Documents of the Rise of Christianity 1440854300, 9781440854309

Citation preview

Documents of the Rise of Christianity

Recent Titles in the Eyewitness to History Series Documents of the Salem Witch Trials K. David Goss Documents of the Chicano Movement Roger Bruns Documents of the LGBT Movement Chuck Stewart Documents of the Reformation John A. Wagner Documents of the Lewis and Clark Expedition C. Brid Nicholson Documents of American Indian Removal Donna Martinez

Documents of the Rise of Christianity KEVIN W. KAATZ

Eyewitness to History

Copyright © 2019 by ABC-CLIO, LLC All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, except for the inclusion of brief quotations in a review, without prior permission in writing from the publisher. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Kaatz, Kevin W., author. Title: Documents of the rise of Christianity / Kevin W. Kaatz. Description: Santa Barbara, CA : ABC-CLIO, [2019] | Series: Eyewitness to history | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2018049089 (print) | LCCN 2019000277 (ebook) | ISBN 9781440854316 (ebook) | ISBN 9781440854309 (alk. paper) Subjects: LCSH: Church history—Primitive and early church, ca. 30–600—Sources. Classification: LCC BR160.A2 (ebook) | LCC BR160.A2 K28 2019 (print) | DDC 270.1—dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2018049089 ISBN: 978-1-4408-5430-9 (print) 978-1-4408-5431-6 (ebook) 23 22 21 20 19  1 2 3 4 5 This book is also available as an eBook. ABC-CLIO An Imprint of ABC-CLIO, LLC ABC-CLIO, LLC 147 Castilian Drive Santa Barbara, California 93117 www.abc-clio.com This book is printed on acid-free paper Manufactured in the United States of America

To Doug, Elizabeth, and Cheryl

This page intentionally left blank

Contents

Prefacexi Evaluating and Interpreting Primary Documents

xiii

Chronologyxv Introductionxix 1 Chapter 1 First Century Introduction 1   1. The Thanksgiving Psalms, Dead Sea Scrolls 2   2. Some Accounts of the Crucifixion of Jesus from the New Testament (Mark and Luke) 5   3. Anti-Jewish Texts from the New Testament, New Revised Standard Version10  4. Suetonius, The Lives of the Twelve Caesars, Life of Nero, 34–37 14  5. Josephus, Jewish Wars, 5.11.1–2, 4–5 19  6. Josephus, Jewish Wars, 5.5.4–6: A Description of the Temple Holy 23 of Holies  7. Eusebius, Church History, 3.17–20 on Domitian and Roman History, by Cassius Dio, 67.14, 1–3 27 Chapter 2 Second Century 33 Introduction 33   8. Clement of Rome, The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, 1–9 33   9. Epistle of Barnabas, 1–4 38 10. Shepherd of Hermas, Book 2, Chapter 1–4 43 11. Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 1–2, 8–9 48 12. Tertullian, To the Martyrs54 13. Tertullian, On Prayer, 2–8 59 14. Tatian, Diatessaron64 15. Clement of Alexandria, On the Salvation of the Rich Man, Chapters 1–5 68 16. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Preface 1–3 and Book 3.1–3.2 72 17. The Passion of the Scillitan Martyrs 76 18. The Gospel According to Peter79 Chapter 3 Third Century Introduction 19. Against Celsus by Origen, 1.38–41 20. Origen, Against Celsus II (on the resurrection of the body), 5.14, 18–19, 23

85 85 85 89

viii

Contents

21. Cyprian, Letter 35: To the Clergy, Concerning the Care of the Poor and Strangers and Letter 36: To the Clergy, Bidding Them Show Every Kindness to the Confessors in Prison 22. Cyprian, Letter 26: To the Lapsed and Letter 53: To Cornelius, Concerning Granting Peace to the Lapsed 23. Pontius the Deacon, The Life and Passion of Cyprian, Bishop and Martyr, 1, 14–19 24. Julius Africanus (spurious), The Passion of St. Symphorosa and Her Seven Sons 25. Gregory the Wonderworker, The Oration and Panegyric Addressed to Origen, Argument 6 26. Gregory the Wonderworker, Canonical Letter (Canon 1–2 and 6–10) 27. Alexander of Lycopolis, Against the Manichaeans

94 96 102 106 109 114 117

Chapter 4 Fourth Century 123 Introduction 123 28. Eusebius of Caesarea, Church History, The Plan of the Work124 29. Eusebius of Caesarea, Church History, 8.1–3 and 8.12 128 30. Selections of Letters from Arius, Theodoret, Church History, Book 1 Chapter 4; Athanasius, On the Synods, 16 and Sozomen, Church 133 History, 2.27 31. Hilary of Poitiers, On the Councils, 1–10 and 91–92 137 32. Lactantius, On the Anger of God, 1, 4–5, 16 143 149 33. Lactantius, On the Deaths of the Persecutors, 1–4, 7 34. Eusebius of Caesarea, Church History, Book 10.1–3 and 10.9 154 35. Constantine on the Donatists, Taken from Eusebius, Church History, 10.5.18–24 and Optatus of Milevius, On the Schism of the Donatists, Appendix 3 and 9 158 36. Emperor Julian, Against the Galileans163 37. Ambrose, Letter 22168 38. Augustine, Against Fortunatus the Manichaean, Book 2.19–22 174 39. Augustine, Confessions, Chapter 1.1–3 and 5.3.3–6 179 40. Augustine, Letter 28 to Jerome 184 41. Jerome, The Perpetual Virginity of Blessed Mary, Against Helvidius, 189 1; 20–24 42. The Synodical Letter, Second Ecumenical Council 381 CE 194 Chapter 5 Fifth Century Introduction 43. Socrates Scholasticus, Church History, 1.1; 1.5–6 44. Theodoret of Cyrrhus, Church History, Prologue and 1.1 45. Theodoret, Church History, Book 1.5 The Letter of Eusebius, Bishop of Nicomedia, to Paulinus, Bishop of Tyre 46. Helena, the Mother of Constantine, in Eusebius of Caesarea, Life of Constantine, 3.30–32 and Sozomen, Church History, 2.1 47. Canons of Chalcedon, 1–2, 4, 7–8, 10, 15–16, 18, 23, 28

199 199 199 205 208 212 216

Contents

48. Leo the Great, Letter 4 49. Leo the Great, Letter 16 50. Leo the Great, Letter to Augusta Pulcheria, Letter 31 51. Leo the Great’s Letters on the Manichaeans, Letter 7

221 224 229 233

Bibliography237 Index239

ix

This page intentionally left blank

Preface

The goal of this collection of primary texts (from the first through the first half of the fifth century) is both simple and complex. The simple part is to allow the texts of the early Christians to speak for themselves. There are not a lot of textual remains from the Christians in the first and second centuries, but as time goes on, more and more survived, so what had happened becomes easier to understand. The complex part of this book is trying to describe what these texts meant to those ancient people. While this may not seem difficult, numerous issues arise in the study of any historical time period. For example, who was the author and why does this matter? We can sometimes guess the reason why an author wrote what he did if we know something about his life (I refer to “he” mostly because many early Christian texts were written by men). If he is Christian, this may influence what he wants the text to tell us. If he is pagan, then that will more than likely influence what he is writing and the modern reader needs to know these things. It makes a difference in the message if the person is a bishop, a deacon, or a nonbeliever. It may cause issues when the text is interpreted, especially if the details of the authors are not known. Another complex issue is that the original texts are not in English. Early Christians spoke several different languages, including Greek, Aramaic, and Latin. All the early Christian texts from the first century were written in Greek. Later these texts were either translated into Latin or later created in Latin. Texts coming out of Egypt were sometimes written in Coptic, the last stage in the evolution of Egyptian language. In many cases, the texts went through multiple translations. It is not an easy thing to translate a text from one language to another, especially if the language is technically dead (meaning it is no longer spoken or written). A translator does not just translate word for word, and just like today, ancient words could have multiple meanings. I have tried to go through every single ancient document in this book to check the translations and have updated the language in all of them. Another issue is how to choose the texts that went into this book. As mentioned, there are not many in the first century to select. However, starting toward the middle or end of the second century, we have more and more texts—too many to possibly put in one book. I decided that I would try to find early Christian texts (and those related to early Christians) that might be considered “out of the way” or ones that are generally not given in early Christian primary source books. That does not mean that they are obscure in terms of meaning—just rare in terms of being introduced to modern audiences. Many of the texts are organized in chronological order, even if the topic is the same (i.e., the texts on Arianism). This will allow the reader to see how the ancient Christians tackled a topic over time.

This page intentionally left blank

Evaluating and Interpreting Primary Documents

In historiography, which is the study of the writing of history and the employment of historical methods, a primary source is a document, recording, artifact, work of art or literature, or other information resource that was created at or near the time being studied, usually by someone with direct, personal knowledge of the particular past events, persons, or topics being described. Primary sources are original sources of information about the past, unlike secondary sources, which are works later historians create from a study, citation, and evaluation of primary sources. A modern study of the history of the church, like Morwenna Ludlow’s The Early Church or the history of families in early Christianity like David Balch and Carolyn Osiek’s Early Christian Families in Context: An Interdisciplinary Dialogue; a biography of Augustine, like Peter Brown’s Augustine of Hippo; or a study of an early church father such as David Brakke’s Athanasius and Asceticism or Joseph Trigg’s Origen; or the PBS website titled From Jesus to Christ: The First Christians, may be helpful in explaining early Christianity to contemporary readers and viewers, but they are all secondary descriptions and depictions based on firsthand experiences and recollections recorded and preserved in the primary documents of the period. Primary documents—as illustrated by the document selections included in Documents on the Rise of Christianity—come in many forms and types, including letters, journals, polemics, literary works, and public records and documents. All these types of sources were written by a particular person at a particular time in a particular place for a particular reason. Some were written with no expectation that they would ever be read by anyone other than the original recipient; others were written for publication or at least with an eye to wider distribution. Some were meant to inform, some to persuade, some to entertain, and some to obfuscate. Each exhibits the political, religious, class, ethnic, or personal biases of their creators, whether those attitudes were consciously or unconsciously expressed. Some are the products of poor memories, bad information, or outright deception, but all are authentic voices of someone alive at the time, and all can add at least a little to the information we have of an otherwise irrecoverable past age or person. Nonetheless, historians must carefully evaluate and test all primary sources to determine how much weight and credibility each should be given.

How to Read Primary Documents When evaluating a primary source, historians ask the following questions: 1. Who wrote or produced it? What is known about this person’s life or career? 2. When was the source written or produced? What date? How close or far was that date from the date of the events described?

xiv

E va l u a t i n g a n d I n t e r p r e t i n g P r i m a r y D o c u m e n t s

3. Where was it produced? What country, what region, what locality? 4. How was the source written or produced? What form did it originally take? Was it based upon any preexisting material? Does the source survive in its original form? 5. Why was the source written or produced? What was its creator trying to do, and for whom? 6. Who was the source written or produced for? Who was its audience, and why? What do we know about the audience? 7. What is the evidential value of its contents? How credible is it?

Readers of the document selections contained in this volume should apply these same questions to the selections they read or study. When analyzing a primary document, scholars also seek to identify the key words and phrases used by the author and try to understand what the author meant by those terms. They will also try to summarize the main thesis of the source to understand what point the author was trying to make. Once the author’s thesis is understood, historians evaluate the evidence the author provided to support that argument and try to identify any assumptions the author made in crafting those arguments. Historians also examine the source within the context of its time period by asking if the document is similar to others from the same period, or how widely was it circulated, or what tone, problems, or ideas it shares with other documents of the period. Scholars will also seek to determine if the author agrees or disagrees with other contemporary authors on the same subject and whether or not the source supports what they already know or have learned about the subject from other sources. Primary sources offer modern readers and researchers the actual words of people who lived through a particular event. Secondary sources, like textbooks, offer an interpretation of a historical person or event by someone who did not know the person or witness the period. Reading primary sources allows us to evaluate the interpretations of historians for ourselves and to draw our own conclusions about a past personage or events. Asking the previously listed questions will help users of this volume better understand and interpret the documents provided here. Because of unfamiliar and archaic language or terminology, or very different modes of expression or styles of writing, some primary sources can be difficult to read and hard to understand. However, an important part of the process of reading and using historical sources is determining what the documents can tell about the past and deciding whether one agrees with the interpretation offered, both by the author of the original source and by later creators of secondary works based on the original document. By using primary sources, modern readers become aware that all history is based on sources that are themselves interpretations of events rooted in the interpreter’s own opinions and biases. This awareness allows modern students to recognize the subjective nature of history. Thus, reading primary sources provides modern readers with the tools and evidence needed to make informed statements about the world of the past and of the present.

Chronology

587 BCE

The Neo-Babylonian king Nebudchadnezzer II destroyed the First Jewish Temple.

150 BCE to 68 CE

The caves at Qumran started to be used for storage and safekeeping of religious material, including the Thanksgiving Psalms.

73 to 4 BCE

Herod was born in 73 BCE and was appointed king of Judea in 39 BCE.

63 BCE

Judea became a Roman province.

30 BCE–14 AD

Augustus, the first Roman emperor, was the sole ruler of Roman territory, starting in 30 BCE.

6 to 4 BCE

Birth of Jesus.

26–36 CE

Pontius Pilate was appointed the governor of Judea during this period.

30–33 CE

Death of Jesus.

50 CE

Paul writes 1 Thessalonians, the very first text of the New Testament.

60s CE

The death of Paul and Peter.

64 CE

The fire of Rome, during the time of Emperor Nero.

66–73 CE

The Jewish War.

69–79 CE

Vespasian ruled as the Roman emperor.

70 CE

Vespasian’s son Titus was sent to Judea. He was responsible for destroying the Second Temple.

79–81 CE

General Titus became Emperor Titus when his father Vespasian died.

81–96 CE

Domitian was crowned emperor.

90–100 CE

Clement, bishop of Rome, wrote to the Corinthians.

80s–100s CE

Epistle of Barnabas was written.

98–117 CE

Emperor Trajan ruled. Trajan is famous because he exchanged letters with Pliny the Younger, who was a Roman governor. In these letters Pliny was asking about punishing the Christians.

125–150 CE

The earliest fragment of the New Testament is dated between 125 and 150 CE. It is called the Rylands Fragment and consists of a few lines from the Gospel of John.

xvi

Chron olo gy

100–160 CE The Shepherd of Hermas was written. 150–160 CE

Justin Martyr wrote Dialogue with Trypho.

156 CE

Polycarp, the bishop of Smyrna, was thought to be killed in this year.

150–160 CE

Tatian created his Diatessaron.

160 to early 200s CE

Tertullian was born sometime in the 160s and died in the early 200s CE. He wrote To the Martyrs and On Prayer (among others).

170s–180s CE

Irenaeus, bishop of Lyon, France, wrote Against Heresies.

185–251 CE

Birth and death of Origen. He wrote Against Celsus (among many others).

203 CE

Many Christians, including Perpetua and her friend Felicity, were martyred for their belief in Christ.

216–274/6 CE

Mani, the founder of a Jewish/Christian religion called Manichaeism, was born.

250 CE

The Roman emperor Decius ordered a general persecution of the Christians.

200–258 CE

Cyprian was bishop of Carthage from 248 to 258. He wrote various letters (among others).

Around 260 CE

Pontius the Deacon wrote The Life and Passion of Cyprian, Bishop and Martyr.

240–316 CE

Diocletian was a soldier in the Roman army and eventually made his way up to being emperor. His policies helped to stabilize the Roman Empire at a time when it could have easily collapsed. He is best known for the Great Persecution.

265–282 CE

Gregory the Wonderworker wrote the Panegyric to Origen and various letters.

Late 200s CE

Alexander of Lycopolis wrote On the Manichaeans.

303 CE

The Great Persecution of Christians started in 303 CE.

285–337 CE

Constantine was born to Constantius and Helena.

313 CE

Constantine and Licinius (the emperor in the East) issued the Edict of Milan, which gave Christians the freedom to practice their religion.

Early 300s CE

Eusebius of Caesarea started to write his Church History.

Early 300s CE

Lactantius wrote his Treatise on the Anger of God and On the Deaths of the Persecutors.

260–336 CE

Arius was born around 260 CE and started the Arian movement.

About 320 CE

Constantine wrote some letters regarding the Donatist Schism.

325 CE

Emperor Constantine called for the Council of Nicea.

300–373 CE

Athanasius was at first a deacon and secretary to Alexander, the bishop of Alexandria. He wrote against the Arians.

Chronology

331–363 CE

Emperor Julian was born in 331 and died in a battle with the Persians. He wrote Against the Galileans (among others).

347–419/420 CE

Jerome was born sometime around 347 CE. He was a prolific writer and set up a monastery for both men and women in Bethlehem. He wrote The Perpetual Virginity of Blessed Mary (among others).

339–397 CE

Birth and death of Bishop Ambrose.

354–430 CE

Birth and death of Bishop Augustine.

381 CE

The Second Ecumenical Council, held in Constantinople.

380–439 CE

Birth and death of Socrates Scholasticus, who wrote Church History.

393–458 CE

Birth and death of Theodoret, who wrote Church History.

400–450 CE

Birth and death of Sozomen, who wrote Church History.

431 CE

The Third Ecumenical Council, held in Ephesus.

451 CE

The Fourth Ecumenical Council, held in Chalcedon.

440–461 CE

Leo was bishop of Rome and wrote various letters.

xvii

This page intentionally left blank

Introduction

Christians, from the beginning in the first century through the 400s, lived in the Roman world (for the most part). Mostly they were Roman citizens, especially after Emperor Caracalla’s law in 212 CE declaring that free people who were living in the Roman Empire were now officially citizens. Being Roman naturally affected the way they thought and the way they wrote. It also affected the way they were treated by Roman officials both before and after the religion became legally practiced. The beginnings of Christianity start with the lifetime of Jesus. While his birth technically starts the beginning, it isn’t clear how much this event impacted his followers when it happened. The writers of the New Testament state that it was a miraculous event and changed the course of history. While this may have been the case, his later life had more influence, and this led others to look into the episode of his birth and early childhood. The Christian movement, as a religion, really begins with his crucifixion and the stories surrounding his resurrection. The killing of their leader, along with the miracles, led to more and more people to join the religion. This growth led to the formation of a hierarchy of positions in the early church, starting with the original apostles, or those who were chosen by Jesus to spread his message (Paul was an unusual case, and he will be discussed later). It was the duty of the apostles to continue the teachings of Jesus. They became a special group because they knew Jesus personally and heard him preach/teach. As far as we know, many of them stayed in Jerusalem to organize the growth of believers. Others traveled away from Jerusalem, and according to tradition, some traveled as far as Egypt and India. A few, like Paul, were known to travel and teach in modernday Turkey, Greece, and ultimately to Rome. Proselytizing was at the heart of the new religious movement (much like it is today). Early Christians came to the attention of the Roman authorities by way of the Jewish population. Christianity is really an offshoot of Judaism. Jesus and his apostles were all Jewish—they went to the Temple in Jerusalem, they read the Old Testament (as Christians would soon call it), they celebrated Jewish holidays, and they concentrated on converting Jewish people to their new version of Judaism. The early Christians differed from their Jewish friends in that they believed that Jesus was the Messiah, or savior, told about in the Old Testament. They also believed that Jesus rose from the dead. It is not surprising that these new Jewish people clashed with those who differed with them theologically. While the Jewish authorities had power over Jewish people in Jerusalem, it was really the Roman authorities who made the life and death decisions. According to the New Testament writers, Jesus clashed with Jewish authorities several times, many of which were over the interpretation of the Jewish law. For example, the Jewish

xx

Introduction

population believed that people should not gather food on the Sabbath. Jesus was found to be collecting wheat in a field on the Sabbath and was questioned about it. He clashed with Jewish authorities over money changing in the Temple grounds, which includes a vivid story of Jesus flipping over the tables of the merchants. The ultimate clash was their refusal to see him as the Son of God. The problems ultimately led to his crucifixion, sometime around 33 CE. The crucifixion of Jesus is in many ways the reason why the new religion began to spread outside the bounds of Judea. His followers were persecuted either by being killed (like James and Stephen) or they fled for fear of being killed. While it isn’t clear exactly how quickly the new faith spread, we do know that Christians were in Asia Minor within a few years after his death. Our main source for this first century comes from the writings of Paul, an apostle of Jesus. Although later an apostle, Paul started out as a persecutor (if we can believe Luke, the author of Acts). Paul, whose Jewish name was Saul, was a member of the Pharisees, a Jewish sect popular in the first century. According to Luke, Paul was on his way from Palestine to Damascus, Syria, to persecute a group of Christians. We are told that he heard the voice of Jesus and had a conversion to what is later called Christianity. Paul became one of the most active proselytizers of Christianity in the first century. He traveled throughout Asia Minor (modernday Turkey) and Greece to spread his new faith. Along the way he encountered groups of Christians who were already living there, which shows the early spread of Christians. However, Paul did not travel to Asia Minor to meet other Christians— he went there to convert the Jewish and then Gentile (those not Christian) population. The Christians he tended to meet there were generally hostile to him, for a number of reasons. The first is that he was not considered to be an apostle of Jesus Christ since he never met him. The second is that Paul must have been spreading a different version of Christianity that these Asia Minor Christians were not familiar with. He also ran into many difficulties with the Jewish population who refused to acknowledge the messiahship of Jesus. These difficulties ultimately led to his arrest. Paul was also a Roman citizen, and as such he demanded a trial in front of the emperor, so the Roman authorities then took him to Rome. We do not know what happened to him, but tradition states that he was killed with the apostle Peter during the time of Nero. We are also dependent on the New Testament for what we mostly know about first-century Christians. One part from early Christianity that continues through this period is persecution. The crucifixion has already been mentioned. Soon after the death of Jesus, other disciples were killed (e.g., Stephen). Toward the middle or end of the first century, the Jewish population had a clash with the Roman authorities, leading to war. Ultimately the Jewish and Christian populations were expelled from Jerusalem and the Second Temple was destroyed. We are lucky to have some firsthand accounts written by Josephus, a Jewish soldier who switched sides to the Romans. This was about the time that we start to see anti-Jewish messages show up in the New Testament, showing that the Christians were feeling free to separate themselves from the shadow of Judaism. Toward the end of the first century, we also hear of other persecutions of the Christians by Emperor Domitian (ruled 81–96).

