The Question of Christ's Relation to God: Sample writings from the 100's AD

There is a question that keeps recurring in Christian thought: "Is Jesus subordinate to God?" Since the question of whether a human is subordinate to God is, at face value, absurd, sometimes the related question is asked instead, "Is the Word of God subordinate to God?" This is considered an equivalent question by those who believe that Jesus is the incarnate Word of God. The second framing of the question may come closer to the point, since the intended question tends to be less about Jesus' humanity and more about the eternal nature of God and of the Word of God.

Here we look at some examples of how the early church came to understand the Word of God in relation to God, focusing on some writers from the 100's AD: 

And His Son, who alone is properly called Son, the Word, who also was with Him and was begotten before the works, when at first He created and arranged all things by Him, is called Christ, in reference to His being anointed and God’s ordering all things through Him (Justin Martyr, died around 165 AD)

But this Offspring, which was truly brought forth from the Father, was with the Father before all the creatures, and the Father communed with Him; even as the Scripture by Solomon has made clear, that He whom Solomon calls Wisdom, was begotten as a Beginning before all His creatures and as Offspring by God, who has also declared this same thing in the revelation made by Joshua the son of Nave (Nun) (again Justin Martyr, died around 165 AD)

But the Son of God is the Logos of the Father, in idea and in operation; for after the pattern of Him and by Him were all things made, the Father and the Son being one. And, the Son being in the Father and the Father in the Son, in oneness and power of spirit, the understanding and reason (νοῦς καὶ λόγος) of the Father is the Son of God. But if, in your surpassing intelligence, it occurs to you to inquire what is meant by the Son, I will state briefly that He is the first product of the Father, not as having been brought into existence (for from the beginning, God, who is the eternal mind [νοῦς], had the Logos in Himself, being from eternity instinct with Logos [λογικός]); but inasmuch as He came forth to be the idea and energizing power of all material things. (Athenagoras of Athens, died around 190 AD)

In these examples, the idea that the Son is the Word of God is taken fairly literally, in context of some different philosophical and theological ideas about the Logos (λόγος). I have not seen any areas of tension between these writings and the Bible, though as the Catholic Encyclopedia notes there are some areas of tension between these writings and later orthodoxy. 

To be continued ...

Did the early church have any critical scholarship of Biblical texts?

Many people speak as though critical scholarship of Biblical texts is a recent phenomenon, something of which the early church knew nothing. Some familiarity with scholars of the early church should serve to make our impressions more accurate.

Origen

Origen (d. circa 254 A.D.) was a textual scholar with exceptional devotion to the task. His passion was largely directed towards ensuring that an accurate translation of the Old Testament existed in Greek. To the best of my knowledge, he is the first Christian scholar to mark up Biblical texts to show comparative additions and omissions with respect to another edition of the same text. He writes to Julius Africanus about his marked-up version:

Again, in Genesis, the words, “God saw that it was good,” when the firmament was made, are not found in the Hebrew, and there is no small dispute among them about this; and other instances are to be found in Genesis, which I marked, for the sake of distinction, with the sign the Greeks call an obelisk, as on the other hand I marked with an asterisk those passages in our copies which are not found in the Hebrew. (From a letter from Origen to Africanus, see #4 on the linked page.)

To the best of my knowledge, this is the first critical edition of a book of the Bible by a Christian scholar; it was made in the 200's A.D. Africanus' letter which drew this response is worth a read also. While he doesn't mention comparing editions side-by-side, he does direct a keen mind to the question of the authenticity and originality of certain passages. The correspondence of these two is the earliest instance I have been able to find of Christian scholars discussing the originality of and evidence for (and against) Biblical passages which are considered questionable. The greetings in their letters suggest that a scholarly community may already have existed that was interested in the topic at hand.

Origen's contributions to comparing the Biblical texts extended far beyond comparing two individual texts and marking additions or omissions. He also completed the monumental task of compiling a side-by-side comparative study of the Old Testament in its entirety, including four Greek translations of the Old Testament together with a Hebrew and a transliterated Hebrew edition. This resulted in a total of six editions laid out side-by-side to allow for easy comparisons among them; the work was known as the Hexapla.

Pamphilus

Pamphilus (died 309 A.D.) was an influence on Eusebius and Jerome; Eusebius is sometimes known as "Eusebius Pamphilus" or "Eusebius Pamphili" as a tribute to this scholar. Pamphilus created one of the more well-stocked libraries of the early church at Caesarea in a day when not only was there no amazon.com, there was also no printing press. Jerome remembers him as the one who had obtained a copy of the Gospel of Matthew in Hebrew which still existed in Jerome's day in the library (On Illustrious Men, comments under #3). Jerome relates that Pamphilus was also impressed with Origen's scholarship: "he transcribed the greater part of the works of Origen with his own hand and these are still preserved in the library at Cæsarea." (On Illustrious Men, #75.) Anyone who is familiar with the volume of Origen's works will appreciate the size of effort taken to make copies of the majority of Origen's works. Pamphilus is said to be, along with Eusebius, "a most diligent investigator of the Holy Bible" (On Illustrious Men, #81). He provides a historical link in collecting, preserving and transmitting the scholarship of earlier Christians for the next generation of scholars. He also wrote an Apology for Origen, who was apparently rash enough to have needed it.

Eusebius the Historian

Eusebius (died circa 339 A.D.) was another prolific scholar in the early church, and another admirer of Origen's work. Though he is best remembered for his Church History, he also tried an ambitious project to compile the known histories of various nations into a more comprehensive world history. The general historian may be interested in the early histories he has passed on from various nations. For our present purposes, when he tries to chronicle the events from Jewish Scriptures, he decides to make separate treatment of the Hebrew text, the Septuagint translation into Greek, and the Samaritan Pentateuch. Eusebius mentions in his introductory notes to the Hebrew chronicle:

There is considerable disagreement among the Hebrews about their own chronology, so it will be good to commence by examining their differing accounts. By evaluating and comparing all of them, the truth will be arrived at. The five books of Moses describe the creation of the world, life before the flood, the history of the ancients after the flood, the generations of the Hebrews, and the passing of Moses. The Jews and the Samaritans, who were foreigners who came to live among the Jews, have differing versions of the books of the law. The characters of the Hebrew alphabet used by the Jews differ from those used by the Samaritans. The correct and original [alphabet] is not the one used by the [contemporary] Jews, because their descendants corrupted it. Yet there was no conflict between them [the Hebrews and the Samaritans] until the alteration of the letters. Furthermore there are numerous disagreements between the two with respect to chronology, as will become clear in the comparison below.

The Greek translation [of the Bible] also differs from the Hebrew, though not so much from the Samaritan [version]. There is disagreement [in chronology in the versions] up to the flood, but thereafter, until the time of Abraham, the versions are in harmony. The text we use was translated collectively by seventy Hebrew men from their language into Greek during the reign of Ptolemaeus Philadelphus. [Their translation] was placed in the library in the city of Alexandria, where it was carefully preserved. Now we shall set forth historical information from each of the versions, one after the other, so that it will be easy to distinguish the discrepancies.

At some point since Origen's Hexapla, Christian scholarship of the Old Testament had expanded to become aware of the Samaritan Pentateuch.

Eusebius is also the probable creator of a valuable textual study tool, now known as the Eusebian Canons, for locating parallel passages among the four gospels. This became a standard research and reference tool for those studying the gospels. Here, Eusebius built on and acknowledged the earlier work of the scholar Ammonius (probably early 200's A.D.). It should be difficult to imagine that nobody had noticed the parallels among the gospels in ancient times, given that reference tables had been compiled to locate parallel passages.

