possessing them. Should one of them voluntarily confess wholeheartedly, scorning their customs and pursuits, and in addition refuting and reforming others, then accept and baptize such an individual as well as his children. Moreover guard him from apostacizing to the usages of the Hebrews. Never accept one who is not of this type13• There is other evidence, outside of the iconoclastic period, that Jewish slave - dealers were occasionally active in the Byzantine Empire. In 885 some Jews purchased slaves in Bulgaria and then sold them in Venice to an enemy of Basil Jl'. There are other references dating from the eleventh century. In general, however, it would seem that this trade was suppressed and was only carried on by subterfuge on rare occasions. An appendix to the Ecloga, the important legal work of Leo I I I published in 726, which probably dates from the end of the 8th century, again illustrates Jewish disabilities in this connexion: A Jew cannot hold a post of honour, nor serve as a magistrate, nor do military service. He shall be subject to the lot of the decurionate and the disabilities thereof. And if one should by political influen­ ce attain any rank, he shall be expelled and shall pay a fine of 30 1bs. of gold. A Christian who becomes a Jew shall have his proper­ ty confiscated. Samaritans or Jews who tempt anyone to renounce the faith of Christians shall have their property confiscated and be decapitated. A Jew shall not on any pretext possess a Christian slave or one belonging to any other sect. If he does and circumci­ ses him, the State shall emancipate the slave and the owner shall suffer capital punishment. A pagan, Jew Or Samaritan, and anyone who is not an orthodox Christian, cannot p ossess a Christian slave.

13. Canon 8 (MANS!, Concilia, xiii, cols. q27, q30). Zonaras and Balsamon refer this to Christian slaves (M PC, cxxxvii, col. 916), but this is uncertain. The conclu­ ding lines oC the Canon are influenced by the text oC an earlier Cormula oC abjura­ lion: V. N. B E N E SH E VITCIl, «On the H istory oC the Jews in Byzantium from the sixth to the ninth centuries» , Yermiskaia Mysl, ii (1 926), p . 305 (in Russian) . See further STARR, 0p . cit., p. 97. H. Y. IVANOV, B']garski Starini iz' Makedoniya (Sofia 1931), p . 306. On the slave trade, see Curthe"r F. Dvornik, Les Sla"es, ByzQllce et Rome au ] Xe siecle (PariS 1926), pp. 298 ff,

378

If he does, he shall be freed and the owner must pay the fisc 30 1bs. of gold. No Jew, pagan or heretic shall possess a Christian slave, and if any such should be found, the slave shall forthwith be taken and set free. A slave who serves a pagan, Jew, Samaritan or heretic, if he is not a Christian and wishes to become one, shall be set free at the same time as he receives the rite of Baptism. And his master cannot take him back into slavery even though the former should afterwards become a Christian. We impose confiscation of property and perpetual banishment on J ews who are found to have cir­ cumcised a Christian, or who command any other person to do S015. The next notice of possible Jewish influence on iconoclasm dates from the early 9th century in connexion with the Phrygian sect of the Athinganoj16. Phrygia, from classical times, had been a breeding ground of deviationists. We first hear of the Athinganoi in company with the Paulicians as the favoured supporters of Nicephorus (802 - 1 1 ), then general of the army in Asia Minor. Theophanes, the orthodox chronicler who records this, frowns on the gullibility of the Emperor in trusting the magical devices of the two sects17• Caution is, however, needed in taking this at its face value as Theophanes is a hostile witness. In fact, the Emperor Nicephorus tolerated the iconoclastic party although not taking active steps in its support; in this his attitude differed sharply from that of Irene, who had been imperial consort in 787, the year of the Second Council of Nicaea and the restoration of icons. During the brief reign of the succeeding Emperor, Michael I (81 1 13), a "olte face occurred. A policy of persecution was inaugurated against dissenters. The death penalty, on the advice of Patriarch Nicephorus, was enacted against the Athinganoi and Paulicians by a decision of the permanent Synod of Constantinople18• The Emperor issued a 7tpocr15. Ed A. G. MONFE RRATUS, Ecologa Leonis et Constantini cum Appendice (1889, from an Athens manuscript); reprinted by ZE POS, Jus, II, Iff. English translation and commentary by E. H . FRESH FIELD, A Manual of Roman Law, the Ecloga (Lon­ don 1926), p. 1 30 - 2, 1 37f!. 16. On this sect see J. STARR, «An Eastern Christian Sect: The Athinganoi)), HarCJard Theological ReCJiew, xxix (1 936), pp. 93 - 106. 1 7 . Chronographia, MPC, cviii, cols. 980D - 9S1A. 18. P. J. ALE XANDER , The Patriarch Nicephorus of Constantinople (Oxford 1958), p . 99,

379 -roc.y[J.OC to cause them to be executed19• There followed a number of exe­

cutions, particularly in the Armeniac theme, before Theodore of Stu­ dium intervened 20. He claimed that there was always a chance of con­ version and that no priest had the right to condemn to death the im­ pious. The 1tpocr-rocy[J.oc was accordingly commuted to banishment and confiscation of property. As so often in history, this persecution had the opposite effect and only served to reinforce the determination of the members of the two sects to resist. The Athinganoi continued to flourish in Phrygia, particularly in Am orion, the birthplace of the Em­ peror Michael I I (820 9). It was during Michael I I ' s reign that there occured one of the last waves of iconoclasm, which undoubtedly the Emperor favoured. This raises the question whether he was influenced by the Athinganoi and whether, in fact, they were a Judaizing sect. The account of Theophanes Continuatus reads as follows: -

He (Michael I I ) hailed from an upper Phrygian town called Amor­ ion, in which a large number of Jews and Athinganoi had always lived together ( tieL mue; tYXOC-rOLX[�e:-rOCL). Out of this constant inter­ course of differing groups there sprang up a certain heresy .. .in which he participated, following in the footsteps of his forefathers. This sect viewed the divine immersion (i.e. Baptism) as a means of salvation, and permitted it to its initiates; as regards all else, they observed the Mosaic law with the exception of circumcision . Every initiate procured for himself as teacher and guide a Hebrew man or woman who had never been baptized and entrusted to him or her the control of his household affairs, both the spiritual and the material ones being placed under him or her. Thus was he brought up within this sect21• Theophanes presents Michael as an Athinganos by birth and up­ bringing, who showed the influence of the sect in his imperial administ­ ration in a number of ways. He dwells on the idiosyncracies of the sect, portraying them as a J udaizing group due to the fact that Amorion harboured a large colony of Jews. The sect thus observed the Laws of Moses through refraining from circumcision and instead practising Chris19. TH EOP H A N E S, Ch1'Onog1'O.phia, MPG, cviii, col. 993A - B; PETRUS SICULUS, Histo,.ia Manichaeo,.um 41 MPG, civ, col. 1301A). 20. THEODORE, Lette,. 23 (ed. COZZA - LUZI), Nopa Pat,.um Bibliotheca, viii, 21). 21. MPG, cix, col. 56

380 tian Baptism. It was then no surprise that Michael I I should have grown up an iconoclast and even declared Jews exempt from taxes22• This account is clearly tendentious and concerned to account for the Emperor's later iconoclastic behaviour and devotion to the Jews which Theophanes, as an ardently orthodox Christian, regarded with horror. It is significant that Genesios, in his account written a few years before that of Theophanes, is far more reserved. He knows nothing of the idiosyncracies of the sect and simply gives a few sober details, not mentioning that Michael had been reared within the sect23• Likewise George the Monk, a near - contemporary of the Emperor, knew nothing of an Athinganos connexion. Zonaras, the twelfth - century chronicler, elaborates further Theophanes' account, summing up Michael's character by simply stating that he belonged to the Jews 24. At the end of the twelfth century Michael the Syrian goes still further in stating that Michael I I was descended from a Jewish grandfather25• While the relationship of the Athinganoi to the Jews is the subject of reasonable doubt their existence is certain. There is indubitable evi­ dence that Athinganoi existed in Europe in the later iconoclastic period. A notice records their presence in Aegina, the home of Athanasia, head of a convent, who succoured them during a famine26• It is probable that they had been driven there through Michael l's order of exile rather than through some earlier transportation of heretics. We can give a terminus post quem to this reference from the fact that the Life of Atka­ nasia refers to the island being raided by Arabs who, no doubt, had come by way of Crete. So the Athinganoi must have been there not later than c. 83027• More to the point are the beliefs of the Athinganoi. J. Starr has studied the formula of abj uration in an orthodox tract written about the heresy28. This document is difficult to unravel as the unknown aut22. MPG, cix. col. 61; cf. GEORGIUS CEDRENUS, MPG, cxxi, col. 857A; E. J. DOL­ GER, Regesten der Kaiserurkunden des ostrijmischen Reiches (Munich . Berlin 192q) , i. 1 , pp. 50, t,.1q. 23. GEN-ESIUS, MPG, cix, cols. 1025 - 8. 2q. ZONARAS, Annals, xv, 22 (MPG, cxxxiv, col. 1381B C) . 25. Chronique, ed. J . B . CHABOT, iv, p . 522. 26. Latin version of Life of Athanasia, ed. J. PIE N, Acta Sanctorum, August, iii (1867), p. 170. 27. A. V. VA S!LIEV, Byzance et les Arabes (Paris 1 935), i. p. 57. 28. Harvard Theological Review xxix (1936) , pp . 98 - 100. -

381 hor held the theory that the ancient Melkisedekites and Theodotians were so closely related t o the Athinganoi that the same formula could be used in the baptism of a convert from any of the three sects. However, Starr has succeeded in unravelling the references to the Athinganoi: ' I also anathematize the successive teachers of the Athinganoi in each generation of the past, those of tod ay, and those of the future . . . I anathematize those who observe the sabbath like the Jews, while condemning circumcision and Baptism like the Gentiles. I anathe­ matize those who resort to divination, charms and magic, and pro­ mise to harm and to benefit men therewith I anathematize those who invoke certain demons, the chief of them being Sorou, Sochan and Arche, and with their aid draw the moon to themselves, asking of it any questions they wish. I anathematize those who give the stars men's names, and who with their demonic fancy strive to incite them one against the other, saying thus: This star shall ex­ tinguish that, and this is greater and more propitious than all the others. I anathematize those who under pretence of purity teach misanthropy, considering all outside their faith defiled, and who, therefore, do not permit themselves to approach nor to be approa­ ched by any of those, nor to givc nor to take anything by the hand of one of them. If by accident anything like that should occur, they immediately hurry away for their purifications and baths, as having been defiled and rendered impure. In addition I anathe­ matize every other custom or ceremony or observance of the Athin­ ganoi, praCtised secretly or openly by them'29. To this may be added a tract concerning the Melkisedekites, the Theodotians and the Athinganoi30 and a passage in a treatise on the heresies by Timotheus of Constantinople, a presbyter of Hagia Sophia and of the Church of the Virgin in Chalkoprateia31• From these notices the main lines of the beliefs of the Athinganoi can be reconstructed. The sect practised an exaggerated levitical purity, indulging in astrological, demonic and magical pursuits and observing 29. MPG, evi, eois. 1033 - 6. 30. Text in G. FICKER, uEine Sammlung von AbschwOrungsformelnll Zeitschrift fQr Kirchengeschichte xxvii (1906), pp. q50 2. 31. MPG, lxxxvi, I, col. 33B c . •

•

382 the seventh day as the sabbath. It seems possible that they postponed Baptism until adulthood although this is not quite certain. The sect may have had some historical connexion with the Melkisedekites if the latter had survived into the ninth century. But our last notice of the Melkisedekites comes from the fifth century A. D. and we cannot be certain of this32• It could be that later writers wish to give the Athinga­ noi a suitable heretical pedigree although, in that case, the choice of the Melkisedekites is a little odd. It Seems more prob able that the sect had some remote connexion with the Ebionites and Samaritanism, to judge from its beliefs and the name which it bore. The account of the followers of Dositheus, the Samaritan heresiarch, given by Epiphanius, bears a striking resemblance to the Athinganoi33• An eleventh - century ac­ count states that a group of gypsies were calles 'Arcr[yxor.vOL and were members of the Samaritan race34• The combination of astrology and demonism in the formula of abjuration could equally well be a survival of pagan practices as of Jewish heterodoxy. How far we can trace direct Jewish influence on the Athinganoi is open to doub t. The observance of the sabbath certainly suggests some influence although, owing to the confused nature of the earliest sources, we cannot go further than that. As we have seen it is uncertain whether Michael I I had ever been a member of the Athinganoi and any Jewish influence on his iconoclasm can hardly have come from that quarter. The reign of Michael I I is of no little interest in showing how a strong realism and common sense modified his obvious support for ico­ noclasm. The Emperor himself was a rough soldier whose lack of educat­ ion was the subject of comment and derision among the more cultivated Byzantines. But the writer of the Epistle to Theophilus calls him a kindly and peaceable Emperor35 which is a not unfair description of his policy. He released prisoners and restored exiles, including the great Theodore of Studium, although these came to realize that the Emperor was ico­ noclast in outlook. The Patriarch l'Iicephorus wrote to the Emperor 32. I. VON DOLLl :"l G E R, Beitriige zur Sektengeschichte des Millelalters (Munich 1890), i. pp'. 31 - 33; STARR, HarCJard Theological Review, xxix (1936 ) , p. 102. 33. EPIPHANIUS, Panarion, 9, 3; 10, 13; 30, 2 (MPG, xIi, cols. 225 - 8, 323 - 3, 237, 408). 34. Life of Giorgi Mthatsmidel of Mount Athos, translated from the Georgian by M. BROSSET in Histoire de la Georgie (Pe trograd 1849), i . p . 338. 35. Ep. ad Theoph., MPG, STET xcv, 9 5 , 3 7 7 C.