I n t r o d u c t i o n

Following this, the second century was a time for consolidation of early Christianity. The hierarchical structure that existed in the first century (apostles, teachers, prophets, bishops, and deacons) was both trimmed and expanded. The apostles were gone. The wandering teachers and prophets were gradually being cut out of the structure, presumably because they were a threat to the growing power of the bishop. Even the office of bishop was in flux as there were debates on the strength of the bishop, the number of bishops in each city, and where the most important bishop lived. Theology was rapidly changing. In part it was because Christians as a whole were growing and with that growth came new ideas and competition for the “best ideas.” This had gotten its start in the first century with Paul and continued throughout the early centuries of Christianity (and still continues today). The Gnostic forms of Christianity could be seen as a natural outgrowth of this burst in population and ideas. The New Testament writers left much to be discussed, at least according to this group. There are many examples of secrets passed on from Jesus to his disciples and only guesses at what these might have been. It seems natural that some Christian groups felt the need to explain what these secrets were—and this is where the Gnostics come into the picture. Secret knowledge (“knowledge” comes from the Greek word Gnosis) was their stock and trade. They were fairly successful at gaining adherents and at gaining enemies, and many “mainstream” Christians made their Christian career arguing against them (like Irenaeus). A few of the Christian writings from the second century are apologies or writings in defense of Christianity. Probably the most famous was Justin Martyr. As can be seen from his name, Justin was eventually martyred for his beliefs. He made himself a target by directing his 1 Apology to “Emperor Titus Aelius Adrianus Antoninus Pius Augustus Caesar and his son, Verissimus the Philosopher, and to Lucius the Philosopher, the natural son of Caesar, and the adopted son of Pius, a lover of learning, and to the sacred Senate, with the whole people of the Romans,” while the 2 Apology was directed to the Roman Senate. Justin was concerned about the unjust treatment of the Christians in general. Other apologies soon followed, along with sporadic persecution. This very persecution needed to be understood by Christians, and out of this came the stories of the martyrs. The stories follow a similar pattern: Christians refused to worship the emperor, the Roman officials would try to get the Christians to curse Christ, the Christians would refuse, and they would usually be tortured to death. The martyrs and confessors (men and women who survived their persecution) became powerful figures in their communities. Probably the most serious persecution from the third century took place in the reign of Emperor Decius. We have a few eyewitnesses to this time period. One is Bishop Cyprian from Africa. He not only wrote letters about those who were persecuted and what to do with those who survived but he himself also died as a result. We are fortunate to have his martyrdom, written by Pontius the Deacon. Origen, an incredibly productive Christian scholar, was also tortured during this period. While he did not die during his torture, it is believed that he died a few years afterward from the wounds he received.

xxi

xxii

Introduction

However, we shouldn’t focus only on the bad things. Third-century Christians made great strides in further developing their theological beliefs. Origen was one such person. He is known for his writings on all aspects of Christianity, including his Against Celsus. Celsus was long dead by the time Origen wrote against him. Celsus knew about Christianity and didn’t believe in it at all. In fact, he actively wrote against it, claiming, among other things, that Jesus was a fraud and couldn’t possibly have been resurrected. Origen felt that it was his duty to attack Celsus and to defend Christianity. Other theological beliefs continued and expended, especially having to do with the nature of Christ and his relationship to God the Father. The nature of Christ was something that many Christians discussed, even from the very beginning. Was he the Son of God? If so, was he God? How can he be both man and God at the same time? Does he have bodily functions like a man? Does he have a human mind or the mind of God? All of these questions (and more) naturally led to more discussion. One of the earliest examples from the first century is from a group called the Docetists. Dokeo in Greek means “to seem,” so the Docetists believed that Jesus only seemed to have a human body. It does, at least according to the Docetists, prevent Jesus from having a sinful body, and this must have been one of their main reasons for believing. This naturally led to a discussion on the implications of this: if Jesus did not have a real human body, then he wasn’t really crucified, and thus he did not really die for the sins of humans. This throws the idea of salvation by the death of Jesus out the window. Many Christians then had to write against this. Once many Christians decided that Christ was both man and God at the same time, they then had to figure out how to preserve both his humanity and godliness. This was not as easy as it sounds, and in many cases it led to more and more arguments over this topic. The fourth century was a turning point for Christians. The new century, however, started out with a general persecution by Emperor Diocletian and his Caesar, Galerius. While this persecution should have been empire-wide, it was restricted primarily to the eastern holdings, and if we can believe Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea, it was a difficult time for them. A group of Christians called Manichaeans were some of the first people to be persecuted under the time of Diocletian and Galerius. We have a letter from Diocletian to a governor in Egypt telling him to persecute the Manichaeans because he believed they were Persians and were trying to infiltrate the Roman Empire. The Persians had been the bitter enemy of the Romans, going back to the first century BC. The skirmishes and then war between these two empires reached a peak in the middle of the 200s with the Persian king Shapur I. Shapur was successful enough to capture the Roman emperor Valerian (who was never rescued and died in captivity). Mani, the founder of Manichaeism, was on friendly terms with King Shapur. He fell out of favor with Shapur’s two sons, leading directly to a persecution that forced many Manichaeans out of Persia. Some went east into Asia, and others went west into the Roman Empire. It isn’t known when exactly the Manichaeans arrived in the West, but some believe they were active in Egypt during the lifetime of Mani (died in 274). Just a few decades later, Alexander of Lycopolis, Egypt, complained that his philosopher friends were joining the new religion. The persecution did little to stop the Manichaeans, and

I n t r o d u c t i o n

in fact, it probably forced them to spread further in Egypt and the surrounding areas. They remained an active proselytizing religion throughout the 300s and went on a decline in the late 300s and early 400s after they were attacked by a previous member, Augustine of Hippo. It wasn’t until Emperor Constantine, the son of Emperor Constantius, made Christianity a legally recognized religion in the Roman Empire. It isn’t totally clear on why he did this. There are two accounts of Constantine’s promise to follow the Christian god—from Eusebius of Caesarea and from Lactantius and in both he believed that the Christian god allowed him to win his battle for emperorship and after that he became a patron. Eusebius also wrote about his victory when Constantine became the sole emperor. However, just because it became a legalized religion did not mean that all Christians got along with each other. If anything, this led to a push by some Christians to have their version of Christianity accepted as the version. This had been going on long before the time of Constantine, but now various Christian groups began to vie for the attention of the emperor. One such debate started in Egypt when a priest named Arius openly clashed with Alexander, his bishop, over the nature of Christ. Arius firmly believed that God was always in existence from the very beginning and that Christ came later (called Arianism). Alexander was firmly against this and believed (which would later become Catholic Christianity) that God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit were always in existence. Both sides could turn to the Bible to lend their side support. This skirmish between Arius and Alexander would soon spill over into the eastern side of the Roman Empire with famous bishops on both sides staking their claim. Eusebius, the bishop of Caesarea, was originally on the side of Arius and Eusebius, the bishop of Nicomedia. He believed that God must be first—otherwise you create the appearance of two gods, God the Father and Jesus. The belief that Jesus came afterward preserved monotheism (the belief in one God), at least according to the Arian version of Christianity. It made sense to many people; however, the group that sided with Alexander of Alexandria was also determined to crush this movement. Alexander began a letter-writing campaign in which he sent letters to some of the bishops in the eastern part of the Roman Empire. This set off a much larger letter-writing campaign that led directly up to Emperor Constantine and Bishop Julius in Rome. The two sides, along with their supporters, clashed in the streets; they took over each other’s churches. They fought for theological supremacy. While the Arian controversy raged in the eastern part of the Roman Empire, another controversy erupted in the northern part of Africa. The persecution by Emperor Diocletian and his Caesar Galerius had many repercussions on Christians throughout the empire. When the persecution ceased, many Christians found out that some of their bishops and priests had denounced Christ in order to save their own lives. These bishops and priests then wanted back into their previous ecclesiastical positions. Some of these lapsed bishops were accepted back, while others took over their previous positions and assumed that this would be okay with the parishioners and other local bishops and priests. However, this would not be the case, and there was a push to remove these people from their offices. This led

xxiii

xxiv

Introduction

to many problems in the North African churches, especially when these lapsed bishops began to anoint the next generation of bishops. Those who were against them were called Donatists, named after Donatus, a local priest. The Donatists, considered to be purists, pushed to have all of the lapsed bishops removed and have lapsed laity do some type of penance before being allowed back into their churches. On the other side, there was a feeling that the lapsed bishops and laity should be allowed back, with little to no punishment. The arguments between the two sides ultimately went up to Constantine, who again must have felt exasperated at all the problems between the various Christian groups. Constantine surely wanted one form of Christianity, practiced by all Christians in his empire; however, he was never to have this. What came out of this arguing was the first church council, held in 325, called the Council of Nicea (now Izmit, Turkey). It is the first great council because it called for all bishops to come and solidify their beliefs and was held under the watchful eye of Emperor Constantine. It dealt primarily with the Arian controversy. The bishops decided upon a statement of faith called the Nicene Creed, which made it clear what Christians should believe. The focus was on Christology or the nature of Christ. The last part of the short creed contained a series of anathemas, or curses, against those who believed the Arian version of Christianity. The Nicene Creed was not the only document produced by the meeting. Out of it came a list of canons (rules) that mostly dealt with the behavior of the priesthood. For example, Canon 2 states that if any clergy who is involved in a sexual sin, and if there are at least two witnesses to this, should be removed from office. Canon 3 states that no woman, except for an immediate relative (mother, sister, aunt, or any woman above reproach), can live with him. This canon is obviously related to Canon 2, and they were created to prevent the authority of the clergy from being questioned (and therefore the Catholic beliefs they were espousing). The last one we can discuss is Canon 6. It is here that the authority of bishops in the main cities of the empire was reaffirmed. For example, the bishop of Alexandria, Egypt, oversaw the churches and bishops in the Egyptian cities of Libya, Pentapolis, and the rest of Egypt. It also states that the bishop of Rome oversaw those in Rome. It is clear from this canon that there were discussions about the reach of ecclesiastical power, especially in the wake of the Arian controversy where many bishops around the empire were trying to exert their ecclesiastical power outside of their region. This canon attempted to put the power back into the hands of those bishops in the main cities. It is also clear that it does not give the bishop of Rome the power over all of these areas. The creed and the canons produced did little (at least in the beginning) to calm the religious controversies. Some bishops and priests (e.g., Arius) were sent into exile for either refusing to accept the Nicene Creed or refusing to accept the Arian anathemas. One was Eusebius of Nicomedia. He was a staunch supporter of Arius and his belief was that God was always first, followed by the Son. He was involved in a letter-writing campaign to urge the bishop of Alexandria to reinstate Arius to his priesthood. Eusebius of Nicomedia probably understood the political ramifications of openly defying the emperor and the council and in the end supported the

I n t r o d u c t i o n

Nicene Creed. He did not, however, support the anathemas. This led to his own exile and removal from his office a few months later. A new bishop was installed in his place. Ecclesiastical exile at this time did not always mean permanent exile. Arius and Eusebius continued to exchange letters with Constantine, and in the end, the emperor allowed Eusebius of Nicomedia to return after he convinced him that he held the Nicene belief. Arius was allowed to return to Constantinople but was not allowed to travel to Egypt. It was thought that he would cause too many difficulties in his quest to get his priesthood back from the bishop of Alexandria. This whole episode indicates two things: either Constantine did not totally understand what the Arian problem was about or that Eusebius of Nicomedia and Arius were very good about hiding their true beliefs. It is probably a mixture of both. The wishywashiness of Constantine certainly affected the lay Christians. The then Catholic bishop of Nicomedia was promptly removed from his office when the Arian Eusebius of Nicomedia returned to his city. Arius began a letter-writing campaign to his Egyptian friends to force his bishop to take him back. If anything, this restarted the religious divisiveness. There were religious controversies flaring up across the empire during the 300s. Many, like Bishop Ambrose of Milan (374–397), spent much of their adult lives trying to put these fires out. Ambrose came from a wealthy Roman family. His father was a Roman official, and Ambrose followed in his footsteps. However, fate would step in and Ambrose would leave his civilian position for an ecclesiastical position: the bishop of Milan, Italy. It isn’t clear how involved Ambrose was in Christianity when he was growing up. When he was governor, the then bishop of Milan, Auxentius, was an Arian. Auxentius held on to his power until his death. For the Catholics, this was a perfect time to break the power of the Arians and install a Catholic bishop. Many Arians in Milan were of course not happy, and there were skirmishes in the city, and Ambrose was called on to put them down. The story of what happens next is unclear, but what is clear is that he walked away being the bishop of Milan by acclimation. Ambrose, who was not even a Catholic priest, had to go through intensive training (we assume!) and quickly become a priest (after becoming the bishop). As far as we can tell, Ambrose moved quickly against the Arians in Milan. Part of the problem he had with moving against them is that the emperor, the young Valentinian II, and his mother, Justina, were Arians. Obviously the emperor had more political power than a bishop, but a bishop could put pressure on an emperor through “people power.” For example, Justina demanded from Ambrose one of his cathedrals for Arian use. Ambrose refused to do this, and troops were sent in to surround the building with the hopes that they would take it from him. This did not happen. Ambrose’s supporters flooded the church, and we are told that some of the troops decided that they did not want to remove him. In the end, the emperor’s troops were recalled, and Ambrose was able to keep his basilica. He was also able to make use of the martyrs in keeping or founding new churches. Other notable Christians during this period who had extensive ecclesiastical power were Jerome and Augustine. Jerome (347–420), a highly educated Catholic

xxv

xxvi

Introduction

priest, is known today for his directness in his writings, especially when he was arguing with someone. A good example is his early confrontations with Augustine, the priest and then bishop of Hippo, North Africa. Augustine, bishop of Hippo, North Africa, was born in 354 into a religiously mixed household. His father was pagan while his mother, Monica, was Catholic. Augustine, however, never officially became a Catholic when he was young, despite his mother’s coaxing. His family was relatively wealthy, at least enough to send Augustine to school until he was a teenager when the money ran out and he was forced to leave school. Eventually he found a patron who gave him money to continue his education. Along the way Augustine met some Manichaeans who convinced him that their version of Christianity was the correct form. He joined and became an adamant follower. He used his debating skills (learned in school) to convince many of his friends and presumably many others not his friends to join Manichaeism. His mother, Monica, was horrified and kicked him out. Eventually Augustine wanted to leave Africa and go to the big city of Rome to promote himself in order to obtain a job in the government. He left (along with his mother), and in Rome his Manichaean friends introduced him to Symmachus, the prefect (governor) of Rome. Symmachus was impressed with Augustine and gave him the job of rhetor of Milan, an influential position in a very important city. Part of Augustine’s job would be to write panegyrics (speeches of praise) for the emperor himself. Augustine was still a Manichaean at this point (although his interest was waning), and he decided to go to the basilica of Ambrose to hear the great bishop give his sermons. Augustine tells us that he went to hear Ambrose purely to hear his sermon techniques, but what happened was that Augustine became convinced that Catholicism was the correct form of Christianity. Ultimately Augustine left the Manichaeans and converted to Catholicism in 386 by Ambrose, in his basilica. The taint of Manichaeism haunted Augustine throughout the rest of his life (he died in 430), and he felt it a duty to attack them whenever the opportunity arose. He started writing against the Manichaeans soon after his conversion. Part of the reason for this is that some Catholics remember Augustine and his vigorous defense of Manichaeism years before—they didn’t quite trust that he was a real Catholic. To make up for this, Augustine spent quite a bit of time writing against Manichaeans, having public debates, and in general, making sure that people knew he was no longer a Manichaean. The Manichaean problem did not end with Augustine. When the Vandals invaded North Africa in the early fifth century (about the same time that Augustine died), many Manichaeans fled to Italy, and this certainly affected the church there. Leo the Great, the bishop of Rome between 440 and 461, discovered that many Manichaeans were “infiltrating” his flock and in the process were trying to steal them away into the Manichaean version of Christianity. Leo seemed generally alarmed about this and wrote several letters warning people about their presence. He was also bishop of Rome when the fourth ecumenical council took place. This time the question was as follows: Was Christ both man and God at the same time? In other words, was his spirit both human and God at the same time? This council, like that of Nicea nearly 130 years

I n t r o d u c t i o n

before, issued a number of canons, dealing mostly with the behavior of the bishops or priests. The first half of the fifth century also saw an increase in the number of historians who began writing about the early church like Theodoret, Sozomen, and Socrates Scholasticus. It is fortunate that we have so many texts from the first five centuries of Christianity that allow us to understand what might have been a very obscure period in human history.

xxvii

This page intentionally left blank

Chapter 1

First Century Introduction It isn’t known when Jesus was born. The traditional date is in the Year 1, and this is how the Western calendar starts off. Scholars have placed it anywhere between 6 BC and AD 6. But there is no question that Jesus started a new religious movement within the confines of Judaism. During the first century CE, there were three major sects of Judaism (the Pharisees, the Sadducees, and the Essenes). Evidence of the Pharisees and the Sadducees can be found in the New Testament. Jesus and other early followers all had issues with these groups. The Essenes, however, do not appear in the New Testament, but we are lucky enough to have some archaeological and, more important for this book, textual finds. The Dead Sea Scrolls have been part of the talking points in Judaism and early Christianity for over seventy years now. These scrolls give us a glimpse into the day-today aspects of another Jewish group that lived outside of the major cities in Judea. The texts have been mined not only for the information on Judaism, but now they are also being looked at for what they could possibly tell us about the first-century Christians. This volume contains part of the Thanksgiving Psalms, which may help us understand what was happening in early Christianity. Obviously, the most important episode in early Christianity was the crucifixion. Many texts in the New Testament mention the killing of Jesus, including those found in Matthew and Mark. While the accounts differ slightly (after all, they were created by different authors with different viewpoints), the story is still the same: the Roman authorities, on the advice of the Jewish authorities, put Jesus to death. It was after this that the first-century Christians began to actively separate themselves out from Judaism. Sometimes the texts were not specifically anti-Jewish, but it is pretty clear from the surviving evidence that the Christians and the Jewish population did not get along. This volume includes selections from Matthew, John, Acts, and 1 Thessalonians, illustrating this break. The second half of the first century was marked by the first major persecution of the Christians by Emperor Nero. A large part of the city of Rome burned in 64 CE, and according to Tacitus, a Roman historian, and Suetonius, a Roman historian, Nero blamed the Christians. Just two years after the fire, the Jewish population rose up against Roman rule in Judea, leading to what is called the Jewish Revolt. We have a number of accounts of this revolt written by Josephus, an eyewitness. Josephus, who was Jewish, at first fought for his Jewish compatriots and then switched to the Roman side when he realized they could not be beaten. The Romans destroyed the Second Temple, the center of Sadducee worship, and then expelled the Jewish and Christian population. It is fortunate that Josephus’s accounts survive as he gives both a description of the siege of Jerusalem and a description of the Second Temple. The end of the first century brought another persecution, this time by Emperor Domitian. This volume contains the excerpts of Eusebius of Caesarea and Cassius Dio, a Roman historian, on the emperor’s persecution.

2

DO C UMENTS O F THE RISE O F C HRISTIANITY

Document 1 THE THANKSGIVING PSALMS, DEAD SEA SCROLLS Where did early Christians get their ideas on forming their own religion? Certainly, some of these come from the words and actions of Jesus. But moving back a step, Judaism was the root of Christianity and Christianity was built from this. There were at least three different versions of Judaism in the first century CE—the Pharisees, the Sadducees, and the Essenes. The New Testament mentions the Pharisees and the Sadducees but nothing about the Essenes. Their existence was certainly known, as a first-century writer named Josephus mentions them and gives us the first glimpse at this group. However, what they were like and what they did to practice their form of Judaism wasn’t revealed until the middle of the twentieth century when a number of scrolls were discovered in Israel. These scrolls, now called the Dead Sea Scrolls, gave scholars an amazing glimpse into Judaism and the Essenes in the first century BC and the first century AD. They were first discovered in 1947 in caves at a town called Qumran. Originally, local shepherds found the scrolls, and they were eventually sold off to various scholars and organizations. So far, over 900 scrolls and texts have been found from this area. Some of these are texts from the Hebrew Bible, and others are texts written by those who lived at Qumran. The following text contains part of a manuscript titled Thanksgiving Songs. Many of these have to do with personal suffering or calamities that took place. They seem to be written primarily for personal use (although this is certainly being debated). There are parallels to these Thanksgiving Psalms and those found in the Hebrew Bible. It has been pointed out by Chamberlain (1955, 39) that Thanksgiving Psalm 5 has parallels with the Hebrew bible, in the books of Micah and Jeremiah. It is probable that the author or authors of these Qumran Thanksgiving Psalms were modeling them after their Hebrew Bible counterparts. Scholars of Christianity are also interested in the Qumran Dead Sea Scrolls, mostly because there are some literary connections between the scrolls and texts in the New Testament. Chamberlain, very briefly (1955, 41), points out the parallels with Thanksgiving Psalm 5 to Revelation 12 and John 16:21. While the parallels in the New Testament are probably more in-line with the texts of the Hebrew Scripture, it can’t be ruled out that those involved with the Essenes had contact with early Christians, and this contact led to the similarities between these two groups. Some scholars, including Coloe and Thatcher, believe that these Qumran texts can give us quite a few insights into early Christian communities, and especially on writings like John. Following are excerpts of the Thanksgiving Psalms (Psalms 4, 5, 8, and 23):

The Thanksgiving Psalms Psalm 4. I thank you, O Lord, for your eye is awake and watches over my soul. You rescue me from the jealousy of liars, from the congregation of those who seek the smooth way. But you save the soul of the poor whom they planned to destroy



F IRST C ENTURY 3

by spilling the blood of your servant. I walked because of you—but they didn’t know this. They laughed at me. They shamed me with lies from their mouth. But you helped the soul of the poor and the weak, you saved me from their harsh arms, you redeemed me amid their taunts. From the wicked I do not fear destruction.

Psalm 5. They made my life a ship on the deep sea, like a fortified city circled by aggressors. I hurt like a woman in labor bearing her first child, whose belly pangs torture her in the crucible. Pains of Hell for a son come on the waves of death. She labors to bear a man, and among the waves of death she gives birth to a manchild, with pains of Hell. He springs from the crucible, O wondrous counselor with power: Yes, a man emerges from the waves. But she who carries dead seed in her womb suffers waves from a pit of horror. The foundations of the wall will rock like a ship on the face of the waters. Clouds will bellow. Those who dwell in the dust, like those on the sea, are terrified by the roar of the waters. All those wise men are like mariners on the deep: their wisdom confounded by the roaring seas. The abyss boils over the fountains of water. The seas rage. Hell opens, and arrows fly toward Heaven. Their eternal bars are bolted.

Psalm 8. I thank you, O Lord. You illumined my face by your covenant. I seek you, As sure as the dawn you appear as perfect light. Teachers of lies have comforted your people and now they stumble, foolishly. They abhor themselves and do not esteem me through whom your wonders and powers are manifest. They have banished me from my land like a bird

4

DO C UMENTS O F THE RISE O F C HRISTIANITY

from its nest, and my friends and neighbors are driven from me. They think me a broken pot. They preach lies. They are dissembling prophets. They devise baseness against me, exchanging your teaching, written in my heart, for smooth words. They deny knowledge to the thirsty and force them to drink vinegar to cover up error. They stumble through mad feasts, but you, God, spurn the schemes of Belial. Your wisdom prevails. Your hearts meditation prevails, established forever.

Psalm 23. Your holy spirit illuminates the dark places of the heart of your servant, with light like the sun. I look to the covenants made by men, worthless. Only your truth shines, and those who love it are wise and walk in the glow of your light. From darkness you raise hearts. Let light shine on your servant. Your light is everlasting.

Source: Thanksgiving Psalms, Dead Sea Scrolls. Translated and presented by the Gnostic Society Library, http://www.gnosis.org/library/psalm.htm.

Further Reading Chamberlain, John V. “Another Qumran Thanksgiving Psalm.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 14, no. 1, Henri Frankfort Memorial Issue (January 1955): 32–41. Coloe, Mary L., and Tom Thatcher eds. Qumran, and the Dead Sea Scrolls: Sixty Years of Discovery and Debate. Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011. The Dead Sea Scrolls: The Thanksgiving Psalms. https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/ the-thanksgiving-psalms. Golb, Norman. “The Problem of Origin and Identification of the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 124, no. 1 (February 29, 1980): 1–24. Kim, Angela Y. “Authorizing Interpretation in Poetic Compositions in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Later Jewish and Christian Traditions.” Dead Sea Discoveries 10, no. 1, Authorizing Texts, Interpretations, and Laws at Qumran (2003): 26–58. Licht, J. “The Doctrine of the Thanksgiving Scroll.” Israel Exploration Journal 6, no. 1 (1956): 1–13.