Jerome

Jerome (died 420 A.D.) stood in what is, by now, a long line of Christian scholars with an interest in the text. He stands as a bridge between the rich history of Greek-speaking scholars of the text and a new generation of scholars who spoke Latin. Jerome is most famous as a translator, producing the Latin Vulgate edition of the Bible which was used in western Christendom for many centuries. Rather than belabor all the work which would go into translating the entire Bible into Latin, it should be mentioned that he also prepared critical editions of some books, using the same system of marking that we already saw in Origen two centuries before. Here we see none less than St. Augustine writing Jerome about two critical editions/translations of the book of Job, one prepared from the Greek (with comparative critical marks to the Hebrew) and the other straight from the Hebrew:

In this letter I have further to say, that I have since heard that you have translated Job out of the original Hebrew, although in your own translation of the same prophet from the Greek tongue we had already a version of that book. In that earlier version you marked with asterisks the words found in the Hebrew but wanting in the Greek, and with obelisks the words found in the Greek but wanting in the Hebrew; and this was done with such astonishing exactness, that in some places we have every word distinguished by a separate asterisk, as a sign that these words are in the Hebrew, but not in the Greek. Now, however, in this more recent version from the Hebrew, there is not the same scrupulous fidelity as to the words; and it perplexes any thoughtful reader to understand either what was the reason for marking the asterisks in the former version with so much care that they indicate the absence from the Greek version of even the smallest grammatical particles which have not been rendered from the Hebrew, or what is the reason for so much less care having been taken in this recent version from the Hebrew to secure that these same particles be found in their own places. I would have put down here an extract or two in illustration of this criticism; but at present I have not access to the Ms. of the translation from the Hebrew. Since, however, your quick discernment anticipates and goes beyond not only what I have said, but also what I meant to say, you already understand, I think, enough to be able, by giving the reason for the plan which you have adopted, to explain what perplexes me. (Letter from Augustine to Jerome, from #3 in linked page)

To this Jerome replied rather sharply that Augustine should "desist from annoying an old man, who seeks retirement in his monastic cell," and that "As for me, a soldier once, but a retired veteran now, it becomes me rather to applaud the victories won by you and others, than with my worn-out body to take part in the conflict." (Letter from Jerome to Augustine, see #3 on the linked page.) Augustine's marvel over the "astonishing exactness" of the young Jerome's critical editions may have led to his disappointment when, in his old age, Jerome no longer had the time or energy to produce new critical editions on the same level as before. For my part, I can't help but feel that Jerome's rest was well-deserved; he had already made enduring contributions to the life of the church.

Conclusion

Here I have surveyed the early scholars who are familiar to me, or who are friends or key sources of those familiar scholars. I cannot imagine how anyone familiar with these men and their work could say that early church had no true scholars of the texts. The modern scholar assumes study tools and critical approaches to the text that the early church helped to develop. While we may disagree with them at points, we still stand in the debt of the textual scholars of the early church.

Did the early church have any concept of using scholarship to shed light on questions of authorship?

Many people assume that the early church had no concept of using a scholarly approach to consider the authorship of a sacred text. It is quietly taken for granted that applying objective scholarship to Biblical matters was an innovation introduced only in recent centuries. Didn't the ancient church simply accept whatever they were told? Were there actually any proper scholars among them? If a scholar had questioned the authorship of a work, would they have suffered any adverse consequences for their intellectual freedom? Would they have experienced a suppression of their ideas? I'd like to consider early examples of Biblical scholarship to get a clearer picture of the situation.

Origen is considered one of the fathers of the early church, born in the late 100's A.D. and continuing well into the 200's. He was one of the respected scholars of his age. In his day, there was some question as to whether the epistle to the Hebrews was written by Paul or by someone else. Some had presented it as Paul's; others doubted that. Origen approached the question as a scholar, asking: what can we tell from the text? In his Homilies on the Epistle to the Hebrews he forms his opinion based on the author's eloquence in Greek. He notes that Paul's Greek was rough, while the Epistle to the Hebrews was in better Greek than the acknowledged writings of Paul. Based on this, he concludes that Paul could not have been the author. He also records that, along with some churches suggesting Paul as the author, others had suggested Luke or Clement as the author, while admitting that who wrote it is "known to God alone." (Summary from Eusebius' History 6:25; see items 11-14 on the page at CCEL for the details)

Another prominent scholar in the 200's A.D. was Dionysius of Alexandria, whose career as a scholar included being head of the catechetical school of Alexandria. He also became Bishop of Alexandria, one of the most respected episcopal offices in ancient Christendom. He addressed questions in the church as to whether the same person wrote the Gospel of John and the book of Revelation. His findings were that the books had different authors; his methods include many of the same points considered by modern scholars. Here, briefly, are his lines of research:

1. Comparing the use of the name “John” in the texts: Revelation makes use of the name John again and again, while the Gospel of John and the letters attributed to John do not.
   
2. Framing and introduction: the emphasis on the beginnings and on what they had seen or beheld as the starting point for both the Gospel of John and 1 John, but not Revelation.
   
3. The number of prominent themes shared between the Gospel of John and 1 John that are not really concerns in Revelation: the Life, the Light, turning away from darkness, truth, grace, joy, the flesh and blood of the Lord, judgment, forgiveness of sins, God’s love for us, the command to “love one another”; Dionysius compiles a still lengthier catalog of items he has compared, things which he has found as themes in both the Gospel of John and 1 John, but not in Revelation.
   
4. Phraseology and skill with the Greek language in which both are written. The Gospel of John and 1 John are written “not only without any blunders in the use of Greek, but with remarkable skill with regards diction, logical thought, and orderly expression.” As for Revelation, “his language and style are not really Greek; he uses barbarous idioms, and is sometimes guilty of solecisms.”

The findings of Dionysius is recorded at more length in Eusebius' History (7.25); the scholarly review of Revelation begins at item 6 on the linked page.

Here we see two respected scholars in the early church using objective methods to consider questions of authorship. In both cases, the scholars applied themselves to a dispute about who wrote a document; in both cases, there were Christians who considered the book to be canonical -- that is, these works being subjected to scholarship were already considered by some to be Holy Scripture. In recognition of their scholarship, both were commemorated and commended by the church historian Eusebius.

From Origen, from Dionysius of Alexandria, and from Eusebius who valued and preserved their work for posterity, we see that the early church did understand that the authorship of a proposed work could be questioned. We also see that the early church had scholars who approached the question by studying objective, observable facts of the texts. It is interesting to note that they also reached essentially the same conclusions as modern scholars on the authorship of the works in question. And they did it in the 200's A.D.

Would using an apostle's name guarantee acceptance in the early church?

Some people do not believe that anyone who knew Jesus directly -- whether his followers or his family -- were involved in writing any of the documents that were eventually accepted as part of the New Testament. It is commonly assumed that it was a standard thing for people to forge writings in the name of famous people, and of course the early church would have accepted any writing uncritically if it had the name of an apostle attached to it, or one of Jesus' family.

While there were plenty of documents falsely written under the name of someone famous in the early church, it does not follow that the early church would accept them uncritically. In fact, we know that they did not. There are quite a few writings with the apostles' names attached which were rejected by the early church as pseudonymous forgeries. Again Bart Ehrman, no friend of orthodox Christianity, has collected some of these works in his book Lost Scriptures: Books that Did Not Make It into the New Testament. Here we see 5 works ascribed to Peter (as opposed to 2 in the New Testament) and one more mentioning both Peter and James, 3 that drop the name Thomas in the title (none in the New Testament), 9 others variously claiming a connection to James, John, Philip, Mary, or Paul. One writing even claims co-authorship of eleven surviving apostles (John, Thomas, Peter, Andrew, James, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Nathaniel, Judas Zelotes, and Cephas) -- which would form something of a mandate to accept and propagate the writing as coming from the best possible sources on Jesus ... if it were considered genuine.

Once again, Mr. Ehrman has provided a valuable service by showing just how often dropping the name of a famous figure of early Christianity -- even a follower or a relation of Jesus -- was not enough to persuade the early church to accept a writing. The early church also wanted some assurance that it actually came from the named source. Apparently, they were aware that some people might resort to forgery to promote their own views and wanted some guarantee of authenticity. It is a fair question what, exactly, their methods were; but to say they were swayed by mere name-dropping is disproved by how many texts with big-name attributions were regarded as forgeries in the early church.

In the companion volume Lost Christianities, Ehrman provides a chart with approximate dates for these non-canonical writings. By examining it, particularly with an eye to which writings claimed a connection to followers and family of Jesus, the reader may gain another useful clue as to why the early church did not necessarily accept these documents as coming from the claimed sources. Per Ehrman's chart, these rejected documents have conspicuously late dates compared to the lives of the supposed authors. They were written no sooner than the second century, quite a few not until the middle of the second century, the third century, or in one case even the fourth century for a document claiming to come from Paul. It seems reasonable enough, on the surface, that documents that were never heard of by the first few generations -- or centuries -- of Christians might be suspect whether they were really from the apostles. While I don't recall Dr. Ehrman anywhere drawing attention to the reasonable suspicion of authorship that would fall on a document written centuries after the supposed author's death, the early church seems to have been well aware of a chronological problem here with the historical plausibility of the claim.