383

to explain the antiquity of image veneration in the Church and to warn hi m of the fate that had befallen his predecessor. The Emperor replied: As far as they are concerned who before us have investigated the Church's doctrine, they will have to answer to God whether their con­ clusions are good or bad. For our part we have ordained to maintain the Church as we found it. To make this clearer we have ordered that in future no one shall attempt to speak in public either against images or in their defence. The Synod of Tarasius, the ancient Synod of Constantine, and the Synod recently summoned under Leo shall alike be obliterated. Everything that recalls the images is to be buried in profound silence. If he who has thought fit to write and speak on these matters wishes to preside over the Church, still holding his opinions, he is at liberty to retire, providing that for the future he maintains absolute silence on the rightness of images and their worship36. This reserved attitude is shown by the Emperor's refusal to recog­ nize officially either the Second Council of Nicaea or the iconoclastic Synod of 815. His letter to Lewis the Pious, dated 10 April 824, howe­ ver, shows that at heart he was an iconoclast. The Emperor relates that many clergy and lay people have become alienated from the apostolic tradition through adopting certain practices connected with the cult of icons. He points out that the 815 Synod had forbidden such practices and only allowed pictures in a high position as having the same use as Scripture. Those who refused to accept the local councils have fled to old Rome and injured the Church by calumny. Against them Michael I I proclaims his orthodoxy: 'We hold inviolate, and not merely with lip - assent, the holy Creeds and the six General Councils'37. It is also significant that the Emperor entrusted the education of his son and heir, Theophilus, to the iconoclast J ohn Grammaticus and, after the death of Theophilus Melissenus, he nominated Antony, Bishop of Sylaion, for the patriarchal throne instead of recalling the orthodox Nicephorus. Antony, with John Grammaticus, had been largely responsible for dra­ wing up the Synodical acta of the 81 5 Council. 36. Vita Nicephori, MPG, c, col. HSA; cr. Theophanes Continuatus, II, S (MPG, cix, col. 6iB), which appears to be an indepen dent source. According to L EO GRA M­ MATICUS, MPG, cviii, col. i044A, the answer is a silentium. 37. Letter, ed. A. WE RMINGHOFF, in Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Leges, iii. 2, ree. A. WERMINGHOFF, pp. 475 fC.

384

Michael adopted a reserved role in the second iconoclastic period. Probably he realized that iconoclasm had spent its force and that a moderate policy was the only one likely to succeed. His lack of success in war did not commend his judgement, for during his reign Crete, Si­ cily and Southern Italy fell to the Saracens. Yet in spite of this and in spite of his illiteracy he succeeded in founding a dynasty, leaving beh­ ind him a son who was a striking figure. While the direct influence of Judaism on the iconoclastic emperors cannot be demonstrated, we know that some Jews taunted the icono­ dule Christians as conniving at idolatry38. The iconoclast Council of 754 concluded that images themselves implied idolatry, and Patriarch Germanos was anathematized with the epithet 'wood worshipper'39. Sup­ port for this belief was found firstly in the Old Testament prohibition against making graven images4o• In the early period the iconoclasts simply said that it was a heathen, and not a Christian, custom to make and worship images as this had already been condemned in the Old Testa­ ment. No attempt was made at first to argue what seemed self - evid­ ent. Against this the iconodules held that images were not idols. Everyth­ ing depended on the questions what was an image, what was an idol, and what was implied in image worship. J ohn of Damascus in his works ably puts these questions. But it is unlikely th �t the mass of the popu­ lation ever came to understand such a defence. The more popular answer was given at the outset of the controversy by Patriarch Germanos. The Old Testament command against idolatry, he said, meant that God was like no visible being or thing, and consequently any representation of a visible thing would involve a wrong idea of God's nature. Only the coming of Christ had revealed the nature of God, so in Christ idolatry is done away. By the fact of being a Christian a man cannot be an ido­ later. It is to God alone he gives his worship41. A comment on the se­ cond of the ten commandments cited at the Second Council of Nicaea from an untitled manuscript in the Patriarchal library said that while the heathen regard their images as actual gods, the image of Christ was not honoured as a god but as a stimulus to higher effort through the thought of the Incarnation42• Similarly the deacon Epiphanius, in an 38. 39. 40. 41. 42.

See note 9. MANSI, Concilia, xii, col. 356A (�\)AOA(i-rPl'jI;). See JOHN of DAMASCUS, De Imag, I, 4 (MPG, xciv, col. 1235A). Ep. to Thomas of Claudiopolis, in MANSI, xiii, col. 108B. MANSI, xiii, 188C.

385 encomium pronounced at the 787 Council, asks: ' How can Christians be charged with idolatry when the coming of Christ has destroyed idolatry according to the prophecy of Zechariah, "In that day the Lord will ap­ pear and will destroy the gods of the nations of the earth" ?'43 To the iconodules idolatry meant the crude idea that a block of wood or metal or a picture was a god. And since Christ had come there can be no ido­ latry among Christians, so the charge is futile. To the iconoclasts, on the other hand, the images drew 'the spirit of man from the lofty adorat­ ion of God to the low and material adoration of the creature'''. Idolatry then led a worshipper to substitute a created thing for the Creator. As most of the literature in the controversy comes fr om the iconodule side it is difficult to know if the iconoclasts adduced further arguments in support of their position. John of Damascus, however, discusses the question so thoroughly and so finally that the iconoclasts were compel­ led in the reign of Constantine V to replace the argument about idolatry with a new one based on Christology. In any event the iconoclast em­ perors were munificent patrons of art who delighted in graven images ! With this the appeal to the Old Testament prohibition of graven images was tacitly dropped; certainly no emphasis is placed on it during the se­ cond iconoclastic period. Pope Paschal was careful to note that the law against idolatry is a Jewish law with which Christians are not concern­ ed4li• Theodore of Studium bears witness to a change of attitude among the iconoclasts when he draws attention to an inconsistency in their position. After calling the image of Christ an idol, he said, they are found admitting the picture as a useful ornament serving the purposes of me­ morial and record. They are satisfied if the pictures are hun g in high positions so that they may not be used for purposes of worship46. He taunts the iconoclasts with their devotion to the Old Testament, remind­ ing them that their own devotion to the Cross was undermined by the text of Deuteronomy, 'Cursed is everyone who hangs thereon' (Deut 2 1 : 23)47. Theodore's own view was that the Old Testament was abrogated by .the reign of grace and that consequently its rules were inapplicable to Christians. 43. Ibid, 442A. 44. Ibid., 228. 45. ED. G. ME RCATI, Note di letteratura biblica e cristiana antica (Studi e Testi 5: Roma 1 901), pp. 231 - 2. 46. Antirrheticus, II MPG, xcix, col. 352D, cf. col. 372A. 47. Vita Theodori, MPG, xcix, col. 1 77D. 25

386

We may now summarize our results. It would appear that the Je­ wish factor is not a major consideration for the understanding of icono­ clasm as it developed in Byzantium, although Jewish criticism of Chris­ tian images may have had some influence at the outset of the contro­ versy. Sources which point to a more specific Jewish influence, when critically analysed, cannot bear the weight put upon them and sometimes reflect a tendentious interpretation. The reason for the lack of influence on the part of Judaism lies not only in the theological differences bet­ ween Judaism and Christianity but also in the historical position of the Jews in the Byzantine Empire. In view of their relatively favourable economic and social position it is a serious historical problem why the Byzantine Jewish achievement was so mediocre compared with that of European Jewry which was, in some ways, less favourably placed. One reason may lie in the lack of outstanding figures in Byzantine Jewry such as might leave an imprint on both Christianity and Greek Byzan­ tine culture. The Jews produced no figures in the iconoclastic period to compare with Leo I I I and Constantine V in the field of administra­ tion, warfare and practical leadership, or with John of Damascus and Theodore of Studium in the realm of thought and learning. It is diffi­ cult to believe that Byzantine Jewish life had been so disrupted by the Muslim invasions that, had such figures existed, it would not have had greater influence. Such was not the case with Byzantine culture itself which flourished during the time of the Arab invasions. It may be that our sources are insufficient to disclose the causes which inhibited the growth and influence of Byzantine Jewry. Nor do these sources tell us how Judaism was affected by its interaction with the Byzantine world, as this period produced polemical literature only of Christian authorship. In this respect we are in a less favourable position than is the case with Byzantine - Islamic relations.

17*

J OSEPH B I NGHAM AND THE EARLY CHURCH The Church of England has had many great scholars in the ranks of its parochial clergy but few greater than Joseph Bingham (1668 1723). He lived in an age of giants. His contemporary Henry Wharton (1664 - 1695), likewise a faithful parish priest, in the short years of his life amassed an amount of information on early English Church history which has been the wonder of subsequent investigators. The great histo­ rian Bishop Stubbs wrote: "This wonderful man died at the age of thirty, having done for the elucidation of English church history (itself but one of the branches of study in which he was the most eminent scholar of his time) more than anyone before or since" 1. Yet at Chartham Wharton wrote, "all my zeal to the public service must be employed in teaching a few plough - joggers, who look upon what I say to concern them but little" 2 - a familiar complaint of the country p arson in every generation. Bingham's claim to fame lies in his outstanding contribution to the knowledge of Christian antiquity. He was one of the greatest patristic scholars to have adorned the English Church in its long and chequered history. Born in 1668 at Wakefield, where his father was "a respectable inhabitant", Bingham was educated at Queen Elizabeth Grammar School, Wakefield 3. On 26 May 1684 he entered University College, Oxford, where his zeal for persevering study soon found ample fulfil­ ment in the study of the Fathers of the Church in their original langua­ ges. Bingham was a born student and his great ability was quickly re­ cognized by his election to a Fellowship of his College on 1 July 1689. In June 1691 he became a tutor of his College and one of his first pu­ pils was a fellow townsman John Potter, who later became archbishop of Canterbury. Potter himself became a considerable scholar and is *.

Church Quarterly Review 169 (1968) 192-205. 1. Quoted in W. H . H UTTON, The English Church from the Accession of Charles I to the death of Anne (1903), p . 301 . 2. Ibid. p. 301. 3. See History of the Free Grammar School of Queen Elizabeth at Wakefield, by M. H. P E ACOCK (1892).