F IRST C ENTURY 5

Lim, Timothy. The Dead Sea Scrolls: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005. The Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature. http:// orion.mscc.huji.ac.il/. Vermes, Geza. The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English. 7th Edition (Penguin Classics). New York: Penguin, 2012.

Document 2 SOME ACCOUNTS OF THE CRUCIFIXION OF JESUS FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT (MARK AND LUKE) New Revised Standard Version The most famous scene in any of the books of the New Testament is the crucifixion of Christ. This crucifixion and the subsequent belief in the resurrected Jesus led to the creation of a new religion. It also separated the Christians from their Jewish mother religion. While it started a new religion, crucifixion as a punishment was not new. The Romans had used it before to punish criminals and those who rebelled against Roman rule, so to the Romans, the crucifixion of Jesus was a standard punishment. An example of a crucifixion comes from Tacitus, a Roman senator, who later wrote a book titled Histories. In Chapter 4, section 3, Tacitus was writing about the various rebellions during the turbulent year of 69 CE. He writes, During these same days Lucilius Bassus was sent with a force of light armed cavalry to restore order in Campania, where the people of the towns were rather at variance with one another than rebellious toward the emperor. The sight of the soldiers restored order, and the smaller towns escaped punishment. Capua, however, had the Third legion quartered on it for the winter, and its nobler houses were ruined while the people of Tarracina, on the other hand, received no assistance: so much easier is it to repay injury than to reward kindness, for gratitude is regarded as a burden, revenge as gain. The Tarracines, however, found comfort in the fact that the slave of Verginius Capito, who had betrayed them, was crucified wearing the very rings that he had received from Vitellius.

It was also, as far as we know, part of the entertainment in some Italian cities, especially during the first century CE. Written evidence from Pompeii in the first century CE shows that crucifixion of criminals (who were not Roman citizens), gladiatorial fights, and fights between wild animals would occur, all wrapped up into a day’s entertainment for the masses (Cook 2012, 71). The method and the carrying out of the crucifixion were also done through private employment. For example, in the laws that regulated those who are crucified, it is stated that if the crucifixion was ordered by a judge, then contractors who dealt with crucifixion were to handle all the arrangements—the nails, the stakes, and occasionally other materials, such as pitch, wax, and candles, that would be required to torture the criminal or slave (Cook 2012 82–85). Nails used for crucifixion still exist.

6

DO C UMENTS O F THE RISE O F C HRISTIANITY

A part of a foot with a nail embedded in it was found and is now in the Israel Museum (see https://www.byunewtestamentcommentary.com/crucifixion-in-antiquity/). An early depiction of crucifixion of a Christian comes from the Palatine Hill in Rome, in a training room for slaves. It is carved on a wall and shows a human with the head of a donkey being crucified. The graffiti below the image states, “Alexander worships God,” who is likely to be Christ. Romans would long accuse Christians of worshipping a donkey, and this image shows it graphically (see Cook 2008, 282–285). The topic of the crucifixion also brings up the topic of anti-Semitism: that claim that the Jewish people, and those from the sect of the Pharisees in particular, had killed Christ. However, this is untrue. It has been shown that the Jewish Sanhedrin (a Jewish court) was unable to use crucifixion as a punishment before Jesus reached adulthood (Rosenblatt 1956, 316). While the New Testament depictions of the crucifixion show that the Jewish priests were in charge of the punishment, in reality, it was the Romans who were responsible for this. And as has been pointed out, it was a relatively common punishment by the Roman authorities. There are quite a few records of this episode in the life and death of Jesus. Following are the crucifixion accounts from both the Gospel of Mark (Chapter 15) and the Gospel of Luke (Chapter 23). They differ slightly. One of the main reasons for this is that it isn’t clear who these authors are or where they got their information from. Tradition holds that the authors were Mark and Luke. Scholars have compared the two books side by side, and many have thought that Mark was the earliest and that the authors of Luke and Matthew used some of Mark and other sources to put their own accounts together.

Mark 15:1–47 15 As soon as it was morning, the chief priests held a consultation with the elders and scribes and the whole council. They bound Jesus, led him away, and handed him over to Pilate. 2Pilate asked him, “Are you the King of the Jews?” He answered him, “You say so.” 3Then the chief priests accused him of many things. 4Pilate asked him again, “Have you no answer? See how many charges they bring against you.” 5But Jesus made no further reply, so that Pilate was amazed. 6 Now at the festival he used to release a prisoner for them, anyone for whom they asked. 7Now a man called Barabbas was in prison with the rebels who had committed murder during the insurrection. 8So the crowd came and began to ask Pilate to do for them according to his custom. 9Then he answered them, “Do you want me to release for you the King of the Jews?” 10For he realized that it was out of jealousy that the chief priests had handed him over. 11But the chief priests stirred up the crowd to have him release Barabbas for them instead. 12Pilate spoke to them again, “Then what do you wish me to do with the man you call the King of the Jews?” 13They shouted back, “Crucify him!” 14Pilate asked them, “Why, what evil has he done?” But they shouted all the more, “Crucify him!” 15So Pilate, wishing to satisfy the crowd, released Barabbas for them; and after flogging Jesus, he handed him over to be crucified.



F IRST C ENTURY 7

16 Then the soldiers led him into the courtyard of the palace (that is, the governor’s headquarters); and they called together the whole cohort. 17And they clothed him in a purple cloak; and after twisting some thorns into a crown, they put it on him. 18And they began saluting him, “Hail, King of the Jews!” 19They struck his head with a reed, spat upon him, and knelt down in homage to him. 20After mocking him, they stripped him of the purple cloak and put his own clothes on him. Then they led him out to crucify him. 21 They compelled a passer-by, who was coming in from the country, to carry his cross; it was Simon of Cyrene, the father of Alexander and Rufus. 22Then they brought Jesus to the place called Golgotha (which means the place of a skull). 23And they offered him wine mixed with myrrh; but he did not take it. 24And they crucified him, and divided his clothes among them, casting lots to decide what each should take. 25 It was nine o’clock in the morning when they crucified him. 26The inscription of the charge against him read, “The King of the Jews.” 27And with him they crucified two bandits, one on his right and one on his left. 29Those who passed by derided him, shaking their heads and saying, “Aha! You who would destroy the temple and build it in three days, 30save yourself, and come down from the cross!” 31In the same way the chief priests, along with the scribes, were also mocking him among themselves and saying, “He saved others; he cannot save himself. 32Let the Messiah, the King of Israel, come down from the cross now, so that we may see and believe.” Those who were crucified with him also taunted him. 33 When it was noon, darkness came over the whole land until three in the afternoon. 34At three o’clock Jesus cried out with a loud voice, “Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?” which means, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” 35When some of the bystanders heard it, they said, “Listen, he is calling for Elijah.” 36And someone ran, filled a sponge with sour wine, put it on a stick, and gave it to him to drink, saying, “Wait, let us see whether Elijah will come to take him down.” 37Then Jesus gave a loud cry and breathed his last. 38And the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom. 39Now when the centurion, who stood facing him, saw that in this way he* breathed his last, he said, “Truly this man was God’s Son!” 40 There were also women looking on from a distance; among them were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome. 41These used to follow him and provided for him when he was in Galilee; and there were many other women who had come up with him to Jerusalem. 42 When evening had come, and since it was the day of Preparation, that is, the day before the sabbath, 43Joseph of Arimathea, a respected member of the council, who was also himself waiting expectantly for the kingdom of God, went boldly to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus. 44Then Pilate wondered if he were already dead; and summoning the centurion, he asked him whether he had been dead for some time. 45When he learned from the centurion that he was dead, he granted the body to Joseph. 46Then Joseph bought a linen cloth, and taking down the body, wrapped it in the linen cloth, and laid it in a tomb that had been hewn out

8

DO C UMENTS O F THE RISE O F C HRISTIANITY

of the rock. He then rolled a stone against the door of the tomb. 47 Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses saw where the body was laid.

Luke 23:1–56 Then the assembly rose as a body and brought Jesus before Pilate. 2 They began to accuse him, saying, “We found this man perverting our nation, forbidding us to pay taxes to the emperor, and saying that he himself is the Messiah, a king.” 3Then Pilate asked him, “Are you the king of the Jews?” He answered, “You say so.” 4Then Pilate said to the chief priests and the crowds, “I find no basis for an accusation against this man.” 5But they were insistent and said, “He stirs up the people by teaching throughout all Judea, from Galilee where he began even to this place.” 6 When Pilate heard this, he asked whether the man was a Galilean. 7And when he learned that he was under Herod’s jurisdiction, he sent him off to Herod, who was himself in Jerusalem at that time. 8When Herod saw Jesus, he was very glad, for he had been wanting to see him for a long time, because he had heard about him and was hoping to see him perform some sign. 9He questioned him at some length, but Jesus gave him no answer. 10The chief priests and the scribes stood by, vehemently accusing him. 11Even Herod with his soldiers treated him with contempt and mocked him; then he put an elegant robe on him, and sent him back to Pilate. 12That same day Herod and Pilate became friends with each other; before this they had been enemies. 13 Pilate then called together the chief priests, the leaders, and the people, 14and said to them, “You brought me this man as one who was perverting the people; and here I have examined him in your presence and have not found this man guilty of any of your charges against him. 15Neither has Herod, for he sent him back to us. Indeed, he has done nothing to deserve death. 16I will therefore have him flogged and release him.” 18 Then they all shouted out together, “Away with this fellow! Release Barabbas for us!” 19(This was a man who had been put in prison for an insurrection that had taken place in the city, and for murder.) 20Pilate, wanting to release Jesus, addressed them again; 21but they kept shouting, “Crucify, crucify him!” 22A third time he said to them, “Why, what evil has he done? I have found in him no ground for the sentence of death; I will therefore have him flogged and then release him.” 23But they kept urgently demanding with loud shouts that he should be crucified; and their voices prevailed. 24So Pilate gave his verdict that their demand should be granted. 25He released the man they asked for, the one who had been put in prison for insurrection and murder, and he handed Jesus over as they wished. 26 As they led him away, they seized a man, Simon of Cyrene, who was coming from the country, and they laid the cross on him, and made him carry it behind Jesus. 27A great number of the people followed him, and among them were women who were beating their breasts and wailing for him. 28But Jesus turned to



F IRST C ENTURY 9

them and said, “Daughters of Jerusalem, do not weep for me, but weep for yourselves and for your children. 29For the days are surely coming when they will say, ‘Blessed are the barren, and the wombs that never bore, and the breasts that never nursed.’ 30Then they will begin to say to the mountains, ‘Fall on us’; and to the hills, ‘Cover us.’ 31For if they do this when the wood is green, what will happen when it is dry?” 32 Two others also, who were criminals, were led away to be put to death with him. 33When they came to the place that is called The Skull, they crucified Jesus there with the criminals, one on his right and one on his left. [34Then Jesus said, “Father, forgive them; for they do not know what they are doing.”] And they cast lots to divide his clothing. 35And the people stood by, watching; but the leaders scoffed at him, saying, “He saved others; let him save himself if he is the Messiah of God, his chosen one!” 36The soldiers also mocked him, coming up and offering him sour wine, 37and saying, “If you are the King of the Jews, save yourself!” 38There was also an inscription over him, “This is the King of the Jews.” 39 One of the criminals who were hanged there kept deriding him and saying, “Are you not the Messiah? Save yourself and us!” 40But the other rebuked him, saying, “Do you not fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation? 41And we indeed have been condemned justly, for we are getting what we deserve for our deeds, but this man has done nothing wrong.” 42Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.” 43He replied, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in Paradise.” 44 It was now about noon, and darkness came over the whole land until three in the afternoon, 45while the sun’s light failed; and the curtain of the temple was torn in two. 46Then Jesus, crying with a loud voice, said, “Father, into your hands I commend my spirit.” Having said this, he breathed his last. 47When the centurion saw what had taken place, he praised God and said, “Certainly this man was innocent.” 48And when all the crowds who had gathered there for this spectacle saw what had taken place, they returned home, beating their breasts. 49But all his acquaintances, including the women who had followed him from Galilee, stood at a distance, watching these things. 50 Now there was a good and righteous man named Joseph, who, though a member of the council, 51had not agreed to their plan and action. He came from the Jewish town of Arimathea, and he was waiting expectantly for the kingdom of God. 52This man went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus. 53Then he took it down, wrapped it in a linen cloth, and laid it in a rock-hewn tomb where no one had ever been laid. 54It was the day of Preparation, and the sabbath was beginning. 55The women who had come with him from Galilee followed, and they saw the tomb and how his body was laid. 56Then they returned, and prepared spices and ointments. On the sabbath they rested according to the commandment. Source: Revised Standard Version of the Bible, copyright © 1946, 1952, and 1971 National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

10

DO C UMENTS O F THE RISE O F C HRISTIANITY

Further Reading Chapman, David W. Ancient Jewish and Christian Perceptions of Crucifixion. Tubingen, Germany: Mohr Siebeck, 2008. Cook, John G. “Crucifixion as Spectacle in Roman Campania.” Novum Testamentum 54, fasc. 1 (2012): 68–100. Cook, John G. “Envisioning Crucifixion: Light from Several Inscriptions and the Palatine Graffito.” Novum Testamentum 50, fasc. 3 (2008): 262–285. Fitzmyer, Joseph A. “Crucifixion in Ancient Palestine, Qumran Literature, and the New Testament.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 40 (1978): 493–514. Hengel, Martin. Crucifixion in the Ancient World. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977. Maier, Paul L. “The Inscription on the Cross of Jesus of Nazareth.” Hermes 124. Bd., H. 1 (1996): 58–75. Rosenblatt, Samuel. “The Crucifixion of Jesus from the Standpoint of Pharisaic Law.” Journal of Biblical Literature 75, no. 4 (December 1956): 315–321. Walaskay, Paul W. “The Trial and Death of Jesus in the Gospel of Luke.” Journal of Biblical Literature 94, no. 1 (March 1975): 81–93.

Document 3 ANTI-JEWISH TEXTS FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT, NEW REVISED STANDARD VERSION Introduction The New Testament authors were nearly all Jewish. When they converted to Christianity, it probably wasn’t totally clear to them that they were all that different from their mother religion, Judaism. They kept many of the rituals and holidays of their former faith. In fact, there were quite a few Jewish Christians in the first and second century: those people who wanted to keep the best of both and not totally commit to one or the other. This was, however, unacceptable for some of those who were following Christ. His message began to spread, and people started to write about him and what he said. Very early on we started to see early Christians separating from Judaism. One of the earliest texts of the New Testament, 1 Thessalonians, written by Paul, contains some anti-Jewish messages. Paul, who boasts of being a Pharisee in his writings, was clearly an early convert to the message of Christ. While never meeting him, Paul had a conversion experience when we are told he was off to persecute some Christians. Very early on he realized that while he would try to convert the Jewish population to the message of Christ, the “religion” of Christ was different, and the two groups needed to be separated. It also didn’t help that he himself was persecuted by various Jewish groups when he tried to convert them to the message of Christ. Together, these two forced Paul to create a message of division between the two. We also find anti-Jewish messages in the Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John). While we are not sure who the original authors of these texts were, they were some



F IRST C ENTURY 11

of the early converts, and more important, they wrote about what was happening in the first century. While much of their message is positive or tells the story of the life of Jesus, some of the texts are clearly anti-Jewish. Like Paul, they wanted early Christians to totally leave their former faith. Part of the reason for that was that they believed the Jewish leaders played a large part in convincing the Roman leadership to crucify Christ. They also compared the words and actions of Jesus with the texts of the Scripture (the name of the Old Testament to the early Christians) and saw that there was a discrepancy, and they felt it was their duty to separate out the Christians from the Jewish population. Following are four sets of texts written by Paul, Matthew, Luke (the author of Acts), and John. Each one has an anti-Jewish message. While it is tempting to look at these individually, it is important to note that these individual passages should be read in the larger context of the Gospels. Sadly, the result of many of these passages (and misunderstanding the passages) has led to a general persecution of the Jewish population down through the modern period. Almost certainly, the early Christian writers did not want their texts used to persecute those who thought differently from them.

Paul, 1 Thessalonians 2:13–16 13 We also constantly give thanks to God for this, that when you received the word of God that you heard from us, you accepted it not as a human word but as what it really is, God’s word, which is also at work in you believers. 14For you, brothers and sisters, became imitators of the churches of God in Christ Jesus that are in Judea, for you suffered the same things from your own compatriots as they did from the Jews, 15who killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drove us out; they displease God and oppose everyone 16by hindering us from speaking to the Gentiles so that they may be saved. Thus they have constantly been filling up the measure of their sins; but God’s wrath has overtaken them at last.

Matthew 3:7; 12:34; 23:38; 26:59–68; 27:24–25 Matthew 3:7 But when he saw many Pharisees and Sadducees coming for baptism, he said to them, “You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come?”

Matthew 12:34 You brood of vipers! How can you speak good things, when you are evil? For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks.

12

DO C UMENTS O F THE RISE O F C HRISTIANITY

Matthew 23:38 See, your house is left to you, desolate.

Matthew 26:59–68 Now the chief priests and the whole council were looking for false testimony against Jesus so that they might put him to death, but they found none, though many false witnesses came forward. At last two came forward and said, “This fellow said, ‘I am able to destroy the temple of God and to build it in three days.’ ” The high priest stood up and said, “Have you no answer? What is it that they testify against you?” But Jesus was silent. Then the high priest said to him, “I put you under oath before the living God, tell us if you are the Messiah, the Son of God.” Jesus said to him, “You have said so. But I tell you, ‘From now on you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven.’ Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, “He has blasphemed! Why do we still need witnesses? You have now heard his blasphemy. What is your verdict?” They answered, “He deserves death.” Then they spat in his face and struck him; and some slapped him, saying, “Prophesy to us, you Messiah! Who is it that struck you?”

Matthew 27:24–25 So when Pilate saw that he could do nothing, but rather that a riot was beginning, he took some water and washed his hands before the crowd, saying, “I am innocent of this man’s blood; see to it yourselves.” Then the people as a whole answered, “His blood be on us and on our children!”

Acts 3:13–15 (by Luke) The God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, the God of our ancestors has glorified his servant Jesus, whom you handed over and rejected in the presence of Pilate, though he had decided to release him. But you rejected the Holy and Righteous One and asked to have a murderer given to you, and you killed the Author of life, whom God raised from the dead. To this we are witnesses.

John 5:16–18 Therefore the Jews started persecuting Jesus, because he was doing such things on the sabbath. But Jesus answered them, “My Father is still working, and I also am working.” For this reason the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because



F IRST C ENTURY 13

he was not only breaking the sabbath, but was also calling God his own Father, thereby making himself equal to God.

John 7:28 Then Jesus cried out as he was teaching in the temple, “You know me, and you know where I am from. I have not come on my own. But the one who sent me is true, and you do not know him.”

John 8:37–59 “I know that you are descendants of Abraham; yet you look for an opportunity to kill me, because there is no place in you for my word. I declare what I have seen in the Father’s presence; as for you, you should do what you have heard from the Father.” They answered him, “Abraham is our father.” Jesus said to them, “If you were Abraham’s children, you would be doing what Abraham did, but now you are trying to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. This is not what Abraham did. You are indeed doing what your father does.” They said to him, “We are not illegitimate children; we have one father, God himself.” Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and now I am here. I did not come on my own, but he sent me. Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot accept my word. You are from your father the devil, and you choose to do your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies. But because I tell the truth, you do not believe me. Which of you convicts me of sin? If I tell the truth, why do you not believe me? Whoever is from God hears the words of God. The reason you do not hear them is that you are not from God.” The Jews answered him, “Are we not right in saying that you are a Samaritan and have a demon?” Jesus answered, “I do not have a demon; but I honor my Father, and you dishonor me. Yet I do not seek my own glory; there is one who seeks it and he is the judge. Very truly, I tell you, whoever keeps my word will never see death.” The Jews said to him, “Now we know that you have a demon. Abraham died, and so did the prophets; yet you say, ‘Whoever keeps my word will never taste death.’ Are you greater than our father Abraham, who died? The prophets also died. Who do you claim to be?” Jesus answered, “If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing. It is my Father who glorifies me, he of whom you say, ‘He is our God,’ though you do not know him. But I know him; if I would say that I do not know him, I would be a liar like you. But I do know him and I keep his word. Your ancestor Abraham rejoiced that he would see my day; he saw it and was glad.” Then the Jews said to him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?” Jesus said to them, “Very truly, I tell you, before

14

DO C UMENTS O F THE RISE O F C HRISTIANITY

Abraham was, I am.” So they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid himself and went out of the temple. Source: Revised Standard Version of the Bible, copyright © 1946, 1952, and 1971 National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

Further Reading Burkill, T. A. “Anti-Semitism in St. Mark’s Gospel.” Novum Testamentum 3, fasc. 1/2 (January 1959): 34–53. Donaldson, Terence L. Jews and Anti-Judaism in the New Testament: Decision Points and Divergent Interpretations. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2010. Farmer, William R. Anti-Judaism and the Gospels. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 1999. Freudmann, Lillian C. Antisemitism in the New Testament. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1994. Johnson, Luke T. “The New Testament’s Anti-Jewish Slander and the Conventions of Ancient Polemic.” Journal of Biblical Literature 108, no. 3 (Autumn 1989): 419–441. Richardson, Peter. Anti-Judaism in Early Christianity. Vol. 1: Paul and the Gospels (Studies in Christianity and Judaism). Waterloo, Canada: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 1986. Sullivan, Desmond. “New Insights into Matthew 27: 24–25.” New Blackfriars 73, no. 863 (September 1992): 453–457.

Document 4 SUETONIUS, THE LIVES OF THE TWELVE CAESARS, LIFE OF NERO, 34–37 Most texts that mention Nero discuss the fire that occurred in Rome in 64 CE and his possible part in the destruction of a large part of the city. Tacitus, a Roman senator and historian, had written that Nero blamed the Christians for the fire. However, another writer named Suetonius made no mention of blaming the Christians. He does, however, say that it was Nero who set fire to the city. Many have heard the saying “Nero fiddles while Rome burns”—this comes from Suetonius’s account of this fire. The following text comes from Suetonius, Lives of the Twelve Caesars, Life of Nero. Suetonius, who lived from about 69 to possibly as late as 140 CE, was a Roman who held a number of official offices in the empire. This allowed him access to emperors and state archives, and this experience certainly allowed him to write his most famous work today, The Lives of the Twelve Caesars (or emperors). Unfortunately, little is known about his personal life. He became the director of the state archives and was a personal secretary to Emperor Hadrian (see https://www.ancient.eu/Suetonius/). He was also a friend of Pliny the Younger—a writer and a Roman governor of Bithynia-Pontus, a Roman province in the north. It is from the letters of Pliny that we get a better glimpse of the life of Suetonius. His Lives contains the stories of these eleven emperors (and Julius



F IRST C ENTURY 15

Caesar), and Suetonius certainly does not spare the reader what can be considered sordid accounts of their lives (see especially the passage in the following excerpt on Emperor Nero). He also wrote the Famous Men and the Lives of Whores. Part of his Famous Men has survived, but unfortunately his Lives of Whores did not survive. Out of all of the emperors, Nero is probably one of the more famous ones, primarily because of the accounts we have of him written by Suetonius. Nero is described as starting out as a normal child, but later in life, he turned into a cruel, vicious emperor who ultimately killed himself when he couldn’t control the scandals that surrounded him. Some of these scandals included killing his mother and possibly kicking his pregnant wife to death. Suetonius also describes Nero as being a terrible ruler who, when faced with the abandonment of his few supporters, committed suicide, with the help of his secretary. The scholarly interest in Nero has not waned, but the focus of his life and rule has begun to take a different course from that described by Suetonius. Many scholars are revisiting the impression from that Nero was a bad emperor. They are coming to the conclusion that although Nero may have done many of the things described by Suetonius, his rule may not have been as bad as once thought (e.g.,, see Griffin 1987, 15–17). This is not necessarily a new trend in Neronian scholarship, but the impression that he was a bad ruler is now being overtaken by the impression that, although he was not great, he was not evil.

