Bettenson introduces the Didache on page 5.
The Didache was not re-discovered until 1875, when a Greek Patriarch found a manuscript from 1056 that contained copies of several ancient writings, including the Didache (also known as "The Teaching of the Apostles").
It was published in 1883 and caused a stir.
Why? "...it seemed likely to turn upside-down the received ideas of the early history of the ministry."
Reasons to believe it dates from very early church:
--it appears to be written in a time when itinerant prophets had not yet been displaced by a settled permanent ministry (p.6)
--episcopacy not yet universal form of church government
--"bishop" and "presbyter" still seem to mean the same thing or nearly
--"agape" meal still joined with Eucharist
--liturgy and theology still in early stages
Some scholars argued it had been written as early as 60 AD, or at least no later than 100 AD. Current scholarship places it more in the later second century.
Place of origin not certain, but probably Syria.
Apostles and prophets seem so prominent in the Didache that, when it was first published, the document lent a lot of support to the theory of the strength of early "charismatic ministry" in the church (God calling people directly and giving them special gifts). Harnack based his theory of the early ministry of the church on the basis of the Didache, arguing (if I'm reading this correctly) for a strong distinction between charismatic and administrative ministry. He saw preaching as the charismatic ministry (and "universal") and administrative ministry coming under bishops/presbyters/deacons at local level. Didache, in this view, is a document that shows the church making the transition from more itinerant, charismatic ministry to more local, established adminsitrative ministry.
Bettenson spends a good chunk of a paragraph explaining all that, and then seems to dismiss it as having no real warrant either in Scripture or in the Didache. He makes some good points, especially noting that the NT doesn't seem to make a distinction between "charismatic" and "ordained" minstries (and that in fact, in places like 2 Tim. 1:6, seems to indicate that ordination conveys charisma).
I find myself fairly confused by the end of Bettenson's summary regarding what, then, is the full significance/importance of the Didache. Clearly it has been influential as various scholars/theologians seek to put together a sense of the development of early ministry in the church, and how that ministry was ordered. But some of their more widespread conclusions haven't been wise. So what is the significance of the Didache for our understanding? Still trying to unpack that.
The actual excerpts from the Didache, provided in Bettenson, can be found on pages 50-53 of the reader, and seem pretty straightforward. There does seem to be some tension within its instructions regarding how to treat traveling/itinerant prophets (and how to ascertain true from false prophets) which Guy (I think) treats in a more in-depth way. I'll try to get to that reading next.
Saturday, September 11, 2010
Thursday, September 9, 2010
From Jerusalem to Rome: Henry Chadwick's The Early Church, Chap. 1
I was happy to see that the underlines and margin notes I jotted twelve years ago (!) in my copy of Chadwick are still readable. And that basically, the same insights caught my attention this time through.
Chadwick's first section is on the Jewish background of the church.
In its earliest season, the church had a "deep sense of continuity" (key word) with the Judaism out of which it emerged. They knew that "something new" had happened, but "it was the action of one and the same God, Creator of the world, Lord of history, the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and the twelve patriarchs. His new word to his people must be consistent with that spoken in the past by the prophets." (p 9)
Ideas and attitudes central to Judaism became (and have remained) central to the Church, especially the belief in God's election, the call of Israel to exercise a priestly function to the rest of the world, and the sense of "separateness" over against pagan religion. The Jews (like the later Christians) did not participate in the imperial cult, and were socially distinct and set apart.
The Jewish diaspora and its effects on Judaism also influenced the church. That dispersion was widespread: there were a million Jews in Egypt and Alexandria in the first century. "Everywhere they refused to be merged with the Gentile inhabitants, but adhered to their own beliefs and practices, meeting each Sunday for psalms, readings from their Scriptures followed by an exegetical sermon, and prayers." (p. 10) If that all sounds familiar, it should: as Chadwick states... "Users of the Latin Breviary or the English Prayer Book are in important respects legatees of this way of worship." (Nice Anglican moment.)
He explains the concept of "God-fearers" -- those devout Gentiles that gathered around the synagogues, many of whom converted to Judaism. Converting to Judaism might involve both circumcision and baptism, though there was some disagreement among the ancient Jewish community as regards what was necessary/required. The more Hellenized Jews of the dispersion were less likely to require circumcision (the Palestinian authorities were more strict about these matters).
This seems to be important for two reasons, one implied, one stated:
1) It was among the 'God-fearers' (Gentiles already interested in Judaism) that the earliest Christian missionaries found some of their own first Gentile converts (p. 11)
2) The tension re: requirements for "conversion" within the Jewish community were carried over (or can be seen in an echoed way) within similar tensions in the early church. This is not stated in Chadwick, but it seems like a reasonable thing to draw out of the reading...I happened to read Acts 15 this morning (the Jerusalem Council) where the early church decided once and for all not to require its Gentile converts to be circumcised.
Another "continuity" (and a big one) between Jews and Christians: Judaism was "the religion of a book" and Christianity is too. The Septuagint became the authorized version of the Bible for the earliest Gentile churches (it was the Hebrew Bible, translated into Greek, at Alexandria in the 3rd century BC -- Chadwick relates some of its history/legend on p. 12)
It's most interesting to note that some rabbis "regretted that the Bible had ever been translated into Greek" (these more conservative rabbis who were hostile to liberalized or hellenized Judaism as well as Xnty)(p 12) which I think shows another similarity we see between ancient Judaism and early Xnty: cultural accommodation was a challenge for both of them. When it comes to translating the Scriptures and sharing one's faith, how far is "too far" to be immersed in the surrounding culture? (Makes Pentecost and its many languages all the more radical a sign from God...)
Cultural accommodation seems to be a major theme of LESSON 2 -- both in Chadwick and in Guy's chapter 7 on women in the early church.
Chadwick then turns to a discussion of the earliest church.
Solidarity with Israel, continuity of God's action were hallmarks of the church from the first. Matthew sees Christ as "the new Moses" (p. 132). Jesus's life and ministry were seen as a fulfillment of the ancient prophecies.
There was some tolerance for Xnty, early on, within Judaism. Judaism was not monolithic. It embraced a wide variety of traditions and theological understandings, evidence of which can be seen through the divergences in the Pharisees and the Saducees. We also know about other groups like the Essenes (pp 13-14)
"The initial impact of Christianity on the Jewish people seems to have been fairly considerable," says Chadwick (p. 15). A number of Pharisees became Christians (remember Paul was one!). Probably the earliest church drew from all parts of Judaism's diversity, though not likely many Saducees. "Before long there were substantial groups of Christian Jews not only in Jerusalem but also in the surrounding countryside of Judea." (p 15)
The faith reached Damascus and Antioch fairly rapidly. Antioch was the capital of Syria and the third largest city of the Roman empire. Pagans nicknamed the early believers "Christians" in Antioch. (The Jews often called them Nazarenes.)
So a lot of Jews became Christians. Why was conversion amongst Jews not more widespread? Chadwick suggests reasons including 1)Xnty didn't encourage nationalist Zealots, 2) yet it was too revolutionary for more "establishment" conservatives (religiously conservative/politically compromising) and 3) that matter of the Xn attitude (and openness) toward Gentiles. As we see in the book of Acts, the latter was a challenge within the church itself and caused some real division (we already see divisions amongst Hellenist and Jewish Christians in Acts).
Saul/Paul's persecution of the early Christian community indicates that the spread of Christianity northwards into Syria (p. 16) had caused enough anxiety to provoke a counter-movement.
Because Paul's voice is so prominent in the NT, and he becomes the apostle to the Gentiles, we know a lot about the development of Christian Gentile communities. In comparison, we know relatively little about the "mother church" in Judea. It is a strange fact that "most of the 12 disciples disappear from history." (p. 17) There does seem to be some indication that the Jerusalem Church moved and became more established in Asia Minor, probably as a result of the Jewish war of 66-70 (prior to the temple's destruction).
We know very little about James the Just, Jesus' brother, who was the head of the Jerusalem church until he was martyred in 62. (Chadwick makes a veiled statement about his death which sent me looking for more information...apparently there is some evidence that James was thrown from the temple...though it's also possible he was "merely" stoned. Some discrepancies in the records, and some haggling over date of his death among scholars...and of course a lot of disagreement among Christians of different traditions re: whether or not he was Jesus' actual brother. Widespread agreement that he wrote the book of James.)
