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...)