Origen and early textual scholarship of the Bible

Origen of Alexandria (circa 185-254 A.D.) was a prominent scholar in the early church. At times controversial -- whether for his rashness, his political missteps, his theological borrowings from Greek philosophers or his seeming universalism -- he was an uncommonly prolific writer and made lasting contributions to the scholarship of the church. His contributions were of such value that they were not outweighed by the controversy, and secured him both prominent defenders among early Christian leaders and a distinguished place among the scholars within the early church.

Perhaps his most impressive contribution to scholarship was the Hexapla. In the church of his day, there were variant translations of the Old Testament into Greek. In view of these variant readings, he undertook to review them, analyze them, compare them to the original Hebrew – and publish the results, creating a tool that enabled later scholars to pursue the same line of study more easily. The Hexapla was a ground-breaking work in textual scholarship of the Bible in which six (occasionally more) editions of the Old Testament were laid out side-by-side. I will pass along the description of the Hexapla given us by the church historian Eusebius:

So meticulous was the scrutiny to which Origen subjected the Scriptural books that he even mastered the Hebrew language, and secured for himself a copy, in the actual Hebrew script, of the original documents circulating among the Jews. Moreover, he hunted out the published translations of Holy Writ other than the Septuagint, and in addition to the versions in common use – those of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion – he discovered several alternative translations. These had been lost for many years – I don’t know where – but he hunted them out of their hiding-places and brought them to light. These were wrapped in mystery, and he had no idea who wrote them; the only thing he could say was that he had found one at Nicopolis near Actium and the other at some similar place. Anyway, in his Hexapla of the Psalms, after the four familiar versions he placed in parallel columns not only a fifth but a sixth and seventh translation; in the case of one, he has added a note that it was found at Jericho in a jar during the reign of Antoninus, the son of Severus. All these he combined in one volume, breaking them up into clauses and setting them side by side in parallel columns, along with the original Hebrew text. Thus he has left us the copies of the Hexapla, as it is called. In a separate publication he put the versions of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion alongside the Septuagint, in his Tetrapla. (History, 6.16)

In the days before word processing, the monumental work of creating the Hexapla and Tetrapla took years of Origen’s life to complete. This also resulted in a corrected critical edition of the Septuagint translation of the Bible, considered more authoritative by Jerome than the older translation which had not undergone critical review in comparison to the Hebrew received text.

Origen’s contributions – and the church’s unqualified gratitude for his textual studies – show that the early church was not interested in suppressing variant readings, but in studying them. Origen’s scholarly approach – and the recognition it received – was a mark of the intellectual integrity of both the scholar and the church that praised and welcomed his contribution to the field of textual criticism of the Bible.

Dionysius of Alexandria on the authorship of Revelation: historical methods

Update 09/09/2014: For those of you coming here from a link in the article "Ten Theories About Who Really Wrote the Bible", after looking at the material below on Revelation, you may be interested in my comments on the "Ten Theories ..." here. Some of the "Ten Theories" are better grounded than others. 

---

In the mid-200's A.D., one of the notable figures of church leadership -- and one of the foremost Christian scholars -- was Dionysius of Alexandria. He was bishop of Alexandria, one of the leading centers of early Christianity. He had also been head of the catechetical school of Alexandria, a leading center of Christian scholarship in his day. As the head of an influential Christian school in the world of his day, and as a leader in Christian scholarship, what kind of scholar was he? What was the state of scholarship about early Christian sources in the 200's A.D.?

Eusebius preserves an example of Dionysius' scholarship in his analysis of whether the Book of Revelation was written by the same person as the Gospel of John. While Dionysius concludes that the books were written by different authors, his method is what calls for our attention here. How did Dionysius reach his conclusions? As someone at or close to the high mark of Christian scholarship in the world of his day, what example did he set for his catechetical school and for the tone of Christian scholarship in general?

Dionysius builds his argument that Revelation had a distinct author from the Gospel of John from differences in the text and information in other early sources that were observable and available to any objective reviewer.

On the character of each, on the linguistic style, and on the general tone, as it is called, of Revelation, I base my opinion that the author was not the same. (Eusebius' History 7.25)

He continues with a detailed scholarly analysis of the differences which lead to that conclusion. He examines the use of the name "John" in Revelation and its comparative absence from other writings attributed to the apostle John. He reviews earlier Christian writings and shows that there were other men and named "John" who might have been the author. He compares the Gospel of John to the Epistle of John (1 John) and shows the many similarities found; then performs the same type of analysis on the Gospel of John compared to Revelation. He reviews ideas and word usage, common phrases and themes repeated between the Gospel of John and the epistle of John, and the prevalence of the same imagery. He catalogs a number images, ideas, and commands shared between the Gospel of John and the Epistle of John which are absent from Revelation. He goes on to summarize his three-way analysis comparing the Gospel of John to the first Epistle of John and to Revelation by noting,

To sum up, anyone who examines their characteristics throughout will inevitably see that Gospel and Epistle have one and the same color. But there is no resemblance or similarity whatever between them and the Revelation; it has no connection, no relationship with them; it has hardly a syllable in common with them. (Eusebius' History 7.25)

He continues with several other arguments, including the good linguistic style of the Greek in which the Gospel and Epistle are written, contrasted with the poor style of Revelation. On the Gospel and Epistle of John, he observes of their style:

By phraseology also we can measure the difference between the Gospel and Epistle and the Revelation. The first two are written not only without any blunders in the use of Greek, but with remarkable skill as regards diction, logical thought, and orderly expression. It is impossible to find in them one barbarous word or solecism, or any kind of vulgarism. (Eusebius' History 7.25)

On Revelation, he comments:

I observed that his language and style are not really Greek: he uses barbarous idioms, and is sometimes guilty of solecisms. There is no need to pick these out now; for I have not said these things in order to pour scorn on him -- do not imagine it -- but simply to prove the dissimilarity between these books. (Eusebius' History 7.25)

Here we see an early scholarly argument about the authorship of a book in the ancient church. The question had arisen: was the "John" who wrote this book the same as John the apostle? We see that the possible attribution to an apostle did not automatically gain acceptance for the attribution, nor exempt the book from criticism and scholarly review. We see the early church with critical faculties engaged, with careful, objective, logical, and verifiable arguments advanced about authorship. We see that the early church was capable of distinguishing the question of a book's usefulness from that of a book's authorship.

Though it is common enough to hear the early church disparaged as uncritical, here we see an early church scholar using methods still used by modern scholars, and reaching basically the same conclusions. Of the different lines of scholarly argument that Revelation and the Gospel of John were written by different authors, many of these appear already well-developed and well articulated, with examples, in the works of Dionysius of Alexandria in the 200's A.D. Scholarship such as this was part of the process by which the early church evaluated books. Dionysius, as head of the catechetical school of Alexandria first, and later as Bishop of Alexandria, set the pace for scholarship in his day. He anticipated what we consider our "modern" critical methods by not only centuries, but by well over a millenium.

Two degrees of separation

In my interest to know how closely various people knew Jesus, I have also made a list of those in the New Testament recorded as having directly known someone who knew Jesus. Again, we have many unnamed people who met Jesus' disciples or the beneficiaries of his healings, but are not included here because they are not named.

Below is a list of people named in the New Testament who had known someone with one degree of separation from Jesus. Again, if someone shows up briefly (e.g. during a trial or hearing) but shows no interest in the Christian message, they are not included.