We also lose sight of Peter fairly soon. We know that, like Paul, he died under Neronian persecution. Beyond what we have in Acts, however, we know little about him or about his relationship with Paul. Lots of questions.
Chadwick then turns to a discussion of the Gentile Church.
The big presenting question, as we've already seen (and the one that moves us into the realm of culture clash) "If the Church was to undertake a mission to the Gentiles, a ruling on these questions was necessary: Were the same prohibitions to apply to Gentile converts to Christianity?" (p. 19)
In plainer words, how Jewish did Gentiles need to become to embrace and enter into Christianity? That was a real dilemma/tension in the early church.
Was circumcision necessary?
Chadwick calls the opposing sides of this question: "conservatives" and "universalists" (p. 19) helpful labels as we're seeking to describe the debate anyway. The conservatives thought circumcision and other parts of the ceremonial law (dietary, etc.) were necessary. The universalists rejected that view. They won the day, as we see at the Jerusalem Council of Acts 15.
There *were,* however, stipulations that the Jerusalem Council did place on new converts, though they were not requiring circumcision. This had to do with cultural tensions in the opposite direction, with Greco-Roman paganism (out of which most of the Gentile converts would be coming). The stipulations included:
-- no eating of foods with idolatrous associations
-- no sexual relations outside marriage
Paul's interpretation of Mosaic law is key to our understanding of the Gentile inclusion. The law is good, but it is not what saves us. The "ground of our merit" will not get us very far. We need the freely offered divine mercy and forgiveness found only in Christ. This makes us free from the law of Moses, which is seen as "not fixed but provisional" -- a schoolmaster or tutor to lead us to Christ. (good summary...pp. 19/20)
Paul helped the church to include Gentiles, and this also vindicated his position as apostle to the Gentiles.
Key moment in Chadwick's discussion of Paul, for me, comes here, when he writes: "Perhaps the chief reason for Paul's success was his extraordinary versatility and capacity for adapting himself to the situation of his audience: he had the power to translate the Palestinian Gospel into language intelligible to the Greek world, and thereby became the first Christian apologist." (p. 20) One of the main ways he did that, according to Chadwick, was to emphasize Christ "as the Wisdom of God in creation..." (p. 20, etc.) emphasis mine
So here we have it again: cross-cultural transmission/communication of the Gospel (with all the excitement and challenge that implies) and the "translation" of the Gospel into new language/context.
Paul himself, of course, was deeply rooted in Judaism. I think it's interesting that Chadwick notes that Paul emphasized the church as a community with barriers broken down between Jew and Gentile, but a community that still retained a "quasi-dual character." (p. 21) (It makes me a bit sad to think of Paul's vision not carrying the day...) As Chadwick puts it, soberly, "But Jewish Christianity failed to convert the Jewish people. Jerusalem was terribly damaged in A.D. 70 and especially in 135, when by Hadrian's edict all Jews were henceforth excluded from Judaea, and Jerusalem became a Greek city...renamed...with pagan temples and theaters." (p. 21 and onward) (Note to self: I need to read more about Hadrian, I think...)
It might have been as early as 50 AD that there was rioting between Jews and Christians in Rome (see footnote on Life of Claudius, with "Chrestus" quote, p. 21). The break between Christians and Jews in Palestine became inevitable. It was about 85 AD when the Jews included a formal "anathema" against Christians (Nazarenes) in their formal liturgy.
This exacerbated the tensions between Jewish and Gentile Christians as well. The "Gentile mission" was an embarrassment (Chadwick's word) as the Jewish Christians sought to convert their fellow Jews. It also didn't help that some of the Gentile Christians were beginning to lose their respect/understanding of their debt to Judaism, and were speaking of the temple's destruction in 70 AD as the judgment of God for the death of Jesus (which they saw as the last in a long line of disobedience going back through the prophets and into the wilderness).
So the Jewish Christians, struggling with their fellow Jews, were not supported by their Gentile brethren as they strove to retain continuity of customs (sabbaths, circumcision, feasts...) This made them lonely and isolated (p. 22). They were caught between their old/new communities, and not at home in either.
We see in Justin Martyr, writing about 160, that the Jewish Christian communities were "still a force" (p. 22). Justin had no problem with them retaining old customs but admitted other Gentile Christians sometimes did.
Sadly: "From Irenaeus onwards Jewish Christianity is treated as a deviationist sect rather than as a form of Christianity with the best claims to continuity with the practice of the primitive church at Jerusalem." (p. 23) KEY point in this discussion, and very sad.
Chadwick's final section in this first chapter focuses on the early Christian community's encounter with the Roman Empire.
The Gentile mission, as Chadwick terms it, had a respectful stance toward the Roman state in many ways. They prayed for the conversion of Gentile authorities in Rome. Paul was a dual citizen (Rome, Tarsus) and had a respectful stance toward the state. Christians paid taxes (see pp. 23/24 for nuances of this discussion) There are implications, even in Acts (?) that the church Empire could help further the gospel (as an instrument of God). By mid second century, Xns were discerning God's hand in the Pax Romana and how it helped to spread the gospel.
Key quote: "What was wrong with the State was its old paganism. Change its religion and all would be well." (p. 24)
Empire, however, not ready to abandon the old gods yet. And saw refusal to participate in pagan emperor-cult as political, not just religious, act (p. 24). So we see seeds of tension sprouting.
Besides official cult of the emperor, there were also many mystery cults. On pp 24-25, Chadwick summarizes some of the main ones, mostly esp. the cults of Isis, Mithras, and Attis & Cybele. These cults had popular (and imaginative?) appeal and people could join multiple ones.
"The Roman government was in practice tolerant of any cult provided that it did not encourage sedition or weaken morality." (p. 25) The Romans believed they were rewarded for their "piety" in worshipping lots of deities (they believed this was why they were militarily successful...) But they had a very hard time assimilating the God of the Jews (no images, no sacrifices except at Jerusalem). Still, the Jews were treated with toleration and there wasn't any reason to expect that things should be much different for Xns, who early on enjoyed the protection of that Roman tolerance (since they were perceived as part of Judaism).
(A few more pages to post notes on, if I get a chance...if not, this will suffice for now...)
Chadwick's first section is on the Jewish background of the church.
In its earliest season, the church had a "deep sense of continuity" (key word) with the Judaism out of which it emerged. They knew that "something new" had happened, but "it was the action of one and the same God, Creator of the world, Lord of history, the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and the twelve patriarchs. His new word to his people must be consistent with that spoken in the past by the prophets." (p 9)
Ideas and attitudes central to Judaism became (and have remained) central to the Church, especially the belief in God's election, the call of Israel to exercise a priestly function to the rest of the world, and the sense of "separateness" over against pagan religion. The Jews (like the later Christians) did not participate in the imperial cult, and were socially distinct and set apart.
The Jewish diaspora and its effects on Judaism also influenced the church. That dispersion was widespread: there were a million Jews in Egypt and Alexandria in the first century. "Everywhere they refused to be merged with the Gentile inhabitants, but adhered to their own beliefs and practices, meeting each Sunday for psalms, readings from their Scriptures followed by an exegetical sermon, and prayers." (p. 10) If that all sounds familiar, it should: as Chadwick states... "Users of the Latin Breviary or the English Prayer Book are in important respects legatees of this way of worship." (Nice Anglican moment.)
He explains the concept of "God-fearers" -- those devout Gentiles that gathered around the synagogues, many of whom converted to Judaism. Converting to Judaism might involve both circumcision and baptism, though there was some disagreement among the ancient Jewish community as regards what was necessary/required. The more Hellenized Jews of the dispersion were less likely to require circumcision (the Palestinian authorities were more strict about these matters).
This seems to be important for two reasons, one implied, one stated:
1) It was among the 'God-fearers' (Gentiles already interested in Judaism) that the earliest Christian missionaries found some of their own first Gentile converts (p. 11)
2) The tension re: requirements for "conversion" within the Jewish community were carried over (or can be seen in an echoed way) within similar tensions in the early church. This is not stated in Chadwick, but it seems like a reasonable thing to draw out of the reading...I happened to read Acts 15 this morning (the Jerusalem Council) where the early church decided once and for all not to require its Gentile converts to be circumcised.