Suetonius, Life of Nero, sections 35–38 34 His mother offended him by too strict surveillance and criticism of his words and acts, but at first he confined his resentment to frequent endeavors to bring upon her a burden of unpopularity by pretending that he would abdicate the throne and go off to Rhodes. Then depriving her of all her honors and of her guard of Roman and German soldiers, he even forbade her to live with him and drove her from the Palace. After that he passed all bounds in harrying her, bribing men to annoy her with lawsuits while she remained in the city, and after she had retired to the country, to pass her house by land and sea and break her rest with abuse and mockery. At last terrified by her violence and threats, he determined to have her life, and after attempting it three times by poison and finding that she had made herself immune by antidotes, he tampered with the ceiling of her bedroom, contriving a mechanical device for loosening its panels and dropping them upon her while she slept. When this leaked out through some of those connected with the plot, he devised a collapsible boat to destroy her by shipwreck or by the falling in of its cabin. Then he pretended a reconciliation and invited her in a most cordial letter to come to Baiae and celebrate the feast of Minerva with him. On her arrival, instructing his captains to wreck the galley in which she had come, by running into it as if by accident, he detained her at a banquet, and when she would return to Bauli, offered her his contrivance in place of the craft which had been damaged, escorting her to it in high spirits and even kissing her breasts as they parted. The rest of the night he passed sleepless in intense anxiety, awaiting the outcome of his design. On learning that everything had gone wrong and that she had escaped by swimming, driven to desperation he secretly had a dagger

16

DO C UMENTS O F THE RISE O F C HRISTIANITY

thrown down beside her freedman Lucius Agermus, when he joyfully brought word that she was safe and sound, and then ordered that the freedman be seized and bound, on the charge of being hired to kill the emperor; that his mother be put to death, and the pretense made that she had escaped the consequences of her detected guilt by suicide. Trustworthy authorities add still more gruesome details: that he hurried off to view the corpse, handled her limbs, criticizing some and commending others, and that becoming thirsty meanwhile, he took a drink. Yet he could not either then or ever afterwards endure the stings of conscience, though soldiers, senate and people tried to hearten him with their congratulations; for he often owned that he was hounded by his mother’s ghost and by the whips and blazing torches of the Furies. He even had rites performed by the Magi, in the effort to summon her shade and entreat it for forgiveness. Moreover, in his journey through Greece he did not venture to take part in the Eleusinian mysteries, since at the beginning the godless and wicked are warned by the herald’s proclamation to go hence. To matricide he added the murder of his aunt. When he once visited her as she was confined to her bed from constipation, and she, as old ladies will, stroking his downy beard (for he was already well grown) happened to say fondly: “As soon as I receive this, I shall gladly die,” he turned to those with him and said as if in jest: “I’ll take it off at once.” Then he bade the doctors give the sick woman an overdose of physic and seized her property before she was cold, suppressing her will, that nothing might escape him. 35 Besides Octavia he later took two wives, Poppaea Sabina, daughter of an ex-quaestor and previously married to a Roman knight, and then Statilia Messalina, daughter of the great-granddaughter of Taurus, who had been twice consul and awarded a triumph. To possess the latter he slew her husband Atticus Vestinus while he held the office of consul. He soon grew tired of living with Octavia, and when his friends took him to task, replied that “she ought to be content with the insignia of wifehood.” Presently after several vain attempts to strangle her, he divorced her on the ground of barrenness, and when the people took it ill and openly reproached him, he banished her besides; and finally he had her put to death on a charge of adultery that was so shameless and unfounded, that when all who were put to the torture maintained her innocence, he bribed his former preceptor Anicetus to make a pretended confession that he had violated her chastity by a stratagem. He dearly loved Poppaea, whom he married twelve days after his divorce from Octavia, yet he caused her death too by kicking her when she was pregnant and ill, because she had scolded him for coming home late from the races. By her he had a daughter, Claudia Augusta, but lost her when she was still an infant. Indeed there is no kind of relationship that he did not violate in his career of crime. He put to death Antonia, daughter of Claudius, for refusing to marry him after Poppaea’s death, charging her with an attempt at revolution, and he treated in the same way all others who were in any way connected with him by blood or by marriage. Among these was the young Aulus Plautius, whom he forcibly defiled



F IRST C ENTURY 17

before his death, saying “Let my mother come now and kiss my successor,” openly charging that Agrippina had loved Plautius and that this had roused him to hopes of the throne. Rufrius Crispinus, a mere boy, his stepson and the child of Poppaea, he ordered to be drowned by the child’s own slaves while he was fishing, but it was said that he used to play at being a general and an emperor. He banished his nurse’s son Tuscus, because when procurator in Egypt, he had bathed in some baths which were built for a visit of Nero’s. He drove his tutor Seneca to suicide, although when the old man often pleaded to be allowed to retire and offered to give up his estates, he had sworn most solemnly that he did wrong to suspect him and that he would rather die than harm him. He sent poison to Burrus, prefect of the Guard, in place of a throat medicine which he had promised him. The old and wealthy freedmen who had helped him first to his adoption and later to the throne, and aided him by their advice, he killed by poison, administered partly in their food and partly in their drink. 36 Those outside his family he assailed with no less cruelty. It chanced that a comet had begun to appear on several successive nights, a thing which is commonly believed to portend the death of great rulers. Worried by this, and learning from the astrologer Balbillus that kings usually averted such omens by the death of some distinguished man, he turned it on the heads of the nobles and resolved on the death of all the eminent men of the State. But the more firmly, and with some semblance of justice, he did this after the discovery of two conspiracies against him. The earlier and more dangerous of these was that of Piso at Rome. The other was by Vinicius at Beneventum and detected there. The conspirators made their defense in triple sets of fetters, some voluntarily admitting their guilt, some even making a favor of it, saying that there was no way except by death that they could help a man disgraced by every kind of wickedness. The children of those who were condemned were banished or put to death by poison or starvation. A number are known to have been slain all together at a single meal along with their preceptors and attendants, while others were prevented from earning their daily bread. 37 After this he showed neither discrimination nor moderation in putting to death whomsoever he pleased on any pretext whatever. To mention but a few instances, Salvidienus Orfitus was charged with having rent out to certain states as headquarters three shops which formed part of his house near the Forum; Cassius Longinus, a blind jurist, with retaining in the old family tree of his house the mask of Gaius Cassius, the assassin of Julius Caesar; Paetus Thrasea for having a sullen demeanor, like that of a preceptor. To those who he wanted dead he never granted more than an hour’s respite, and to avoid any delay, he brought physicians who were at once to “attend to” such as lingered; for that was the term he used for killing them by opening their veins. It is even believed that it was his wish to throw living men to be torn to pieces and devoured by a monster of Egyptian birth, who would crunch raw flesh and anything else that was given him. Transported and puffed up by such successes, as he considered them, he boasted that no prince had ever known what power he really had, and he often threw out unmistakable hints that he would not spare even those of the senate who survived, but would one

18

DO C UMENTS O F THE RISE O F C HRISTIANITY

day blot out the whole order from the State and hand over the rule of the provinces and the command of the armies to the Roman knights and to his freedmen. Certain it is that neither on beginning a journey nor on returning did he kiss any member or even return his greeting; and at the formal opening of the work at the Isthmus the prayer which he uttered in a loud voice before a great throng was, that the event might result favorably “for himself and the people of Rome,” thus suppressing any mention of the senate. 38 But he showed no greater mercy to the people or the walls of his capital. When someone in a general conversation said: “When I am dead, let the earth be consumed by fire,” he responded “Nay, rather while I live,” and his action was wholly in accord. For under cover of displeasure at the ugliness of the old buildings and the narrow, crooked streets, he set fire to the city so openly that several ex-consuls did not venture to lay hands on his chamberlains although they caught them on their estates with tow and fire-brands, while some granaries near the Golden House, whose room he particularly desired, were demolished by engines of war and then set on fire, because their walls were of stone. For six days and seven nights destruction raged, while the people were driven for shelter to monuments and tombs. At that time, besides an immense number of dwellings, the houses of leaders of old were burned, still adorned with trophies of victory, and the temples of the gods vowed and dedicated by the kings and later in the Punic and Gallic wars, and whatever else interesting and noteworthy had survived from antiquity. Viewing the conflagration from the tower of Maecenas and exulting, as he said, in “the beauty of the flames,” he sang the whole of the “Sack of Ilium,” in his regular stage costume. Furthermore, to gain from this calamity too all the spoil and booty possible, while promising the removal of the debris and dead bodies free of cost, he allowed no one to approach the ruins of his own property. And from the contributions which he not only received, but even demanded, he nearly bankrupted the provinces and exhausted the resources of individuals.

Source: Tranquillus, C. Suetonius. The Lives of the Twelve Caesars. Loeb Classic Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1914.

Further Reading Champlin, Edward. “Nero Reconsidered.” New England Review 19, no. 2 (Spring 1998): 97–108. Gray-Fow, Michael J. G. “Why the Christians? Nero and the Great Fire.” Latomus, T. 57, fasc. 3 (JUILLET-SEPTEMBRE 1998): 595–616. Griffin, Miriam. Nero: The End of a Dynasty. New York: Routledge, 1987. Gyles, Mary F. “Nero Fiddled while Rome Burned.” Classical Journal 42, no. 4 (January 1947): 211–217. Malitz, Jurgen. Nero. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2005. Power, Tristan. “Pliny, Letters 5.10 and the Literary Career of Suetonius.” Journal of Roman Studies 100 (2010): 140–162. Sanders, Henry A. “Suetonius in the Civil Service under Hadrian.” American Journal of Philology 65, no. 2 (1944): 113–123.



F IRST C ENTURY 19

Sansone, David. “Nero’s Final Hours.” Illinois Classical Studies 18 (1993): 179–189. Shotter, David. Nero. 2nd Edition. New York: Taylor and Francis, 2005.

Document 5 JOSEPHUS, JEWISH WARS, 5.11.1–2, 4–5 The Jewish War, written by Josephus (~37–100 CE), is one of the most important sources for this time. The Jewish population of Judea had been under the rule of foreigners since the Babylonian takeover in 587 BCE. While they were sometimes left alone to “rule” themselves without too much interference by their overlords, there were episodes where tolerance for their religion and/or behavior was reduced, leading to bloodshed. This region was taken over by the Romans and became a Roman province in 63 BCE under the famous Roman general Pompey. The Romans, for the most part, were hospitable to religions different from their own, especially if they were understood to be old. Judaism fit this description, and for the most part, the Romans left the Jewish people to practice their own religion. However, this soon changed when some of the Roman emperors decided to demand obedience from the citizenry, especially when this obedience meant offering prayers to the emperor as if they were gods on earth. This enraged the Jewish population, and to add injury to insult, the governor of Judea decided to take money from the Temple in reaction to the problems that were happening. This led to a Jewish revolt, with the hopes that they could push the Romans out of Judea and make it difficult for them to remain in power. Then General Vespasian, under Emperor Nero, was sent in with his troops to put down the disturbances in 67 CE. By the middle or end of 67 CE, he had subdued much of Galilee and then decided to choke out Jerusalem. Nero committed suicide in 68 CE, and this led to a period where there were three short-lived emperors. Vespasian decided to revolt, and his troops declared him emperor. He then called for his son, Titus, to take over the fighting in Judea when he had to travel to Rome. The goal for Titus was to take Jerusalem, the center of the revolt. The city was highly fortified, but it only took Titus and his troops four weeks to breach the walls and enter the city. The Romans decided to destroy the Second Temple (70 CE) and to offer Roman sacrifices where it once stood. Judaism, at least the Sadducee version that depended on rituals at the Second Temple, declined rapidly with its destruction. Titus went on to become emperor when his father, Vespasian, died. He ruled from 79 to 81 CE. Later Emperor Domitian, the brother of Titus, dedicated the Arch of Titus, a triumphal arch, in the Roman Forum, dedicated to the defeat of the Jewish population. Josephus (~37–100 CE), known by his Roman name, Flavius Josephus, has a very interesting history. He was born into an influential Jewish family and received a good education (hence, his ability to write a number of books like his Jewish Antiquities and our text, Jewish Wars). He was involved in the Jewish War (detailed in the following excerpt) on the Jewish side but surrendered to Vespasian. Vespasian liked Josephus and kept him as a translator, and when Vespasian became emperor, he gave Josephus citizenship. Josephus was also with Titus when Jerusalem was attacked. The following passages

20

DO C UMENTS O F THE RISE O F C HRISTIANITY

(5.11.1–2, 4–5) describe some of the issues that Titus and the Jewish population had in his takeover of the city. It is clear from 5.11.1 that people who were surrounded by the Romans were in dire straits and were being starved out. Section 5.11.4, in particular, describes the Jewish population undermining some of the Roman towers used to besiege the city.

Josephus, Jewish Wars, 5.11.1–2, 4 5.11.1. So now Titus’s banks (i.e., towers) were advanced a great way, notwithstanding his soldiers had been very much distressed from the wall. He then sent a party of horsemen, and ordered they should lay ambushes for those that went out into the valleys to gather food. Some of these were indeed fighting men, who were not contented with what they got by stealing; but the greater part of them were poor people, who were deterred from deserting by the concern they were under for their own relations, for they could not hope to escape away, together with their wives and children, without the knowledge of those who were rebelling. Nor could they think of leaving these relations to be slain by the robbers on their account. The severity of the famine made them bold in going out, so nothing remained but that, when they were concealed from the robbers, they should be taken by the enemy. And when they were going to taken, they were forced to defend themselves for fear of being punished. After they had fought, they thought it too late to make any supplications for mercy, so they were first whipped, and then tormented with all sorts of tortures before they died, and were then crucified before the wall of the city. This miserable procedure made Titus greatly to pity them, while they caught every day five hundred Jews—and some days they caught more. Yet it did not appear to be safe for him to let those that were taken by force go their way, and to set a guard over so many he saw would be to make such as great deal them useless to him. The main reason why he did not forbid that cruelty was this, that he hoped the Jews might perhaps yield at that sight, out of fear that they might themselves afterwards be liable to the same cruel treatment. So the soldiers, out of the wrath and hatred they bore the Jews, nailed those they caught, one after one, and another after another, to the crosses, by way of jest. When their number was so great, that room was wanting for the crosses, and crosses wanting for the bodies. 5.11.2. But so far were those rebelling from repenting at this sad sight, that, on the contrary, they made the rest of the population believe otherwise for they brought the relations of those that had deserted to the wall, as much of the populace were very eager to go over upon the security offered them (by the Romans), and showed them what miseries those underwent who fled to the Romans. They were told that those who were caught were supplicants to them, and not such as were taken prisoners. This sight kept many of those who were so eager to desert within the city, until the truth was known. But some of them ran away immediately to certain punishment, believing death from their enemies to be a quiet departure, if compared with that by famine. So Titus commanded that the hands of many of those that were caught should be cut off, that they might not be thought



F IRST C ENTURY 21

of as deserters, and might be credited on account of the calamity they were under, and sent them into John and Simon with this exhortation, that they should now at length stop [their madness], and not force him to destroy the city. In this way they would have those advantages of forgiveness, even in their utmost distress, that they would preserve their own lives, and so find a city of their own, and that temple which was their peculiar. He then went around the banks that were cast up, and hurried them, in order to show that his words should in no long time be followed by his deeds. In answer to this, the rebellious cast reproaches upon Caesar himself, and upon his father also, and cried out with a loud voice, that they spurned death, and preferred it to slavery and that they would do all the mischief to the Romans they could while they had breath in them. And they had no concern about their own city, which was going to be destroyed by Titus, and that the world itself was a better temple to God than this. And this temple would be preserved by him (God) that inhabited inside, whom they still had for their assistant in this war, and therefore they laughed at all his threats (which would come to nothing, because the conclusion of the whole episode depended only on God). These words were mixed with reproaches, and with them they made a great uproar. 5.11.4. Now the Romans began to raise their towers on the twelfth day of the month Artemisius, [Jyar,] and after they had worked hard on them for seventeen days continually, finished them by the twenty-ninth day of the same month. For there were now four great towers raised, one of which was at the tower Antonia; this was raised by the fifth legion, over against the middle of that pool which was called Struthius. Another was cast up by the twelfth legion, at the distance of about twenty cubits (about 30 feet) from the other. But the labors of the tenth legion, which lay a great way off these, were on the north quarter, and at the pool called Amygdalon; as was that of the fifteenth legion about thirty cubits from it (about 45 feet), and at the high priest’s monument. And now, when the engines were brought, John had from within undermined the space that was over against the tower of Antonia, as far as the towers themselves, and had supported the ground over the mine with beams laid across one another, whereby the Roman works stood upon an uncertain foundation. Then he ordered such materials to be brought in as were daubed over with pitch and bitumen and set them on fire; and as the cross beams that supported the banks were burning, the ditch yielded on the sudden, and the towers were shaken down, and fell into the ditch with a prodigious noise. Now at the first there arose a very thick smoke and dust, as the fire was choked with the fall of the bank; but as the suffocated materials were now gradually consumed, a fire broke out and this fire dismayed the Romans, and the shrewdness of the plan discouraged them. And indeed this accident coming upon them at a time when they thought they had already gained their point, cooled their hopes for the time to come. They also thought it would be to no purpose to take the pains to extinguish the fire, since if it were extinguished, the towers were swallowed up already [and become useless to them]. 5.11.5. Two days after this, Simon and his party made an attempt to destroy the other towers for the Romans had brought their engines to bear there and began already to make the wall shake. And here one Tephtheus, of Garsis, a city of Galilee,

22

DO C UMENTS O F THE RISE O F C HRISTIANITY

and Megassarus, one who was from some of queen Mariamne’s servants, and with them one from Adiabene, the son of Nabateus, and called by the name of Chagiras (from the ill fortune he had his name from the word signifying “a lame man”) snatched some torches and ran suddenly upon the engines. During this war there were never any men that ever sallied out of the city who were their superiors, either in their boldness, or in the terror when they struck into their enemies. For they ran out upon the Romans, not as if they were enemies, but friends, without fear or delay; nor did they leave their enemies till they had rushed violently through the midst of them and set their machines on fire. And though they had darts thrown at them on every side and were on every side assaulted with their enemies’ swords, they did not withdraw themselves out of the dangers they were in, until the fire had caught hold of the instruments. When the flame went up, the Romans came running from their camp to save their engines. The Jews then hindered their efforts from the wall, and fought with those that tried to quench the fire, without any regard to the danger they were in. So the Romans pulled the engines out of the fire, while the hurdles that covered them were on fire; but the Jews caught hold of the battering rams through the flame itself, and held them fast even though the iron upon them was become red hot. Now the fire spread itself from the engines to the banks and prevented those that came to defend them; and all this was happening while the Romans were surrounded with the flame; and, despairing of saving their works from it, they retired to their camp. Then the Jews grew in number when those within the city came to their assistance, and because of their good success became very bold and their violent assaults were almost unstoppable. Indeed, they got as far as the fortifications of the enemies’ camp and fought with their guards. At this point there stood a group of soldiers in array before the camp. These soldiers took turns with the others, and as to these men, the law of the Romans was terrible: he who left his post, for whatever reason, was to die. These soldiers, preferring to die in fighting courageously rather than to be punished for their cowardice, stood firm. Many of the others had run away and out of shame, turned back again after seeing their men standing firm. They then pushed their engines against the wall and stopped the multitude from coming out of the city, because they did not worry about preserving or guarding their own bodies. Now the Jews fought hand to hand with all that came in their way, and, without any caution, fell against the points of their enemies’ spears, and attacked them, bodies against bodies. They were now too difficult for the Romans (to handle), not so much by their other warlike actions but by these courageous assaults they made upon them. The Romans gave way more to their boldness than they did to harm they had received from them. Source: Whiston, William, trans. The Complete Works of Flavius Josephus. London: T. Nelson and Sons, 1860.

Further Reading Basser, H. W. “Josephus as Exegete.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 107, no. 1 (January–March 1987): 21–30.



F IRST C ENTURY 23

Bond, Helen K. “Josephus on Herod’s Domestic Intrigue in the Jewish War.” Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman Period 43, no. 3 (2012): 295–314. Botha, Pieter J. J. “History, Rhetoric and the Writings of Josephus.” Neotestamentica 31, no. 1 (1997): 1–20. Hadas-Lebel, Mireille. Flavius Josephus: Eyewitness to Rome’s First-Century Conquest of Judea. New York: Macmillan Publishers, 1993. Huntsman, Eric D. “The Reliability of Josephus: Can He Be Trusted?” Brigham Young University Studies 36, no. 3, Masada and the World of the New Testament (1996–1997): 392–402. Stern, Pnina. “ ‘Life of Josephus’: The Autobiography of Flavius Josephus.” Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman Period 41, no. 1 (2010): 63–93.

Document 6 JOSEPHUS, JEWISH WARS, 5.5.4–6: A DESCRIPTION OF THE TEMPLE HOLY OF HOLIES The description of the Jewish Temple (known as the Second Temple) by Josephus (~37–100 CE), a Jewish writer, is one of the most important documents we have describing this building. The First Temple had a long history. The building was started first by famous King David and then finished by his equally famous son, King Solomon. Descriptions of it can be found in 1 Kings 6–8 of the Jewish Scriptures. The first part of 1 Kings 6 states, In the four hundred and eightieth year after the Israelites came out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon’s reign over Israel, in the month of Ziv, which is the second month, he began to build the house of the Lord. The house that King Solomon built for the Lord was sixty cubits long, twenty cubits wide, and thirty cubits high. The vestibule in front of the nave of the house was twenty cubits wide, across the width of the house. Its depth was ten cubits in front of the house. For the house he made windows with recessed frames. He also built a structure against the wall of the house, running around the walls of the house, both the nave and the inner sanctuary; and he made side chambers all round. The lowest story was five cubits wide, the middle one was six cubits wide, and the third was seven cubits wide; for round the outside of the house he made offsets on the wall in order that the supporting beams should not be inserted into the walls of the house.