388 remembered chiefly for his two works Potter on Church Government and Potter's A ntiquities of Greece. Bingham's career now seemed set fair. At Oxford original sources and manuscripts of the Fathers were easily available to him and he made himself intimately acquainted with their opinions and doctrines. But the University was agitated by other con­ siderations. The doctrine of the Trinity had become the subj ect of con­ troversy in England as the seventeenth century came to its close. It was Bingham's fate to become embroiled in this and it cost him his Fellowship and brought about his departure, at an early age, from the city and University which he loved. I t is possible that interest in the Trinitarian question had been stimulated by the migration into England in 1660 of many anti - Tri­ nitarians from Poland - although it is equally possible that the discus­ sion would have arisen under any circumstances. The opening shot in the literary controversy was fired by Dishop Bull in 1685 in a Latin treatise, Defensio Fidei Nicaenae, which was confined to one question: "What were the views of the ante - Nicene Fathers on the subject of the Trinity ?" Later Bull followed this with two further historical works: Judicium Ecclesiae Catholicae and Primitiva et Apostolica Traditio. While Bull confined himself exclusively to the historical aspect of the question others were pushing their enquiries into metaphysical speculat­ ion. Chief among these was Dr. W. Sherlock, dean of St Paul's, who in 1690 published his Vindication of the Trinity which he described as "a new mode of explaining that great mystery by a hypothesis which gives an easy and intelligible notion of a Trinity in Unity, and removes the charge of contradiction". Sherlock affirmed, among other things, that the Persons of the Godhead were distinct in the same way as Peter, J ames and J ohn or any other men were distinct. This was suspected as verging on tritheism and the book was publicly censured by the Convo­ cation of the University of Oxford. Dr Wallis, Savilian Professor of Geometry, and the famous Dr South 4 now entered the controversy with treatises against Sherlock which ran in the opposite direction dan­ gerously near the charybdis of Sabellianism - South, in p articular, ex­ pressing his dislike of Sherlock in violently abusive language. Royal authority was now invoked restraining either party from introducing novel opinions and requiring them to adhere to the tradition of the Church. Meanwhile Chillingworth, in his Intellectual System, was propound4.. Animadversions (1693).

389 ing a Trinitarian theory which was perilously close to Arianism and Burnet and Tillotson were attacked by the controversialist, Charles Leslie, "for making the Three Persons of God only three manifestations, or the same Person of God considered under three different qualifica­ tions and respects as our Creator, Redeemer, and Sanctifier" 5. Thus towards the close of the seventeenth century the nature of the Trinity was agitating the minds of the leading divines of the age. Bingham became involved in the Trinitarian controversy through being asked to preach in his turn, as a Master of Arts, before the Univer­ sity. He had apparently recently heard what he believed was an erro­ neous statement of the doctrine of the Trinity from the pulpit of St. Mary's by a certain Tully and he thought it his duty to establish what the Fathers of the Church, rather than what the Schoolmen, said on the subject. The sermon was given before the University in the Church of St Peter - in - the - East on 28 October 1695 when Bingham was but twenty - seven years of age. He took as his text I John 5 . 7, "There are Three that bear record in Heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these Three are one". The result of his exposition of the p a­ tristic notion of persona was, for the author, unexpected . He was im­ mediately delated to the Vice - Chancellor by J . Beauchamp B. D., Fellow of Trinity, who was commonly known as "the heretick - hunter", as having asserted doctrines false, impious and heretical, contrary and dissonant to those of the Catholic Church 6. The H ebdomadal Board subsequently condemned two propositions in the sermon as "false, impious and heretical" and South, the author of a Short 1I istory of Va­ lentinus Gentilis, denounced Bingham as a follower of Sherlock 7. The upshot was that Bingham, on 23 November 1695, was forced to resign his Fellowship and withdraw from the University. Bingham, at some point later in his life, composed a prefaceS to his 5. Quoted in W. H. H U TTON, op. cit. p. 200. 6. The Life of the Author: Bingham, Works, Vol. I, p. vi. 7. The real origin of the celebrated Convocation dispute is in the Trinitarian controversy. Behind the famous Letters to a Convocation Man lay the determination of the High Church Leaders to secure a condemnation of Sherlock and Bingham by a synodical declaration of Trinitarian doctrine. See further G. EV E R Y , The High Church Party 1688 - 1i18 (1956) and for a defence of the position of the moderates, G. V. B E !'l N E T, White Kennet 1 660 - 1 728, Bishop of Peterborough (1957). 8 . Published in Bingham, Works Vol. 8 pp. 290 8 All quotations have been taken from the 8 volume edition published by RICHARD B I N G H A M in 1821. -

390

sermon which apparently he intended to publish, although in fact he never carried this through. This preface throws an interesting light, not only on Bingham's character, but on his method in controversy. His appeal was first and foremost to the witness of Christian antiquity: The preacher pretends only to follow the doctrine of the Primitive Fathers, and the judgement of Antiquity; and does not deny the three Persons to be unius substantiae, of one substance or consubs­ tantial, in any sense that the Primitive Fathers, believed them to be so: but he asserts that the Schoolmen, since the time of the Coun­ cil of Lateran under Innocent I I I , have taken one substance in another sense than the Fathers did, and that has been the original of all the confusion ... and the Church of England, professing to follow the sense of the four first General Councils, might be presu­ med to defend one substance and three persons in the true old sense too; since she had nowhere declared against it. And then it could be no innovation, much less Heresy or Tritheism to endeavour to reduce old words to their first and primitive significance. This and nothing else the reader will find to be the whole design of the following discourse. And that I presume, with unprejudiced men will j ustify the undertaking. Bingham refutes the idea that he was trying to ingratiate himself with Sherlock or any other person, In fact "he found the Fathers wound­ ed through Dr Sherlock's sides", while he was condemned for saying many things which the Fathers had said before him. Yet Bingham bore no grudge against his accusers, although, I could have wished for their own sakes indeed and the sake of the puhlic, that they had done it a little more deliberately, and given me that month's time I desired; that I might have rendered my sermon to them, and given them a sight of my reasons, before they had censured me without hearing all that I had to say. And I could have wished also, they had told the world, that I asserted an in­ divisible unity of the Godhead, as well as three individual substances. He pleads for a calm manner in Christian disputation and, he says, retained a decent respect for the characters of his accusers "examining reasons without the least unbecoming reflections on their persons" . Such was the dignified character of this great student of Christian anti­ quity.

391 Bingham nowhere complains of the expulsion from his fellowship although this must have been a great blow to him, for it meant that he would now be cut off from easy access to original manuscripts of the Fathers. However, the famous Dr Radcliffe apparently heard of his plight and presented him to the rectory of Headbourne Worthy, a liv­ ing valued at one hundred pounds, a little more than a mile from Win­ chester. This was to be the scene of his greatest labours. Bingham was soon called upon to preach two Visitation sermons at Winchester (on 12 May 1696 and 1 6 September 1697 ) and he took the opportunity to defend his University sermon and to vindicate himself against the unjust and scandalous charges to which he had been subjected. Once again he appealed, with copious quotations, to the evidence of Scripture and Christian antiquity concluding his first sermon with these words: Therefore I cannot but think, that all calm and sober men, who consider things impartially without heat and prejudices will bear a just regard to that hypothesis, which besides its Catholicism and antiquity contributes so much towards a clear understanding of all the necessary articles of the Christian faith. And if that be the true advantage of this hypothesis then it can be no disservice to the Christian religion to have endeavoured to give a fair and just account of it: if such an attempt deserves no more, yet I hope it may pretend to deserve a favourable construction; which I am wil­ ling to persuade myself, Gentleman, it has already had from you: and that makes this address but only a necessary return to my grateful acknowledgements for that favour you were pleased to bestow upon your respectful humble servant, J. B. In 1 702 Bingham married Dorothea, daughter of Richard Pococke, rector of Colmer, Hampshire, and she bore him two sons and eight daughters before he received any further preferment. However, the ac­ cession of such a large family and his consequent straitened financial circumstances does not seem to have depressed his spirits. Bingham was a born student and scholar and was largely indifferent to " the changes and chances of this fleeting world" . Modest, gentle and unworldly, yet firm and independent, he pursued his studies with unwearied perseveran­ ce. I n his great work Origines Ecclesiasticae, begun in 1702, he tells us that he had to struggle with an infirm and sickly constitution and lack­ ed many of the books he needed although he was grateful for the use of the valuable patristic library bequeathed to the dean and chapter

392 of Winchester by Bishop Morley. A striking proof of his circumstances is provided by his copy of Pearson's Exposition of the Creed which was torn and in an imperfect state. Bingham laboriously transcribed eight pages which were missing in his own neat hand, although a complete copy could have been purchased for a few shillings. In the concluding page of the last volume of the Origines Bingham adds this lament: Another book more of miscellaneous rites might be added; but hav­ ing laboured in this work for twenty years with frequent returns to bodily infirmities, which make hard study now less agreeable to a weakly constitution, and the things themselves being of no great moment I rather choose to give the reader a complete and finished work with an index to the whole, than by grasping at too much to be forced to leave it imperfect, neither to my own nor the world' s satisfaction (Works, Vol. 7. 373). Bingham's literary work and great patristic learning, shortly to be described, received scant acknowledgement from the Church. For some seventeen years his sole income was the endowment from his small benefice of Headbourne Worthy - and this when his domestic expenses were greatest. However in 1712 Sir Jonathan Trelawney, the then bishop of Winchester, collated him to the rectory of I1 avant, j ust outside Port­ smouth, and then in the diocese of Winchester. The possession of the living, with the small sums he received from his books, removed in some degree his immediate poverty, but in 1 720 Bingham lost almost all the profits he had reaped from his incessant toil in the bursting of the "South Sea Bubble". However, such was his tranquillity that it was said this heavy loss made little impression on him and not for a single day was his study interrupted. He began to prepare a second edition of the Origines and had in view a popular abridgement and supplement. But death, not unexpected, came on 17 August 1723 in his fifty - fifth year and he was buried in the Churchyard at St Swithun's Church, Head­ bourne Worthy, with a plain tomb over his grave simply recording his name, age and year of death 9. Bingham had frequently expressed a dislike for pompous monuments and inscriptions and an inscription prepared by Edward Clarke, his first school - master, was never erected, in deference to his wishes. Bingham was a kind and affectionate father to his family and a 9 . Recently seen by the writer.

393

faithful parish priest in the best Anglican trad ition. lIe seems to have been a zealous preacher, although his sermons must have been heavy going for his village flock. He lived little in the public eye, after resign­ ing his Oxford Fellowship, and never subsequently engaged in public debate. As a divine he was of the Caroline type, strongly anti - Roman, yet with a sympathy for the continental reformed churches, especially the French. "The peace of the Church" was dear to his heart and no personal interest was ever allowed to obscure his aim. Thc preface of his projected second edition of the Origines remains a valuable argument for reunion on the basis of a real and primitive episcopacy. II

Bingham' s claim to fame rests chiefly on his great work o n Origines Ecclesiasticae, the first of its kind, on the hierarchy, ecclesiology, terri­ torial organization, rites, discipline, and calendar of the primitive Church based on the original sources yet also showing an im mense erudition in the later literature of the subj ect. lI e began this in 1 702 and published the first three volumes in 1 708 - 1 1 , the remaining seven volumes coming out in intervals between 1 7 1 5 and 1 7 221°. I n the preface to t.he last volume Bingham reflects on his labours and answers the objec tion that such an undertaking as his was too great for any single man: I remember to have heard of the same objection made by some a­ gainst me and my Origines, upon publ ishing the first volume of them. I bless I have lived to confute the objection, and give the world a proof that great and laborious works are not. always so frightful as sometimes they are imagined . I have given a little specimen of what the industry of a single person may do, in whom there is neither the greatest capacity nor the strongest constitut­ ion. And, having m ade the experiment myself, I can with more de­ cency and freedom recommend these things to o thers, who are qua­ lified to undertake them. (Works, Vol. 7, p. xlii). The subjects covered in the Origines will amaze the modern reader who may fondly imagine that the critical study of the patristic age was 10. It was translated into Latin and published (1724 8) by J . H . GRlscnow of H alle with a preface by J . G. BUD D E . An abridgement in German was issued at Augs­ bu rg -

.