Another "continuity" (and a big one) between Jews and Christians: Judaism was "the religion of a book" and Christianity is too. The Septuagint became the authorized version of the Bible for the earliest Gentile churches (it was the Hebrew Bible, translated into Greek, at Alexandria in the 3rd century BC -- Chadwick relates some of its history/legend on p. 12)
It's most interesting to note that some rabbis "regretted that the Bible had ever been translated into Greek" (these more conservative rabbis who were hostile to liberalized or hellenized Judaism as well as Xnty)(p 12) which I think shows another similarity we see between ancient Judaism and early Xnty: cultural accommodation was a challenge for both of them. When it comes to translating the Scriptures and sharing one's faith, how far is "too far" to be immersed in the surrounding culture? (Makes Pentecost and its many languages all the more radical a sign from God...)
Cultural accommodation seems to be a major theme of LESSON 2 -- both in Chadwick and in Guy's chapter 7 on women in the early church.
Chadwick then turns to a discussion of the earliest church.
Solidarity with Israel, continuity of God's action were hallmarks of the church from the first. Matthew sees Christ as "the new Moses" (p. 132). Jesus's life and ministry were seen as a fulfillment of the ancient prophecies.
There was some tolerance for Xnty, early on, within Judaism. Judaism was not monolithic. It embraced a wide variety of traditions and theological understandings, evidence of which can be seen through the divergences in the Pharisees and the Saducees. We also know about other groups like the Essenes (pp 13-14)
"The initial impact of Christianity on the Jewish people seems to have been fairly considerable," says Chadwick (p. 15). A number of Pharisees became Christians (remember Paul was one!). Probably the earliest church drew from all parts of Judaism's diversity, though not likely many Saducees. "Before long there were substantial groups of Christian Jews not only in Jerusalem but also in the surrounding countryside of Judea." (p 15)
The faith reached Damascus and Antioch fairly rapidly. Antioch was the capital of Syria and the third largest city of the Roman empire. Pagans nicknamed the early believers "Christians" in Antioch. (The Jews often called them Nazarenes.)
So a lot of Jews became Christians. Why was conversion amongst Jews not more widespread? Chadwick suggests reasons including 1)Xnty didn't encourage nationalist Zealots, 2) yet it was too revolutionary for more "establishment" conservatives (religiously conservative/politically compromising) and 3) that matter of the Xn attitude (and openness) toward Gentiles. As we see in the book of Acts, the latter was a challenge within the church itself and caused some real division (we already see divisions amongst Hellenist and Jewish Christians in Acts).
Saul/Paul's persecution of the early Christian community indicates that the spread of Christianity northwards into Syria (p. 16) had caused enough anxiety to provoke a counter-movement.
Because Paul's voice is so prominent in the NT, and he becomes the apostle to the Gentiles, we know a lot about the development of Christian Gentile communities. In comparison, we know relatively little about the "mother church" in Judea. It is a strange fact that "most of the 12 disciples disappear from history." (p. 17) There does seem to be some indication that the Jerusalem Church moved and became more established in Asia Minor, probably as a result of the Jewish war of 66-70 (prior to the temple's destruction).
We know very little about James the Just, Jesus' brother, who was the head of the Jerusalem church until he was martyred in 62. (Chadwick makes a veiled statement about his death which sent me looking for more information...apparently there is some evidence that James was thrown from the temple...though it's also possible he was "merely" stoned. Some discrepancies in the records, and some haggling over date of his death among scholars...and of course a lot of disagreement among Christians of different traditions re: whether or not he was Jesus' actual brother. Widespread agreement that he wrote the book of James.)
We also lose sight of Peter fairly soon. We know that, like Paul, he died under Neronian persecution. Beyond what we have in Acts, however, we know little about him or about his relationship with Paul. Lots of questions.
Chadwick then turns to a discussion of the Gentile Church.
The big presenting question, as we've already seen (and the one that moves us into the realm of culture clash) "If the Church was to undertake a mission to the Gentiles, a ruling on these questions was necessary: Were the same prohibitions to apply to Gentile converts to Christianity?" (p. 19)
In plainer words, how Jewish did Gentiles need to become to embrace and enter into Christianity? That was a real dilemma/tension in the early church.
Was circumcision necessary?
Chadwick calls the opposing sides of this question: "conservatives" and "universalists" (p. 19) helpful labels as we're seeking to describe the debate anyway. The conservatives thought circumcision and other parts of the ceremonial law (dietary, etc.) were necessary. The universalists rejected that view. They won the day, as we see at the Jerusalem Council of Acts 15.
There *were,* however, stipulations that the Jerusalem Council did place on new converts, though they were not requiring circumcision. This had to do with cultural tensions in the opposite direction, with Greco-Roman paganism (out of which most of the Gentile converts would be coming). The stipulations included:
-- no eating of foods with idolatrous associations
-- no sexual relations outside marriage
Paul's interpretation of Mosaic law is key to our understanding of the Gentile inclusion. The law is good, but it is not what saves us. The "ground of our merit" will not get us very far. We need the freely offered divine mercy and forgiveness found only in Christ. This makes us free from the law of Moses, which is seen as "not fixed but provisional" -- a schoolmaster or tutor to lead us to Christ. (good summary...pp. 19/20)
Paul helped the church to include Gentiles, and this also vindicated his position as apostle to the Gentiles.
Key moment in Chadwick's discussion of Paul, for me, comes here, when he writes: "Perhaps the chief reason for Paul's success was his extraordinary versatility and capacity for adapting himself to the situation of his audience: he had the power to translate the Palestinian Gospel into language intelligible to the Greek world, and thereby became the first Christian apologist." (p. 20) One of the main ways he did that, according to Chadwick, was to emphasize Christ "as the Wisdom of God in creation..." (p. 20, etc.) emphasis mine
So here we have it again: cross-cultural transmission/communication of the Gospel (with all the excitement and challenge that implies) and the "translation" of the Gospel into new language/context.
Paul himself, of course, was deeply rooted in Judaism. I think it's interesting that Chadwick notes that Paul emphasized the church as a community with barriers broken down between Jew and Gentile, but a community that still retained a "quasi-dual character." (p. 21) (It makes me a bit sad to think of Paul's vision not carrying the day...) As Chadwick puts it, soberly, "But Jewish Christianity failed to convert the Jewish people. Jerusalem was terribly damaged in A.D. 70 and especially in 135, when by Hadrian's edict all Jews were henceforth excluded from Judaea, and Jerusalem became a Greek city...renamed...with pagan temples and theaters." (p. 21 and onward) (Note to self: I need to read more about Hadrian, I think...)
It might have been as early as 50 AD that there was rioting between Jews and Christians in Rome (see footnote on Life of Claudius, with "Chrestus" quote, p. 21). The break between Christians and Jews in Palestine became inevitable. It was about 85 AD when the Jews included a formal "anathema" against Christians (Nazarenes) in their formal liturgy.
This exacerbated the tensions between Jewish and Gentile Christians as well. The "Gentile mission" was an embarrassment (Chadwick's word) as the Jewish Christians sought to convert their fellow Jews. It also didn't help that some of the Gentile Christians were beginning to lose their respect/understanding of their debt to Judaism, and were speaking of the temple's destruction in 70 AD as the judgment of God for the death of Jesus (which they saw as the last in a long line of disobedience going back through the prophets and into the wilderness).
So the Jewish Christians, struggling with their fellow Jews, were not supported by their Gentile brethren as they strove to retain continuity of customs (sabbaths, circumcision, feasts...) This made them lonely and isolated (p. 22). They were caught between their old/new communities, and not at home in either.
We see in Justin Martyr, writing about 160, that the Jewish Christian communities were "still a force" (p. 22). Justin had no problem with them retaining old customs but admitted other Gentile Christians sometimes did.
Sadly: "From Irenaeus onwards Jewish Christianity is treated as a deviationist sect rather than as a form of Christianity with the best claims to continuity with the practice of the primitive church at Jerusalem." (p. 23) KEY point in this discussion, and very sad.
Chadwick's final section in this first chapter focuses on the early Christian community's encounter with the Roman Empire.