ID	Person	Connection to Jesus	Reference	Hometown or region
2-01	Aeneas	Healed by Peter	Acts 9:32-35	Lydda
2-02	Aristarchus	Met James when visiting Jerusalem with Paul. Other points of interest: also met Philip the evangelist and deacon (Acts 21:8).	Acts 20:4, Acts 21:17-18	Thessalonica
2-03	Barnabas aka Joseph	Met Peter, James, and John in Jerusalem; met Peter again when Peter came to Antioch Other points of interest: also related to Mark.	Acts 4:36, Galatians 2:1, 2:9, 2:13. Colossians 4:10.	Originally from Cyprus
2-04	Cornelius	Had Peter to his home and learned of Jesus from Peter	Acts 10	Caesarea
2-05	Dorcas aka Tabitha	Raised from the dead by Peter.	Acts 9:36-42	Joppa
2-06	Judas Barsabbas	Knew at least Peter and James. By his own reputation as being mentioned in Jerusalem as among the leaders of the church, he probably knew them before the meeting recorded in Acts 15. If the meeting in Acts 15 is the same as described in Paul’s letter to the Galatians, then Judas Barsabbas would also have known John.	Acts 15:22	Possibly Jerusalem
2-07	Luke	Met at least James when traveling to Jerusalem. Other points of interest: also knew Mark first-hand. See Philemon vv. 23-24, Colossians 4:10, 14. Another meeting besides these is also suggested in 2 Timothy 4:11-13.	Beginning at Acts 16:10, Luke is at times traveling with Paul and recording the action first-hand. Records in first person where he went to Jerusalem and met at least James (Acts 21:17-18).	Possibly Troas
2-08	Mark aka John Mark	Companion of Peter. Peter singles him out to call him his “son”. Considered by the church of Alexandria to have been the first bishop of the church at Alexandria. Other points of interest: knew Luke and Paul first-hand; was related to Barnabas.	1 Peter 5:13	Possibly Jerusalem originally; his mother’s home was there.
2-09	Mary, mother of Mark	Knew Peter first-hand and had him in her home at least once.	Acts 12:12	Jerusalem
2-10	Nicanor	Appointed as a deacon by “the Twelve”	Acts 6:2-6	Jerusalem
2-11	Nicholas of Antioch	Appointed as a deacon by “the Twelve”	Acts 6:2-6	By how he is named, probably originally from Antioch, though seems to have been living in Jerusalem
2-12	Parmenas	Appointed as a deacon by “the Twelve”	Acts 6:2-6	Jerusalem
2-13	Paul aka Saul	Stayed for 15 days with Peter. Met with Peter, James, and John in Jerusalem. Met Peter again in Antioch.	Acts 15, Galatians 1:18, Galatians 2:1-19, 11-14.	Originally from Tarsus, probably studied in Jerusalem, traveled extensively.
2-14	Philip	Appointed as a deacon by “the Twelve”	Acts 6:2-6	Jerusalem
2-15	Procorus	Appointed as a deacon by “the Twelve”	Acts 6:2-6	Jerusalem
2-16	Rhoda	Familiar enough with Peter to recognize his voice through the door. Servant girl in the house of Mary, mother of Mark.	Acts 12:13-14	Jerusalem
2-17	Secundus	Met James when visiting Jerusalem with Paul. Other points of interest: also met Philip the evangelist and deacon (Acts 21:8).	Acts 20:4, Acts 21:17-18	Thessalonica
2-18	Silas	Knew at least Peter and James. By his own reputation as being mentioned in Jerusalem as among the leaders of the church, he probably knew them before the meeting recorded in Acts 15. If the meeting in Acts 15 is the same as described in Paul’s letter to the Galatians, then Judas Barsabbas would also have known John. Helped Peter write 1 Peter. Other points of interest: based on 1 Peter, would also have known Mark.	Acts 15:22; 1 Peter 5:12	Possibly originally from Jerusalem
2-19	Simon the Tanner	Host to Peter during his stay in Joppa	Acts 9:43 and following	Joppa
2-20	Sopater son of Pyrrhus	Met James when visiting Jerusalem with Paul. Other points of interest: also met Philip the evangelist and deacon (Acts 21:8).	Acts 20:4, Acts 21:17-18	Berea
2-21	Stephen	Appointed as a deacon by “the Twelve”	Acts 6:2-6	Jerusalem
2-22	Timon	Appointed as a deacon by “the Twelve”	Acts 6:2-6	Jerusalem
2-23	Titus	Accompanied Paul on a visit to Jerusalem when Paul was meeting with Peter, James, and John. Other points of interest: Received a personal letter from Paul; also knew Tychicius.	Galatians 2:1 and 2:9; Letter to Titus
2-24	Trophimus	Met James when visiting Jerusalem with Paul. Other points of interest: also met Philip the evangelist and deacon (Acts 21:8).	Acts 20:4, Acts 21:17-18	Province of Asia
2-25	Tychicus	Met James when visiting Jerusalem with Paul. Other points of interest: also met Philip the evangelist and deacon (Acts 21:8). Seen with Paul during his imprisonment and is listed in the same greetings chain as Onesimus, Aristarchus, Mark, Jesus Justus, Luke, and Demas.	Acts 20:4, Acts 21:17-18 among others.	Province of Asia

One degree of separation

I have been curious how many people are recorded in the New Testament as having known Jesus directly. Many of the people who are mentioned meeting him are not named. Even a number of the people healed by him are not named.

Below is a list of people named in the New Testament who had known Jesus directly either as friends, family, or disciples who had direct knowledge of his life or teachings; who were healed by Jesus or had family healed by Jesus and so had direct knowledge of his power; or who had him in their home at some point and so had direct knowledge of him. Not included are people who met him but had no significant interaction as far as we can tell (e.g. Simon the Cyrene), or those who met him only at his trial and did not hear him teach or see him perform miracles (e.g. Pontius Pilate).

The much-disputed letters (Hebrews, 2 & 3 John, 2 Peter) are not included. They also, possibly not coincidentally, have little information to add.

ID	Person	Relationship to Jesus	Reference	Hometown or region
1-01	Andrew	Disciple Other points of interest: had formerly been a disciple of John the Baptist	Matthew 4:13, 18 John 1:40, 1:44 (Many references in the texts; the ones listed help locate his home)	On the sea of Galilee, from Bethsaida near Capernaum
1-02	Bar Timaeus	Healed by Jesus	Mark 10:46 and parallels	Jericho
1-03	Bartholomew	Disciple	Matthew 10:3 among others
1-04	Cleopas	Follower; probably also friend of disciples in that he knew where to find them when they were in hiding. Saw Jesus and spoke with him after his resurrection at least twice, once on the road to Emmaus and again later the same evening back in Jerusalem.	Luke 24:13-33
1-05	Jairus	Father of a girl that Jesus raised from the dead Other point of interest: synagogue ruler	Mark 5:22 and parallels
1-06	James, son of Alphaeus	Disciple	Matthew 10:3 among others
1-07	James, brother of Jesus	Jesus’ brother	Mark 6:3-4 and others	Nazareth
1-08	James, son of Zebedee	Disciple	Matthew 4:13, 21	Originally from Capernaum or its vicinity.
1-09	Joanna	Follower and financial supporter	Luke 8:1-3	Wife of Chuza who was Herod’s steward, so may have been in Herod's household
1-10	John, son of Zebedee	Disciple	Matthew 4:13, 21 among many others	Originally from Capernaum or its vicinity.
1-11	John the Baptist	Cousin / forerunner	See Luke 1:39-40, John 1:28	Hill country of Judah, later on banks of the river Jordan.
1-12	Joseph (aka Barsabbas and Justus)	Disciple	Acts 1:21-23
1-13	Joseph	Jesus’ father / step-father	Matthew and Luke birth narratives	Nazareth
1-14	Joseph, son of Joseph	Jesus’ brother (or step-brother / half-brother)	Mark 6:3-4 and others	Nazareth
1-15	Joseph of Arimathea	Disciple	Matthew 27:57	Arimathea
1-16	Judas, son of James	Disciple	Luke 6:16 and Acts 1:13
1-17	Judas, son of Joseph	Jesus’ brother	Mark 6:3-4 and others	Nazareth
1-18	Judas Iscariot	Disciple	Matthew 10:3 among others
1-19	Lazarus	Raised from the dead by Jesus; referred to by Jesus as a friend; known to the disciples.	John 11:1-44 and John 12:1-10.	Bethany
1-20	Malchus	Healed by Jesus. Other point of interest: Servant of the high priest, wounded during Jesus' arrest.	John 18:10-11
1-21	Martha of Bethany	Hosted Jesus; was also sister to Lazarus who was raised from the dead.	Luke 10; John 11-12	Bethany
1-22	Mary	Jesus’ mother	Numerous	Nazareth, at least for a time.
1-23	Mary Magdalene	Follower Beneficiary of a healing and financial supporter.	Mark 15:40-41 Luke 8:1-3	Probably originally from Magdala
1-24	Mary of Bethany	Hosted Jesus; was also sister to Lazarus who was raised from the dead.	Luke 10; John 11-12	Bethany
1-25	Mary the mother of James and Joses	Follower	Mark 15:40-41
1-26	Matthew / Levi	Disciple	Matthew 9:9 among others	Vicinity of Capernaum
1-27	Matthias	Disciple	Acts 1:21-23
1-28	Nathanael	Disciple	John 1:45-51, John 21:2	Cana
1-29	Nicodemus	Met with Jesus. Other point of interest: member of Sanhedrin.	John 3:1-21	May have lived in Jerusalem
1-30	Peter (also known as Simon and Cephas)	Disciple	Matthew 4:13, 18John 1:40, 1:44	On the sea of Galilee, from Bethsaida near Capernaum
1-31	Philip	Disciple	John 1:43-44	Bethsaida in Galilee
1-32	Salome	Follower	Mark 15:40-41
1-33	Simon, son of Joseph	Jesus’ brother	Mark 6:3-4 and others	Nazareth
1-34	Simon the Leper	Hosted Jesus at dinner in his home	Matthew 26:6 and parallels	Bethany
1-35	Simon the Zealot	Disciple	Matthew 10:4, Acts 1:13
1-36	Susanna	Follower and financial supporter.	Luke 8:1-3
1-37	Thaddaeus	Disciple	Matthew 10:3, Mark 3:18
1-38	Thomas	Disciple	Matthew 10:3 among others
1-39	Zacchaeus the tax collector	Hosted Jesus in his home	Luke 19:1-9	Jericho