Later, King Solomon dedicated the Temple, as described in 1 Kings 8:1ff: Then Solomon assembled the elders of Israel and all the heads of the tribes, the leaders of the ancestral houses of the Israelites, before King Solomon in Jerusalem, to bring up the ark of the covenant of the Lord out of the city of David, which is Zion. All the people of Israel assembled to King Solomon at the festival in the month Ethanim, which is the seventh month. And all the elders of Israel came, and the priests carried the ark. So they brought up the ark of the Lord, the tent of meeting, and all the holy vessels that were in the tent; the priests and the Levites brought them up. King Solomon and all the congregation of Israel, who had assembled before him, were with him before the ark,

24

DO C UMENTS O F THE RISE O F C HRISTIANITY

sacrificing so many sheep and oxen that they could not be counted or numbered. Then the priests brought the ark of the covenant of the Lord to its place, in the inner sanctuary of the house, in the most holy place, underneath the wings of the cherubim. For the cherubim spread out their wings over the place of the ark, so that the cherubim made a covering above the ark and its poles. The poles were so long that the ends of the poles were seen from the holy place in front of the inner sanctuary; but they could not be seen from outside; they are there to this day. There was nothing in the ark except the two tablets of stone that Moses had placed there at Horeb, where the Lord made a covenant with the Israelites, when they came out of the land of Egypt. And when the priests came out of the holy place, a cloud filled the house of the Lord, so that the priests could not stand to minister because of the cloud; for the glory of the Lord filled the house of the Lord. Then Solomon said, “The Lord has said that he would dwell in thick darkness. I have built you an exalted house, a place for you to dwell in forever.”

This Temple stood until the Babylonians, in 597 BCE, invaded Judea and took it over. They replaced the Jewish king with one of their own. They also forcibly took back many of the influential Jewish families. When the puppet king rebelled, the Babylonian military went back, and in the process of regaining control, they destroyed the building (in 587 BCE) and took back many of its treasures to Babylon. In 538 BCE, the Persians kicked the Babylonians out of this area, and they then took over. The Persian king, Cyrus (later called Cyrus the Great), allowed the Jewish population to rebuild their Temple. He returned some of the treasures taken by the Babylonians and, from what we can tell, also spent some Persian money helping them to rebuild. The Second Temple was completed around 515 BCE. The Jewish people remembered this act by Cyrus, as noted in the first part of Ezra: In the first year of King Cyrus of Persia, in order that the word of the Lord by the mouth of Jeremiah might be accomplished, the Lord stirred up the spirit of King Cyrus of Persia so that he sent a herald throughout all his kingdom, and also in a written edict declared: ‘Thus says King Cyrus of Persia: The Lord, the God of heaven, has given me all the kingdoms of the earth, and he has charged me to build him a house at Jerusalem in Judah. Any of those among you who are of his people—may their God be with them!— are now permitted to go up to Jerusalem in Judah, and rebuild the house of the Lord, the God of Israel—he is the God who is in Jerusalem; and let all survivors, in whatever place they reside, be assisted by the people of their place with silver and gold, with goods and with animals, besides freewill-offerings for the house of God in Jerusalem.’

Control of this region passed from country to country. Alexander the Great took it over in his massive conquest from Egypt through parts of India. It passed into the control of the Ptolemies, a family that originated with Ptolemy, a general of Alexander. It was then taken over by the Seleucids, named after another general of Alexander, Seleucus. The Jewish people revolted against the Seleucids and then controlled their own territory



F IRST C ENTURY 25

from 141 BCE to 63 BCE when the Romans arrived, and once again, they were under the thumb of a foreign power. Through all of this, the Second Temple survived and was the focal point for Jewish populations around the Mediterranean. It wasn’t until King Herod (who ruled from 37 BC to 4 BC) when the Second Temple was greatly expanded and redesigned. Herod, while known for the biblical story of killing all children under the age of two in order to kill the infant Jesus, was also a great builder throughout this region. This is the Temple that is referred to in the New Testament and is the one that Jesus and Paul were active players in. Jesus is described as going to this Temple, and this is where he flipped over the market tables in an effort to cleanse it (Matthew 21:12), and this is also where he performed some of his miracles (Matthew 21:14). Paul, a later convert to Christianity, took part in the religious observances at this Temple as well. After the death of Herod, Jerusalem and the surrounding area was administered by Roman governors. Eventually this led to another revolt in AD 66, and it was in this year that the Temple was once again destroyed. The Romans built a temple to Jupiter on the area and expelled the Jewish and (we think) the Christian population from Jerusalem as punishment for rebelling. The following description of the building includes the innermost part of the Temple, called the Holy of Holies and could only be accessed by the priests. There is also a description of who could not enter the Temple at all—people with leprosy (who were not even allowed entry into the city) and women who were menstruating. The text mentions the measurement of a cubit, which is about 18 inches.

Josephus, Jewish Wars, 5.5.4–6 As to the holy house itself, which was placed in the midst [of the inmost court], that most sacred part of the temple, it was ascended to by twelve steps; and in front its height and its breadth were equal, and each a hundred cubits, though it was behind forty cubits narrower; for on its front it had what may be styled shoulders on each side, that passed twenty cubits further. Its first gate was seventy cubits high, and twenty-five cubits broad; but this gate had no doors; for it represented the universal visibility of heaven, and that it cannot be excluded from any place. Its front was covered with gold all over, and through it the first part of the house, that was more inward, did all of it appear; which, as it was very large, so did all the parts about the more inward gate appear to shine to those that saw them; but then, as the entire house was divided into two parts within, it was only the first part of it that was open to our view. Its height extended all along to ninety cubits in height, and its length was fifty cubits, and its breadth twenty. But that gate which was at this end of the first part of the house was, as we have already observed, all over covered with gold, as was its whole wall about it; it had also golden vines above it, from which clusters of grapes hung as tall as a man’s height. But then this house, as it was divided into two parts, the inner part was lower than the appearance of the outer, and had golden doors of fifty-five cubits altitude, and sixteen in breadth; but before these doors there was a veil of equal largeness with the doors. It was a Babylonian curtain, embroidered with blue, and fine linen, and scarlet, and purple, and of a contexture that was truly wonderful. Nor was this mixture of colors without its

26

DO C UMENTS O F THE RISE O F C HRISTIANITY

mystical interpretation, but was a kind of image of the universe; for by the scarlet there seemed to be enigmatically signified fire, by the fine flax the earth, by the blue the air, and by the purple the sea; two of them having their colors the foundation of this resemblance; but the fine flax and the purple have their own origin for that foundation, the earth producing the one, and the sea the other. This curtain had also embroidered upon it all that was mystical in the heavens, excepting that of the [twelve] signs, representing living creatures. When any persons entered into the temple, its floor received them. This part of the temple therefore was in height sixty cubits, and its length the same; whereas its breadth was but twenty cubits: but still that sixty cubits in length was divided again, and the first part of it was cut off at forty cubits, and had in it three things that were very wonderful and famous among all mankind, the candlestick, the table [of shewbread], and the altar of incense. Now the seven lamps signified the seven planets; for so many there were springing out of the candlestick. Now the twelve loaves that were upon the table signified the circle of the zodiac and the year; but the altar of incense, by its thirteen kinds of sweet-smelling spices with which the sea replenished it, signified that God is the possessor of all things that are both in the uninhabitable and habitable parts of the earth, and that they are all to be dedicated to his use. But the inmost part of the temple of all was of twenty cubits. This was also separated from the outer part by a veil. In this there was nothing at all. It was inaccessible and inviolable, and not to be seen by any; and was called the Holy of Holies. Now, about the sides of the lower part of the temple, there were little houses, with passages out of one into another; there were a great many of them, and they were of three stories high; there were also entrances on each side into them from the gate of the temple. But the superior part of the temple had no such little houses any further, because the temple was there narrower, and forty cubits higher, and of a smaller body than the lower parts of it. Thus we collect that the whole height, including the sixty cubits from the floor, amounted to a hundred cubits. Now the outward face of the temple in its front wanted nothing that was likely to surprise either men’s minds or their eyes; for it was covered all over with plates of gold of great weight, and, at the first rising of the sun, reflected back a very fiery splendor, and made those who forced themselves to look upon it to turn their eyes away, just as they would have done at the sun’s own rays. But this temple appeared to strangers, when they were coming to it at a distance, like a mountain covered with snow; for as to those parts of it that were not gilt, they were exceeding white. On its top it had spikes with sharp points, to prevent any pollution of it by birds sitting upon it. Of its stones, some of them were forty-five cubits in length, five in height, and six in breadth. Before this temple stood the altar, fifteen cubits high, and equal both in length and breadth; each of which dimensions was fifty cubits. The figure it was built in was a square, and it had corners like horns; and the passage up to it was by an insensible acclivity. It was formed without any iron tool, nor did any such iron tool so much as touch it at any time. There was also a wall of partition, about a cubit in height, made of fine stones, and so as to be grateful to the sight; this encompassed the holy house and the altar, and kept



F IRST C ENTURY 27

the people that were on the outside off from the priests. Moreover, those that had the gonorrhea and the leprosy were excluded out of the city entirely; women also, when their courses were upon them, were shut out of the temple; nor when they were free from that impurity, were they allowed to go beyond the limit beforementioned; men also, that were not thoroughly pure, were prohibited to come into the inner [court of the] temple; nay, the priests themselves that were not pure were prohibited to come into it also. Source: Whiston, William, trans. The Complete Works of Flavius Josephus. London: T. Nelson and Sons, 1860.

Further Reading Ben-Ami, Doron, and Yana Tchekhanovets. “The Lower City of Jerusalem on the Eve of Its Destruction, 70 c.e.: A View from Hanyon Givati.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, no. 364 (November 2011): 61–85. Edelman, Diana V. The Origins of the Second Temple: Persian Imperial Policy and the Rebuilding of Jerusalem. Hoboken, NJ: Taylor and Francis, 2014. Kaufman, Asher S. “The Eastern Wall of the Second Temple at Jerusalem Revealed.” Biblical Archaeologist 44, no. 2 (Spring 1981): 108–115. Regev, Eyal. “The Ritual Baths near the Temple Mount and Extra-Purification before Entering the Temple Courts.” Israel Exploration Journal 55, no. 2 (2005): 194–204. Schiffman, Lawrence H. “Jerusalem: Twice Destroyed, Twice Rebuilt.” Classical World 97, no. 1 (Autumn 2003): 31–40. Shanks, Hershel. Jerusalem: An Archaeological Biography. New York: Random House, 1995. Taylor, N. H. “Jerusalem and the Temple in Early Christian Life and Teaching.” Neotestamentica 33, no. 2 (1999): 445–461.

Document 7 EUSEBIUS, CHURCH HISTORY, 3.17–20 ON DOMITIAN AND ROMAN HISTORY, BY CASSIUS DIO, 67.14, 1–3 Emperor Domitian ruled at the very end of the first century CE (from 81 CE to 96 CE). He came from a notable family: his father was Emperor Vespasian (ruled 69–79 CE), and his older brother was Emperor Titus (ruled 79–81 CE). Scholarly literature is now full of discussions on this emperor and his possible persecution of the Christians. Was he a bad emperor who did bad things? Was he a good emperor who not only did good things but also did not systematically persecute Christians? We may never get to the bottom of these questions, but we can at least make a start. Domitian’s rule fits the pattern for many emperors during the first century—at first they got along with the Senate, and then later, they did not when they felt the Senate was trying to block some action or desire of the emperor. This, however, may not be a swipe against the emperor—it may signal that the Senate had or was gaining too much power over the emperor and he fought back by

28

DO C UMENTS O F THE RISE O F C HRISTIANITY

not taking its advice or just ignoring it. While Domitian’s accounts lack the tabloid feel of Nero (modern scholars are beginning to question the portrayal of Nero too), his behavior has led many to think that he was unstable and cruel, at least according to some ancient texts. Modern scholars are not so sure—some have been questioning the “cruel” nature of Domitian and have questioned the veracity of these ancient writers (see Waters 1964). Domitian is probably most famously remembered for his persecution of the Christians during his reign and, in particular, a senator named Flavius Clemens and either his wife or daughter or niece, Domitilla (Keresztes 1973, 16ff). Suetonius, a Roman historian, wrote that Senator Flavius Clemens was put to death by Emperor Domitian. Later writers like Dio Cassius stated that they were persecuted for “atheism,” which sometimes was a charge put on Christians, but it could also be a label applied to the Jewish population. Some have assumed that they were both Christians and, therefore, the emperor was persecuting Christians. Like most things in ancient history, this has also been questioned. Keresztes believes that they were Jewish converts. The niece of Flavius Clemens, with the same name as his wife, is believed to be the Christian who was persecuted (Keresztes 1973, 27). One of the stories about her relates that she had to go into exile for being a Christian and then returned to her property after the death of Domitian. She then donated her property to the church. Afterward, the church began burying its dead, and today the Catacombs of Domitilla are one of the most popular catacombs to visit in Rome. The accounts by the early church fathers suggest that this persecution was brought about after Domitian demanded that he be worshipped as a God by the Christians. Many Christians wrote about the persecution by Domitian (whether true or not, what is important is that they wrote about it, believing it to be true). One was the first Christian historian, Eusebius of Caesarea. What is fascinating about Eusebius’s account is that he referred directly to the writing of others, much like how modern historians do. Eusebius used Revelation from the Bible; accounts from Irenaeus, a Christian who wrote about heresies; Hegesippus; and Tertullian, a North African Christian writing in the second century. Eusebius used these writers to back up his claim that Domitian was cruel to Christians. A text on Emperor Domitian written by Cassius Dio (a Roman writer) is also given next to the text of Eusebius. Modern scholarship is now pointing away from the idea that the Christians were a persecuted group, at least by way of Roman law (see Barnes 1968), and instead is suggesting either the persecutions didn’t happen or that they weren’t as widespread as previously believed. In particular, the debate whether or not Domitian persecuted Christians is still active (Harmes 2009, 37ff).

Eusebius, Church History, 3.17–20 Chapter 17 Domitian, having shown great cruelty toward many, and having unjustly put to death no small number of well-born and notable men at Rome, and having without cause exiled and confiscated the property of a great many other illustrious men, finally became a successor of Nero in his hatred and enmity toward God. He was



F IRST C ENTURY 29

in fact the second that stirred up a persecution against us, although his father Vespasian had undertaken nothing prejudicial to us.

Chapter 18 It is said that in this persecution the apostle and evangelist John, who was still alive, was condemned to dwell on the island of Patmos in consequence of his testimony to the divine word. Irenaeus, in the fifth book of his work Against Heresies, where he discusses the number of the name of Antichrist which is given in the so-called Apocalypse of John, speaks as follows concerning him: “If it were necessary for his name to be proclaimed openly at the present time, it would have been declared by him who saw the revelation. For it was seen not long ago, but almost in our own generation, at the end of the reign of Domitian.” To such a degree, indeed, did the teaching of our faith flourish at that time that even those writers who were far from our religion did not hesitate to mention in their histories the persecution and the martyrdoms which took place during it. And they, indeed, accurately indicated the time. For they recorded that in the fifteenth year of Domitian, Flavia Domitilla, daughter of a sister of Flavius Clement, who at that time was one of the consuls of Rome, was exiled with many others to the island of Pontia in consequence of testimony borne to Christ.

Chapter 19 But when this same Domitian had commanded that the descendants of David should be slain, an ancient tradition says that some of the heretics brought accusation against the descendants of Jude (said to have been a brother of the Savior according to the flesh), on the ground that they were of the lineage of David and were related to Christ himself. Hegesippus relates these facts in the following words.

Chapter 20 “Of the family of the Lord there were still living the grandchildren of Jude, who is said to have been the Lord’s brother according to the flesh. Information was given that they belonged to the family of David, and they were brought to the Emperor Domitian by the Evocatus. For Domitian feared the coming of Christ as Herod also had feared it. And he asked them if they were descendants of David, and they confessed that they were. Then he asked them how much property they had, or how much money they owned. And both of them answered that they had only nine thousand denarii, half of which belonged to each of them; and this property did not consist of silver, but of a piece of land which contained only thirty-nine acres, and from which they raised their taxes and supported themselves by their

30

DO C UMENTS O F THE RISE O F C HRISTIANITY

own labor.” Then they showed their hands, exhibiting the hardness of their bodies and the callousness produced upon their hands by continuous toil as evidence of their own labor. And when they were asked concerning Christ and his kingdom, of what sort it was and where and when it was to appear, they answered that it was not a temporal nor an earthly kingdom, but a heavenly and angelic one, which would appear at the end of the world, when he should come in glory to judge the quick and the dead, and to give unto every one according to his works. Upon hearing this, Domitian did not pass judgment against them, but, despising them as of no account, he let them go, and by a decree put a stop to the persecution of the Church. But when they were released they ruled the churches because they were witnesses and were also relatives of the Lord. And peace being established, they lived until the time of Trajan. These things are related by Hegesippus. Tertullian also has mentioned Domitian in the following words: “Domitian also, who possessed a share of Nero’s cruelty, attempted once to do the same thing that the latter did. But because he had, I suppose, some intelligence, he very soon ceased, and even recalled those whom he had banished.” But after Domitian had reigned fifteen years, and Nerva had succeeded to the empire, the Roman Senate, according to the writers that record the history of those days, voted that Domitian’s honors should be cancelled, and that those who had been unjustly banished should return to their homes and have their property restored to them. It was at this time that the apostle John returned from his banishment in the island and took up his abode at Ephesus, according to an ancient Christian tradition. At this time the road leading from Sinuessa to Puteoli was paved with stone. And the same year Domitian slew, along with many others, Flavius Clemens the consul, although he was a cousin and had to wife Flavia Domitilla, who was also a relative of the emperor’s. The charge brought against them both was that of atheism, a charge on which many others who drifted into Jewish ways were condemned. Some of these were put to death, and the rest were at least deprived of their property. Domitilla was merely banished to Pandateria. But Glabrio, who had been Trajan’s colleague in the consulship, was put to death, having been accused of the same crimes as most of the others, and, in particular, of fighting as a gladiator with wild beasts. Indeed, his prowess in the arena was the chief cause of the emperor’s anger against him, an anger prompted by jealousy. For in Glabrio’s consulship Domitian had summoned him to his Alban estate to attend the festival called the Juvenalia and had imposed on him the task of killing a large lion; and Glabrio not only had escaped all injury but had despatched the lion with most accurate aim. Source: Dio, Cassius. Roman History. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1925.

Further Reading Barnes, T. D. “Legislation against the Christians.” Journal of Roman Studies 58, Parts 1 and 2 (1968): 32–50.



F IRST C ENTURY 31

Botha, P. J. J. “The Historical Domitian—Illustrating Some Problems of Historiography.” Neotestamentica 23, no. 1 (1989): 45–59. Harmes, Mark. “Domitian and the Early Fathers of the Church.” Journal of the Australian Early Medieval Association 5 (2009): 35–54. Jones, Brian W. The Emperor Domitian. New York: Routledge, 1993. Keresztes, Paul. “The Jews, the Christians, and Emperor Domitian.” Vigiliae Christianae 27, no. 1 (March 1973): 1–28. Rhodes, Kevin W. A Consequence of Legitimacy: Domitian’s Conflict with the Senate, and the Imperial Cult’s Conflict with Christianity. 2nd Edition. Cleburne, TX: Hopkins Publishing, 2014. Waters, K. H. “The Character of Domitian.” Phoenix 18, no. 1 (Spring 1964): 49–77. Williams, Margaret H. “Domitian, the Jews and the ‘Judaizers’: A Simple Matter of Cupiditas and Maiestas?” Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte, Bd. 39, H. 2 (1990): 196–211.

This page intentionally left blank

Chapter 2

Second Century Introduction The second century of Christianity is marked by the rapid growth in theology and in the development of church hierarchy. This is also the period when we see a massive rise in the number of texts that survive—some being anonymous, some being spurious, and others where the authors are known. Many of the following texts are about theology or the beliefs of the early Christians. Examples of early theology can be found in the Epistle of Barnabas, the Shepherd of Hermas, and the Gospel of Peter. Despite the fact that the titles suggest the authors are known, this is not the case. Barnabas was supposedly the person found in the New Testament who is associated with Paul. It is the same with the Shepherd and Peter. Some early Christians had no problem with creating a text and then giving it the name of a famous person. This was supposed to lend authority to the texts. Modern scholarship has examined these texts and determined that the authors are unknown. However, this does not mean that we shouldn’t read these texts—they can tell us a great deal about what people thought in these early Christian communities. Who was in charge of the Christians? Today the Catholics have a pope, and everyone knows that he is the leader of the Catholic Church. But this was not the case in the late first century or early second century. Some, like Clement, bishop of Rome, believed he had the power to influence Christian communities outside of Rome. He wrote a letter to the Corinthians, giving them advice on how they should behave. He believed he had the right to do this as Christ gave Peter the keys to the kingdom and Peter went to Rome. Their behavior was based on what people could read in what will be called the New Testament. However, the first known collection of Christian texts appears in the late second century. Books were expensive to create, and Tatian, a Syrian, decided to combine the writings of the Gospels into one story. The Diatessaron was a popular version of the sacred text, based on the information we have today. Finally, there were multiple versions of Christianity (just like today). Irenaeus, the bishop of Lyon, wrote a very large work titled Against Heresies. It is an important work as his accounts are sometimes the only ones we have of these other Christian groups. One large group of Christians, called the Gnostics, wrote many books, including the Gospel of Peter. As mentioned previously, Peter did not write this, but it was used by some Gnostic Christians. Irenaeus believed it was his mission to stop these groups from growing.

Document 8 CLEMENT OF ROME, THE FIRST EPISTLE OF CLEMENT TO THE CORINTHIANS, 1–9 Clement of Rome was one of the earlier bishops in charge of the church at Rome. Although it is tempting to state that he was the pope, this is not correct as first-century

34

DO C UMENTS O F THE RISE O F C HRISTIANITY

and early-second-century Christians were not organized enough to accept one person, living in Rome, as their only leader. It is true, however, that he saw himself as being one of the leaders of Christians, not only living in Rome but also to groups of Christians living outside this area. His letter (or epistle) to those Christians living in Corinth is a really good example of this. Clement became the bishop of Rome between 92 and 101. There isn’t much known about him or what he did before or during the time he was bishop. Many other early Christians who wrote about Christian history later certainly mention him, and they usually state that he was consecrated as bishop by none other than Peter. There were many Christian communities around the Mediterranean by the end of the first century when Clement wrote to the Corinthians (in Greece). We shouldn’t think that they were like Christians today, both in belief and behavior. One of the reasons for this is that there was not a standard text like the New Testament that we have today. Many of the texts that make up our New Testament had been written by the end of the first century, but, as far as we know, none of them were kept as a single book to be used as a reference for beliefs and actions. This was the case until the late 200s and by the 300s CE, when the canon, or official texts to be used by Christians, was created. Clement’s letter is interesting for a number of reasons. The first is that the Corinthians wrote to Clement seeking advice on some problems that they were having. They must have thought that he was more important than some of the other regional bishops. In one respect it would not be surprising that Rome would be recognized as a special place. The disciples Peter and Paul were both rumored to have been killed there. Peter, being given the keys to the kingdom by Jesus, was seen as one of the most important disciples. That he made his way to Rome and was killed there may have lent special authority to the bishops who followed after him. The second is that he was the bishop of Rome and believed himself to have the authority to admonish them. In the first part of his letter (Chapter 1), Clement states that he was tardy in writing back to the Corinthians, especially after they asked for his advice. This shows that he (or his position as bishop of Rome) had some authority for some Christians outside of Rome. The third is that it gives us a glimpse of some of the problems that early Christians had within their own small communities. The fourth (and certainly not the final reason) was that Paul, the disciple of Jesus, also wrote a letter to the Corinthians and admonished them for some of the issues they were also having (1 and 2 Corinthians, in the New Testament). Clement may have seen the opportunity to respond to the Corinthians as a way to enhance his position by writing to them as Paul had. Clement’s Letter to the Corinthians, Chapters 1–9, are given next. Most of it is a pep talk to the Corinthians to remain good Christians, despite all that is happening to them.