The Gentile mission, as Chadwick terms it, had a respectful stance toward the Roman state in many ways. They prayed for the conversion of Gentile authorities in Rome. Paul was a dual citizen (Rome, Tarsus) and had a respectful stance toward the state. Christians paid taxes (see pp. 23/24 for nuances of this discussion) There are implications, even in Acts (?) that the church Empire could help further the gospel (as an instrument of God). By mid second century, Xns were discerning God's hand in the Pax Romana and how it helped to spread the gospel.
Key quote: "What was wrong with the State was its old paganism. Change its religion and all would be well." (p. 24)
Empire, however, not ready to abandon the old gods yet. And saw refusal to participate in pagan emperor-cult as political, not just religious, act (p. 24). So we see seeds of tension sprouting.
Besides official cult of the emperor, there were also many mystery cults. On pp 24-25, Chadwick summarizes some of the main ones, mostly esp. the cults of Isis, Mithras, and Attis & Cybele. These cults had popular (and imaginative?) appeal and people could join multiple ones.
"The Roman government was in practice tolerant of any cult provided that it did not encourage sedition or weaken morality." (p. 25) The Romans believed they were rewarded for their "piety" in worshipping lots of deities (they believed this was why they were militarily successful...) But they had a very hard time assimilating the God of the Jews (no images, no sacrifices except at Jerusalem). Still, the Jews were treated with toleration and there wasn't any reason to expect that things should be much different for Xns, who early on enjoyed the protection of that Roman tolerance (since they were perceived as part of Judaism).
(A few more pages to post notes on, if I get a chance...if not, this will suffice for now...)
Monday, September 6, 2010
Quotes: Clement of Alexandria
My note-taking pattern is shaping up to look like this:
longer and more detailed reading notes on Guy text (our main text, which I feel I need/want to wrestle through on my own and assimilate my own notes, even though PH provides his own detailed notes)
context and sidebar notes, to help me ponder background material and to give me quick access to certain references
profile notes, which detail biographies of important historic figures
quote notes, in which I type up at least a handful of quotations from prominent historic figures
This last may seem like a time-waster, but I don't think it is entirely. I may limit myself to three quotes because of time restraint. But just as copying a poem helps me inhabit the style/thought of the poet, so typing up thoughts from ancient writers (even in translation!) seems to help me get a better handle on what they're saying and how.
I am concerned about time. I need to pick up my reading pace, but I also want to ponder thoughtfully what I'm reading. Hard to accommodate both needs. How I wish I'd had six weeks more prep time...but that's water under the bridge. (I'm just so swamped this fall I'm hoping the bridge won't collapse)
Without further ado, here are three quotes from Clement of Alexandria that stood out to me as I read the selections in Bettenson's (The Early Christian Fathers, OUP, 1956).
"Philosophy was necessary to the Greeks for righteousness, until the coming of the Lord: and even now it is useful for the development of true religion...For God is the source of all good; either directly, as in the Old and New Testaments, or indirectly, as in the case of philosophy. But it may even be that philosophy was given to the Greeks directly; for it was a 'schoolmaster,' to bring Hellenism to Christ, as the Law was for the Hebrews. Thus philosophy was a preparation, paving the way for the man who is brought to perfection by Christ." (Stromateis, I,v. (28, 1) qted in Bettenson pp 168-189)
"As the sun illumines not only the heaven and the whole world, shining on both land and sea; but also sends his rays through windows and small chinks into the furthest recesses of a house; so the Word, poured out everywhere, beholds the smallest actions of man's life." (Stromateis vii iii (21) Bettenson 171
"It was in his love that the Father pursued us, and the great proof of this is the Son whom he bego from himself came down, for this he assumed human nature, for this he willingly endured the sufferings of man, that by being reduced to the measure of our weakness he might raise us to the measure of his power...What is the nature and extent of this love? For each of us he laid down his life, the life which was worth the whole universe, and he requires in return that we should do the same for each other." (Quis Dives Salveteur, 37, qted in Bettenson 174)
longer and more detailed reading notes on Guy text (our main text, which I feel I need/want to wrestle through on my own and assimilate my own notes, even though PH provides his own detailed notes)
context and sidebar notes, to help me ponder background material and to give me quick access to certain references
profile notes, which detail biographies of important historic figures
quote notes, in which I type up at least a handful of quotations from prominent historic figures
This last may seem like a time-waster, but I don't think it is entirely. I may limit myself to three quotes because of time restraint. But just as copying a poem helps me inhabit the style/thought of the poet, so typing up thoughts from ancient writers (even in translation!) seems to help me get a better handle on what they're saying and how.
I am concerned about time. I need to pick up my reading pace, but I also want to ponder thoughtfully what I'm reading. Hard to accommodate both needs. How I wish I'd had six weeks more prep time...but that's water under the bridge. (I'm just so swamped this fall I'm hoping the bridge won't collapse)
Without further ado, here are three quotes from Clement of Alexandria that stood out to me as I read the selections in Bettenson's (The Early Christian Fathers, OUP, 1956).
"Philosophy was necessary to the Greeks for righteousness, until the coming of the Lord: and even now it is useful for the development of true religion...For God is the source of all good; either directly, as in the Old and New Testaments, or indirectly, as in the case of philosophy. But it may even be that philosophy was given to the Greeks directly; for it was a 'schoolmaster,' to bring Hellenism to Christ, as the Law was for the Hebrews. Thus philosophy was a preparation, paving the way for the man who is brought to perfection by Christ." (Stromateis, I,v. (28, 1) qted in Bettenson pp 168-189)
"As the sun illumines not only the heaven and the whole world, shining on both land and sea; but also sends his rays through windows and small chinks into the furthest recesses of a house; so the Word, poured out everywhere, beholds the smallest actions of man's life." (Stromateis vii iii (21) Bettenson 171
"It was in his love that the Father pursued us, and the great proof of this is the Son whom he bego from himself came down, for this he assumed human nature, for this he willingly endured the sufferings of man, that by being reduced to the measure of our weakness he might raise us to the measure of his power...What is the nature and extent of this love? For each of us he laid down his life, the life which was worth the whole universe, and he requires in return that we should do the same for each other." (Quis Dives Salveteur, 37, qted in Bettenson 174)
Sidebar: Jewish Christian Relations in the 1st Century
Every once in a while I plan to post brief notes on "sidebar" issues -- important issues that come in PH's lecture notes (PH stands for Phil Harrold, developer and prof of the CH 625 course with whom I'm team-teaching online this term) or in my own thoughts and readings. I post these for context and for further studies.
One of the issues that PH raises in Lesson 1 lecture is the issue of Jewish Christian relations in 1st century. This is a topic of deep interest to me and always has been. So for starters, just want to note the book he cites at length, so I can add it to my further reading/reference list:
The Emergence of the Church
Arthur G. Patzia, IVP, 2001
The charts PH provides are good visuals to help reinforce the stages of emergence/ differentiation going on between church and its Jewish roots in the first century. He labels the four phases thus:
Phase 1 (Pentecost) -- church totally circumscribed by Judaism
Phase 2 (Peter's ministry, through Acts 12, AD 40s) Christianity moving to the periphery of Judaism
Phase 3 (Paul's ministry, ADs 40s-50s-60s to destruction of the Temple AD 70) Separation began, church poised precariously on the border (but still within)
Phase 4 (AD 70 to Second Jewish Revolt, AD 132-135) complete separation
This is a really helpful teaching device and worth pondering (PH's notes in lesson 1 lecture notes from 15-17 also really helpful)
One of the issues that PH raises in Lesson 1 lecture is the issue of Jewish Christian relations in 1st century. This is a topic of deep interest to me and always has been. So for starters, just want to note the book he cites at length, so I can add it to my further reading/reference list:
The Emergence of the Church
Arthur G. Patzia, IVP, 2001
The charts PH provides are good visuals to help reinforce the stages of emergence/ differentiation going on between church and its Jewish roots in the first century. He labels the four phases thus:
Phase 1 (Pentecost) -- church totally circumscribed by Judaism
Phase 2 (Peter's ministry, through Acts 12, AD 40s) Christianity moving to the periphery of Judaism
Phase 3 (Paul's ministry, ADs 40s-50s-60s to destruction of the Temple AD 70) Separation began, church poised precariously on the border (but still within)
Phase 4 (AD 70 to Second Jewish Revolt, AD 132-135) complete separation
This is a really helpful teaching device and worth pondering (PH's notes in lesson 1 lecture notes from 15-17 also really helpful)
Sunday, September 5, 2010
Profile: Clement of Alexandria
LIFE
Clement lived c. 150-c.215 AD
Probably educated at Athens
Became head of catechetical school in Alexandria around 190
Tradition holds he probably suffered martyrdom (left Alexandria under outbreak of persecution by Severus)
He was a layman. There is some speculation that he may have been ordained not long before he died, in an effort by the bishop to bring lay teachers under closer scrutiny.