There are times when I leave the location blank even though an inference seems fairly obvious. I would generally prefer that my ideas of what is 'obvious' should be double-checked by someone with more historical background in that era and culture. A 'location' listed in this table has some direct evidence behind it.

What is the shelf life of oral tradition?

In the earliest church, information about Jesus was first passed down by word of mouth. What was the time-span between the events and when they were written? The first written information we have about the life of Jesus -- probably the information in the letters of Paul -- was written 20, 30, or even 35 years after Jesus was gone. The earliest gospel that we have may have been written 35 to 45 years after the fact, and the latest Gospel that the church generally accepts was written 60 - 70 years after the fact. Later, in the 100's A.D., we still find information being passed down by word of mouth about the events of Jesus' life. What is the shelf life of this information? For how long is it reliable?

I would like to begin with the first time of which I'm sure that information passed along about Jesus as "oral tradition" is plainly incorrect. In Irenaeus' writing Against Heresies we have a tradition passed along that Jesus' ministry lasted over 10 years -- closer to 20 -- and that he died close to the age 50 (Against Heresies II:22). This is given on the basis of oral tradition. Irenaeus wrote about 150 years after the events in question. At this distance in time, the oral traditions available to Irenaeus about the events of Jesus' life are no longer reliable.

We should be careful to note that the passage of time alone is not the problem, nor is Irenaeus as an author. He also examines information from written sources with much sounder results. In the same section in which Irenaeus takes oral tradition for the untenable idea that Jesus' ministry lasted nearly 20 years until the age 50, he also reviews the written record from the Gospel of John and shows that Jesus' ministry did in fact last more than one year. From the text, he is able to show that Jesus' ministry probably spanned three or four years based on how many separate occasions Passover is recorded. However, Irenaeus is not yet to the point of acknowledging that the written material in his hand has now become more reliable than oral tradition of the events of 150 years in the past.

Shelf life or half-life?

Some of the material that I have reviewed suggests that the key question is not only how many years have passed, but also how many degrees of separation are involved. For example, I can reliably pass along information of things that happened 30 years ago; my mother can reliably pass along information of things that happened 50 or more years ago. My grandparents, who died just a few years ago, could still pass along reliable information of things that happened 70 years ago based on their own personal experience. The key then is not how many years have passed, at least not directly. The key is whether we're dealing with firsthand knowledge, second hand knowledge, third hand knowledge, or knowledge even further removed from the original memories.

From what I have seen and what I have read, I expect the pattern of reliability is comparable to half-life. "Half-life" describes the pattern of decay of radiation: over a certain amount of time, half the strength or potency of the material is gone, and when that length of time passes again, half again of what is left will be gone, and so on. This is a rough comparison that there is not a steady rate of decrease, but that the largest decrease in the quality of word-of-mouth information happens within the first few generations. During the first generation, word of mouth -- that is, hearing personally from someone with direct knowledge -- is the best available form of knowledge. As the generations pass, that kind of direct knowledge is simply no longer available by word of mouth. The more generations the word-of-mouth information is passed along, the less reliable it becomes unless there is some sort of safeguard for preserving it. Like a broadcast signal, the further removed we are from the source, the lower the quality of the signal. Each passing generation sees the loss of certain parts of the memory; unless recorded in permanent form, still more pieces of the memory will be lost with time.

When it comes to the reliability of the oral traditions about the life of Jesus, I am willing to trust first generation and second-generation information, but not information further removed from the source than that. In the case of Irenaeus' mistaken oral traditions, we see that at the time he wrote, the generation of those with firsthand and second-hand information had died decades previously.

I decided from two separate lines of argument -- both from my own family history and from a review of the quality of information passed along by oral tradition about Jesus' ministry during the second century -- that firsthand information was of course the best, but the retelling by someone who heard that firsthand account still contained much useful and reliable information. Anything beyond that -- anything three or more steps removed from the original event -- had too much fading to be useful or reliable at any practical level. Oral tradition may last longer in oral cultures, but to the best of my knowledge the majority of Church writers of the late 100's A.D. were not from oral cultures.

Interestingly, Eusebius records something similar in the History:

But when the sacred band of the apostles had in various ways reached the end of their life, and the generation of those privileged to listen with their own ears to the divine wisdom had passed on, then godless error began to take shape ... (History III.32)

The apostles had the confidence and certainty of direct knowledge; their hearers in turn had direct knowledge of what the apostles had said. But when knowledge becomes more indirect than that, the quality of information degrades. We have then also Eusebius' observation that knowledge at two degrees of separation is still reasonably reliable, but that three degrees of separation is past the useful shelf life of oral tradition.

---

Some would note that there are cultures which have better methods of preserving oral traditions. This is likely enough, but not directly related to my current point since the Christian writers of the mid to late 100's A.D. do not seem to have been from such a culture. The point remains that in this case, the expiration date on oral tradition about Jesus comes with the dying out of the second generation of Christians, those who had themselves known people who had known Jesus. It would be interesting to see if living among a community of people who shared the same memories would help preserve the quality of those memories from fading. In the first generation, the best information is arguably the word of mouth information from those who knew directly. But as we turn from the second generation to the third generation after an event, the best information is preserved not by word-of-mouth, but in writing.

Eusebius on Peter: historical methods

Eusebius is an important witness to the early church’s views. He is remembered, first and foremost, for the History he left of the early church. He may have seen himself primarily as a researcher and compiler; his greatest accomplishment in the History was not so much original writing as preserving the writings of earlier times, transmitting the notes of still earlier stages of Christianity. He has been criticized at times for not being skeptical enough of his sources; there are places where, to the best of our knowledge, that criticism seems justified.

I am interested in reviewing Eusebius’ comments on the canon of Scripture from a somewhat different angle than usual. Rather than re-examine whether Eusebius recorded the various books as accepted, disputed, or rejected in his day -- which has been well-recorded by many – here I will instead look at what he names as the basis for those decisions. As a representative of the early church and working inside the church’s tradition of scholarship, how did Eusebius reach his conclusions? How do his methods, materials, and results compare to those of modern scholarship?

The canon of Scripture was still in its formative stages in Eusebius’ day. That is to say, there were still ongoing disputes about a few books as to whether or not they should be considered as Scripture. Also to the interest of modern readers, there were a number of books attributed to Peter but rejected by Eusebius -- and the church in general -- as not having come from Peter. How was this determination made? Was the decision based on good judgment, or was it -- as some now contend -- simply a matter of the winners writing the history books? For the early church, what determined which books were 'in' and which books were 'out'?

Eusebius permits us a look behind the scenes, a view of an era in early Christian history when the question of which side would "win" -- and on what grounds -- was still under consideration. This current post will review Eusebius’ comments on the writings attributed to Peter. Eusebius’ treatment of other writers will be discussed separately as time permits.

In History III.3, Eusebius reviews the various books or writings attributed to Peter. By this I do not mean only books that we would recognize as being written by Peter, but the whole set of books that anyone had ever claimed were written by Peter, to the best of Eusebius’ knowledge. The writings which he evaluated included two letters attributed to Peter, an Acts of Peter, a Gospel of Peter, a Preaching of Peter, and a Revelation according to Peter. Of these six writings, Eusebius recognized only one as genuine. By genuine, he meant actually written by Peter. On what basis did he recognize the one writing but not the others?