Chapter 1 The Church of God which dwells at Rome, to the Church of God dwelling at Corinth, to them that are called and sanctified by the will of God, through our Lord Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, from Almighty God through Jesus Christ, be multiplied. Owing, dear brethren, to the sudden and successive calamitous events which have happened to ourselves, we feel that we have been somewhat

S e c o n d C e n t u r y 35

tardy in turning our attention to the points respecting which you consulted us; and especially to that shameful and detestable sedition, utterly abhorrent to the elect of God, which a few rash and self-confident persons have kindled to such a pitch of frenzy, that your venerable and illustrious name, worthy to be universally loved, has suffered grievous injury. For whoever dwelt, even for a short time among you, and did not find your faith to be as fruitful of virtue as it was firmly established? Who did not admire the sobriety and moderation of your godliness in Christ? Who did not proclaim the magnificence of your habitual hospitality? And who did not rejoice over your perfect and well-grounded knowledge? For you did all things without respect of persons, and walked in the commandments of God, being obedient to those who had the rule over you and giving all fitting honor to the presbyters among you. You instructed young men to be of a sober and serious mind; you instructed your wives to do all things with a blameless, becoming, and pure conscience, loving their husbands as in duty bound. You taught them that, living in the rule of obedience, they should manage their household affairs becomingly, and be in every respect marked by discretion.

Chapter 2 Moreover, you were all distinguished by humility, and were in no way puffed up with pride, but yielded obedience rather than extorted it, and were more willing to give than to receive. Content with the provision which God had made for you, and carefully attending to His words, you were inwardly filled with His doctrine, and His sufferings were before your eyes. Thus a profound and abundant peace was given to you all, and you had an insatiable desire for doing good, while a full outpouring of the Holy Spirit was upon you all. Full of holy designs, you did, with true earnestness of mind and a godly confidence, stretch forth your hands to God Almighty, begging Him to be merciful unto you, if you had been guilty of any involuntary transgression. Day and night you were anxious for the whole brotherhood, that the number of God’s elect might be saved with mercy and a good conscience. You were sincere and uncorrupted, and forgetful of injuries between one another. Every kind of faction and schism was abominable in your sight. You mourned over the transgressions of your neighbors: their deficiencies you deemed your own. You never grudged any act of kindness, being “ready to every good work.” Adorned by a thoroughly virtuous and religious life, you did all things in the fear of God. The commandments and ordinances of the Lord were written upon the tablets of your hearts.

Chapter 3 Every kind of honor and happiness was bestowed upon you, and then was fulfilled that which is written, “My beloved did eat and drink, and was enlarged and became fat, and kicked.” Hence flowed emulation and envy, strife and sedition,

36

DO C UMENTS O F THE RISE O F C HRISTIANITY

persecution and disorder, war and captivity. So the worthless rose up against the honored, those of no reputation against such as were renowned, the foolish against the wise, the young against those advanced in years. For this reason righteousness and peace are now far departed from you, inasmuch as everyone abandons the fear of God, and is become blind in His faith, neither walks in the ordinances of His appointment, nor acts a part becoming a Christian, but walks after his own wicked lusts, resuming the practice of an unrighteous and ungodly envy, by which death itself entered into the world.

Chapter 4 For thus it is written: “And it came to pass after certain days, that Cain brought of the fruits of the earth a sacrifice unto God; and Abel also brought of the firstlings of his sheep, and of the fat thereof. And God had respect to Abel and to his offerings, but Cain and his sacrifices He did not regard. And Cain was deeply grieved, and his countenance fell. And God said to Cain, Why are you grieved, and why is your expression fallen? If you offer rightly, but do not divide rightly, have you not sinned? Be at peace: your offering returns to yourself, and you shall again possess it. And Cain said to Abel his brother, Let us go into the field. And it came to pass, while they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and killed him.” You see, brethren, how envy and jealousy led to the murder of a brother. Through envy, also, our father Jacob fled from the face of Esau his brother. Envy made Joseph be persecuted until death, and to come into bondage. Envy compelled Moses to flee from the face of Pharaoh king of Egypt, when he heard these words from his fellow-countryman, “Who made you a judge or a ruler over us? will you kill me, as you killed the Egyptian yesterday?” On account of envy, Aaron and Miriam had to make their abode outside the camp. Envy brought down Dathan and Abiram alive to Hades, through the sedition which they excited against God’s servant Moses. Through envy, David underwent the hatred not only of foreigners, but was also persecuted by Saul king of Israel.

Chapter 5 But not to dwell upon ancient examples, let us come to the most recent spiritual heroes. Let us take the noble examples furnished in our own generation. Through envy and jealousy, the greatest and most righteous pillars [of the Church] have been persecuted and put to death. Let us set before our eyes the illustrious apostles. Peter, through unrighteous envy, endured not one or two, but numerous labors and when he had at length suffered martyrdom, departed to the place of glory due to him. Owing to envy, Paul also obtained the reward of patient endurance, after being seven times thrown into captivity, compelled to flee, and stoned. After preaching both in the east and west, he gained the illustrious reputation due to his faith, having taught righteousness to the whole world, and come to the

S e c o n d C e n t u r y 37

extreme limit of the west, and suffered martyrdom under the prefects. Thus was he removed from the world, and went into the holy place, having proved himself a striking example of patience.

Chapter 6 To these men who spent their lives in the practice of holiness, there is to be added a great multitude of the elect, who, having through envy endured many indignities and tortures, furnished us with a most excellent example. Through envy, those women, the Danaids and Dircæ, being persecuted, after they had suffered terrible and unspeakable torments, finished the course of their faith with steadfastness, and though weak in body, received a noble reward. Envy has alienated wives from their husbands, and changed that saying of our father Adam, “This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh.” Envy and strife have overthrown great cities and rooted up mighty nations.

Chapter 7 These things, beloved, we write to you, not merely to admonish you of your duty, but also to remind ourselves. For we are struggling on the same arena, and the same conflict is assigned to both of us. Wherefore let us give up vain and fruitless cares, and approach to the glorious and venerable rule of our holy calling. Let us attend to what is good, pleasing, and acceptable in the sight of Him who formed us. Let us look steadfastly to the blood of Christ, and see how precious that blood is to God, which, having been shed for our salvation, has set the grace of repentance before the whole world. Let us turn to every age that has passed, and learn that, from generation to generation, the Lord has granted a place of repentance to all such as would be converted unto Him. Noah preached repentance, and as many as listened to him were saved. Jonah proclaimed destruction to the Ninevites, but they, repenting of their sins, appeased God by prayer, and obtained salvation, although they were aliens [to the covenant] of God.

Chapter 8 The ministers of the grace of God have, by the Holy Spirit, spoken of repentance; and the Lord of all things has himself declared with an oath regarding it, “As I live, says the Lord, I desire not the death of the sinner, but rather his repentance;” adding, moreover, this gracious declaration, “Repent, O house of Israel, of your iniquity. Say to the children of My people, although your sins reach from earth to heaven, and though they are redder than scarlet, and blacker than sackcloth, yet if you turn to Me with your whole heart, and say, Father! I will listen to you, as to a holy people.” And in another place He speaks thus: “Wash, and become clean;

38

DO C UMENTS O F THE RISE O F C HRISTIANITY

put away the wickedness of your souls from before my eyes; cease from your evil ways, and learn to do well; seek out judgment, deliver the oppressed, judge the fatherless, and see that justice is done to the widow; and come, and let us reason together. He declares, though your sins be like crimson, I will make them white as snow; though they be like scarlet, I will whiten them like wool. And if you be willing and obey Me, you shall eat the good of the land; but if you refuse, and will not listen to Me, the sword shall devour you, for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken these things.” Desiring, therefore, that all His beloved should be partakers of repentance, He has, by His almighty will, established [these declarations].

Chapter 9 Therefore, let us yield obedience to His excellent and glorious will; and imploring His mercy and loving-kindness, while we forsake all fruitless labors, and strife, and envy, which leads to death, let us turn and have recourse to His compassions. Let us steadfastly contemplate those who have perfectly ministered to His excellent glory. Let us take (for instance) Enoch, who, being found righteous in obedience, was translated, and death was never known to happen to him. Noah, being found faithful, preached regeneration to the world through his ministry; and the Lord saved by him the animals which, with one accord, entered into the ark. Source: Schaff, Philip. Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 1. A. Cleveland Coxe, ed. New York: Christian Literature Company, 1885.

Further Reading Bévenot, Maurice. “Clement of Rome in Irenaeus’s Succession-List.” Journal of Theological Studies, New Series 17, no. 1 (April 1966): 98–108. Breytenbach, C., and L. L. Welborn, eds. Encounters with Hellenism: Studies on the First Letter of Clement. Leiden, the Netherlands: Brill, 2004. Keresztes, Paul. “Nero, the Christians and the Jews in Tacitus and Clement of Rome.” Latomus T. 43, fasc. 2 (April–June 1984): 404–413. Maier, Harry O. Social Setting of the Ministry as Reflected in the Writings of Hermas, Clement and Ignatius. Waterloo, Ontario: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 2002. Nielsen, Charles M. “Clement of Rome and Moralism.” Church History 31, no. 2 (June 1962): 131–150. Wong, D. W. F. “Natural and Divine Order in I Clement.” Vigiliae Christianae 31, no. 2 (June 1977): 81–87.

Document 9 EPISTLE OF BARNABAS, 1–4 The author of this letter is supposedly Barnabas, the early Christian leader and companion of Paul, in the New Testament. Barnabas played a minor role in the spreading

S e c o n d C e n t u r y 39

of Christianity, at least according to Paul. On the other hand, Barnabas played a major role in the formation of the early Christian community, at least according to the author of Luke. It is here that Barnabas introduced Saul (later Paul after his conversion from Judaism to Christianity) to the rest of the apostles when they didn’t trust him. Some Christians knew that Saul (Paul) had been persecuting Christians and after his conversion, many did not believe he was a Christian:

Acts 9:26–30 When he had come to Jerusalem, he attempted to join the disciples; and they were all afraid of him, for they did not believe that he was a disciple. But Barnabas took him, brought him to the apostles, and described for them how on the road he had seen the Lord, who had spoken to him, and how in Damascus he had spoken boldly in the name of Jesus. So he went in and out among them in Jerusalem, speaking boldly in the name of the Lord. He spoke and argued with the Hellenists; but they were attempting to kill him. When the believers learned of it, they brought him down to Caesarea and sent him off to Tarsus.

The apostles also asked Barnabas to go to the city of Antioch when there was news that people were converting to Christianity. As Luke tells us, he went there, and then he went to Tarsus to find Paul. Paul was then brought to Antioch with Barnabas, and the two of them spent a year there:

Acts 11:22–26 News of this came to the ears of the church in Jerusalem, and they sent Barnabas to Antioch. When he came and saw the grace of God, he rejoiced, and he exhorted them all to remain faithful to the Lord with steadfast devotion; for he was a good man, full of the Holy Spirit and of faith. And a great many people were brought to the Lord. Then Barnabas went to Tarsus to look for Saul, and when he had found him, he brought him to Antioch. So it was that for an entire year they associated with the church and taught a great many people, and it was in Antioch that the disciples were first called ‘Christians’.

It is clear from Luke that Barnabas was the lead apostle, over Paul. Acts 13 states that the two of them were sent out, and it is in this book that Paul’s name starts appearing first when he is mentioned with Barnabas. At some point Paul takes the lead. Luke also tells us that Paul and Barnabas had an argument over whether to take a disciple named John. Paul clearly didn’t like him, but Barnabas insisted—Paul then decided to convert people without Barnabas (Acts 15:36–41). It is probably this argument that colors the account of Barnabas in Paul’s writing. Paul wrote that they also had a parting-of-ways over eating with Gentiles (non-Jewish people). Paul believed that Christians should eat with them, while some early Christians, including Barnabas, believed they should not (Gal. 2:13). Many scholars believe that the author of this letter is not the Barnabas from the New Testament. It is believed to have been written either in the late first century CE or early second century, mostly because of some internal evidence. Part of this evidence is that the author of this letter is against Judaism in general, and this is not the description we have of Barnabas in the New Testament. Regardless, many early Christians believed it to have been written by Barnabas, the friend of Paul. Some, including Origen, a third-century

40

DO C UMENTS O F THE RISE O F C HRISTIANITY

Christian, believed it to be among the books of sacred scripture. One of the earliest and best manuscripts of the New Testament (from the 300s CE), Codex Sinaiticus lists it in the official list of books Christians should read. Eusebius of Caesarea, writing in the late 200s or early 300s, wrote that it is a letter that was questionable and should not be included in the official list of Christian books. Those who didn’t believe it was an official book usually stated that it should be read by Christians because of its instructions to the readers. The following excerpt is from Chapters 1–4. The first few chapters are the introduction to his audience, followed by his instructions to Christian communities. Note the anti-Jewish message that is found throughout this section of the letter. The text, for the most part, is from http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01. I have updated the English and checked the Greek text from Michael W. Holmes, The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2007).

Chapter 1 Greetings, sons and daughters, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, who loved us in peace. Seeing that the divine fruits of righteousness are among you, I rejoice exceedingly and above measure in your happy and honored spirits, because you have with such effect received the engrafted spiritual gift. Wherefore also I inwardly rejoice the more, hoping to be saved, because I truly perceive in you the Spirit poured forth from the rich Lord of love. Your greatly desired appearance has thus filled me with astonishment over you. I am therefore persuaded of this, and fully convinced in my own mind, that since I began to speak among you I understand many things, because the Lord has accompanied me in the way of righteousness. I am also on this account bound by the strictest obligation to love you above my own soul, because great are the faith and love dwelling in you, while you hope for the life which He has promised. Considering this, therefore, that if I should take the trouble to communicate to you some portion of what I have myself received, it will prove to me a sufficient reward that I minister to such spirits. I have hastened briefly to write unto you, in order that, along with your faith, you might have perfect knowledge. There are three doctrines of the Lord: the hope of life, the beginning, and the completion of our faith; righteousness, the beginning and the end of judgement; and a glad and rejoicing love, the testimony of the works of the righteous. For the Master has made known to us by the prophets both the things which are past and present, giving us also the first-fruits of the knowledge of things to come, which when we see them accomplished, one by one, we ought with the greater richness of faith and elevation of spirit draw near to Him with reverence. I then, not as your teacher, but as one of you, will set forth a few things by which in present circumstances, will make you happy.

Chapter 2 Therefore since the days are evil, and Satan possesses the power of this world, we ought to give heed to ourselves, and diligently inquire into the ordinances of

S e c o n d C e n t u r y 41

the Lord. Fear and patience, then, are helpers of our faith, and long-suffering and self-control are things which fight on our side. When these remain pure in things related to the Lord, Wisdom, Understanding, Science, and Knowledge rejoice along with them. For He has revealed to us by all the prophets that He needs neither sacrifices, nor burnt-offerings, nor offerings, saying, “What is the multitude of your sacrifices to Me, says the Lord? I am full of burnt-offerings, and do not desire the fat of lambs, and the blood of bulls and goats—not when you come to appear before Me. For who has required these things at your hands? No longer walk My courts, even though you bring fine flour. Incense is a vain abomination to Me, and your new moons and sabbaths I cannot endure.” He has therefore abolished these things, so that the new law of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is free from the yoke of necessity, won’t be a human one. And again He says to them, “Did I command your fathers, when they went out from the land of Egypt, to offer unto Me burntofferings and sacrifices? Rather I commanded them this: Let no one of you cherish any evil in his heart against his neighbor, and love not an oath of a lie.” Therefore we should, being possessed of understanding, perceive the gracious intention of our Father, for He speaks to us, and wishes that we, not going astray like them, should ask how we may approach Him. To us, then, He declares, “A sacrifice [pleasing] to God is a broken spirit; a smell of sweet savor to the Lord is a heart that glorifies Him that made it.” We should therefore, brethren, carefully seek concerning our salvation, in case the wicked one, having made his entrance by lying, should fling us away from our [true] life.

Chapter 3 He says then to them again concerning these things, “Why do you fast to Me as on this day, says the Lord, that your voice should be heard with a cry? I have not chosen this fast, says the Lord, that a man should humble his soul. You cannot, though you bend your neck like a ring and put upon your sackcloth and ashes, call it an acceptable fast.” To us He says, “Behold, this is the fast that I have chosen, says the Lord, not that a man should humble his soul, but that he should loosen every tie to immorality, untie the fastenings of harsh agreements, restore liberty to those that are bruised, tear in pieces every unjust engagement, feed the hungry with your bread, clothe the naked when you see him, bring the homeless into your house, not despise the humble if you behold him, and not [turn away] from the members of your own family. Then your dawn shall break forth, and your healing shall quickly spring up, and righteousness shall go forth before you, and the glory of God shall enclose you; and then you will call, and God will hear you. While you are you speaking, He shall say, Behold, I am with you—if you take away the chain [binding others], and the stretching forth of the hands [to swear falsely], and words of murmuring, and cheerfully give your bread to the hungry, and show compassion to the soul that has been humbled.” To this end, therefore, brethren, He is long-suffering, foreseeing how the people whom He has prepared will, with innocence, believe in His Beloved. For He revealed all these things to us beforehand, so that we would not rush forward, rashly accepting their laws.

42

DO C UMENTS O F THE RISE O F C HRISTIANITY

Chapter 4 It is therefore necessary, for those who greatly inquire about events at hand, to search diligently into those things which are able to save us. Let us then utterly flee from all the works of iniquity, in case these should take hold of us; and let us hate the error of the present time, that we may set our love on the world to come: let us not release the grip on our soul so that it should have power to run with sinners and the wicked, in case we become like them. The final stumbling-block (or source of danger) approaches, concerning which it is written, as Enoch says, “For this end the Lord has shortened the times and the days, so that His Beloved may hurry, and He will come to the inheritance.” And the prophet also speaks thus: “Ten kingdoms shall rule on the earth, and a little king shall rise up after them who shall subdue three of the kings.” In like manner Daniel says concerning the same, “And I saw the fourth beast, wicked and powerful, and more savage than all the beasts of the earth, and how ten horns sprang up from it, and out of them a little budding horn, and how it subdued three of the great horns.” You should therefore understand. And this also I further beg of you, as being one of you, and loving you both individually and collectively more than my own soul, to take heed now to yourselves, and not to be like some, adding largely to your sins and saying, “The covenant is both theirs and ours.” But they finally lost it, after Moses had already received it. For the Scripture says, “And Moses was fasting in the mount forty days and forty nights, and received the covenant from the Lord, tables of stone written with the finger of the hand of the Lord.” But they lost it when they turned away to idols. For the Lord speaks thus to Moses: “Moses go down quickly; for the people whom you brought out of the land of Egypt have transgressed.” And Moses understood [the meaning of God], and cast away the two tables out of his hands. Their covenant was broken, in order that the covenant of the beloved Jesus might be sealed upon our heart, in the hope which flows from believing in Him. Now, wanting to write many things to you, not as your teacher, but as one who loves you, I have taken care not to fail to write to you from what I myself possess, with a view to your purification. We take earnest heed in these last days; for the whole [past] time of your faith will profit you nothing, unless now in this wicked time we also withstand the coming sources of danger as the sons of God. Let us flee from every vanity, let us utterly hate doing evil things so that the Black One may find no means of entrance. Do not, by retiring apart, live a solitary life, as if you were already [fully] justified; but coming together in one place, make common inquiry concerning what benefits your general welfare. For the Scripture says, “Woe to them who are wise to themselves, and prudent in their own sight!” Let us be spiritually-minded. Let us be a perfect temple to God. As much as we can, let us meditate upon the fear of God, and let us keep His commandments so that we may rejoice in His ordinances. The Lord will judge the world without respect of persons. Each will receive as he has done: if he is righteous, his righteousness will precede him; if he is wicked, the reward of wickedness is before him. Be careful, in case those who rest in comfort of being called, should fall asleep in our sins, and the wicked prince, acquiring power over us, should thrust us away from the

S e c o n d C e n t u r y 43

kingdom of the Lord. And attend to this all the more, my brethren that when you reflect and behold, that after great signs and wonders were done in Israel, they were thus abandoned. Let us beware lest we be found, as it is written, “Many are called, but few are chosen.” Source: Schaff, Philip. Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 1. A. Cleveland Coxe, ed. New York: Christian Literature Company, 1885. New Testament quotes in the document introduction are from are from the New Revised Standard Version Bible.

Further Reading Azad, Ghulam M. “An Introduction to the Gospel of Barnabas.” Islamic Studies 21, no. 4 (Winter 1982): 71–96. Goodspeed, Edgar J. “The Salutation of Barnabas.” Journal of Biblical Literature 34, no. 1/4 (1915): 162–165. Grant, Robert M. “The Apostolic Fathers’ First Thousand Years.” Church History 57, Supplement: Centennial Issue (1988): 20–28. Horbury, W. Jews and Christians: In Contact and Controversy. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1998. Kraft, R. A. “An Unnoticed Papyrus Fragment of Barnabas.” Vigiliae Christianae 21, no. 3 (September 1967): 150–163. Paget, James C. “Paul and the Epistle of Barnabas.” Novum Testamentum 38, fasc. 4 (October 1996): 359–381. Rhodes, James N. “ ‘Barnabas’ 4.6B: The Exegetical Implications of a Textual Problem.” Vigiliae Christianae 58, no. 4 (November 2004): 365–392.

Document 10 SHEPHERD OF HERMAS, BOOK 2, CHAPTER 1–4 The Shepherd of Hermas is a text that probably dates to the late first century CE or the early second century. Hermas, the apparent author of the text, had a series of dreams or visions that were considered to be divine messages. Hermas was then ordered by God to pass these divine messages to first his family and then to the officials in charge of the churches. It was probably written in Rome. Early Christians thought he might have been the brother to one of the early bishops of Rome or even the Hermas who shows up in a list of people whom Paul was greeting in his Letter to the Romans (16:14). Early Christian writers mentioned the Shepherd of Hermas and believed it was accepted by many early Christian communities as being one the official texts Christians should read. These include Irenaeus (late second century), Clement of Alexandria (middle or late second century), and Origen (late second century, middle of third century). Irenaeus, in his Against Heresies, refers the reader to a quote from the Shepherd of Hermas and cites it with other biblical texts, such as Malachi, Ephesians, Matthew, and Revelation (4.20.2). He clearly thinks it is an important work that could be listed side by side with other early Christian texts. Clement of Alexandria does likewise in his book titled Stromata (see 1.17 and 1.29). Origen believed it to be divinely inspired and, like

44

DO C UMENTS O F THE RISE O F C HRISTIANITY

Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria, would have no issue listed it along other biblical texts. However, not all Christians accepted it. The Shepherd of Hermas is found in the earliest lists of Christian texts, titled the Muratorian Canon. This document possibly dates to the end of the second century. It states, The Pastor, moreover, did Hermas write very recently in our times in the city of Rome, while his brother bishop Pius sat in the chair of the Church of Rome. And therefore it also ought to be read, but it cannot be made public in the Church to the people, nor placed among the prophets, as their number is complete, nor among the apostles to the end of time.