WRITINGS, TEACHINGS, BELIEFS
His aim was to "rescue learning" and to set up the ideal of a "true Gnosis" (knowledge) as opposed to a false one (Bettenson p. 16)
He believed that Greek philosophy was a preparation for Christ (like law prepared the Jews) (did he view philosophy as on a par with Scriptural revelation? I would think not...but how did he nuance this discussion? -- EMP)
Wrote a trilogy of works: "The Exhortation to Conversion" (called Protrepticus); "The Tutor" (called Paedagogus); and "the Miscellanies" (called Stromateis) which was left unfinished.
The last was not just a group of loose sayings/proverbs, but a collection that mimicked the style of some pagan writers whose collections were "deliberately unsystematic" (Chadwick 95). I find it interesting that Chadwick speculates this wasn't just a strategic or popular writing style choice, but related in some way to Clement's understanding of theology "that he should seek to express it in terms which suggested a reality transcending the verbal symbol. Religious language, he felt, is akin to poetry..." (Chadwick 95)
P.H. provides a helpful summary of the framework behind Clement's trilogy. The mission of the catechetical school, as he points out, was "moral and spiritual formation" and Clement wrote his books to that end. The first work appealed to readers, trying to interest them in Christianity as "a way of life" (PH lesson 1 notes, 18); the second work was "devoted to the day-to-day conduct of their new way of life" (for those who "signed on" for the Christian journey); the third work was for advanced students. It's in this book that he tries to justify the study of philosophy for Christians.
Bettenson's phrase that Clement was trying to "rescue learning" is best understood in context of Chadwick's comment that "At Alexandria Clement found a church afraid and on the defensive against Greek philosophy and pagan literature. Gnosticism had made philosophy suspect, and pagan religion so permeated classical literature that it was not easy to disentangle a literary education from an acceptance of pagan values and polytheistic myth" (Chadwick 95-96) Thus Clement's positive approach to Greek philosophy and classical poetry helped to soothe Christian anxieties about those subjects (and this is still a tightrope many Xn educators walk today, isn't it, as the classical educational model is revived... -EMP)
It's fascinating to note how much Clement tried to bridge the divide between Christian and pagan worlds -- and he seemed able (if I'm reading Chadwick rightly) to speak the language of both worlds, making him an able apologist. He presented the content of the Sermon of the Mount (as one example) in language that Neopythagoreans could understand. He tried to assure his Christian readers that, though the language he used was unfamiliar (and not invoking the Biblical text) he was still getting at the "content" -- and that's a highly interesting conversation one could have with him right there (and one that still raises issues of contextualization for us today)
Bettenson seems to play on that theme when he mentions that Westcott sees the most interesting thing about Clement being that he was "a figure in an age of transition." (Bettenson 17) At a time when doctrine was moving from oral tradition to written definition and thought was moving from immediate circle of Xn revelation to "the whole domain of human experience" (17)
Chadwick (who I found more helpful than Bettenson in introducing Clement, though those pages weren't assigned for this lesson) talks about the influence of Valentinian Gnosticism in Alexandria, and how heresy often seemed "clever and eloquently well-defended" while orthodoxy seemed "dim and obscurantist" (p 95)
This is apparently why Clement sometimes had a hard time using the word "orthodox" without having to apologize for it, although he "knew himself to be a committed defender of the apostolic tradition" (p 97) a tradition he believed included a "true knowledge" (gnosis) not a false one. If you were a "true gnostic" (a good thing to be in his estimation/use of the term!) you weren't afraid of philosophy and would use it when it suited your purposes.
See margin asterisks on Chadwick p 97 for other important observations.
"Truth" seems to be a very big deal for Clement. In addition to using it in the description "true gnostic" as above, he seemed concerned also with "the true Christian mysteries" (most notably the sacrament of baptism...see PH's lesson 1 notes, pg. 18) over again the pagan mysteries of the mystery religions/cults. PH writes "Clement adheres to a syallbus of instruction in which...the final element is that true doctrine is found in the prophets: They alone disclose that Christ is the true and great mystery of God and that he is to be found in the church, the new chosen people, with a new commandment and a new priesthood and temple" (PH lesson 1 notes, p. 18). Christ himself then is the "true mystery."
Theologically, Clement focused on the centrality of the doctrine of Creation, seeing it as the grounds for Redemption. He believed God had planted good seeds of truth "in all his rational creatures" which is why we don't have to fear philosophy and can learn from it. "All truth and goodnes, wherever found, come from the Creator." (Chadwick 97) Or as Bettenson emphasizes, Clement believed all truth "is the gift of the one divine Logos" and the aim of the "true gnostic" was to unite all truth
His emphasis on the doctrine of creation enabled him to oppose the Gnostic disparagement of created matter. He believed Christians should delight in the goodness of the created world, using such things with gratitude (but also detachment, when necessary)
He saw the Christian life as a progression toward the likeness of God in Christ.
He called the church a "school." His belief that our progress toward Christ-likeness is never-ending, he did not believe that the process ended at death.
Bettenson's final lines in his introduction to Clement affirm again that sense that Clement was a transitional figure, or a man living and working at a time of deep transition in the church: "He affirmed, once for all, upon the threshold of a new age, that Christianity is the heir of all past time, and the interpreter of the future" (Bettenson 18)
I also find it helpful to note that Clement "served an educated elite that was increasingly interested in the distinctive Christian approach to truth, goodnes, and perfection/maturity" (PH, lesson 1, 19) (issues that philosophers addressed). Wilken's quote in PH's notes in lesson 1 (pp 19-20) is especially enlightening. This cultured elite had studied deeply from classical wells... "Before reading Genesis they had read Plato, before reading the prophets they had read Euripides, before reading the books of Samuel and Kings they had read Herodotus and Thucydides, and before reading the gospels they had read Plutarch's Lives. Intensely proud of their ancient culture, they took pleasure in the beauty of its language, the refinement of its literature, and the subtlety of its sages...Yet when they took the Bible in hand they were overwhelmed. It came upon them like a torrent leaping down the side of a mountain. Once they got beyond its plain style they sensed they had entered a new and mysterious world more alluring than anything they had known before" (Wilken, The Spirit of Early Christian Thought, pp. 51-52).
I loved that quote...it strikes me as very important, both to understand Clement and his world, and to understand the power and efficacy of the Scriptures. It's interesting how we see this repeated in other contexts (Augustine also had trouble with the "plainness" of the Scriptures, didn't he?) and yet one senses that it's not so much that these cultured learners finally managed to 'get past' the plainness as that the directness/freedom/power of the Gospel finally 'got past' them and their defenses.
I'll post a handful of quotes from Clement tomorrow, ones that jumped out at me as I read the Lesson 1 selections in Bettenson
Clement lived c. 150-c.215 AD
Probably educated at Athens
Became head of catechetical school in Alexandria around 190
Tradition holds he probably suffered martyrdom (left Alexandria under outbreak of persecution by Severus)
He was a layman. There is some speculation that he may have been ordained not long before he died, in an effort by the bishop to bring lay teachers under closer scrutiny.
WRITINGS, TEACHINGS, BELIEFS
His aim was to "rescue learning" and to set up the ideal of a "true Gnosis" (knowledge) as opposed to a false one (Bettenson p. 16)
He believed that Greek philosophy was a preparation for Christ (like law prepared the Jews) (did he view philosophy as on a par with Scriptural revelation? I would think not...but how did he nuance this discussion? -- EMP)
Wrote a trilogy of works: "The Exhortation to Conversion" (called Protrepticus); "The Tutor" (called Paedagogus); and "the Miscellanies" (called Stromateis) which was left unfinished.