Of Peter one epistle, known as his first, is accepted, and this the early fathers quoted freely, as undoubtedly genuine, in their own writings. But the second Petrine epistle we have been taught to regard as uncanonical; many, however, have thought it valuable and have honored it with a place among the other Scriptures. On the other hand, in the case of the ‘Acta’ attributed to him, the ‘Gospel’ that bears his name, the ‘Preaching’ called his, and the so-called ‘Revelation’, we have no reason at all to include these among the traditional Catholic Scriptures, for neither in early days nor in our own has any Church writer made use of their testimony. In the course of my narrative I shall take care to indicate in each period which of the Church writers of the time used the various disputed books; their comments on the canonical and recognized Scriptures; and their remarks about the other sort.

These, then, are the works attributed to Peter, of which I have recognized only one epistle as authentic and accepted by the early fathers. (History III.3, emphasis added)

Eusebius notes that his method is based on a review of the earlier writings of the church. Anyone who has read Eusebius will know his wide familiarity with the early writings of the church. In a number of cases, our only knowledge of an earlier source comes from Eusebius in his diligent cataloging and preservation of what had gone before. His familiarity with early church writings placed him in a good position to evaluate what had been known and accepted in earlier times. It was this familiarity with older historical sources which he used as evidence as to whether a book was known and attributed to a certain writer at an earlier date.

We should also notice that Eusebius’ general stance is that a writing was not accepted unless there was positive reason to accept it. That is to say, the default position was one of skepticism. Rather than accepting any book by default unless it could be disproved, the position was the opposite: he rejected any book which did not have historical evidence in its favor. Of the six contenders presented to him as supposed writings of Peter, he rejected five of them, saying “we have no reason at all to include these.” There is no hint that simply dropping the name Peter or attaching it to a writing was enough to succeed in giving authority to a writing or to succeed in convincing the early church that a writing actually came from the author named. The early church was not so naïve as to accept any writing that came to it, even one with the name of an apostle attached. On what basis, then, did they separate the early and authentic writings from the forgeries?

Eusebius explains this also: they made an evaluation of the historically earlier writers to determine which works they cited and which they did not. On this basis, Eusebius determines that the letter we have as 1 Peter was genuine, and bases this determination on the fact that “the early fathers quoted [the first letter] freely.” As far as the Acts of Peter, the Revelation of Peter, the Gospel of Peter and the Preaching of Peter, “neither in early days nor in our own has any Church writer made use of their testimony.” In searching through the history of quotations in earlier writings, Eusebius applied the objective methods of a scholar pursuing what is authentic. We may also note that he had better access to more ancient materials than are now available, materials which have now been lost to us.

Modern critical scholars still use this method to inform their own decisions. The history of the other writers who quoted a book or letter is part of the scholar's toolbox when evaluating a writing, especially useful when a question arises about the date or authorship of the work being quoted. Interestingly, although some disparage Eusebius for being too uncritical about his sources -- and most would recognize that he makes the occasional mistake in judgment -- many modern scholars have reached the same conclusion about the writings attributed to Peter that is recorded in Eusebius: namely, that of all the writings passed around under Peter's name, only the first letter can be attributed to him with any certainty. Eusebius notes that the second letter attributed to Peter may have been received more on its usefulness than on any sense of certainty about who wrote it. Other writings attributed to Peter are deemed to be spurious and therefore of lesser interest to those who want to hear from Jesus' own apostles. So while it is common for modern scholars to claim that the early church was uncritical, it is worth noticing that, in this case, we have an early church writer using similar methods to those recognized by modern scholars and reaching similar conclusions. That is to say, when we review Eusebius' scholarship focusing on Peter's supposed writings – and the level of confidence we may have about each writing – the methods and findings of this early church scholar are comparable to the results obtained by modern critical scholarship.

Patristics Carnival XVII

Welcome to the November 2008 Patristics Carnival.

The Patristics Carnival is a monthly collection of patristics-related posts initiated and organized by Phil Snider.

Book Reviews

• Michael A. G. Haykin posts a book review of Brian McLaren's Finding Our Way Again: The Return of the Ancient Practices.
  
• At Leshem Shamayim we have a review of Gillian Cloke's This Female Man of God: Women and Spiritual Power in the Patristic Age, AD 35-450.
  
• Jennifer Fitz reviews Pope Benedict XVI's The Fathers.
  
• Scott also has high praise for Pope Benedict XVI's The Fathers.
  
• Seumus MacDonald reviews Classical Trinitarian Theology by Tarmo Toom.
  
• Bryan Gault offers an in-depth review of Jason Byassee's Praise Seeking Understanding.
  
• Carl McColman reviews Norman Russell's The Doctrine of Deification in the Greek Patristic Tradition.
  
• Paul Glavic writes Inspecting the Church's Jewish Roots: several quotes in praise of Marvin Wilson's Our Father Abraham and Jacques Doukhan's Israel and the Church.
  
• Phil Snider reviews Mike Aquilina's Signs and Mysteries: Revealing Ancient Christian Symbols.
  
• gives more of a preview than a review of Brevard Childs' The Canonical Shaping of the Pauline Corpus

Introductions to the Fathers

• William Weedon answers a question he's often asked: where do I begin reading the church fathers? He also offers a "pastristics quote of the day" series for the enjoyment of his readers.
  
• Patrice Fagnant-MacArthur writes on a non-intimidating introduction to the rich yet vast area of patristics in Spending Time with the Church Fathers.
  
• The Spirit-Filled Puritan, a student taking an introductory patristics class, may remind us of our own first forays into the field of patristics.
  
• MCG offers some introductory comments in A note on how to read patristics.
  
• CFC Bible studies continues their audio series on the church fathers with Early Church Fathers Part 2.

Catenas

• Jason Stellman, a Calvinist preacher, considers Clement and Augustine on Apostolic Succession.
  
• Tad DeLay quotes those church fathers who spoke out against violence, war and soldiering in more early quotes on (non)violence (part 4).
  
• The blogger Polycarp considers the church fathers on the unique trustworthiness of Scripture.
  
• Taylor Marshall joins the growing list of bloggers with citations of patristic views of abortion in response to Nancy Pelosi's comments.
  
• Damon offers a catena on the early church's affirmation of Jesus' deity.

Commentaries, Research, and Assessments of the Fathers

• Rick Brannan of ricoblog has a piece on tracking down similarities between the NT and the apostolic fathers.
  
• From Dust to Doxology contrasts the early church's "maximalist" approach to exegesis and Christology with the modern American church's "minimalist" approach to exegesis and Christology.
  
• Mark Miravalle considers the church fathers views on Mary.
  
• Der Evangelische Theologe offers a three-part look on Augustine in Contemporary Trinitarian Theology: part 1, part 2, part 3.
  
• VC at Synodos considers whether Ignatius of Antioch's writings can be considered as early evidence of the teaching of Real Presence.
  
• Fr. Michale Durka taks a look at St Ephrem of Syria's approach to Scripture, discussing, typology, mystagogy, and the Hebraic roots of St. Ephraim's approach.
  
• Creed or Chaos considers whether Augustine is a precursor to covenant theology and perhaps even the federal headship of Adam of Reformed/Calvinist soteriology.
  
• David Waltz discusses whether the ante-Nicene church was subordinationist and also reviews Subordination in St. Irenaeus.
  
• New Start Church considers Irenaeus as an early witness for the necessity of water baptism.
  
• Jason Engwer considers how to assess the perennially controversial Origen.
  
• The Reverend Canon Chandler Holder Jones looks at the Anglican view of the seven ecumenical councils of the early church.
  
• Benjamin Sternke considers the benefits of Scriptural interpretation with an eye to the ancient church.

Lives of the Fathers: Ignatius of Antioch

This month saw a number of tributes to and commemorations of Ignatius of Antioch in honor of his feast day:

• Ville Platte's Catholic Youth Group has a tribute to Ignatius' work and importance and also not one but two artistic depictions of him being eaten by a lion, one more graphic than the other.
  
• Idle Speculations writes on the life of St Ignatius of Antioch.
  
• Allen J. Troupe offers an overview of the life and writings of Ignatius.