Other Christians also rejected it as canonical, and it was then relegated to either a text that was read just for its moral teachings or rejected outright. Tertullian (died around 240), writing a book called On Modesty, rejected it outright and stated that it was seen as being spurious by church councils and even wrote that it supports adulterers (On Modesty, 1.10). Finally, Eusebius of Caesarea (died 339/340), who wrote a book titled Church History (3.3.6–7), stated, But as the same apostle, in the salutations at the end of the Epistle to the Romans, has made mention among others of Hermas, to whom the book called The Shepherd is ascribed, it should be observed that this too has been disputed by some, and on their account cannot be placed among the acknowledged books; while by others it is considered quite indispensable, especially to those who need instruction in the elements of the faith. Hence, as we know, it has been publicly read in churches, and I have found that some of the most ancient writers used it. This will serve to show the divine writings that are undisputed as well as those that are not universally acknowledged.

The text itself is made up of three main sections: the five visions, the twelve commandments, and the ten parables. It is hardly surprising that many early Christians accepted this text as authentic. Next some of the Commandments (1–4) are listed. The rules found in the Shepherd of Hermas fit with other rules and regulations known from other early Christian texts, such as those from the New Testament.

Shepherd of Hermas First Commandment First of all, believe that there is one God who created and finished all things, and made all things out of nothing. He alone is able to contain the whole, but Himself cannot be contained. Therefore have faith in Him, and fear Him; and fearing Him, exercise self-control. Keep these commands, and you will cast away from you all wickedness, and put on the strength of righteousness, and live to God, if you keep this commandment.

S e c o n d C e n t u r y 45

Second Commandment He said to me, “Be simple and guileless, and you will be as the children who do not know the wickedness that ruins the life of men. First, then, speak evil of no one, nor listen with pleasure to anyone who speaks evil of another. But if you listen, you will partake of the sin of he who speaks evil, if you believe the slander which you hear. For believing it, you will also have something to say against your brother. Therefore you will be guilty of the sin of he who slanders. For slander is evil and an unsteady demon. It never abides in peace, but always remains in discord. Keep yourself from it, and you will always be at peace with all. Put on a holiness in which there is no wicked cause of offence, but all deeds that are equable and joyful. Practice goodness, and from the rewards of your labors, which God gives you, give to all the needy in simplicity, not hesitating as to whom you are to give or not to give. Give to all, for God wishes His gifts to be shared among all. They who receive will render an account to God why and for what they have received. For the afflicted who receive will not be condemned, but they who receive on false pretenses will suffer punishment. He, then, who gives is guiltless. For as he received from the Lord, so has he accomplished his service in simplicity, not hesitating as to whom he should give and to whom he should not give. This service, then, if accomplished in simplicity, is glorious with God. Therefore he who ministers in simplicity, will live to God. Therefore keep these commandments, as I have given them to you, that your repentance and the repentance of your house may be found in simplicity, and your heart may be pure and stainless.”

Third Commandment Again he said to me, “Love the truth, and let nothing but truth proceed from your mouth, so that the spirit which God has placed in your flesh may be found truthful before all men. And the Lord, who dwells in you, will be glorified, because the Lord is truthful in every word, and in Him is no falsehood. They therefore who lie deny the Lord, and rob Him, not giving back to Him the deposit which they have received. For they received from Him a spirit free from falsehood. If they give him back this untruthful spirit, they pollute the commandment of the Lord, and become robbers.” On hearing these words, I wept violently. When he saw me weeping, he said to me, “Why do you weep?” And I said, “Because, sir, I know not if I can be saved.” “Why?” said he. And I said, “Because, sir, I never spoke a true word in my life, but have always spoken lies to all, and to all have affirmed a lie for the truth. No one ever contradicted me, but credit was given to my word. How then can I live, since I have acted like this?” And he said to me, “Your feelings are indeed right and sound, for you should have walked in truth as a servant of God, and not to have joined an evil conscience with the spirit of truth, nor to have caused sadness to the holy and true Spirit.” And I said to him, “Never, sir, did I listen to these words with so much attention.” And he said to me, “Now you hear

46

DO C UMENTS O F THE RISE O F C HRISTIANITY

them, and keep them, that even the lies which you formerly told in your transactions may come to be believed through the truthfulness of your present statements. For even they can become worthy of credit. If you keep these precepts, and from this time forward you speak nothing but the truth, it will be possible for you to obtain life. And whosoever shall hear this commandment, and depart from that great lying wickedness, shall live to God.”

Fourth Commandment Chapter 1: “I charge you,” said he, “to guard your chastity, and let no thought enter your heart of another man’s wife, or of fornication, or of similar iniquities; for by doing this you commit a great sin. But if you always remember your own wife, you will never sin. For if this thought enters your heart, then you will sin; and if, in like manner, you think other wicked thoughts, you commit sin. For this thought is great sin in a servant of God. But if any one commits this wicked deed, he works death for himself. Therefore listen and refrain from this thought; for where purity dwells, there iniquity should not to enter the heart of a righteous man.” I said to him, “Sir, permit me to ask you a few questions.” “Ask away,” he said. And I said to him, “Sir, if anyone has a wife who trusts in the Lord, and if he detects adultery her in, does the man sin if he continues to live with her?” And he said to me, “As long as he remains ignorant of her sin, the husband commits no transgression in living with her. But if the husband knows that his wife has gone astray, and if the woman does not repent but persists in her fornication, and still the husband continues to live with her, he also is guilty of her crime, and a sharer in her adultery.” And I said to him, “What then, sir, is the husband to do, if his wife continues in her vicious practices?” And he said, “The husband should divorce her, and remain by himself. But if he divorces her and marries another, he also commits adultery.” And I said to him, “What if the woman who was divorced should repent, and wish to return to her husband: should she not be taken back by her husband?” And he said to me, “Assuredly. If the husband does not take her back, he sins, and brings a great sin upon himself; for he ought to take back the sinner who has repented. But not frequently. For there is but one repentance to the servants of God. In case, therefore, that the divorced wife may repent, the husband ought not to marry another when his wife had been divorced. In this matter man and woman are to be treated exactly in the same way. Moreover, adultery is committed not only by those who pollute their flesh, but by those who imitate the heathen in their actions. Wherefore if any one persists in such deeds, and does not repent, withdraw from him, and cease to live with him, otherwise you are a sharer in his sin. Therefore the rule been laid on you that you should remain by yourselves, both man and woman, for between you repentance can take place. But I do not,” said he, “give opportunity for the doing of these deeds, but that he who has sinned may sin no more. But with regard to his previous transgressions, there is One who is able to provide a cure; for it is He, indeed, who has power over all.”

S e c o n d C e n t u r y 47

Chap. 2. I asked him again, and said, “Since the Lord has offered to dwell always with me, bear with me while I utter a few words; for I understand nothing, and my heart has been hardened by my previous mode of life. Give me understanding, for I am exceedingly dull, and I understand absolutely nothing.” And he answered and said unto me, “I am set over repentance, and I give understanding to all who repent. Do you not think,” he said, “that it is great wisdom to repent? for repentance is great wisdom. For he who has sinned understands that he acted wickedly in the sight of the Lord, and remembers the actions he has done, and he repents, and no longer acts wickedly, but does good things compassionately, and humbles and torments his soul because he has sinned. You see, therefore, that repentance is great wisdom.” And I said to him, “It is for this reason, sir, that I inquire carefully into all things, especially because I am a sinner so that I may know what works I should do, that I may live: for my sins are many and various.” And he said to me, “You shall live if you keep my commandments, and walk in them; and whoever will hear and keep these commandments, will live in God.” Chap. 3. And I said to him, “I should like to continue my questions.” “Continue,” he said. And I said, “I heard, sir, some teachers maintain that there is no other repentance than that which takes place when we descended into the water and received remission of our former sins.” He said to me, “That was sound doctrine which you heard for that is really the case. For he who has received remission of his sins should not to sin any more, but to live in purity. Since, however, you inquire diligently into all things, I will also point this out to you, not as giving occasion for error to those who are to believe, or have lately believed, in the Lord. For those who have now believed, and those who are to believe, do not have repentance for their sins; but they have remission of their previous sins. For to those who have been called before these days, the Lord has set repentance. For the Lord, knowing the heart, and foreknowing all things, knew the weakness of men and the multiple wiles of the devil and that he would inflict some evil on the servants of God, and would act wickedly towards them. The Lord, therefore, being merciful, has had mercy on the work of His hand, and has set repentance for them and He has entrusted to me power over this repentance. And therefore I say to you, that if any one is tempted by the devil, and sins after that great and holy calling in which the Lord has called His people to everlasting life, he has only one opportunity to repent. But if he should sin frequently after this, and then repent, to such a man his repentance will be of no avail; for with difficulty will he live.” And I said, “Sir, I feel that life has come back to me in listening attentively to these commandments; for I know that I shall be saved, if in future I sin no more.” And he said, “You will be saved, you and all who keep these commandments.” Chap. 4. And again I asked him, saying, “Sir, since you have been so patient in listening to me, will you show this to me also?” “Speak,” said he. And I said, “If a wife or husband die, and the widower or widow marry, does he or she commit sin?” “There is no sin in marrying again,” said he; “but if they remain unmarried, they gain greater honor and glory with the Lord; but if they marry, they do not sin. Guard, therefore, your chastity and purity, and you will live to God. What

48

DO C UMENTS O F THE RISE O F C HRISTIANITY

commandments I now give you, and what I am to give, keep them going forward, from the very day when you were entrusted to me, and I will dwell in your house. And your former sins will be forgiven, if you keep my commandments. And all shall be forgiven who keep these my commandments, and walk in this purity.” Source: Schaff, Philip. Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 2. A. Cleveland Coxe, ed. New York: Christian Literature Company, 1885.

Further Reading Ehrman, Bart D. Lost Scriptures: Books That Did Not Make It into the New Testament. New York: Oxford University Press, 2003. Ford, Josephine M. “A Possible Liturgical Background to the Shepherd of Hermas.” Revue de Qumrân 6, no. 4 (24) (March 1969): 531–551. Miller, Patricia C. “ ‘All the Words Were Frightful’: Salvation by Dreams in the Shepherd of Hermas.” Vigiliae Christianae 42, no. 4 (December 1988): 327–338. Osiek, Carolyn. Shepherd of Hermas: A Commentary (in Hermeneia: A Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible). Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1999. Sundberg, Albert C., Jr. “Canon Muratori: A Fourth-Century List.” Harvard Theological Review 66, no. 1 (January 1973): 1–41. Thomassen, Einar. “Orthodoxy and Heresy in Second-Century Rome.” Harvard Theological Review 97, no. 3 (July 2004): 241–256. Wilson, William J. “The Career of the Prophet Hermas.” Harvard Theological Review 20, no. 1 (January 1927): 21–62.

Document 11 JUSTIN MARTYR, DIALOGUE WITH TRYPHO, 1–2, 8–9 Justin Martyr was given this name because he was killed for his Christian faith, probably in 165 CE. He was born in Palestine to pagan parents. As he tells us in his Dialogue with Trypho (written around 160 CE), he searched and searched for a philosophical school that would satisfy his curiosity. He found it in Christianity after a mysterious old man gave Justin a description of the religion (see Hofer [2003, 2–4] for a detailed history of who scholars think this old man was). Justin then went on to write several works, including his famous Apologies, written directly to Emperor Antonius Pius (ruled 138–161) and the second to the Roman Senate. These were brave works in that Christians were being persecuted for their faith. Justin’s goal of these books was to show that Christians did not deserve to be punished for their religious beliefs, especially since they were good Roman citizens. His Dialogue with Trypho was written after Justin, who was taking a morning walk, was approached by Trypho and his friends who were Jewish. The two had a discussion, and Justin tried to convince Trypho that Christianity was the true “philosophy.” Trypho didn’t merely listen—he tried to convince Justin that Judaism was the true “philosophy.” The debate lasted for two days.

S e c o n d C e n t u r y 49

Modern scholars have been interested in this text for a number of reasons. The first, and most evident, is that there was a dialogue between Jews and Christians in the second century. Christians separated themselves out of Judaism, starting in the first century (as can be seen in numerous areas in the New Testament). These early texts make it seem that the break was final and not performed in the nicest manner. However, the Dialogue with Trypho shows that Christians and Jewish people could still have a decent discussion on the merits of each religion. It would, however, be a mistake to see the entire Dialogue as friendly! For example, Justin (in Chapter 16) stated that the Jewish population has been attacked by the Romans for good reasons—namely, that they crucified Christ and that Jewish people are still persecuting Christians. Another reason why scholars are interested in this text is that some are not sure whether or not the debate actually took place or whether or not Trypho was a real person. After all, it is Justin writing this down himself. Barnard (1967, 396), however, believes that Trypho was a real person, just based on the “personal touches” that Justin gives us of him. However, true or not, real or not, it gives us a glimpse into the relationship between the Jews and the Christians in the second century. Another reason is that Justin cites several texts from the Old and New Testaments. It is from these citations that scholars can determine Justin’s own theology and more importantly, where he is getting his information from to support his arguments. The following passage is Justin’s introduction to Trypho. While he told Trypho about his journey into various philosophies, he also told him about an unnamed old man who introduced him to Christianity. The excerpt skips to Chapter 7 where Justin tried to convince Trypho to convert to Christianity, while Trypho tried to convince Justin to convert to Judaism.

Dialogue with Trypho Chapter 1 While I was going about one morning in the walks of the portico, a certain man, with others in his company, having met me, and said, “Hail, O philosopher!” And immediately after saying this, he turned round and walked along with me. His friends likewise followed him. And I in turn having addressed him, said, “What is there important?” And he replied, “I was instructed,” says he “by Corinthus the Socratic in Argos, that I ought not to despise or treat with indifference those who array themselves in this dress but to show them all kindness, and to associate with them, as perhaps some advantage would spring from the intercourse either to some such man or to myself. It is good, moreover, for both, if either the one or the other be benefited. On this account, therefore, whenever I see any one in such costume, I gladly approach him, and now, for the same reason, have I willingly accosted you and these accompany me, in the expectation of hearing for themselves something profitable from you.” “But who are you, most excellent man?” So I replied to him in jest. Then he told me frankly both his name and his family. “Trypho,” says he, “I am called; and I am a Hebrew of the circumcision and having escaped from the war lately carried on there I am spending my days in Greece, and

50

DO C UMENTS O F THE RISE O F C HRISTIANITY

chiefly at Corinth.” “And in what,” said I, “would you be profited by philosophy so much as by your own lawgiver and the prophets?” “Why not?” he replied. “Do not the philosophers turn every discourse on God? and do not questions continually arise to them about His unity and providence? Is not this truly the duty of philosophy to investigate the Deity?” “Assuredly,” said I, “so we too have believed. But most have not thought of this, whether there be one or more gods, and whether they have a regard for each one of us or no, as if this knowledge contributed nothing to our happiness. Indeed, they moreover attempt to persuade us that God takes care of the universe with its genera and species, but not of me and you, and each individually, since otherwise we would surely not need to pray to Him night and day. But it is not difficult to understand the upshot of this—for fearlessness and license in speaking result in maintaining these opinions, doing and saying whatever they choose, neither dreading punishment nor hoping for any benefit from God. For how could they? They affirm that the same things shall always happen. And, further, that you and I shall again live in like manner, having become neither better men nor worse. But there are some others, who, having supposed the soul to be immortal and immaterial, believe that though they have committed evil they will not suffer punishment (for that which is immaterial cannot feel anything), and that the soul, in consequence of its immortality, needs nothing from God.” And he, smiling gently, said, “Tell us your opinion of these matters, and what idea you entertain respecting God, and what your philosophy is.”

Chapter 2 “I will tell you,” said I, “what seems to me, for philosophy is, in fact, the greatest possession, and most honorable before God, to whom it leads us and alone commends us; and these are truly holy men who have bestowed attention on philosophy. What philosophy is, however, and the reason why it has been sent down to men, have escaped the observation of most; for there would be neither Platonists, nor Stoics, nor Peripatetics, nor Theoretics, nor Pythagoreans, this knowledge being one. I wish to tell you why it has become many-headed. It has happened that those who first handled it [i.e., philosophy], and who were therefore esteemed illustrious men, were succeeded by those who made no investigations concerning truth, but only admired the perseverance and self-discipline of the former, as well as the novelty of the doctrines. Each thought that to be true which he learned from his teacher. Then, moreover, those latter persons handed down to their successors such things, and others similar to them and this system was called by the name of him who was styled the father of the doctrine. Being at first desirous of personally conversing with one of these men, I surrendered myself to a certain Stoic and having spent a considerable time with him, when I had not acquired any further knowledge of God (for he did not know himself, and said such instruction was unnecessary), I left him and betook myself to another. This one was called a Peripatetic, and as he fancied, shrewd. And this man, after having entertained me for the first few days, asked me to settle the fee, in order that our intercourse might

S e c o n d C e n t u r y 51

not be unprofitable. He, too, I abandoned for this reason, believing him to be no philosopher at all. But when my soul was eagerly desirous to hear the peculiar and choice philosophy, I came to a Pythagorean, a very celebrated man who thought much of his own wisdom. And then, when I had an interview with him, willing to become his hearer and disciple, he said, ‘What then? Are you acquainted with music, astronomy, and geometry? Do you expect to perceive any of those things which conduce to a happy life, if you have not been first informed on those points which wean the soul from sensible objects, and render it fitted for objects which appertain to the mind, so that it can contemplate that which is honorable in its essence and that which is good in its essence?’ Having commended many of these branches of learning, and telling me that they were necessary, he dismissed me when I confessed to him my ignorance. Accordingly I took it rather impatiently, as was to be expected when I failed in my hope, the more so because I deemed the man had some knowledge; but reflecting again on the space of time during which I would have to linger over those branches of learning, I was not able to endure longer procrastination. In my helpless condition it occurred to me to have a meeting with the Platonists, for their fame was great. I thereupon spent as much of my time as possible with one who had lately settled in our city—a sagacious man, holding a high position among the Platonists—and I progressed, and made the greatest improvements daily. And the perception of immaterial things quite overpowered me, and the contemplation of ideas furnished my mind with wings, so that in a little while I supposed that I had become wise; and such was my stupidity, I expected forthwith to look upon God, for this is the end of Plato’s philosophy.” . . .

Chapter 7 “ ‘Should any one, then, employ a teacher?’ I say, ‘or where may anyone be helped, if not even in them there is truth?’ ” ‘There existed, long before this time, certain men more ancient than all those who are esteemed philosophers, both righteous and beloved by God, who spoke by the Divine Spirit, and foretold events which would take place, and which are now taking place. They are called prophets. These alone both saw and announced the truth to men, neither reverencing nor fearing any man, not influenced by a desire for glory, but speaking those things alone which they saw and which they heard, being filled with the Holy Spirit. Their writings are still in existence, and he who has read them is very much helped in his knowledge of the beginning and end of things, and of those matters which the philosopher ought to know, provided he has believed them. For they did not use demonstration in their treatises, seeing that they were witnesses to the truth above all demonstration, and worthy of belief. And those events which have happened, and those which are happening, compel you to assent to the utterances made by them, although, indeed, they were entitled to credit on account of the miracles which they performed, since they both glorified the Creator, the God and Father of all things, and proclaimed His Son, the Christ [sent] by Him. Indeed, the false

52

DO C UMENTS O F THE RISE O F C HRISTIANITY

prophets, who are filled with the lying unclean spirit, neither have done nor do, but venture to work certain wonderful deeds for the purpose of astonishing men and glorify the spirits and demons of error. But pray that, above all things, the gates of light may be opened to you; for these things cannot be perceived or understood by all, but only by the man to whom God and His Christ have imparted wisdom.’

Chapter 8 “When he had spoken these and many other things, which there is no time for mentioning at present, he went away, bidding me attend to them; and I have not seen him since. But straightway a flame was kindled in my soul; and a love of the prophets, and of those men who are friends of Christ, possessed me; and whilst revolving his words in my mind, I found this philosophy alone to be safe and profitable. Thus, and for this reason, I am a philosopher. Moreover, I would wish that all, making a resolution similar to my own, do not keep themselves away from the words of the Savior. For they possess a terrible power in themselves, and are sufficient to inspire those who turn aside from the path of rectitude with awe; while the sweetest rest is afforded those who make a diligent practice of them. If, then, you have any concern for yourself, and if you are eagerly looking for salvation, and if you believe in God, you may—since you are not indifferent to the matter—become acquainted with the Christ of God, and, after being initiated, live a happy life.” When I had said this, my beloved friends those who were with Trypho laughed, but he, smiling, says, “I approve of your other remarks, and admire the eagerness with which you study divine things; but it were better for you still to abide in the philosophy of Plato, or of some other man, cultivating endurance, self-control, and moderation, rather than be deceived by false words, and follow the opinions of men of no reputation. For if you remain in that mode of philosophy, and live blamelessly, a hope of a better destiny was left to you; but when you have forsaken God, and reposed confidence in man, what safety still awaits you? If, then, you are willing to listen to me (for I have already considered you a friend), first be circumcised, then observe what ordinances have been enacted with respect to the Sabbath, and the feasts, and the new moons of God; and, in a word, do all things which have been written in the law: and then perhaps you shall obtain mercy from God. But Christ—if He has indeed been born, and exists anywhere—is unknown, and does not even know Himself, and has no power until Elias come to anoint Him and make Him manifest to all. And you, having accepted a groundless report, invent a Christ for yourselves, and for his sake are inconsiderately perishing.”

Chapter 9 “I excuse and forgive you, my friend,” I said. “For you know not what you say, but have been persuaded by teachers who do not understand the Scriptures and

S e c o n d C e n t u r y 53

you speak, like a diviner, whatever comes into your mind. But if you are willing to listen to an account of Him, how we have not been deceived, and shall not cease to confess Him—although men’s reproaches be heaped upon us, although the most terrible tyrant compel us to deny Him—I shall prove to you as you stand here that we have not believed empty fables, or words without any foundation but words filled with the Spirit of God, and big with power, and flourishing with grace.” Then again those who were in his company laughed and shouted in an unseemly manner. Then I rose up and was about to leave, but he, taking hold of my garment, said I should not accomplish that until I had performed what I promised. “Let not, then, your companions be so tumultuous, or behave so disgracefully,” I said. “But if they wish, let them listen in silence; or, if some better occupation prevents them, let them go away; while we, having retired to some spot, and resting there, may finish the discourse.” It seemed good to Trypho that we should do so and accordingly, having agreed upon it, we retired to the middle space of the portico. Two of his friends, when they had ridiculed and made game of our zeal, went off. And when we came to that place, where there are stone seats on both sides, those with Trypho, having seated themselves on the one side, conversed with each other, some one of them having thrown in a remark about the war waged in Judea. Source: Schaff, Philip. Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 1. A. Cleveland Coxe, ed. New York: Christian Literature Company, 1885.

Further Reading Barnard, L. W. Justin Martyr: His Life and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967. Bokser, Ben Z. “Justin Martyr and the Jews: II.” Jewish Quarterly Review, New Series 64, no. 3 (January 1974): 204–211. Boyarin, Daniel. “Justin Martyr Invents Judaism.” Church History 70, no. 3 (September 2001): 427–461. Chadwick, Henry. Early Christian Thought and the Classical Tradition: Studies in Justin, Clement, and Origen. New York: Oxford University Press, 1966. Cosgrove, Charles H. “Justin Martyr and the Emerging Christian Canon: Observations on the Purpose and Destination of the Dialogue with Trypho.” Vigiliae Christianae 36, no. 3 (September 1982): 209–232. Hofer, Andrew. “The Old Man as Christ in Justin’s ‘Dialogue with Trypho.’ ” Vigiliae Christianae 57, no. 1 (February 2003): 1–21. Trakatellis, Demetrios. “Justin Martyr’s Trypho.” Harvard Theological Review 79, no. 1/3, Christians among Jews and Gentiles: Essays in Honor of Krister Stendahl on His SixtyFifth Birthday (January–July 1986): 287–297. Van Winden, J. C. M. An Early Christian philosopher: Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypho. Leiden, the Netherlands: Brill, 1971. Werline, Rodney. “The Transformation of Pauline Arguments in Justin Martyr’s ‘Dialogue with Trypho.’ ” Harvard Theological Review 92, no. 1 (January 1999): 79–93.