394

an innovation of the nineteenth centuryll. Bingham deals, in Books 1 and 2, with such subjects as the Titles and Apellations of Christians; the Names of Reproach cast upon the Church; the Orders of Ministry in the Church; the power and independence of Bishops; the privilege of Bishops to intercede for criminals; of Primates, Metropolitans, Patriarchs Presbyters, Deacons, Archdeacons and Deaconesses. In Book 3 he pas­ ses to the inferior Orders and in Book 5 he deals with the privileges, im munities, and revenues of the clergy in the primitive Church and in Book 6 with the laws and rules relating to the employment, life and conversation of the Clergy. It may safely be said that Books 1 6 con­ tain informat.ion which even the present - day student would find hard to come by elsewhere. Thus Bingham shows that all persons who had public employment in the primitive Church were called clerici. This name was at first given to bishops, priests and deacons but, in the third century, was also applied to the inferior orders of sub - deacon, acolyte, and reader. So Cyprian always calls these orders clerici and refers to their ordinationes clericae. In time clerici came to be the designation par excellence of the inferior orders, by way of distinction from the su­ perior orders of bishops, presbyters, and deacons (Bingham cites many references in support of this). The names clerici and clerus come from XA�pOC; which signifies a lot; so Jerome holds that they are the lot and portion of the Lord, or because the Lord is their lot or inheritance (Ep. 2 ad Nepot). Others however think that some regard was had to the an­ cient custom of choosing persons into sacred office by lot "which is not improbable, though that custom never generally prevailed among Chris­ tians as shall be showed hereafter" (Works, Vol. 1 , p. 37). Another name for the clergy was canonici which is derived from xocvwv, the roll or cata­ logue of every church on which the names of all ecclesiastics were writ­ ten . -

Now because the names of all the clergy were enrolled in this cata­ logue or canon, they were hence called canonici. As in St Cyril xoc­ VOVLXWV 1tOCpoucrtoc signifies the presence of the clergy; and XOCVOVL­ xo1. tjJ.iATOCL in the council of Laodicea, signifies such of the clergy who were ordered to sing in the Church. And so generally in the councils of Nice and Antioch, ot EV T
395

lergy of the Church. And upon the same acc ount all others, whose names were set down in the Church's books, to entitle them to re­ ceive maintenance from the Church, were called by the same name canonici, such as the monks, virgi ns widows whom St Basil speaks of under this name, as Balsamon and Zonaras understand him (Works, Vol. 1. pp. 37, 38). c

,

It should not be thought that Bingham was a dry - as - dust com­ piler of the opinions of others. H e possessed an acute critical sense which enabled him to sift the wheat from the chaff and to pas s a we i ghty j ud­ gement on the value of conflicting traditions. This is well shown in his discussions of Metropolitans in the second century. A fter pointing out that Irenaeus was said to have the superintendency of the Gallican paroeciae, or dioceses, according Lo Eusebius; and that. Philip, bishop of all the Cretan Churches; and other bishops likewise, Bingham writes: These are the common proofs which are ordinarily ulleged in this case (i.e. of Metropolitan), yet, I shall freely own, t h at the three last of them do not cogently prove the th i n g in dispute. For presid­ ing in council does not necessarily infer metropolitical power; be­ cause, th ey might preside as senior bishops, as Eusebius says ex­ pressly one of them did viz. Palmus, bishop of A m astri s , c.:) 4; ocPxou01:"or:,0c;, 1tP01:"E1:"OCX-t"O, he presided as the most ancient bishop among them . Which seems to be noted by Eusebius, not without good rea­ son: for Hera elea, and not Amastris, was the civil metropolis of Pontus. Blondel from this passage, concludes, that at this ti me the senior bishops in an places were t.he metropoli t ans But this does not sufficiently appear to have been the custom anywh er e else, but in t he African Ch u rches, of which I shall presently give an ac­ count (Works, Vol. 1, p. 1 50). ,

.

.

Bingham's knowledge was not confi ned to early Christian literature. He had a profound knowledge of Lhe Roman Empire and its usages and he was able to put this to good account in his examination of the Im­ munity of the Clergy from civil taxes and offices in the early period of the Church. After showing that the clergy were exempt from the Cen­ sus Cap itum, the personal tribute which all subjects of the Empire had to pay, Bingham e x amines the Jllgatio or Capitatio or Capita (sometimes called xocvwv) which was the tribute exacted on lands and possessIOns throughout the Empire and p aid three times per year:

396 Now to the question in hand - whether t.he clergy in general were exempt. from this ordinary canonical tribute laid upon men' s goods and possessions ? I answer in the negative against Baronius, who asserts the contrary. Some particular Churches, in deed, had spe­ cial favours granted them by indulgent princes ... but those very exceptions prove, that what was matter of grace to some particular churches, could not be the common privilege of all churches. Bingham then cites examples of special exemp tions to the Churches of Thessalonica, Constantinople, and Alexandria: Gothofred is also of opinion, that in the beginning of Constantine's reign while the Church was poor, and her standing revenues but small, her estates and possessions were nniYcrsally excused from tribute; for there is a law in the Theodosian Code, which may be interpreted to this purpose; though the words are so obscure, that, without the help of so wise an interpreter, one would hardly find out the sense of them. However, admitting them to signify such a privilege, it is certain it lasted not many years; for in the next reign nnder Constantius, when the Church was grown pretty weal­ thy, all the clergy that were possessors of lands, were obliged to pay tribute, in the same manner as the others did; as . appears from a law of Constantius, directed to Taurus, Praefectus - Praetorio, which is still extant in both Codes (Works, Vo1. 1, pp. 443 - 4). Bingham's appeal was always to evidence, rather than to opinions, and his judgement almost always sound. In Book 7 Bingham turns to the position of ascetics and monks, virgins and widows in the early Church. In Book 8 the structure of church buildings and the various parts of churches are examined toge­ ther with other buildings such as baptisteries; he also has a section on consecration of churches and thc origin of asylums and places of refuge in Christian places of worship. Book 9 comprises a masterly geographi­ cal description of the ancient Church, its Provinces, dioceses, and p aris­ hes. Bingham' s vast knowledge is nowhere better shown than in Books 7 9. In his description of church buildings, among much that is now well known, he provides valuable miscellaneous information. Thus there was only one altar anciently in a church building in both the Greek and Latin parts of Christendom until the time of Gregory the Great: -

For Optatus speaks of the altar of Cyprian's Church, as one only,

39 7

and no more, both in the Lime of Cyprian and afterward, and then­ ce concludes that the Donatists were schismatics, bec ause they went from Cyprian's alLar, and set up another altar against it. And St Austin argues against them upon the same foundation, that there ought not to be two episcopal altars in one city. This supposes then but one altar in a Church among the Latins, as well as the Greeks .. (Works, Vol. 2, pp. 1 55 - 6) .

Furthermore there were no croSSeS upon altars in the an te - Nicene period of the Church: That they were not in use for the first three ages, seems evident enough from the silence of all the writers of those times, an d from Eusebius, who has frequent occasion to describe minutely the chur­ ches of Constantine and others, but never once mentions a cross erected in them, though he speaks freqnently o f crosses set up in other public places ... Chrysostom speaks of the sign of the cross as used at the Lord's table in the consecration of priests, and celebrat­ ions of the eucharist; but that seems to be meant of the transient sign made on the forehead (which St Austin and the author of the Constitutions speak of likewise), and not of any material cross set upon the altar; though not in the time of Constantine, but in his own time. And, after him, Evagrius speaks of silver crosses given by Chosroes to one of the churches of Constantinople to be fixed upon the altar. So that the original of this custom is not to be de­ duced from the following ages of the Church (Works, Vol. 2. p. 160). Similarly bells are not to be reckoned among "the ancient utensils" "for the first three hundred years it is certain the primitive Chrislians did not meet in their assemblies by the notice of any public signal" (Works, Vol 2, p. 189). In dealing with the Church as a place of sanctuary and refuge for the innocent, injured and oppressed, Bingham shows that at first only the Altar and inner fabric of the Church was used as a place of refuge but later the outer buildings, such as baptisteries, were invested with the same privileges (Works, Vol. 2, p . 241 ). In Books 10 - 12 Bingham turns to the origin of the Catechumenate, the classes of catechumens, the origin of the Creeds, the rites and cus­ toms associated with Baptism in the early Church, Confirmation, and other post - baptismal ceremonies. Some of the information which he gives in this section of his work has been superseded by later discove-

398 ries. Moreover the researches of modern scholars have thrown new light on Christian initiation and the origin of the creeds. Nevertheless for their age these books read surprisingly well. Thus Bingham notes that the Apostles' Creed was not composed by the Apostles in its present form of words but that probably the Apostles used several creeds differing in form, although not in substance: All that I contend for, is only this, that none of the present forms are exactly the same in expression with those of the Apostles, which is demonstrated from the variety of creeds used in several Churches, and from the addition of some words t o that creed, which pretends most to be apostolical . But though the Apostles composed no one creed to be of perpetual and universal use for the whole Church , yet it is not to be doubted, but t.hat they used some forms in ad­ mitting catechumens to baptism. There are many expressions in Scripture that favour this . . . But then as the Church used a liberty of expression in her several creeds so it is not improbable the Apost­ les did the same, without tying themselves to any one form . . . And hence it came to pass that there being no one certain form of a creed prescribed universally to all Churches, every Church had liberty to frame their own creeds, as they did their own liturgies, without being tied precisely to any one form of word s, so long as they kept to the analogy of faith and doctrine at first delivered by the Apostles; whieh seems to be the true reason of so many ancient forms, differing in words, not in substance ( Works, Vol. 3 , p. 59). Bingham was well aware from his studies that there was much diversity in doctrine and praetice in the earliest age of the Church al­ though there was, amidst this dive l'sity, an underlying unity deriving from the apostolic faith. Modern research has reinforced this conclusion. In Book 13 Bingham turned to the subject of Worship in the ear­ ly Church. His examination of the evidence is still of value, not least for his demonstration of the strong influence of J udaism on early Chris­ tian liturgical forms. More recent discoveries, such as Hippolytus' A ­ postolic Tradition and Melito's Homily o n the Passion, have confirmed this influence. In Book 14 Bingham gives a detailed account of the Mis­ sa Catechumenorum dealing with psalmody, hymns, lections, sermons, and prayers and provides much unusual information. Thus the work of preaching was performed by bishops themselves in their own chur-

399 ches either in conjunction with presbyters or without them (as at Ale­ xandria from the time of Arius). But in the Church of Rome, as Sozomen relates, there was no sermon either by the bishop or any other. Bingham shows that in the mid - second century A. D. there was a sermon in the Roman Church, if Justin's evidence is to be trusted, but this custom lapsed and was not revived until the time of Leo the Great: Perhaps they might have taken up the custom of reading the ho­ milies of famous writers among the lessons, or immediately after by the deacon, as I have shown before, they read in some churches the Homilies of Ephrem Cyrus, and the books of Clemens Romanus and Hermes Pastor; and in the old Lectionariums, there are frequent­ ly lessons appointed out of the Homilies, of 8t Austin, St Ambrose, and others, as it is now in the Roman bre viary, and this might supply the place of a sermon, till Leo brought up the ancient way of preaching in the Roman Church again, which was afterwards discontinued for five hundred years together, till Pius Quintus, like another Leo, revived the practice, as we are told by Surius, one of their own writers (Works, Vol. 5, pp. 87 8). -

Book 15 treats the Missa Fidelium and is characterized by profound learning in what is a notoriously difficult field, even for the modern investigator. Bingham gives detailed information about the prayers preceding the Oblation, the Oblation itself, the Consecration prayers, communicants, the manner of communicating, the post - communion service, and how the remains of the Eucharist were disposed of, the preparation required of communicants, and the times of celebration in the ancient Church. He shows that all persons, except catechumens and penitents, were obliged to receive the Eucharist but that this dis­ cipline began to be relaxed in the period after Chrysostom who inveig­ hed, in eloquent words, against non - communicating attendance (Works, Vol. 5, pp. 297 300). The people always received the Communion in both kinds until the twelfth century A. D. when the use of the cup began little and little to be laid aside "whilst many bishops interdicted the people the use of the cup, for fear of irreverence and effusion" (Works, Vol. 5, p. 354). In the early Church the communion was received distinctly in both kinds, sometimes standing, sometimes kneeling, but never sitting (Works, Vol!. 1 . 5. pp. 354). The reader will find a mass of information pertaining to the Eucharist in this Book which is not easily to be found elsewhere gathered together in manageable form. -