Lives of the Fathers: Other than Ignatius

• Jake Knotts offers a brief hagiography of St. Demetrios.
  
• Lisa Wheeler offers a brief tribute to St. Serapion of Antioch.

Judaica

• John Hobbins writes on the discovery of four new pages of a Hebrew Ben Sira manuscript.
  
• Kevin Edgecomb writes on Neusner's theology of the oral Torah.

Possibly Polemical Patristics

This section has the caveat lector entries, where the posts are in some ways incendiary, polemical, or otherwise calculated to provoke, but may still contain material of interest for carnival readers.

• Frank Lesko writes on the evangelical ressourcement movement in Protestants Love the Pastristics, Saints and Monks.
  
• Beggars All, possibly in preparation for Reformation Day, shows Luther's respect for the church fathers and his disrespect for the way he viewed his opponents' use of them in Opponents Using the Early Church Fathers.
  
• Stephen Garrett of BaptistGadfly considers some patristic authors on Peter as "the rock".

Apocryphal Corner

• Ethan R. Longhenry writes Reflections on the Gospel of Judas, considering matters of authorship, provenance, and relationship to New Testament texts.
  
• Apocryphicity considers the childhood of Jesus from the Acts of Andrew and Matthias.
  
• April DeConick offers some preliminary thoughts on the possibility that the Gospel of Judas may be in the genre of parody aiming to mock the apostolic position. (For my regular readers, you should understand that DeConick is probably not entirely unsympathetic to that aim.)

Conclusion

And that's all for the November 2008 patristics carnival. Keep an eye on Phil's blog for details about the next edition of the Carnival.

Anniversary offering for the dead in Augustine's Confessions

I have some interest in tracking the history of the practice of anniversary offerings for the dead in the early Christian church. In re-reading St Augustine's Confessions recently, I came across a passage that bears on the subject. In fact, Book VI Chapter 2 deals largely with this subject. Here are some relevant excerpts, though the passage is lengthier than I will quote and is worth reading in full:

There was an occasion when my mother had brought, as was her custom in Africa, cakes and bread and wine to some of the chapels built in memory of the saints and was forbidden to do this by the doorkeeper. When she found that it was the bishop (note: St Ambrose) who had forbidden the practice, she accepted his ban ...

But when she found that that famous preacher and that great example of piety (still St Ambrose) had forbidden the practice even to those who used it soberly -- so that drunkards should not be given an occasion for excess and also because this kind of anniversary funeral feast is very like the superstitious ceremony of the pagans -- she most willingly gave up her old habit. Instead of a basket filled with the fruits of the earth, she had learned to bring to the chapels of the Martyrs a breast full of something much purer, her prayers.

It is interesting to note that the annual offerings of the dead (also seen in Tertullian) were practiced apparently without opposition in Africa, but received a flat prohibition under St Ambrose. The practice of the church in that day was not uniform on the matter of offerings for the dead. It is also interesting to note Ambrose's reason for prohibiting the annual offerings even when done with sobriety: these offerings resembled pagan practices. They may have been a continuation of pagan practices carried over into Christianity by converts from pagan religions. At any rate, while Ambrose's ban was by no means church-wide, it is an interesting episode in the history of offerings for the dead within Christianity.

Did Tertullian speak of purgatory?

The doctrine of purgatory is a matter of controversy between different church bodies. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia's entry on purgatory, "the Church has always taught the doctrine of purgatory." The earliest Christian writer cited is Tertullian, who lived in the late 100's A.D. and early 200's A.D. Here I will review the works cited with a question in mind: did Tertullian speak of purgatory? The Catholic Encyclopedia's article on purgatory cites two of Tertullian's works: De corona militis and De monogamia.

De corona militis
Tertullian's aim in this writing is to show that a Christian, if he is in the Roman army, may not wear the customary crown or wreath, as it amounts to idolatry.

"De corona militis" mentions prayers for the dead as an Apostolic ordinance ..." - Catholic Encyclopedia, Purgatory, subsection titled Tradition.

The reference is apparently to a sentence in chapter 3, a chapter which is only a paragraph in its entirety. Because of its relative brevity, I will reproduce the entire paragraph to provide some context allowing the reader to gauge the accuracy of various comments on it:

[1] And how long shall we draw the saw to and fro through this line, when we have an ancient practice, which by anticipation has made for us the state, i.e., of the question? If no passage of Scripture has prescribed it, assuredly custom, which without doubt flowed from tradition, has confirmed it. For how can anything come into use, if it has not first been handed down? Even in pleading tradition, written authority, you say, must be demanded. [2] Let us inquire, therefore, whether tradition, unless it be written, should not be admitted. Certainly we shall say that it ought not to be admitted, if no cases of other practices which, without any written instrument, we maintain on the ground of tradition alone, and the countenance thereafter of custom, affords us any precedent. To deal with this matter briefly, I shall begin with baptism. When we are going to enter the water, but a little before, in the presence of the congregation and under the hand of the president, we solemnly profess that we disown the devil, and his pomp, and his angels. [3] Hereupon we are thrice immersed, making a somewhat ampler pledge than the Lord has appointed in the Gospel. Then when we are taken up (as new-born children), we taste first of all a mixture of milk and honey, and from that day we refrain from the daily bath for a whole week. We take also, in congregations before daybreak, and from the hand of none but the presidents, the sacrament of the Eucharist, which the Lord both commanded to be eaten at meal-times, and enjoined to be taken by all alike. As often as the anniversary comes round, we make offerings for the dead as birthday honours. [4] We count fasting or kneeling in worship on the Lord's day to be unlawful. We rejoice in the same privilege also from Easter to Whitsunday. We feel pained should any wine or bread, even though our own, be cast upon the ground. At every forward step and movement, at every going in and out, when we put on our clothes and shoes, when we bathe, when we sit at table, when we light the lamps, on couch, on seat, in all the ordinary actions of daily life, we trace upon the forehead the sign. (Tertullian, De Coronis Militis, Chapter 3 in entirety, emphasis added)

Tertullian indicated his purpose in his introductory notes in the previous chapter: to cite things held by custom or tradition that are not in Scripture. Reviewing the list, some of these ancient customs have survived into modern times, while others have not, such as refraining from bathing for a week after baptism or feeling pained when normal household bread falls upon the ground. At any rate, Tertullian mentions the practice of making offerings for the dead. This is not, however, mentioned as an Apostolic ordinance.

There is another place in the same writing which has some bearing on the question of whether the primitive church taught a doctrine of purgatory. Chapter 11 contains a discussion of whether it is permissible for a Christian to be a Roman soldier in the first place. He writes a chain of questions designed to show the incompatibility of being a Christian in the Roman army.

Shall it be held lawful to make an occupation of the sword, when the Lord proclaims that he who uses the sword shall perish by the sword? And shall the son of peace take part in the battle when it does not become him even to sue at law?

He multiplies examples at some length, then comes to the one of interest for our present purposes:

And shall the Christian be burned according to camp rule, when he was not permitted to burn incense to an idol, when to him Christ remitted the punishment of fire?

This quote, perhaps less advantageous to the idea that Tertullian spoke of purgatory, is not considered in the article.

De Monogamia
De Monogamia, or On monogamy, is a writing that few Christians today would be comfortable endorsing. It was written while Tertullian was a Montanist, generally considered a heretical sect. The purpose of the writing is to show that it is morally wrong -- a breach of marriage vows and a rejection of monogamy -- for a widow to remarry. The teachings of Paul on remarriage are explicitly set aside in favor of a supposed new revelation of the Holy Spirit. For all of Tertullian's colorful views, he does still bear a kind of witness to the state of Christian teaching in the primitive church.

"... and in "De Monogamia" (cap. x, P. L., II, col. 912) he advises a widow "to pray for the soul of her husband, begging repose for him and participation in the first resurrection"; he commands her also "to make oblations for him on the anniversary of his demise," and charges her with infidelity if she neglect to succour his soul." - Catholic Encyclopedia, Purgatory, subsection titled Tradition.

Here, then, is the applicable section of Tertullian's writing:

Indeed, she prays for his soul, and requests refreshment for him meanwhile, and fellowship (with him) in the first resurrection; and she offers (her sacrifice) on the anniversaries of his falling asleep. For, unless she does these deeds, she has in the true sense divorced him, so far as in her lies; and indeed the more iniquitously----inasmuch as (she did it) as far as was in her power----because she had no power (to do it); and with the more indignity, inasmuch as it is with more indignity if (her reason for doing it is) because he did not deserve it.