The last was not just a group of loose sayings/proverbs, but a collection that mimicked the style of some pagan writers whose collections were "deliberately unsystematic" (Chadwick 95). I find it interesting that Chadwick speculates this wasn't just a strategic or popular writing style choice, but related in some way to Clement's understanding of theology "that he should seek to express it in terms which suggested a reality transcending the verbal symbol. Religious language, he felt, is akin to poetry..." (Chadwick 95)
P.H. provides a helpful summary of the framework behind Clement's trilogy. The mission of the catechetical school, as he points out, was "moral and spiritual formation" and Clement wrote his books to that end. The first work appealed to readers, trying to interest them in Christianity as "a way of life" (PH lesson 1 notes, 18); the second work was "devoted to the day-to-day conduct of their new way of life" (for those who "signed on" for the Christian journey); the third work was for advanced students. It's in this book that he tries to justify the study of philosophy for Christians.
Bettenson's phrase that Clement was trying to "rescue learning" is best understood in context of Chadwick's comment that "At Alexandria Clement found a church afraid and on the defensive against Greek philosophy and pagan literature. Gnosticism had made philosophy suspect, and pagan religion so permeated classical literature that it was not easy to disentangle a literary education from an acceptance of pagan values and polytheistic myth" (Chadwick 95-96) Thus Clement's positive approach to Greek philosophy and classical poetry helped to soothe Christian anxieties about those subjects (and this is still a tightrope many Xn educators walk today, isn't it, as the classical educational model is revived... -EMP)
It's fascinating to note how much Clement tried to bridge the divide between Christian and pagan worlds -- and he seemed able (if I'm reading Chadwick rightly) to speak the language of both worlds, making him an able apologist. He presented the content of the Sermon of the Mount (as one example) in language that Neopythagoreans could understand. He tried to assure his Christian readers that, though the language he used was unfamiliar (and not invoking the Biblical text) he was still getting at the "content" -- and that's a highly interesting conversation one could have with him right there (and one that still raises issues of contextualization for us today)
Bettenson seems to play on that theme when he mentions that Westcott sees the most interesting thing about Clement being that he was "a figure in an age of transition." (Bettenson 17) At a time when doctrine was moving from oral tradition to written definition and thought was moving from immediate circle of Xn revelation to "the whole domain of human experience" (17)
Chadwick (who I found more helpful than Bettenson in introducing Clement, though those pages weren't assigned for this lesson) talks about the influence of Valentinian Gnosticism in Alexandria, and how heresy often seemed "clever and eloquently well-defended" while orthodoxy seemed "dim and obscurantist" (p 95)
This is apparently why Clement sometimes had a hard time using the word "orthodox" without having to apologize for it, although he "knew himself to be a committed defender of the apostolic tradition" (p 97) a tradition he believed included a "true knowledge" (gnosis) not a false one. If you were a "true gnostic" (a good thing to be in his estimation/use of the term!) you weren't afraid of philosophy and would use it when it suited your purposes.
See margin asterisks on Chadwick p 97 for other important observations.
"Truth" seems to be a very big deal for Clement. In addition to using it in the description "true gnostic" as above, he seemed concerned also with "the true Christian mysteries" (most notably the sacrament of baptism...see PH's lesson 1 notes, pg. 18) over again the pagan mysteries of the mystery religions/cults. PH writes "Clement adheres to a syallbus of instruction
Theologically, Clement focused on the centrality of the doctrine of Creation, seeing it as the grounds for Redemption. He believed God had planted good seeds of truth "in all his rational creatures" which is why we don't have to fear philosophy and can learn from it. "All truth and goodnes, wherever found, come from the Creator." (Chadwick 97) Or as Bettenson emphasizes, Clement believed all truth "is the gift of the one divine Logos" and the aim of the "true gnostic" was to unite all truth
His emphasis on the doctrine of creation enabled him to oppose the Gnostic disparagement of created matter. He believed Christians should delight in the goodness of the created world, using such things with gratitude (but also detachment, when necessary)
He saw the Christian life as a progression toward the likeness of God in Christ.
He called the church a "school." His belief that our progress toward Christ-likeness is never-ending, he did not believe that the process ended at death.
Bettenson's final lines in his introduction to Clement affirm again that sense that Clement was a transitional figure, or a man living and working at a time of deep transition in the church: "He affirmed, once for all, upon the threshold of a new age, that Christianity is the heir of all past time, and the interpreter of the future" (Bettenson 18)
I also find it helpful to note that Clement "served an educated elite that was increasingly interested in the distinctive Christian approach to truth, goodnes, and perfection/maturity" (PH, lesson 1, 19) (issues that philosophers addressed). Wilken's quote in PH's notes in lesson 1 (pp 19-20) is especially enlightening. This cultured elite had studied deeply from classical wells... "Before reading Genesis they had read Plato, before reading the prophets they had read Euripides, before reading the books of Samuel and Kings they had read Herodotus and Thucydides, and before reading the gospels they had read Plutarch's Lives. Intensely proud of their ancient culture, they took pleasure in the beauty of its language, the refinement of its literature, and the subtlety of its sages...Yet when they took the Bible in hand they were overwhelmed. It came upon them like a torrent leaping down the side of a mountain. Once they got beyond its plain style they sensed they had entered a new and mysterious world more alluring than anything they had known before" (Wilken, The Spirit of Early Christian Thought, pp. 51-52).
I loved that quote...it strikes me as very important, both to understand Clement and his world, and to understand the power and efficacy of the Scriptures. It's interesting how we see this repeated in other contexts (Augustine also had trouble with the "plainness" of the Scriptures, didn't he?) and yet one senses that it's not so much that these cultured learners finally managed to 'get past' the plainness as that the directness/freedom/power of the Gospel finally 'got past' them and their defenses.
I'll post a handful of quotes from Clement tomorrow, ones that jumped out at me as I read the Lesson 1 selections in Bettenson
Context: The City of Alexandria
I'm so glad that I read Susan Wise Bauer's History of the Ancient World last year. That and ancient history studies with S. are standing me in good stead in terms of context for early church readings.
First early Christian we're profiling (and sampling writing from) is Clement of Alexandria.
A few notes on Alexandria here:
It was one of the most important cities in the ancient world.
It was founded around 331 BC by Alexander the Great.
Its Pharos lighthouse (destroyed a few hundred years ago) was one of the seven ancient wonders of the world.
It housed the world's oldest library (probably built during the Ptolemaic dynasty, sometime during the 3rd century BC)
That ancient library was destroyed by fire (scholars not entire sure how many fires or which one most responsible for its destruction...Bauer speculates in a footnote that it might have been during one of Julius Caesar's invasions...remember he went to Alexandria and ended up falling in love with Cleopatra there)
It was the capital of Egypt for almost a thousand years, till Muslim conquest in 641 AD
It was a particularly important center of Jewish learning. The Septuagint (Koine Greek version of the Hebrew Bible) was translated there sometime between 3rd-2nd century BC (by 132 BC)
It was also a highly important city and center of learning for early Christians, second only to Rome in authority (once the see of Rome was elevated, it was considered "second among equals")
It was also the location of the first catechetical school in the Christian church, probably founded around 190 AD (some traditions take it back even farther, to St. Mark, but most likely a later date)
Clement of Alexandria was probably the second head of the school, following its likely founder Pantaenus. Origen is another prominent church father associated with this school.
First early Christian we're profiling (and sampling writing from) is Clement of Alexandria.
A few notes on Alexandria here:
It was one of the most important cities in the ancient world.
It was founded around 331 BC by Alexander the Great.
Its Pharos lighthouse (destroyed a few hundred years ago) was one of the seven ancient wonders of the world.
It housed the world's oldest library (probably built during the Ptolemaic dynasty, sometime during the 3rd century BC)
That ancient library was destroyed by fire (scholars not entire sure how many fires or which one most responsible for its destruction...Bauer speculates in a footnote that it might have been during one of Julius Caesar's invasions...remember he went to Alexandria and ended up falling in love with Cleopatra there)
It was the capital of Egypt for almost a thousand years, till Muslim conquest in 641 AD
It was a particularly important center of Jewish learning. The Septuagint (Koine Greek version of the Hebrew Bible) was translated there sometime between 3rd-2nd century BC (by 132 BC)
It was also a highly important city and center of learning for early Christians, second only to Rome in authority (once the see of Rome was elevated, it was considered "second among equals")
It was also the location of the first catechetical school in the Christian church, probably founded around 190 AD (some traditions take it back even farther, to St. Mark, but most likely a later date)
Clement of Alexandria was probably the second head of the school, following its likely founder Pantaenus. Origen is another prominent church father associated with this school.