400

I n Book 16 Bingham passes to the Unity and Discipline of the early Church and in Book 17 to the discipline exercised upon the Clergy. Book 18 deals compactly with the orders of penitents and the method of performing public penance and Book 19 with Absolution and the method of admitting penitents into the communion of the Church. Book 20 covers the Festivals of the primitive Church - Bingham, pace certain moderns, places great emphasis on the importance of the Pas­ chal Festival as covering the week before, and the week after, Easter Day. The Feasts and Marriage Rites are dealt wi lh in Books 21 and 22 and the Funeral Rites and Method of Burying the dead in the conclud­ ing Book 23. III J oseph Bingham was the foremost student of Christian antiquity of his day. A detailed and accurate knowledge of ancient authors in their own languages was, in him, allied to immense erudition, a reason­ ableness of approach, and a sureness in j udgement which have been an example and an inspiration to those who, in later ages, have followed in his footsteps. While it is true that his strong aversion to the Roman Church is not hidden in his pages his appeal was always to the evidence of ancient writers, not to the opinions of later authors as to what those writers said or meant. I n a controversial age his work i s largely free from a narrow controversial spirit. His concern was solely to recover what the early Church believed and did and to free the study of Chris­ tian antiquity once and for all from the shackles of the scholastic me­ thod. His great work has worn extremely well and will repay careful study on the part of modern students. Professor A. H. M. J ones, in the bibliography of his History of the Later Roman Emp ire, describes it a­ "the most useful and comprehensive work which I know on the organis zation and discipline of the Church" - a great tribute to a work two and a half centuries old. Bingham was a born student. No outward misfortune (and he had his share) c o uld shake his faith or tUrn him from his 1ife's work. Though he received scant recognition from the Church of his day, his work is a supreme expression of the spirit of Ecclesia A nglicana, and to none is the proud compliment clerus A nglicanus stupor mundi m ore app1icab­ Ie. Bingham, in his day, strongly rebuked the worldliness of the cler-

401

gy and their overmuch pre - occupation with the things of this life. For him the Church's title - deeds were to be those of service. Patient zeal and an unwearied perseverance in commending the Christian cause are the one way in which Christians, and above all the clergy, should spend their days:

Now, if indeed we have that zeal which we profess, we shall be ca­ reful to demonstrate it in all our actions; observing those necessary rules and measures which raised the primitive Church to its glo­ ry...confining ourselves to the proper business of our calling, and not intermeddling or distracting ourselves with other cares; em­ ploying our thoughts and time in useful studies, and directing them to their proper end, the edification of the Church ... even neglecting our own honours, and despising our own interest, when it is needful for the advantage of the public ...Such qualities, j oined with pro­ bity and integrity of life, will equal our character to that of the primitive saints; and either give happy success to our labours or at least crown our endeavours with the comfort and satisfaction of having discharged a good conscience in the sight of God. The . best designs indeed may be frustrated, and the most pious and zealous endeavours be disappointed. It was so with our Lord and Master himself, and no one of his household is to think it strange, if it happen to be his own case ... we should not be wholly dejected, though our endeavours fail of success, since our Lord himself was first pleased to take his share in the disappointment. It will still be our comfort that we can be able to say with the prophet in this case, "Though we have laboured in vain, and spent our strength for nought, yet surely our judgment is with the Lord, and our work with our God. And then though Israel be not gathered, yet shall we be glorious in the eyes of the Lord, and our God shall be our strength" Isa. 49. 4 5 (Works Vol. I pp. 605 7). -

-

28

18 *

EARLY C H R I STIAN ART AS APOLOGETIC Studies of early Christian art have usually been written from the viewpoint of the Church historian, the art historian or the art critic. Few attempts have been made to study the function of iconography in early Christian piety. A notable exception is the work of A. Grabar 1 although even he does not consider the audience for early Christian iconography. Was this primarily aimed at a Christian audience, a con­ cession to the needs of the faithful, or did the artists, by the evident ambiguity of their work, have a mixed audience in mind ? Did they en­ visage both Christians and pagans viewing their work ? Did they even envisage Christians interpreting to pagans the allusive motifs with which they worked ? Or was their art (as many scholars would hold) a sponta­ neous expression of their own piety and religious feeling with no parti­ cular audience in mind ? Or did these early artists simply use decorative schemes in common use in pagan iconography with little reference to Christianity ? This chapter will attempt to answer some of these questions. I It is a commonplace that early Christian artists used the techniques of imagery and the language of the visual arts practised in the Roman Empire during the second to the fourth centuries A. D. Often only a few new details were added to transform a familiar pagan image into a Christian one. The significance of the fact that only a very small space is given to figures of Christ, or symbols that stand for Christ, in early Christian art has not been fully realised by scholars. Before the conver­ sion of the Emperor Constantine and the peace of the Church Christ only appears in the guise of allegorical symbols which have few indivi­ dual traits. The main symbol, that of the Good Shepherd 2 carrying the •

Unpublished. 1. Christian Iconography: A Study of Origins, London 1 969. 2. On the evolution of the 'Good Shepherd' motif see T. KLAUSER, Jahrbuch fiir

403

lamb, is found in the catacombs, at Dura Europos and on the sarcopha­ gi - indeed certain sarcophagi have three Good Shepherds having, in­ differently, the features of an adolescent or an aged, bearded man. So­ metimes the Shepherd is represented as playing on a bucolic pipe. The Christian artists certainly created, from the pagan symbol of philan­ thropia, the image of Christ which is most prominent in the third and fourth centuries A. D. Similarly the image of Christ as a philosopher, which is as early as that of the Good Shepherd, was an abstract concept. He is often shown as a bearded man with a nude or semi-nude torso in an exomis tunic, seated on a stool and reading a book or a scroll. This is based on pagan motifs and it is at times difficult to tell whether the figure is that of Christ or not. The significant fact to emerge from a study of early Christian sym­ bols of Christ is that while the theme of divine deliverance is very pro­ minent no portrait of the central figure of the Christian faith, showing him alone and with distinctive human features, has been found before the late - fourth century A. D. 3 When such portraits do emerge they show a bearded figure with large impressive eyes, long hair and the fi­ gure clad in a long white garment reaching to the feet. The cast of the countenance seems to be Caucasian, rather than Semitic, in spite of the fact that historically J eSliS was a Jew 4. Before the fourth century there exists only one picture of Christ per se. This was found in the ex­ cavated ruins of a house - Church at Dura - Europos on the river Euph­ rates, the easternmost frontier of the Roman Empire, and shows Jesus healing the paralytic as recorded in Mark 2, 3 12 5. The picture, which is damaged, dates from c. 232 256 and as far as can be seen, depicts Jesus in a tunic and pallium, young and beardless with short hair. He is shown as a person of some social rank in Roman society, rather than as a Jew, a young hero of their own time. As already mentioned the Good Shepherd figure is also found at Dura - Europos symbolising phil­ anthropia which was adopted into Christian art representing J ohn 10, -

-

A ntike und Christentum, I, 1 958, 24. - 51. The paintings on the walls oC the Synagogue at Dura Europos, dating Crom 24.4. 5, show pagan elements being used in a Jewish milieu. C. H. KRAELING, The Excallations at Dura Europus. Final Report VI II. 1 , 1956. 3. S. G. F. BRANDON, ((The Portrait oC Christ: its origin and evolution II, History Today 21, 1971, 4.73 - 4.8f. 4.. BRANDON, ibid. (n. 3) 4.73. 5. F. van der MEER, Early Christian Art, 127 - 8. -

404 1 1 . But the Dura - Europos finds are no exception to the rule that no portraits of Christ, with distinctive human features, showing him alone, are found before the late - fourth century. Before then only allusive symbols are used. In contrast to this avoidance of pictures of the human Jesus be­ fore the late - fourth century portraits of the apostles are found at least as early as the third century and possibly earlier. Among these are imag­ es of Peter and Paul, grouped together on bronze medallions mostly found in Rome, and no doubt used by Christians who venerated the memory of these two apostles. These modest pieces show that, in the early period, the portrait was a commemorative image intended to re­ cord physical appearance. Why, then, have no portraits of Christ been found ? One factor is that the Gospels and Acts of the Apostles contain no information about the physical appearance of Jesus beyond a few texts which mention his clothing 6. The early artists thus had no 1ite­ rary descriptions with which to begin beyond the fact that he was a Palestinian Jew, which they seem to have ignored. Another factor was that some Christians had an obj ection to port­ raying the divine which came from the Church's Jewish antecedents. There is no doubt that Judaism was a very strong influence in the ear­ ly Christian centuries 7 particularly in the field of liturgy, . homiletics and worship. Many Old Testament scenes appear in early Christian art although many Jews, and some Christians, held that the divine nature eluded artistic and historical presentation. There were circles in the ear­ ly Church strongly opposed to the use of Christian images which they regarded as a corruption. So Tertullian 8 and Clement of Alexandria 9 have harsh comments about images. The bishops at the Council of Elvira (A. D. 306) enacted that there should be no paintings in a church. Eu­ sebius of Caesarea rebuked Constantia, Constantine's sister, for wanting a picture of Christ (PG 20, 1845). While some Gnostic groups, in the late - second century, practised a form ofimage worship others were more reserved1o• Attitudes towards portraits and images varied among early Christians and while it is true that a puritanical and ascetic anti - art 6. Matt. 9, 20; John 19, 23 - q. J . DANIELOU, Theology of Jewish Ch,.istianity, 196q. 8. Adp. He,.mogenem 1 . 9 . Prot,.. q , 62; St,.om. 5 , 5 , 28. 10. The Carpocratians crowned paintings and sculptures of Christ and practised certain rites before his image. E. DOB SCHUTZ, Ch,.istusbilde,., T & U 3, 1899, 98 ff. 7.

405 strain is found in some writersll there is no 'main stream' literary eviden­ ce to support a theory that early Christians distinguished between port­ raits of Christ and those of the apostles. Another theory, po pularised by S. G. F. Brandon12, is that the ear­ ly Christians were mainly concerned with the spiritual significance of Jesus, rather than with his earthly life, and so had little incentive to produce human portraits of their Lord. So Paul wrote: 'Wherefore we henceforth know no man after the flesh: even though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now we know him so no more' (2 Cor. 5, 16). Believing that the existing world - order would soon end when Christ would return in power and glory to j udge mankind the Pauline congre­ gations looked forward to meeting the Lord in the clouds of heaven (1 Thess. 4, 17). The earthly life of Jesus was thus of little moment, a temporary episode in the divine plan of salvation which belonged only to the past. There are however weighty obj ections to Brandon's theory. The fact that the early Church fought so strongly against the docetic denial of the reality of the human flesh of Jesus suggests that the car­ ly Christians were concerned with the reality of his earthly existence. While a selective use of the Pauline Epistles might suggest that the apostle was mainly concerned with the risen, spiritual Jesus in fact a careful reading of them in toto shows that Paul did not, in fact, mini­ mize the historical reality of his pre - resurrection existence. Then there is the fact that the Gospels, from the mid - second century, circulated widely and gradually drove the Gnostic apocryphal Gospels from the field - which suggests that Christians were concerned with historical reality rather than fantasy. The death blow dealt to Gnosticism by the late - second century shows that the conception of a spiritualised aeon­ Christ had been firmly rejected in favour of a person who lived a real life , died and rose again. It would seem that the absence of portraits of Christ before the late fourth century cannot be explained solely from the influence of the Church's Jewish antecedents or from a pre - occu­ pation with futurist eschatology. It is significant that more than one half of all images which have come down from Christian antiquity are representations of historical figures. Why then were early Christian ar­ tists so allusive and ambiguous in their use of symbols for Christ and why 1 1 . 'When the images are put up the customs of the pagans do the rest'; EPIPHA­ NIUS Pan. Haer. 27, 6, 10. 1 2 . Ibid. (n. 3) 4.74.