I think few of us would accept Tertullian's characterization of any widow's actions after the burial of her husband as a "divorce"; the point of interest is that he this time mentions both prayers for the dead and offerings or sacrifices for the dead.

Did Tertullian speak of purgatory?
The question then remains: did Tertullian speak of purgatory? If purgatory is, as the Catholic Encyclopedia states, "a place or condition of temporal punishment for those who, departing this life in God's grace, are, not entirely free from venial faults, or have not fully paid the satisfaction due to their transgressions," then we must ask whether Tertullian has spoken of these things when we ask whether he spoke of purgatory. In the passages cited in the article on Purgatory, Tertullian does not mention a place or condition of punishment for the saved after death, or sinners paying the satisfaction due to their transgressions, or any reckoning of payment for sins apart from the cross of Christ or the final day of reckoning.

Among the interesting questions raised is the nature and purpose of the annual offerings for the departed. Is the offering simply the Mass, or is it something else? Was the intent to spare punishments in the present time as purgatory would suggest, or to have the person readier to participate in the resurrection, or to ease the mind and build the confidence of the living by the remembrance of Christ in the face of upcoming judgment? Similar questions arise about prayers for the dead: is the prayer intended as a plea for mercy in the face of coming judgment, or is the prayer intended as a plea for the mercy in the face of ongoing punishment? While Tertullian does not mention any of the key ingredients of purgatory, the standing practice of prayers for the dead came to play a role in the development of that doctrine.

In the final analysis, prayers for the dead are not incompatible with the doctrine of purgatory but not in themselves proof that the prayerful accept the basic premises of purgatory: that there is guilt not remitted for Christ's sake to those who inherit eternal life, and that such unremitted guilt works itself out as an ongoing punishment for the dead at some time between their deaths and the Last Day.

The other resurrections

And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up his spirit. At that moment the curtain fo the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook and the rocks split. The tombs broke open and the bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. They came out of the tombs, and after Jesus' resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many people. (Matthew 27:50-53)

Many times we -- comfortable moderns with a safe distance from the Bible -- take some of the things said by the gospels with a grain of salt. After all, if all the miraculous signs recorded at Jesus' death and resurrection had really occurred, wouldn't someone else have mentioned them?

Actually, other people did mention them; it's just a sign of our own unfamiliarity with the early church that such questions get raised. Here I'd like to spend a little time reviewing the mentions made of some of the miracles at Jesus' death and resurrection, focusing on documents written before the Council of Nicea. This is not an exhaustive list of the material, either; I consider it more of a "highlights" document containing some but not all of the materials readily available in the Ante-Nicene Fathers (ANF).

Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch
Antioch was an important center of early Christianity. Peter is reckoned as the first Bishop of Antioch, having taught there before he went to Rome. Ignatius, third bishop of Antioch, was a student of John the apostle, and was reported to have been made Bishop of Antioch by Peter. Of writings that survive and are attributed to him, seven are commonly reckoned as legitimate and authentic writings. From those letters of his reckoned as legitimate:

Letter to the Magnesians, Chapter 9:

… that we may be found the disciples of Jesus Christ, our only Master – how shall we be able to live apart from Him, whose disciples the prophets themselves in the Spirit did wait for Him as their teacher? And therefore He whom they rightly waited for, being come, raised them from the dead. (ANF Vol 1 p. 62)

Letter to the Trallians, Chapter 9

He truly assumed a body, for ‘the Word was made flesh,’ and lived upon earth without sin. For says He, ‘Which of you convicteth me of sin?’ He did in reality both eat and drink. He was crucified and died under Pontius Pilate. He really, and not merely in appearance, was crucified, and died, in the sight of beings in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth. By those in heaven I mean such as are possessed of incorporeal natures; by those on earth, the Jews and Romans, and such persons as were present at that time when the Lord was crucified; and by those under the earth, the multitude that arose along with the Lord. For says the Scripture, ‘Many bodies of the saints that slept arose,’ their graves being opened. He descended, indeed, into Hades alone, but He arose accompanied by a multitude; and rent asunder that means of separation which had existed from the beginning of the world, and cast down its partition-wall. (ANF Vol 1 p. 70)

Sextus Julius Africanus
Africanus was a Christian historian born around 160 A.D. and living til around 240 A.D. He lived for a time in Jerusalem and in Emmaus. Speaking of Christ, he writes of the miracles associated with Jesus' death and resurrection, even citing non-Christian contemporary historians on their notice of various miracles:

As to His works severally, and His cures effected upon body and soul, and the mysteries of His doctrine, and the resurrection from the dead, these have been most authoritatively set forth by His disciples and apostles before us. On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness; and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down. This darkness Thallus, in the third book of is History, calls, as appears to me without reason, an eclipse of the sun. For the Hebrews celebrate the Passover on the 14th day according to the moon, and the passion of our Savior falls on the day before the Passover; but an eclipse of the sun takes place only when the moon comes under the sun. And it cannot happen at any other time but in the interval between the first day of the new moon and the last of the old, that is, at their junction: how then should an eclipse be supposed to happen when the moon is almost diametrically opposite the sun? … Phlegon records that, in the time of Tiberius Ceasar, at full moon, there was a full eclipse of the sun from the sixth hour to the ninth – manifestly that one of which we speak. But what has an eclipse in common with an earthquake, the rending rocks, and the resurrection of the dead, and so great a perturbation throughout the universe? (ANF Vol 6 pp. 136-137)

Eusebius the Historian
Eusebius of Caesarea's greatest contribution to the church may well have been his extensive quotes of earlier documents, many of them now lost to us and preserved only by him. He preserves a record of a conversation involving Thaddaeus, one of the twelve apostles of Jesus:

And Thaddaeus said: For the present I will be silent, but, because I have been sent to preach the word of God, assemble me to-morrow all the people of thy city, and I will preach before them, and sow amongst them the word of life, and tell them about the coming of Christ, and how it took place; and about His mission, for what purpose he was sent by His father; and about His power and His deeds, and about the mysteries which He spake in the world, and by what power He wrought these things, and about His new preaching, and about His abasement and His humiliation, and how He humbled and emptied and abased Himself, and was crucified, and descended to Hades, and broke through the enclosure which had never been broken through before, and raised up the dead, and descended alone, and ascended with a great multitude to His Father. (ANF Vol 8 p. 653)

Alexander of Alexandria
Alexander of Alexandria died around 328 A.D. and so is not, like Thaddaeus, in a position to know for himself what happened in those days. But he does show that in the early church, the teaching of those others raised from the dead and the other miracles associated with Jesus' death and resurrection was taken for granted. If, as Africanus records, the earthquake and darkness were common knowledge and common memory even among the pagans, then we may better understand the early church's boldness in this.

For when our Lord was suffering upon the cross, the tombs were burst open, the infernal region was disclosed, the souls leapt forth, the dead returned to life, and many of them were seen in Jerusalem, whilst the mystery of the cross was being perfected; what time our Lord trampled upon death, dissolved the enmity, bound the strong man, and raised the trophy of the cross, His body being lifted up upon it, that the body might appear on high, and death to be depressed under the foot of flesh. Then the heavenly powers wondered, the angels were astonished, the elements trembled, every creature was shaken whilst they looked on this new mystery, and the terrific spectacle which was being enacted in the universe. Yet the entire people, as unconscious of the mystery, exulted over Christ in derision; although the earth was rocking, the mountains, the valleys, and the sea were shaken, and every creature of God was smitten with confusion. The lights of heaven were afraid, the sun fled away, the moon disappeared, the stars withdrew their shining, the day came to end; the angel in astonishment departed from the temple after the rending of the veil, and darkness covered the earth on which its Lord had closed His eyes. Meanwhile hell was with light resplendent, for thither had the star descended. The Lord, indeed, did not descend into hell in His body but in His Spirit. He forsooth is working everywhere, for whilst He raised the dead by His body, by His spirit was He liberating their souls. For when the body of the Lord was hung upon the cross, the tombs, as we have said, were opened; hell was unbarred. The dead received their life, the souls were sent back again into the world, and that because the Lord had conquered hell, had trodden down death, had covered the enemy with shame; therefore was it that the souls came forth from Hades, and the dead appeared upon the earth. (ANF Vol 6 p. 301)