Friday, September 3, 2010
Introducing Early Christianity by Laurie Guy -- Chap 1
One of our main texts for CH 625 Early Church this term is Introducing Early Christianity by Laurie Guy, published by IVP in 2004. It covers the early church up through Chalcedon (451) in a thematic, topical way (rather than straightforward, chronological narrative).
I'll be posting quick reading notes by chapter.
No evidence, till 3rd century, of Xns meeting anywhere but homes. Even then, the specially designated building was probably a home remodeled into a church
I'll be posting quick reading notes by chapter.
Reading Notes for Chapter 1
Guy titles this chapter "If Paul Could See Us Now"
His leading questions (summarized): what kinds of changes did the church go through from the first century to the fifth? How much would Paul have recognized in the Christianity of the 5th century? Where do we see continuity and where do we see major differences?
He addresses changes the church went through within the following sections:
Numerical Growth
Identity
Relationships with State and Society
Institutionalization
Setting
Worship
Numerical Growth:
~Change in size is most obvious shift Christianity went through in its first centuries.
~In Jesus' time, followers numbered in the hundreds. By end of the period we're studying, Christianity was at least the formal religion of the whole Roman empire.
"...to have become the public religion of the empire and to have captured the allegiance of a majority of the inhabitants of that empire in four centuries demonstrates remarkable growth." (p. 9)
It's interesting to note that there's reason to believe that many of the churches Paul founded were small. For instance, the church at Corinth probably only had about 50 people in it (this is surmised based on what we know of where and how they met for worship).
~Pinning down absolute numbers of Christians in this time period is challenging. Here are a few things we do know, however, from existing primary sources:
-- That there was a significant enough presence of Christians in Northern Asia Minor in 112 AD for Pliny (governor of Bithynia) to write to Trajan about it, remarking that the "contagion" (his word for Christianity!) has spread to villages and country as well as the city.
--So that's significant. But pagan writers didn't really feel a need to address Christianity (or its "threat") until about half a century later. By the time we get to about 170, the pagan philosopher Celsus felt the need to attack it.
And speaking of attacks...further Christian growth is also indicated by the fact the empire, as a whole, began to attack Christians. Two emperors in the 250s launched attacks, and there was a "third wave" of persecution in the 300s. Persecution thus becomes a sign of Christian growth and vitality.
However large the church was growing, however, it still remained small in proportion to the rest of the population. The best scholarly guess (and he footnotes Stark here) is that at the time of Constantine's ascension to the throne in 312, Christians made up about 10% of the empire.
That growth was not always evenly distributed. It was primarily URBAN growth (though as we've seen, some growth was occurring in outlying areas. The very word "pagan" as we know it in English comes from the Latin word "paganus" which means rural villager. Guy surmises that at least some of the slowness of Xn growth in more rural areas is a pattern we've seen repeated in history and is due to the inherent "conservatism" of peasants.
~Is there truth to the common perception that Xnty, early on, was mostly a religion of the poor and slaves? Yes and no. See Paul in 1 Corinthians 1:26 ("not many of you were of noble birth...") But this needs to be seen in proper context. Most people in the empire, on the whole, were poor! Recent scholarship seems to indicate that the church did pretty well in the lower middle class and a bit upwards, but not so well in the "male elite" class (it didn't pick up growth here until the imperial edict in the 4th century). Christian women of rank were hard pressed to find Christian men of suitable rank to marry, which led to (of all things) Callistus, the bishop of Rome, allowing them to live in concubinage with lower-born men so they wouldn't have to forfeit their property rights and lose status, as they would have if they'd gotten legally married.
~Constantine's edict, of course, which made Christianity the "official" religion of the empire, did contribute to church growth, "though motives for conversion often now had a more worldly aspect" (p.12). Augustine of Hippo called them "crowds of heathen" and lamented that they brought old worldly practices with them when they converted.
~Conversion in this era became more "superficial" (NB: leading one to wonder whether it was true conversion -- the question looks different when you approach it from a spiritual point of view or a sociological one). Guy characterizes two types of conversion: "secondary" (someone becoming a Xn because their spouse is Xn) and "social" (becoming a Xn because the society is moving in that direction).
~Even after the edict, Christian growth was not completely pervasive. John Chrysostom commented that only about half the population of Antioch (a very old center of Xnty) was Christian in the 4th century.
"The Christianization of the Roman Empire continued apace in the fifth century but was still not complete, especially in rural areas, when waves of invading barbarians interrupted the process, creating the need for a new wave of Christianization in the early Middle Ages." (p.13)
Identity
Issues of identity in the early church are very complex, especially as we look at how the church "emerged..." "from the matrix of Judaism" (p.13)
Early church was perceived as a Jewish sect, and saw itself as a fulfillment of Judaism (BUILT ON, but not REJECTING, its past)
70 AD was a huge turning point for Christian/Jewish relations and emerging and developing Xn identity. (NB: Helpful here to cross-reference Noll's first chapter in his book "Turning Points" which deals specifically with this point.)
"The destruction of the temple, so central to Jewish worship and identity, triggered deep crisis and reflection within Judaism." (p. 14) What happened as a result of this destruction? List that follows is my own, numbered only for clarity's sake (not in order of importance)
1-Collapse of the Saducees, who were tied completely to temple worship, left Pharisees the unabashed influencers of Judaism
2-Deeper Pharisaical influence led to "narrower and more closely defined Jewish boundaries" (p.14)
3-Christians increasingly seen more as outsiders, not insiders
4- Evidence of this is seen in a modification in Jewish daily prayers, which added a curse on heretics and a specific imprecation against "Nazarenes"
5- In some places, tensions grew so deep that full separation occurred. Christians were expelled from synagogues.
6-Such actions left Xns exposed to imperial pressure to worship Roman gods or emperor. The Jews were exempt from such a requirement (and Xns had been when they essentially functioned as Jewish sect).
7- These tensions left their mark in some places in Scripture, i.e. the bitterness in the book of Revelation against Jews in the synagogue
8- The deepening chasm between the 2 communities meant Christians began to develop (out of necessity) "a powerful sense of identity quite separate from the Jews" (p.14)
9-Christians begin to be perceived (and to perceive themselves) as a "third race" -- not Jews, not pagans, something other
10-Both Jews and Christians began to say and do things against the other that show forth these tensions. Jews sometimes aided in Christian persecution (gathering firewood -- on the sabbath! -- to burn Polycarp). Christian preachers sometimes preached harshly against any "accommodation" between the two groups, seeing the chasm grow ever wider (and helping it widen). We see this (unfortunately) in the preaching of the golden-tongued Chrysostom (see p. 15 for sidebar on his "Homilies Against the Jews") and in the guidelines in places like the Didache (late 1st or early 2nd century Christian manual) where Christians were instructed to fast on Wednesdays and Fridays (not Mondays and Thursdays as the Jews did).
Christians and Jews still continued to hold much in common, including their use of a common Scripture (both people of the book!) and their "common stance against paganism" (p. 16)
But by the 5th century, it was getting harder and harder, at both popular and theological levels, to imagine anything but "total separation" (p. 16)
Relationships with State and Society
Judaism had always been an "exclusive" kind of faith, uneasy in its "home" of Greco-Roman paganism.
Christianity "was stricter even than its mother, especially in not conceding any place for sacrifice at all" (p.16)
-- this is an interesting point and one I'd like to come back to and chew on
This contract with paganism was SO great that it "fostered an adversarial stance between church and state that led to periodic persecution and even martyrdom of Christian adherents" (p. 16)
*******And all of this shaped the Christian world view. The relationship between a faith and its society "profoundly affects the religion itself" (p. 16)********
If your faith group feels threatened by society, there are various responses:
--withdraw, wall your group off from society
--head to the center and modify your beliefs to maintain some resonance "with broader social patterns and expectations" (p.16)
(seems to me there is often a dance between these two responses -- EMP)
*stand against* *embrace*
Xnty started out as a sect and was markedly separate, but that didn't mean that even early on they failed to engage the culture. In fact, by its nature (I would say) they were compelled to engage the culture (by mandate of Jesus himself! who called them to be witnesses, salt, light). Guy says that we see how well they did this by the strength of their influence which ultimately pulled their society as a whole toward the faith. That's really a pretty remarkable thing when you think about it.