406 did they employ so few figures compared with pagan usage and the later funerary art of the Middle Ages ? Associated with this is the striking fact that no portraits of the crucifixion occur in Christian iconography before A. D. 432, apart from a few engraved gems of uncertain date. This is strange in view of the concentration in the Gospels on the story of the Passion of Jesus. No doubt the Cross is alluded to in such emblematic forms as the anchor but no actual picture of a dead Christ on the Cross is found before the fifth century. According to A. Grabar13 and E. Bickermanu this absence of the crucifixion is to be explained by the lack of a dignified pagan or Jewish model for this image. This seems an unlikely explanation for the omission of what was a central fact in the early Christian preaching. A more likely explanation is that Christians shrank from incurring the mockery of p agans in whose eyes the Crucifixion was a sign of disgrace. A scurrilous drawing, found scratched on a wall of a house on the Pa­ latine hill in Rome, illustrates this. This shows a man worshipping a crucified human figure with the head of an ass with these words scra­ wled: "Alexamenos worships his god"15. This apparent parody of Christian worship of the crucified Christ shows how easily the crucifixion could be misrepresented in pagan slander. The political factor may also have exercised an influence. Jesus historically had stood trial on political charges and had been executed as a Roman prisoner on a charge of se­ dition. This was a powerful symbol as long as Christianity was a small sect contra mundum, a 'protest' group16. His death then identified him with the outcast and alienated of the world. However as the Church, from the second century onwards, came into contact with Graeco ­ Roman society and had to define its attitude to contemporary culture, it would have been unwise to provide pictorial reminders of the p otential political danger of Christianity to the State exemplified in the crucifix­ ion of its founder on political charges. The Church in fact tacitly drop­ ped the 'execution of a prisoner' symbol and concentrated on the theme of life and deliverance - such as in the picture of the healing of the para13. Martyrium 2, 194.6, 13(a, 256 . H. «(Symbolism in the Dura Synagogue)), H Th R 58, (1965) , 147. 15. H. LECLERCQ, La pie chretienne primitipe, Paris 19 28, 85; S. G. F . BRANDON ((Christ in Verbal and Depicted Imagery)), Christianity, Judaism and Other Graeco­ Roman Cults, Pt. 2, Leiden 1975, 1 68. 16. R. SCROGGS, ((The Earliest Christian Communities as Sectarian Movement)), Christianity, Judaism and Other Graeco - Roman Cults, Pt. 2 ibid. 2�.

407

lytic at Dura - Europos, already mentioned, the healing of the woman with the issue of blood and the raising of Lazarus17• There is only one possible reference to the passion of Christ in early catacomb iconography. It is in a scene in the catacomb of Praetextatus, dated by some scholars to the first half of the third century, which may show the crowning with thorns18• The figure of Christ however is not that of a tortured victim but of a serene figure wearing a crown of foliage acclaimed by by ­ standers holding palm branches, a symbol of victory. This is a trans­ formation of the scene recorded in the Gospels and emphasises the theme of deliverance and victory, rather than the sufferings of the crucified. This is remarkable in view of the space accorded to the Passion in the Gospel narratives (one quarter of Mark alone) and the great emphasis on the crucifixion in later western church doctrine and practice. I do not believe that this transformation was due to the inability of the ear­ ly Christians to grasp that Christ had died the real death symbolised so vividly in the later pietas such as that by Michaelangelo in the Ca­ thedral at Florence. Why then was there such a reluctance to portray Christ with human features in his human life, passion and death ? II The fact that some pagans parodied the worship of the crucified Christ and the possibility of the political element being misunderstood suggests that the audience for early Christian art, including catacomb art, could not have been solely Christian. The question of the sitz - im Leben of the early artists has rarely been discussed - although this is I believe crucial for the understanding of the symbols which they used. By the second century Christianity was no longer a sect sharply sepa­ rated from contemporary life. There is the interesting fact that certain catacombs were used by heterodox groups; so the arcosolium of Viba, part of the Christian catacomb, was used by a sect called the Sabazians, as its dedication indicates. The Valentinians moreover used a large am­ phora in the Cava della Rosa. Orthodox and 'fringe' Christians used the same places for worship. Christian artists were not simply working for the group to which they themselves belonged but their work might be seen by pagans as well as members of 'fringe' sects. -

1 7 . P. du B O U R G U E T , Early Christian Painting, London 19 65, ill. �5, 99, 1 1 7 , 1 2 9 . 1 S . du BOURG U E T ibid. ill. 53; BRAN D O :"l ibid. (n. 15) 169.

408 I wish now to suggest that a study of early Christian apologetic literature throws fresh light on the question why no portraits of a human Jesus or a dead Christ on the Cross are found before the late - fourth century. It is I believe significant that none of the following second cen­ tury Christian writers mention the earthly life or death of Jesus - Athe­ nagoras, Tatian, Theophilus, the compiler of the Sentences of Sextus and Minucius Felix. We know however that in approaching certain non - Christians this neglect of Jesus was a strength, and not a weak­ ness, strange though it appears to our modern biographical interests. This can be illustrated from the attitude of Galen, the celebrated phy­ sician, to Christianity. Galen's opinion of Christians was unbiased, sym­ pathetic and non - polemical and he was particularly impressed by the high standard of morality found among Christians. He was also impres­ sed by the attempt Christians were making to educate the multitude which he could fit into the categories provided by the Academic tradit­ ion. In the judgement of R. Walzerl9 Galen is the first pagan author who implicitly places Greek philosophy and the Christian religion on the same footing. Yet throughout his life Galen held that an uncritical faith in a particular founder of a school (whether Christian or pagan) was hostile to genuine knowledge and truth. He explicitly compares the followers of Moses and Christ to the degenerate philosophical and medical schools of the second century which put loyalty to the founder and the school before loyalty to the truth20• This pagan criticism of founders of schools, in which Christians were included, may be the rea­ son why such writers as Athenagoras were careful to present Christia­ nity as the truth rather than as a body of teaching laid down by J esus21• Origen likewise was aware of pagan criticisms. He states that sometimes, in conversing with pagan friends, he found them so hostile to Christia­ nity and the name of Christ, that he would conceal that his teaching was Christian until a point had been reached when the person approved of his teaching - only then would he disclose that the teaching was that of the Christians22• I wish to suggest that much early Christian art falls into the cate19. Galen on Jews and Christians, Oxford 1 9�9, � 3 . 20. WALZER ibid. �2. See further pp. 25�-256. 21. L. W. BARNARD, Athenagoras: A Study in Second Century Christian Apolo­ getic, Paris 1972, 56. 22. Hom. in Jerem. 20, 5.

409 gory of indirect apologetic and that this is one of the reasons for the neglect of the human portrait of Christ and the crucifixion scene before the late - fourth century. The fact that so many pagan symbols were used in early Christian art was, I suggest, not only due to the artists' background and training but to a conscious choice. They were conscious that the audience for their work was not only Christian but included pagans as well and they were intent on appealing obliquely to non ­ Christians through their art. The pagan symbols which they so readily used would have provided a bridge over which the pagan could pass. The themes of the Good Shepherd, the Philosopher, the Orans would have no particular significance at first for these p agans beyond what was already familiar to them. However with a deepening interest in, and understanding of, Christianity they would take on a new signifi­ cance and predispose the viewer towards an understanding of Jesus. Cardinal Danielou has emphasised the missionary intention of the ear­ ly Christian apologetic literature, i. e. it represents a genuine presen­ tation of the Gospel to the pagan world using categories and philoso­ phical thought forms of the day23. Much earlier Christian art, I suggest, had this missionary intent and, like the apologetic literature, provided stepping stones from paganism to Christianity. I t presents Christianity as a new life, which delivers men from the power of sin and death, ra­ ther than as a body of teaching laid down by Jesus who had been cru­ cified on a cross. The apologetic writings show that there was a wides­ pread interest in Christianity from the second century onwards and e arly Christian art, in one sense, was not so much the art of an inner group but an attempt to demonstrate the continuity between pagan culture and Christianity through the use of familiar symbols such as the Good Shepherd and the Philosopher. If this view is correct even the catacombs should not be regarded as 'secret' places used for the celebrat­ ions of a persecuted cult - part of the 'disciplina arcani' . Catacomb art finds a parallel in the decorative art of Roman houses which could easily be adapted to new subjects; and as Roman house decoration could be appreciated by people from different backgrounds so catacomb art had this didactic purpose. Is it fanciful to envisage Christians showing non Christian enquirers their catacombs as part of an attempt to commend the Gospel ? Without interpretation certainly few pagans could have understood what they saw. In our view much early Christian art, with 23. Gospel Message and Hellenistic Culture, London 1973, 7 - 15.

410

its neglect of portraits of J esus, belongs to the category of indirect apo­ logetic and was a conscious attempt to do this. This may be further illustrated from a study of the remarkable mosaic pavement discovered in 1963 in a field at Hinton S. Mary, Dor­ set, probably dating from the early - fourth century, and now relaid in the British Museum. The larger portion of the pavement is a square in the centre of which is a roundel containing a male bust with the Chi Rho monogram behind the head. Other themes depicted on the pave­ ment are Bellerophon on Pegasus slaying the Chimaera and an animal hunt - although no human hunters are shown. The Hinton S. Mary mosaic seems to have come from the same workshop as produced the three figured Roman pavements found in the late - eighteenth century at Frampton in W. Dorset which are now 10st24. Professor J . M. C. To­ ynbee, in her study of the Hinton S. Mary discovery36, has shown that these pavements are works of Christian, or at least Christian - sponsor­ ed, art. She points out that by the fourth century the representaLions in pagan art of traditional Graeco - Roman myths, gods, personificat­ ions, and motifs from daily life (such as hunting scenes) had increasing­ ly assumed an allegorical and symbolic significance. The figure of the male bust with the Chi - Rho monogram is not however pagan, nor that of a Christian Emperor, but an image of Christ himself. The use of the myth of Bellerophon slaying the Chimaera in a Christian milieu is an allegory of the victory of life and virtue over death and evil, of truth over error - a Christianized pagan allegory26. Professor Toynbee plau­ sibly argues that one reason why the Christian owner of the Hinton S. Mary room chose a pagan episode to illustrate allusively Christ's victory over death and evil was partly determined by a wish to emphasise that the pagan world had also had its praeparatio Evangelii and some light had relieved its darkness27• This was a powerful missionary theme. III The peace of the Church, and the founding of the Christian Empire, 2q. Published by S. LYSONS in Reliquiae Romano - Britannicae I, London 1813. 25. JRS 5q, 1964, 7 H; ((Pagan Motifs and Practices in Christian Art and Ritual in Roman Britain)), ed. M. W. BA RLE Y and R. P . C. HANSON, Christianity in Britain 300 - 700, Leicester 1 968, 177 - 92. 26. M . SIMON, ((BelIerophon chretien», Melanges J. Carcopino, Paris 1 966, 889-903. 27. Ibid (n. 25) Christian A rt and Ritual in Roman Britain 18q. •

411

were not s o important for a specific Christian iconography as one would have expected2B• There was much continuity with the pre - Constantin­ ian age - particularly in the field of sepulchral art. I t is true however that many monumcnts have been lost through destruction, yet even the literary remains of the period are as silent as the architecture at­ tributed to Constantine and his court concerning specifically new Chris­ tian images. I n the first half of the fourth century the walls of churches do not appear to have been decorated with mosaics or frescoes. Apart from the very few Christian subjects in the old vaults of the ambula­ tory of S. Constanza in Rome there is only the Chi - Rho monogram of Christ, already mentioned, which Constantine as a result of a vision is alleged to have placed on the shields of his soldiers and on the imperial standard, the labarum, a spear with the Chi Rho at the top and a cross­ bar from which hung a banner with busts of Constantine and his sons29. What Christian iconography there was in the Constantinian period tend­ ded in the main areas of the Empire to be political and concerned with the theme of universal power. So Constantine appears on coins enthroned on a seat of gold with the hand of God, from the sky, blessing or crown­ ing him - the Christian Empire being a reflection of the heavenly Em­ pire. The impetus to iconography in the main cities of the Empire came from the State, not the Church, in the fourth century. So Christian artists did not use theological or christological im ages to portray cent­ ral Christian doctrines - but were more concerned to nse the images of triumph and power taken over from imperial models. So the mosaics in the church of S. Maria Maggiore in Rome have the throne symbolis­ ing the power of God in heaven, the recognition of the royalty of Christ by his people, foreign kings paying homage to the infant Christ, and the defeat of Herod. This appears to be based directly on the imperial abs­ tract signs of supreme power, viz. of the Emperor and his dignitaries, the foreigners who recognise the power of the imperial monarch by their 28. A. GRABAR, The Beginnings of Christian Art, London 19G7, 1 60 even doubts if Christian works, produced under Constantine and his successors, could hold their own among works produced in the pagan tradition in this period. Constantine's conversion had however a greater influence on architecture than in art and sculp tu­ re. 29. According to Bus. Vita Const. 1 , 21 32 the account of the vision came from Constantine himself; cf. the account in Lact., De mort. persec. 44, 5 which may refer to a different event. The Chi - Rho mon ogram was employed by pagans as a nume­ rical symbol and a ligature before, during and after the time of Constantine. -

412

offerings, and the triumph over the enemies of the State. The Christian artists portray the great power of God or Christ - power which embraces the Empire and the barbarian peoples - indeed the whole universe. Christian iconography in the fourth century thus reflected the powerful monarchical influences at work in the Christian Empire - influences which may have been one of the reasons for the strong support that Aria­ nism had for so long in the East. The theme of the power of Christ, ra­ ther than his sufferings, was the dominant one. A factor in this was the somewhat ambivalent, and perhaps intentionally ambiguous, policies adopted by Constantine and his successors, at least before the time of Gratian, towards the Church. Outwardly the Emperors were Christians. Yet they continued to discharge the office of pontifex maximus and al­ lowed State support for the pagan priesthood and rituals. A considerable part of the art and architecture commissioned by the fourth century Christian Emperors was in fact pagan, not Christian. It is true that Con­ stantine issued an edict urging pagan subjects to adopt Christianity, yet he allowed them freedom of worship and forbad Christians to molest them. Indeed there is some evidence that he made efforts to remain on good terms with pagans, particularly in Romeso. Even Constantius II, who issued fierce edicts against pagan practices, in fact never enforced thems1• Valentini an I granted general toleration to all subjects of the Empire such that even the pagans praised him. Valens likewise allowed the pagans full religious freedom. It was Theodosius who made the first determined effort to establish orthodox religion as the unchallenged religion of the State. So the fourth century Christian artists did not use theological models but reflected in their work the ambiguity of the atti­ tude of the Christian Emperors towards Christianity. Hence the lack of a specifically new Christian imagery. What was the audience for fourth century art ? The erection of lar30. Constantine referred to the Christian God as summa dillinitas, summus deus, potentissimus deus, with no reference to Christ. The triumphal arch dedicated to Constantine by the Senate in 315 also shows an accommodation to both pagan and Christian ideas. The Emperor seems to have visualised Christ as sol, the sun god, and even aner his conversion he appears on coins as sol comes, so making it possible for pagans to identify the neoplatonic idea of God with that of the Christians. Even Constantine's donations to the Church had the same significance as State support for traditional cults. On this J. STRAUB, ((Constantine as 'XOLVOt; �tax07l'OC;· )). Dum­ barton Oaks Papers 2 1 (1967) 39 - 55. 31. SY MMACH US, Relatio 8; PL 1 6 , 968 .

41 3 ge buildings and the peace of the Church meant that Christian art was now public in a way that was impossible before 313. Crowds, no doubt, saw the Christian imperial images many of which in the late - fourth century were high up in the apses of the basilicas and were apparently based on apse decoration in civil basilicas and temples devoted to the imperial cult. I believe that the suggestion that the Christian images acted as 'the bible of the illiterates' is mistaken. In the first place the ima­ ges were not easy to see. The increase in pilgrimages also meant that the viewing public was partly itinerant comprising professed Chri!!tians, nominal Christians and pagans. It has been suggested that the reason why fourth century Christian iconography reflected so scantily the Chris­ tological and dogmatic problems which were the central concern of theologians was because Christian artists had nothing on which to build images devoted to newer and more abstract theological ideas beyond the Christus "ictor32 theme which had come down from the pre - Nicene period. Imperial iconography was however ready to hand and gave the Christian artists an immediate means of representing symbolically the power of God. However it may be the case that these artists knew what they were doing. In a monarchical society they realised that their viewers would be familiar with imperial power and its manifestations. According­ ly, if they wished to commend the faith so recently, if ambiguously, adop­ ted by the Emperors then they would naturally use symbols which would be understood by viewers, whether Christians or not. In this sense fourth century art was genuinely apologetic and a visual counterpart to Eusebius of Caesarea's eulogy of the Christian Empire. As EusebiuB used history as apologetic so the Christian artists of the Constantinian age used hellenistic and imperial themes of kingship to point to the king. ship of Christ and the Power of God33• In this way they were creating a precedent for a theory which later was to become prominent in By­ zantium, viz. the Emperor as a semi - divine figure who had a special relationship to God and Christ. The type of Christ in Majesty, rather

32. GRABAR ibid. (n. I) q5. From c. 300 deliverance themes figure more frequent· ly on ceilings, arcosolia and sarcophagi and salvation cycles begin to be found. 33. N. H. BAY NES, uEusebius and the Christian Empire)), Melanges Bidez, 193q, 13 - 18; F. E. CRANZ, (( Kingdom and Polity in Eusebius of Caesarea)), H. Th. R. q5 ( 1952) q7 66. The iconography of the Emperors was also transferred to images 01 Christ on the fourth century sarcophagi, cf. the sarcophagus of Junius Bassus dat· ing from 359 AD. -

414

than Christ on the Cross, was the legacy of the fourth century to later ages . Another factor found in the fourth century was the prevalence of Christian and pagan art in close juxtaposition. We can illustrate this from the Via Latina paintings discovered in 1955 in an underground gallery in Rome dating from the mid or late - fourth century which belonged to a family or an unidentified fraternity. In this mausoleum Christians and pagans were buried together - although in different cu­ bicula. The Christian and pagan paintings appear to be contemporary rather than successive, which suggests a measure of tolerance in the fa­ mily concerned. The background of the paintings is complex. Jesus appears as the True Philosopher with the four evangelists. Another painting shows a figure, in the costume of a philosopher, touching a naked corpse with a wand and may represent Aristotle demonstrating the presence of the soul in the human body. The figure of Aristotle is paired with that of Jesus in the same room and this recalls the use of Aristotle by early Christian thinkers - particularly by the later Arians. It is significant that in the salvation cycles an overwhelming proportion of scenes is taken over from the Old Testament, as in the pre - Nicene period. Judaism had clearly lost none of its force in the second half o f the fourth century. I t is even possible that the painters had illustrated Hebrew Bibles to guide them34• The Via Latina discoveries are a power­ ful reminder that the Empire wasn't Christianised overnight and that pagan and Christian art could be juxtaposed side by side. This, in itself, was a powerful factor in Christian apologetic which emphasised the continuity between pagan and Christian culture. I have tentatively suggested that much early Christian art, before the fifth century, took the form of indirect apologetic addressed to both Christians and non - Christians and represented an attempt to illustrate the continuity between pagan culture and Christianity (in the pre ­ Nicene period) and between imperial themes of kingship and power and the power realised in God and Christ (in the Constantinian age). However from the fifth century onwards theology influences the motifs used by Christian artists to a far greater extent than in the earlier period. The earli,est surviving example of a body of Christ on the cross is that carved on the wooden door panel of the church of S. Sabina in Rome (c. 432 AD). A further, realistic, example is carved on an ivory casket

Sq. A. GRABAR

ibid.

(n. 28)

231.

415

now in the British Museum and again from the early - fifth century35. Yet even these crucifixes show Jesus with eyes open suggesting the theme of life, rather than death, as in the Christ us Victor theology - and this was to remain the norm in the iconography of the crucifixion until the late - ninth of early - tenth century36. From the fifth century Chris­ tian art however is no longer of a type of indirect apologetic seeking to bridge the gulf between Gracco - Roman culture and the Church but more specifically doctrinal. The reluctance to portray a dead Christ on the crose now, no doubt, was bound up with the Christological con­ troversies of the fourth and fifth centuries, for a dead Christ severed the union between the Logos and the flesh - and it was for this union that the greatest theologians strove. The Greek teachers' emphasis on the divinisation of man and the sinlessness of Christ also affected iconogra­ phical views as to the kind of body Jesus had. The cosmic aspect of redemption, as taught in the Greek East, also powerfully affected the iconography of the figure of Christ who is portrayed as Pantokrator, the Christ in Majesty as cosmic Ruler, in the flowering of Christian art in the fifth and sixth centuries attested by the mosaics of Ravenna and the ancient Churches of Rome. In the early period, with which this paper is mainly concerned, we have argued that Christian art was a type of apologetic running parallel to the work of such apologists as Athenagoras. Perhaps I may be allo­ wed to quote some words written elsewhere: "Athenagoras' work was in the nature of a prolegomenon, not a systematic exposition of the Church's faith. It is the failure to make this distinction which vitiates the kind of criticism which J erome levelled against the Sentences of Sextus. It is the golden rule in studying the apologists to note that their beliefs are not circumscribed by the purpose of their writings"37.Thus the fact that so few doctrinal motifs appear in early Christian art should cause no surprise if the artists were mainly concerned with the question of A ntike und Christentum, i.e. with the continuity between Graeco - Roman styles and Christianity. It may thus be a mistake from the doctrinal angle to read too much into the lack of portraits of Christ in the early period. What is significant is that the theme of Christ us Victor is so prominent. This suggests that the whole drama of redemption, of life through death, was at the very heart of the faith of these early artists. 35. E. J. TINSLEY, ((The Coming of a Dead and Naked Chrisbl, Religion 2 (1972) 26 - 7 PI. 1. 36. TINSLEY ibid. (n. 35) 29 - 32. 37. L. W. BARNARD ibid. (n. 21) 180.

INDEX

OF M A I N

Akiba, Rabbi, 1q-2q Arius. An tecedents of- 2 89-31 1 philosophical 289-295 theological 295-311 Art. Early Christian art as apologetic q02-U5 Athanasius. His election as archbishop 329-336 - and Roman Stale 312-328 - and Marcellus of Ancyra 3U -353 Encyclical leiter of the E gyptian bishops 336-340 Athenagoras. Treatise on resurrection 2q2-288 analysis 272-280 textrial tradition 280-288 background 242-245 authorship and date 245-2M infiuence of Galen 2 M-259 anthropology 259-261 immortality of soul 261-26q resurrection of body 26q-269 knowledge 269-27q being 27q-276 theology 276-279 Bar-Cosiba H-26 Bardaisan 210-2H Barnabas, Epistle of- 37-106 Bede as church historian 3M-372 Bingham, Joseph, 387-q02 Church, Early Church subject of J. Bingham treatment 399-q02 Clement, Epistle of- of Rome H6-154 Eusebius as church historian 35q-372 Graeco-Egyptian religion 32-37 Greek culture in Egypt 27-37 Hermas, Shepherd of- 1M-176 Hadrian and Judaism 9-2 1

SUBJ ECTS

Iconoclastic controversy 37 3-386 Judaism. Hadrian and- 9-21 zealots 9-12 revolt of 132-135 12-26 Jewish diaspora 37-59 struggle with Christianity 59-63 The Jews and the iconoclastic con­ troversy 373-386 Justin Mar lyr's knowledge of Ju­ daism 10,-118 Julius I of Rome 3U-353 Justin Martyr. His knowledge of Ju­ daism 107-1 18 -'s eschatology 1 1 9-130 Marcellus of Ancyra 3U-353 Pelagian Conctroversy 220-223 Pionins. Pseudo -' account on St. Polycarp's martyrdom 224-2U Polycarp's Marlyrium 224-241 Rome. E arly Church in Rome 131-180 origins of Christianity in Rome 13113q at the end of the first century 135-14 6 influence of Judaism and Jewish Chris tianity 149-1,6 150-200 A.D. 11 6-180 Syriac Christianity. Early- 1 94-223 the origins 19, -201 emergence of Christianity 201-20, Tatian and Bardaisan 207-2 1'l Further East 2H-217 Jewish and Syriac tradition 218-219 - and Pelagian Controversy 220-223 Tannaitic Catechism 72-90 Tatian. -'s heresy 1 81-193. 207-210 Two ways 90-105 27

EKAOIEII DATPIAPXIKOY IAPYMATOI llATEPIK.ON MEAETnN

A. KAHPONOMIA

'E�allllVlarOV ltSPIOOilCOV, TOIlOI 1 -9 (1 969-1977), B. ANAAEKTA BAATAMlN 1 . ArllUl'c pioll r. Taci!111, 'H litaA&KTlKl'j cpuat<; Ti'\<; IhllaO"1caAia<; rpTIYopioll tou

EkoA.6yoll, 1969, aa' 1 94. 2 . NIKOAUOIl

A. Ma'CaoilKu, rEVI:cn<; Kai

ouaiu tou 'Op90B6�ou B6YJ.la"tO<;, 1 969, aa.