Why was Christianity so attractive to Roman society? (and here it would be helpful to cross-reference Les' early workbook chapter)
"In a world of powerlessness Christianity offered the hope of positive power, not only for the 90 percent who were poor but also for almost everyone, with regard to nature, illness, the spiritual realm and the often arbitrary expression of state power..." (p. 17)
The Greco-Roman world was "teeming" with "angels, spirits and demons" and one's life was often seen as controlled by these forces (in a fatalistic way -- EMP) so Christianity was attractive and life-giving because it "provided solutions"
*****"If one were to ask for a single, simple proposition that would summarize the meaning of Christianity in the patristic period, it would be: Christ has triumphed over Satan." (p. 17) *******
We see these power issues at work in the fact that exorcism held such a prominent place in the early Xn community. It was part of baptismal prep. By end of 5th century, Rome had 22 designated exorcists.
Christianity was also attractive, undoubtedly, because of the social concern they showed, both "in-house" and outreach. See sidebar on p. 18 for emperor Julian's recognition of what Christians were doing (and how he thought pagans needed to emulate them to keep up!) Julian understood that Christians were winning allegiance to the faith by their compassion. One example: Xns who ministered to sick and dying in the plague at Carthage in 252.
So big descriptor words for the church at this point? *charismatic* and *compassionate*
"It offered cohesive community in a crumbling world." (p.19) (Sounds like a strategy worth employing still!)
Constantine's conversion in 312 AD marked a shift in Christianity's self-identity. Simply put, they moved from edge to center of society (and here would be a good place to cross-reference Gonzalez' "Changing Shape" of CH where he discusses the problems inherent in that, and makes persuasive case for a return to "incarnated marginality")
We see the power shift happening in ways small and large -- corruption beginning to affect the church, bishops having functional power akin to government officials.
***"By the end of the fourth century Christians were close to the levers of power and were starting to manipulate them in the oppression of heretics and pagans. The persecuted were on their way to become persecutors." p. 19***
"Being at the center"" affected the church in other ways. The church began to embrace (or at least use as a helpful lens) classical philosophy, rhetoric, literature. (p.19, toward bottom of page) We see this in the language of the great theological creeds. That language tends to be more abstract than the concrete metaphors of Scripture, though certainly the language of the creeds (and the meaning behind them) was rooted in Scripture, found its seeds there. But it had a new "evocative flavor" -- "Athens was harnessed in the service of Jerusalem" (p.20). Very different from Tertullian's time.
The shift to the center is perhaps the most profound difference from beginning church and the church of the 4th-5th centuries.
Institutionalization
The church began as "a dynamic movement" -- but it became an institution.
Not that there weren't "seeds" of that kind of structure in Jesus' time and right after. (The disciples had a treasurer -- though look how that turned out! -- and we see in Acts that the church was beginning to put some institutional structures in place, like the appointing of deacons to serve widows and the poor). Early Xns recognized ministers and ministerial offices, but those offices were fluid and loosely defined -- and often emerged within a "charismatic frame" (p.21)
"For a couple of centuries the church struggled with the relationship between institutional and charismatic ministry." (p. 21)
By Constantine, church is institutional. When other ministries (outside of institution) emerged, they were subject to institution. Example....
"When...monasticism was drawn into the church, its looser and more spontaneous qualities became very much subject to church direction. Holy men and women were welcome additional guests to the church banquet, but they could not upset the meal." (p. 21) (Now there's a quote! -- EMP)
The shift toward institution also shifted to an increasing HIERARCHY. There was certainly a NEED, as early as the 2nd century, for "institutionally identified authority figures" and the church would have fragmented and fallen apart (relationally, doctrinally) without them. The fact that Ignatius had to stress "Do nothing without the bishop" seems to indicate that was still under discussion at beginning of second century. It wasn't 150 years later, in the mainstream church. Cyprian viewed the bishop as the center and embodiment of the church, the glue that held everything together (see bottom of p. 21)
Of course, as bishops became more powerful, and as the church moved more toward "center" corruption arose. We see it already in the words of Gregory of Nazianzus, when he resigned the see of Constantinople in 381 (see quote on p. 22)
Pomp and prestige a far cry from Jesus' life.
***"...by the end of our period of study the church had constructed a foundation of ecclesiastical doctrine and structure adequate to bear the medieval papacy that was later to emerge..." (p 22)******
Setting
House churches were the norm in the beginning. This shows continuity with Jewish roots, since synagogues originally met in homes (p.23)
Clear evidence in NT for house church meetings. Houses were limited in size, which meant multiple meeting locations in one city.
No evidence, till 3rd century, of Xns meeting anywhere but homes. Even then, the specially designated building was probably a home remodeled into a church
Some argue there were so "specially constructed" churches till Constantine. Maybe, though some evidence to support possibility a little earlier.
Why does this matter? Because setting shapes faith. The home setting meant
1-Christianity "was nurtured in non-sacred space at the heart of daily life" (p. 24) (or begs the question of how Christians initially viewed "sacred space" and what counted as that or not -- EMP)
2-Christians saw themselves as family: "brothers and sisters"
3-They existed in a fellowship that shared radically with family members in need
4-There was a natural 'brake' on hierarchy and formality --- rituals were shaped differently (think about elaborate processionals in later basilicas, not possible in a home church setting)
Constantine's favoring of Xnty meant church buildings, designated as such, began to be constructed. There were positive and negative things that flowed out of that --
+ such buildings looked stable, grand, substantial "worth consideration" to pagans looking on, and providing Xns with sense of self-respect and dignity
- the buildings risked diverting attention from what was really important, and could make Xns fall into a sense of opulence and selfishness (see Hilary of Poitiers quote from mid-4th century on p. 25)
Worship
And just a quick final note on worship. Guy cites 3 major influences on worship in early Xnty, and characteristics they fostered:
1-presence and ongoing activity of the Holy Spirit (spontaneous, immediate)
2-Jewish roots (continuity with past, richness of liturgy)
3-home setting (informality, congregational participation)
Worship began in flexibility, but trend in the period we're studying is toward formalization.
Conclusion:
Enormous shifts occurred in the early centuries, though the gospel (the core of what Xns proclaimed) remained unchanged
Change is necessary. We're not "pining" for the good old days, because (as is always the case) the old days contained things both good and bad
"A much less structured church was also a much more fractured church. Greater levels of institutionalization were needed in the long run if the church was to survive and flourish. Greater definitions and cohesiveness were required if the church was not to splinter into myriads of pieces." (p. 27)
What I'm Doing Here
I know, I know...I need another blog like a fish needs a bicycle. And if it was just "one more thing to keep track of" I wouldn't bother.
But what I really need is a place where I can post notes "on the fly" as I read vast quantities of information this term. Once again, I find myself teaching church history...but the load is bigger than it's ever been, and I've had less time to prepare. As I've shared with many folks, I don't have the leisure of a "scholarly" life at the moment -- I am busy homeschooling, parenting, writing, doing mission & ministry with my family and in our parish -- so the scholarly work I can do has to be fitted into cracks and crevices.
I'm still looking into the possibility of keeping reading notes in a different format, perhaps through a program like Evernote. But I need to dive in quickly, and I'm already comfortable with the format here on blogger. So for the moment, my reading notes will go here -- not to share, but just to be here where I can easily find them, categorize them, tag them, organize them, and think through them.
But what I really need is a place where I can post notes "on the fly" as I read vast quantities of information this term. Once again, I find myself teaching church history...but the load is bigger than it's ever been, and I've had less time to prepare. As I've shared with many folks, I don't have the leisure of a "scholarly" life at the moment -- I am busy homeschooling, parenting, writing, doing mission & ministry with my family and in our parish -- so the scholarly work I can do has to be fitted into cracks and crevices.
I'm still looking into the possibility of keeping reading notes in a different format, perhaps through a program like Evernote. But I need to dive in quickly, and I'm already comfortable with the format here on blogger. So for the moment, my reading notes will go here -- not to share, but just to be here where I can easily find them, categorize them, tag them, organize them, and think through them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)