206. 3. EOOYY&AOIl K. Xpllaoil, 'H ttKKATlcrtQGtlKtl ltOAttlKtl toO 'Iollatlvtavoil Kuta ttiv

SpiV ltspi to. Tpia KEcpllAUIa Kai tilv E' OiKOIlIlEvtKl'jv Ilivollov, 1969, aa. 226. 4. l:'CIlAlav ol) r. na7taI)07t OUAOIl,

Ill vUvtTlcrt<; 'Op901l6�oll Kai a1(.OAaCTt IKi'\<; 0EO­

Aoyia<; ('Ev t/!l ltpoaooltcp KaAAicrtoll 'AYYEA1KOilllll Kai 000lla 'AKlvatoll), 1 970, aa. 198. S. 'A9avaaioll A. 'AYY&A07tOUAOIl, NIKoAao<; KaBo:crlA.a<; XallaEto<;. 'H �ool'j Kal

to �Pyov autoO, 1970, aa. 148. 6. 'Apl(,lll. BapOoAollaioll X. 'A pl(,oV'CroVT\, nEpi tl'jv KoolhKOltoiT}alV tli'lv iEPli'lv KU­

VOVOOV Kai tli'lv KavovlKli'lv Ihuta�Eoov ttv ttl 'Op90B6�cp 'ElClCAT}aiq, 1970, aa. 148 . 7. 'OAVJl7ti� naltOOOltOUAOIl AEiou , 1970, aa. 160.

8. BaC1lA&{OIl l:. 'I'&Il'cOYKii,

aa. 256.

-

Taavuvii, 'H civ9pronoAoyia toO MsyaAoll Bacrt­

MEA itoovo <; Iap/)Eoov, « Ta ltEpi toO nacrl(,u liUO)I, 1 97 1 ,

9. 0&o/)ropoll N. Zf)(J1"I, Av9prolto<; Kui Koallo<; ev ttl OiKOVoj.liq toO 0EOO Katu tov •

iEPOV Xpllaocrtollov, 1 971, Ua' 276. 10. KrovO''Cavtiv oIlI. KOpVl"ca&O'Koll, '0 civepoomallo<; KUtu tOV iEPOV Xpuao
1 971, aa. 146. 1 1 . Allllll"C pioll r. Taci!111, 'H tEAEiOOUL<; "CoO civ9pooltoll Katu NIKl'"rrav tOY ItT}9i'itov,

1 97 1 , aa. 1 62. 12. r&CDP1ioll A. I:'CoytOYAOIl, 'H ev E>EaaaA.oviKU natplUPXIKl'j Movl] tli'lv BAata­

OOOV, 1 97 1 , aa. 408. 13. NEKtapioll Xa'C�ll"ll(,UAll,

au. 20 1 .

Ai ltEpi 'IIIIOKtT}aia<; ciltOlj1Et<; ev ttl 'EKKAT}aiq, 1972,

14. nauAoll M&v&IJi�OYAOIl, To AylOv Milpov, 1972, aa' 275. •

15. 0&ollropoll N. Zf)O'T\, Ttl(,VT} nup9&via<;, 1973, aa. 219. 16. 'AIlCPIAOlCioll P6.v"C o\JI'C<;, TO Mllcrti] plOV "Cfj<; 'Ayia<; Tplu/)o<; KatU tOY aylOv r pTIYoplOv naAUj.li'iv, 1 973, cra' 249. 17. George Kustas, Studies in

Byzantine

Rhetoric, 1973, pp. 215.

18. I:ullltOcriOV. Studies on St. John Chrysostom, 1973, aa. 146. 19. XP'iO'"COIl l:. BouAyaPT\, 'H tvo"CT\<; ti'\<; AltO at OA1Kf'j <; 'EKKAllaia<;, 1974, aa. 520. '

420 20. Bacnuiou nonA:raT\, 0EOi.oyia Kai IhanpoerOO1tlKai Cl"J(terw; KatU tOV Mcyav

WtlOv, 1 974, erer. 1 86. 21. MU PK O U 'O p<pavou, 'H Ij1uXtl Kai to erli'l�a tou clv9pwnou Katu A{/)U�OV 'AA.E�av­

/)pta (tU(PA.Ov), 1 974, erer. 3 10.

22. Wilhelm Schneemelcher, Gesammelte Aufsatze zum Neuen Testament und zu r Patristik, 1974, pp. 406.

23. J oha n Meijer, C.Ss.R., A Successful Co uncil

of the Photian Synod of 879-880, 1975, pp. 294.

of Union. A Theol ogical Analysis

24. 'HAia A. BouAya paKl1 , Al KatT\xi}crEl� tou KupiA.A.oU ·IEpoeroA.U�oov, 'IEpano­

crtOA.IKtl 9EWPT\erl�, 1977, erer. 676. 25. ' Avtoo vi ou nalta/)onouAou, 'H yvooertoAoyia Katu toil� vT\ntlKoil� natEpa�, 1977,

erer. 1 74.

26. L. W. Barnard Studies in A nci e nt Church History and Patristics, 1978, erer. 4 1 8 .

27. navaytwt ou

K. Xpi}at ou,

'0 MEya� BaeriA.EiO�, 1978, erer. 352.

r. XPI!:TIANIKH rPAMMATOAOnA 1. Ka pl ocpiAT\ MT\taaKT\, Bu�aVtlv1'} 'Y�voypaq>{a, t6�oC; lo�. 'Alto ttlv Kalvtl

Ala9i}KT\ EOO� ttlV dKovo�axia, 1 97 1 , erer. 588.

2. navaywtou K. Xpi} at ou , 'EA.A.T\VIKtl TIa'tpoA.oyia, tO�O� l o�, Elerayooyi}, 1976,

erer. 400. T6�o� 2o�, 1978, erer. 850.

A. 0EOAOnKA AOKIMIA

AOKi�1U op90B6�ou 0EOAoyia� YEVIKOOtEPOU EV/)laq>&povto�. 1. nauAou EMoKiIlO>CP, 'H 7l'Iv... T\ �t tov 0EOV, r' EK/)Ocrt�, 1 970, era. 300. 2. Xpitatou MltonKT\, 'H YAli'lerera toU rpT\Yopiou NuererT\� UltO to q>1i'l� til� CPlAo­

O'ocpIKil� clVaA.UerEOO�, 1 970, erer. 1 84. 3. r&ropyiou IIlA.ropoCPaKU, To erli'l�a tOU �Ii'lVto� XPlcrtOU. Mia op06/)o�o� tp�T\vEia

tfj� tlCKAT\eria�, 1972, erer. 148. E. 0EOAOnKA MEAETHMATA,

uno navuyui)tOll

K. Xpitatou

1 . 'Apxai ti'\� XplertlaVlKfj� rpa�llUtEiac;, 1973, erer. 278. 2. rpall�atEia 'tOU /)' a!li'lvo�, 1975, erer. 278. 3. NT\ lttIKU Kai 'HcruxaertlKU, 1977, erer. 270. !:T. AHMO!:IEYMATA EKTO!: !:EIPA!:

1. NiKOU r. Il&vt�ilCT\, npo� 'EKKAT\erlaer�6v, 1970, erer. 1 56. 2. M T\ tp. XpuaOatOlloU KrovatuvtlYi/)ou - 'EllllaVOIl1'JA IIlrona/)ou, nEpi tli'lv nT\Yli'lv

t�� 0. 'AnoKaA.UIj1&oo�, 1971, erer. 98. 3. 'Iroavvou M. lIlouvton�T\, AOYIKtl Aatp&ia, 1 97 1 , erer. 390.

4. Krovatuvtivou A. KUAOKi> PT\, 'H 0EOt6KO� El� ttlv EiKovoypacpiav tfj� 'AvatoAfj�

Kat ti'\� AuerEoo�, 1972, erer. 302+ 305 nivaK&�.

5. M�iIlOU, MT\t p. !:«p&rov, To OIKOU�VIK6v natplapx&iov tv

til

'Op9o /)o.;q>

'EKICA.T\eriq, 'IertoplKoKavovlKtl MEAttT\, 1 972, erer. 390. 'AYYAlri} &K/)O crt � , 1976,

erer. 358.

421 6. BacnM:ioll e. I:tullpioOIl, 'H 'Jtpn e£OA.oYII(tl �XOA.tl tf'\e; XaA.ICT\e; (IIupaA.tl­

noj1tva), 1973,

aa.

58.

7. KrovCHUVt{VOIl Ba\JODIJKOIl, 'H No�olCaVOVllCtl 'Y7tocrtaall;; tUJv MT\tponowv

tUJv Ntoov XooPUJv 1973, acr. 6 1 . 8

•

.6.laYYtA.� toO OllCollUEvllCoO IIatplllPXE{oll t1ti tij tl1(oO"l1t&vtaEtT\ piot toO

IIuYlCDcrUioll LllllBollA.ioll 'E1(1(A.T\O"IUJv, 1 974, crcr. 64.

9. Dimitri C o n o mos , Byzantine Tri sagia Fifteenth

ce

ntu rie s,

1 974, pp. 384.

and Cheroubika in the Fourteenth and

10. 'AYUJvte; lCal ciyooV{UI tile; tv 'AllEPIICU 'EA.A.T\vllCf\e; 'Op9036�ou 'EICICA.T\oiac;.

Mia lttVtT\ICOVtllttlU (1922- 1 972). 'EYICUICA.IOI lCui I:YYPUq>Il, 1 976, aa. 1 266. 1 1 . XUPlcrti]PIU tie; tl�tlV toO MT\tponoAltOil rtpoVtOe; XaA.ICT\36voe; MEA.i toovoe;.

To�oe; aIlA.A.OYIICOC;, 1977, aa. 546 + 22 JtivuICEe;. 12. Emman uel Amand De Mendieta, L'art au Mont-Athos, miroir de la mentalite

Etude h is t or ique , theologique et so ci ol ogiq ue (illustre) 1 977, pp. 500. 13. KrovGtuvtivoll A. KUAOKOPTJ, 'H vuooo�ia lCai ii cruYXPovT\ tEX;VT\, 1 978, acr . 304. athonite.

Z. emAYPOI TOY AnOY OPOYI:

Mtta tfje; «'EICOOtllCfje; A9T\vUJVll, tlCllocrle; tYXPooIlOe;, ltOA.lltEA.ii e;. •

EilCovoypaq>TJ�Eva XEtpOypUq>u tO�J.Oe; l oe;, 1973, to�Oe; 20e; 1 975, tOIlOe; 30e; 1 978, tOllOe; 40e; 1979. The Treasures of Mount Atho s, Illuminated Manuscripts, v. J 1 974, II 1976. Deutsche Ausgabe 1978. H. KATAAOrOI XEIPOrpAcNlN 1. E. Lamperz,

E.

AitGu, KUTUA.OYOC;

xtlpoy paq>oov tile; BlltOlttlllvi'\e; LKiitT\i;

tOO 'Arioll ArlllTJtpioll, 1978, acr. 1 52.