54

DO C UMENTS O F THE RISE O F C HRISTIANITY

Document 12 TERTULLIAN, TO THE MARTYRS Tertullian was born in Carthage, North Africa, around 155 CE and died sometime after 220 CE. His father was an official in the Roman government, and Tertullian became a lawyer before his conversion to Christianity. He certainly was a prolific writer—we are fortunate to have many of his texts today. Some of these are apologetic (defending Christianity) and some are controversial, meaning he was writing against those who didn’t see Christianity in the same way as he did. The following excerpt is titled To the Martyrs. Martyrs are usually defined as those who died for their faith, but for Tertullian, martyrs can be people who are still alive but being imprisoned or tortured for being Christian. It was one of his earlier writings. This is a very interesting text, and he wrote it for several reasons. He tried to comfort those who are put in prison for being Christian with spiritual food (the advice that he was writing for them). His spiritual advice consisted of trying to convince Christians in jail that it is a better place than outside. Their sufferings were also a trial for things to come. Tertullian pointed out several times that the Holy Spirit is with those in prison, and they should use this time with the Holy Spirit to be led to God: “the leg does not feel the chain when the mind is in the heavens” (Chapter 3). He also wanted those martyrs in prison to think of themselves as athletes preparing for the arena or soldiers preparing for battle—this is what prison really is: a training ground to make oneself stronger for the trials to come. And the very entry of the martyrs into prison would fulfil the purpose “of trampling the wicked one under foot in his chosen abode” (Chapter 1). He also wrote that the church took part in taking care of people in prison, along with other people through their own funds. Tertullian calls these people “brothers,” which may indicate that those feeding the prisoners were also part of the church hierarchy. There were certainly other examples in early Christian texts of normal parishioners taking food to prisons. One reason for doing so is that prisons during this period did not always take care of those imprisoned—it was usually the duty of family members to provide food and those things necessary to stay alive. Despite seeing this as preparation for eternal life, prison itself, as indicated by Tertullian, was a horrible place and just being there tested those who were kept in it. As McGowan shows (2003, 256), prisons were not designed to hold people for long periods of time (like today). They were just holding pens for the punishments that would come. It isn’t known if prisoners would have read Tertullian’s To the Martyrs. However, about 190 CE, those who were held in prison and then released held a large amount of power in their community. They were sometimes on the same footing as a priest and could forgive sins (Klawiter 1980, 254). It is clear from Tertullian’s To the Martyrs that they were encouraged to grow spiritually in prison, and if they were released, this spiritual growth (and the tortures they survived) added weight to their social status in their communities. The entire text is given next.

Chapter 1 Blessed Martyrs Designate—Along with the provision which our lady mother the Church from her bountiful breasts, and each brother out of his private means,

S e c o n d C e n t u r y 55

makes for your bodily wants in the prison, accept also from me some contribution to your spiritual sustenance, for it is not good that the flesh be feasted and the spirit starve. Indeed, if that which is weak is carefully looked after, it is but right that that which is still weaker should not be neglected. Not that I am especially entitled to press you! Yet not only the trainers and overseers, but even the unskilled and all who choose, without the slightest need for it, are wont to animate the most accomplished gladiators from afar by their cries, and useful suggestions have sometimes come from the mere throng of onlookers. First, then, O blessed, grieve not the Holy Spirit, who has entered the prison with you, for if He had not gone with you there, you would not have been there this day. Therefore give all attempt to retain Him—let Him lead you onward to your Lord. The prison, indeed, is the devil’s house as well, wherein he keeps his family. But you have come within its walls for the very purpose of trampling the wicked one under foot in his chosen abode. You had already utterly overcome him outside in pitched battle. Let him have no reason, then, to say to himself, “They are now in my domain. I shall tempt them with vile hatreds, with defections or dissensions among themselves.” Let him fly from your presence, and skulk away into his own abysses, shrunken and torpid, as though he were an outcharmed or smoked-out snake. Do not give him the success in his own kingdom of setting you at variance with each other but let him find you armed and fortified with peace—for peace among you is battle with him. Some, not able to find this peace in the Church, have been used to seek it from the imprisoned martyrs. And so you ought to have it dwelling with you, and to cherish it, and to guard it, that you may be able perhaps to bestow it upon others.

Chapter 2 Other things, hindrances equally of the soul, may have accompanied you as far as the prison gate, to which also your relatives may have attended you. There and thereafter you were severed from the world—how much more from the ordinary course of worldly life and all its affairs! Nor let this separation from the world alarm you, for if we reflect that the world is really the prison, we shall see that you have gone out of a prison rather than into one. The world has the greater darkness, blinding men’s hearts. The world imposes the more grievous fetters, binding men’s very souls. The world breathes out the worst impurities—human lusts. The world contains the larger number of criminals, even the whole human race. Then, last of all, it awaits the judgment, not of the proconsul, but of God. Therefore, O blessed, you may regard yourselves as having been translated from a prison to, we may say, a place of safety. It is full of darkness, but you yourselves are light; it has bonds, but God has made you free. Unpleasant exhalations are there, but you are an odor of sweetness. The judge is daily looked for, but you shall judge the judges themselves. Sadness may be there for him who sighs for the world’s enjoyments. The Christian outside the prison has renounced the world, but in the prison he has renounced a prison too. It is of no consequence where you are in the world—you who are not of it. And if you have lost some of life’s sweets, it is the way of business to suffer present loss, that after gains may be the larger. Thus far I say nothing

56

DO C UMENTS O F THE RISE O F C HRISTIANITY

of the rewards to which God invites the martyrs. Meanwhile let us compare the life of the world and of the prison and see if the spirit does not gain more in the prison than the flesh loses. Truly, by the care of the Church and the love of the brethren, even the flesh does not lose there what is for its good, while the spirit obtains besides important advantages. You have no occasion to look on strange gods, you do not run against their images. You have no part in heathen holidays, even by mere bodily mingling in them. You are not annoyed by the foul fumes of idolatrous solemnities. You are not pained by the noise of the public shows, nor by the atrocity or madness or immodesty of their celebrants. Your eyes do not fall on stews and brothels. You are free from causes of offence, from temptations, from unholy reminiscences. You are free now from persecution too. The prison does the same service for the Christian which the desert did for the prophet. Our Lord Himself spent much of His time in seclusion so that He might have greater liberty to pray in order that He might quit the world. It was in a mountain solitude, too, He showed His glory to the disciples. Let us drop the name of prison—let us call it a place of retirement. Though the body is shut in, though the flesh is confined, all things are open to the spirit. In spirit, then, roam abroad; in spirit walk about, not setting before you shady paths or long colonnades, but the way which leads to God. As often as in spirit your footsteps are there, so often you will not be in bonds. The leg does not feel the chain when the mind is in the heavens. The mind compasses the whole man about, and wherever it wills it carries him. But where your heart will be and there will be your treasure. Our heart will be there, then, where we would have our treasure.

Chapter 3 Grant now, O blessed, that even to Christians the prison is unpleasant, yet we were called to the warfare of the living God in our very response to the sacramental words. Well, no soldier comes out to the campaign laden with luxuries, nor does he go to action from his comfortable chamber but from the light and narrow tent where every kind of hardness, roughness and unpleasantness must be put up with. Even in peace soldiers toughen themselves for war by toils and inconveniences— marching in arms, running over the plain, working at the ditch, making the testudo (a form a shield made by a number of soldiers), engaging in many arduous labors. The sweat of the brow is on everything so that bodies and minds may not shrink at having to pass from shade to sunshine, from sunshine to icy cold, from the robe of peace to the coat of mail, from silence to uproar, from quiet to tumult. In like manner, O blessed ones, count whatever is hard in this lot of yours as a discipline of your powers of mind and body. You are about to pass through a noble struggle in which the living God acts the part of superintendent, in which the Holy Ghost is your trainer, in which the prize is an eternal crown of angelic essence, citizenship in the heavens, glory everlasting. Therefore your Master, Jesus Christ, who has anointed you with His Spirit, and led you forth to the arena, has seen it good before the day of conflict to take you from a condition more pleasant

S e c o n d C e n t u r y 57

in itself, and has imposed on you a harder treatment, that your strength might be the greater. For the athletes, too, are set apart to a more stringent discipline so that they may have their physical powers built up. They are kept from luxury, from daintier meats, from more pleasant drinks; they are pressed, racked, worn out; the harder their labors in the preparatory training, the stronger is the hope of victory. “And they,” says the apostle, “may obtain a corruptible crown.” We, with the crown eternal in our eye, look upon the prison as our training-ground, that at the goal of final judgment we may be brought forth well disciplined by many a trial since virtue is built up by hardships, as by voluptuous indulgence it is overthrown.

Chapter 4 From the saying of our Lord we know that the flesh is weak, the spirit willing. In addition, let us not take delusive comfort from the Lord’s acknowledgment of the weakness of the flesh. For precisely on this account He first declared the spirit willing so that He might show which of the two ought to be subject to the other— that the flesh might yield obedience to the spirit—the weaker to the stronger, the former thus from the latter getting strength. Let the spirit convene with the flesh about the common salvation, thinking no longer of the troubles of the prison but of the wrestle and conflict for which they are the preparation. The flesh, perhaps, will dread the merciless sword, and the lofty cross, and the rage of the wild beasts, and that punishment of the flames, of all most terrible, and all the skill of the executioner in torture. But, on the other side, let the spirit set clearly before both itself and the flesh, how these things, though exceedingly painful, have yet been calmly endured by many and have even been eagerly desired for the sake of fame and glory. This not only in the case of men but of women too, that you, O holy women, may be worthy of your sex. It would take me too long to enumerate one by one the men who at their own self-impulse have put an end to themselves. As to women, there is a famous case at hand—the violated Lucretia, in the presence of her kinsfolk, plunged the knife into herself, that she might have glory for her chastity. Mucius burned his right hand on an altar, that this deed of his might dwell in fame. The philosophers have been outstripped—for instance Heraclitus, who, smeared with cow dung, burned himself; and Empedocles, who leapt down into the fires of Aetna; and Peregrinus, who not long ago threw himself on the funeral pile. For women even have despised the flames. Dido did so, lest, after the death of a husband very dear to her, she should be compelled to marry again; and so did the wife of Hasdrubal, who, Carthage being on fire, that she might not behold her husband suppliant as Scipio’s feet, rushed with her children into the conflagration, in which her native city was destroyed. Regulus, a Roman general, who had been taken prisoner by the Carthaginians, declined to be exchanged for a large number of Carthaginian captives, choosing rather to be given back to the enemy. He was crammed into a sort of chest and everywhere pierced by nails driven from the outside—he endured so many crucifixions. Woman has voluntarily sought the wild beasts and even asps, those serpents worse than bear or bull, which Cleopatra

58

DO C UMENTS O F THE RISE O F C HRISTIANITY

applied to herself so that she might not fall into the hands of her enemy. But the fear of death is not so great as the fear of torture. And so the Athenian courtesan succumbed to the executioner, when, subjected to torture by the tyrant for having taken part in a conspiracy, still making no betrayal of her confederates, she at last bit off her tongue and spat it in the tyrant’s face so that he might be convinced of the uselessness of his torments, however long they should be continued. Everybody knows what to this day is the great Lacedaemonian solemnity—the diamastugosis, or scourging—in which sacred rite the Spartan youths are beaten with scourges before the altar with their parents and kinsmen standing by and exhorting them to stand it bravely out. For it will be always counted more honorable and glorious that the soul rather than the body has given itself to stripes. But if so high a value is put on the earthly glory, won by mental and bodily vigor, that men, for the praise of their fellows, I may say, despise the sword, the fire, the cross, the wild beasts, the torture—these surely are but trifling sufferings to obtain a celestial glory and a divine reward. If the bit of glass is so precious, what must the true pearl be worth? Are we not called on, then, most joyfully to lay out as much for the true as others do for the false?

Chapter 5 I leave out of account now the motive of glory. All these same cruel and painful conflicts, a mere vanity you find among men—in fact, a sort of mental disease—as trampled underfoot. How many people who love leisure does the conceit of arms give to the sword? They actually go down to meet the very wild beasts in vain ambition and they fancy themselves more attractive from the bites and scars of the contest. Some have sold themselves to fires to run a certain distance in a burning tunic. Others, with most enduring shoulders, have walked about under the hunters’ whips. The Lord has given these things a place in the world, O blessed, not without some reason: for what reason, than now to animate us, and on that day to confound us if we have feared to suffer for the truth that we might be saved, from what others out of vanity have eagerly sought for to their ruin?

Chapter 6 Passing, too, from examples of enduring constancy having such an origin as this, let us turn to a simple contemplation of man’s estate in its ordinary conditions, that perhaps from things which happen to us whether we want them to or not, and which we must set our minds to bear, so that we may get instruction. How often, then, have fires consumed the living! How often have wild beasts torn men in pieces? It may be in their own forests or in the heart of cities when they have chanced to escape from their dens! How many have fallen by the robber’s sword! How many have suffered the death of the cross at the hands of enemies, after having been tortured first, yes, and treated with every sort of insulting treatment!

S e c o n d C e n t u r y 59

One may even suffer in the cause of a man what he hesitates to suffer in the cause of God. In reference to this indeed, let the present time bear testimony, when so many persons of rank have met with death in a mere human being’s cause, and that though from their birth and dignities and bodily condition and age such a fate seemed most unlikely, either suffering at his hands if they have taken part against him or from his enemies if they have been his partisans. Source: Schaff, Philip. Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 3. A. Cleveland Coxe, ed. New York: Christian Literature Company, 1885.

Further Reading Barnes, T. D. Tertullian: A Historical and Literary Study, rev. ed. Oxford: Clarendon, 1985. Decret, Francois. Early Christianity in North Africa. Cambridge, UK: James Clarke & Co, 2014. Gaddis, Michael. There Is No Crime for Those Who Have Christ: Religious Violence in the Christian Roman Empire. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2005. Klawiter, Frederick C. “The Role of Martyrdom and Persecution in Developing the Priestly Authority of Women in Early Christianity: A Case Study of Montanism.” Church History 49, no. 3 (September 1980): 251–261. McGowan, Andrew. “Discipline and Diet: Feeding the Martyrs in Roman Carthage.” Harvard Theological Review 96, no. 4 (October 2003): 455–476. Moss, Candida. Ancient Christian Martyrdom: Diverse Practices, Theologies, and Traditions. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2012. Musurillo, Herbert, ed. The Acts of the Christian Martyrs. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972.

Document 13 TERTULLIAN, ON PRAYER, 2–8 Tertullian, who lived between 155 and 220 CE, was a prolific writer. One of the tracts he wrote was titled On Prayer. How should one pray correctly? Is there a correct way? For Tertullian, there was one special prayer, commonly called the Lord’s Prayer, which Jesus taught to his disciples. Many early Christian writers discussed this prayer—how to pray and where or when to pray. As Pabel points out (1997, 109), the Didache, Chapter 8 (The Teaching of the Twelve Disciples) wanted Christians to pray this prayer three times a day. The Didache also lists other prayers that Christians should do (e.g., after receiving Communion), so it is not the only prayer that Christians should perform. Tertullian was no different in terms of thinking about this particular prayer. The interesting thing about this text is how Tertullian approaches it: he also wrote a commentary on it. A commentary is a way of explaining a text to the reader by picking it apart, sometimes word for word, and then discussing every word or phrase to clarify it (or at least attempt to!). For example, in Chapter 6, he examines the passage “And give us this day our daily bread.” Tertullian showed that this is not physical bread that people would eat. It is a spiritual bread, and that bread is Christ. He then pulled out a few quotations from the New Testament to prove

60

DO C UMENTS O F THE RISE O F C HRISTIANITY

his belief: Christ says, in John 6:33, “The Bread is the Word of the Living God, who came down from the heavens,” and John 6:35, “I am the Bread of Life.” He then gives Matthew 26:26 where Jesus asks his disciples to take the bread and says, “This is my body.” For Tertullian, there is no debate that the “bread” in the Lord’s Prayer is Christ. The “daily” part means that it must be asked for forever—and that is how a commentary works. How was this prayer used by early Christian communities? Some scholars like Bahr, following what early Christians like Origen said on this topic, believe that the Lord’s Prayer was a suggested outline—and not that it was the definitive prayer (Bahr 1965, 153). It is possible that Tertullian stated this too in Chapter 1 of this work (“Jesus Christ our Lord, namely, who is both the one and the other, has determined for us, the disciples of the New Testament, a new form (formam) of prayer”). The word “formam” here is, in Latin, forma, which could also be translated as “outline” as Bahr does. Later, Origen (185–253 CE) and Gregory of Nyssa (335–395 CE) also examined the Lord’s Prayer and wrote commentaries on it. The following excerpt consists of Chapters 2 through 8, which covers his commentary on the Prayer. The rest of the work deals with the customs that people have created when they pray and Tertullian’s comments on these practices.

On Prayer Chapter 2 The First Clause. The prayer begins with a testimony to God, and with the reward of faith, when we say, “Our Father who art in the heavens;” for (in so saying), we at once pray to God, and commend faith, whose reward this appellation is. It is written, “To them who believed on Him He gave power to be called sons of God.” However, our Lord very frequently proclaimed God as a Father to us; nay, even gave a precept “that we call no one on earth father, but the Father whom we have in the heavens:” and so, in thus praying, we are likewise obeying the precept. Happy are they who recognize their Father! This is the reproach that is brought against Israel, to which the Spirit attests heaven and earth, saying, “I have begotten sons, and they have not recognized me.” Moreover, in saying “Father,” we also call Him “God.” That appellation is one both of filial duty and of power. Again, in the Father the Son is invoked, “for I,” saith He, “and the Father are One.” Nor is even our mother the Church passed by, if, that is, in the Father and the Son is recognized the mother, from whom arises the name both of Father and of Son. In one general term, then, or word, we both honor God, together with His own, and are mindful of the precept, and set a mark on such as have forgotten their Father.

Chapter 3 The Second Clause. The name of “God the Father” had been published to none. Even Moses, who had interrogated Him on that very point, had heard a different name. To us it has been revealed in the Son, for the Son is now the Father’s new name. “I am come,” saith He,

S e c o n d C e n t u r y 61

“in the Father’s name;” and again, “Father, glorify Your name;” and more openly, “I have manifested Your name to men.” That name, therefore, we pray may “be hallowed.” Not that it is becoming for men to wish God well, as if there were any other by whom He may be wished well, or as if He would suffer unless we do so wish. Plainly, it is universally becoming for God to be blessed in every place and time, on account of the memory of His benefits ever due from every man. But this petition also serves the turn of a blessing. Otherwise, when is the name of God not “holy” and “hallowed” through Himself, seeing that of Himself He sanctifies all others— He to whom that surrounding circle of angels cease not to say, “Holy, holy, holy?” In like manner, therefore, we too, candidates for angelhood, if we succeed in deserving it, begin even here on earth to learn by heart that strain hereafter to be raised unto God, and the function of future glory. So far, for the glory of God. On the other hand, for our own petition, when we say, “Hallowed be Thy name,” we pray this that it may be hallowed in us who are in Him, as well in all others for whom the grace of God is still waiting. And that we may obey this precept, too, in “praying for all,” even for our personal enemies. And therefore with suspended utterance, not saying, “Hallowed be it in us,” we say—“in all.”

Chapter 4 The Third Clause. According to this model, we subjoin, “Thy will be done in the heavens and on the earth;” not that there is some power withstanding to prevent God’s will being done, and we pray for Him the successful achievement of His will; but we pray for His will to be done in all. For, by figurative interpretation of flesh and spirit, we are “heaven” and “earth,” albeit, even if it is to be understood simply, still the sense of the petition is the same, that in us God’s will be done on earth, to make it possible, namely, for it to be done also in the heavens. What, moreover, does God will, but that we should walk according to His Discipline? We make petition, then, that He supply us with the substance of His will, and the capacity to do it, that we may be saved both in the heavens and on earth because the sum of His will is the salvation of them whom He has adopted. There is, too, that will of God which the Lord accomplished in preaching, in working, in enduring: for if He Himself proclaimed that He did not His own, but the Father’s will, without doubt those things which He used to do were the Father’s will; unto which things, as unto exemplars, we are now provoked—to preach, to work, to endure even unto death. And we need the will of God, that we may be able to fulfil these duties. Again, in saying, “Thy will be done,” we are even wishing well to ourselves, in so far that there is nothing of evil in the will of God; even if, proportionably to each one’s deserts, somewhat other is imposed on us. So by this expression we forewarn our own selves to patience. The Lord also, when He had wished to demonstrate to us, even in His own flesh, the flesh’s infirmity, by the reality of suffering, said, “Father, remove this Your cup;” and remembering Himself, added, “save that not my will, but Your be done.” Himself was the Will and the Power of the Father: and yet, for the demonstration of the patience which was due, He gave Himself up to the Father’s Will.

62

DO C UMENTS O F THE RISE O F C HRISTIANITY

Chapter 5 The Fourth Clause. “Thy kingdom come” has also reference to that whereto “Thy will be done” refers--in us, that is. For when does God not reign, in whose hand is the heart of all kings? But whatever we wish for ourselves we augur for Him, and to Him we attribute what from Him we expect. And so, if the manifestation of the Lord’s kingdom pertains unto the will of God and to our anxious expectation, how do some pray for some protraction of the age, when the kingdom of God, which we pray may arrive, tends unto the consummation of the age? Our wish is, that our reign be hastened, not our servitude protracted. Even if it had not been prescribed in the Prayer that we should ask for the advent of the kingdom, we should, unbidden, have sent forth that cry, hastening toward the realization of our hope. The souls of the martyrs beneath the altar cry in jealousy unto the Lord, “How long, Lord, do You not avenge our blood on the inhabitants of the earth?” for, of course, their avenging is regulated by the end of the age. Nay, Lord, Your kingdom come with all speed—the prayer of Christians, the confusion of the heathen, the exultation of angels, for the sake of which we suffer, nay, rather, for the sake of which we pray!

Chapter 6 The Fifth Clause. But how gracefully has the Divine Wisdom arranged the order of the prayer so that after things heavenly—that is, after the “Name” of God, the “Will” of God, and the “Kingdom” of God—it should give earthly necessities also room for a petition! For the Lord had withal issued His edict, “Seek first the kingdom, and then even these shall be added:” albeit we may rather understand, “Give us this day our daily bread,” spiritually. For Christ is our Bread because Christ is Life, and bread is life. “I am,” saith He, “the Bread of Life;” and, a little above, “The Bread is the Word of the living God, who came down from the heavens.” Then we find, too, that His body is reckoned in bread: “This is my body.” And so, in petitioning for “daily bread,” we ask for perpetuity in Christ, and indivisibility from His body. But, because that word is admissible in a carnal sense too, it cannot be so used without the religious remembrance withal of spiritual Discipline; for (the Lord) commands that bread be prayed for, which is the only food necessary for believers; for “all other things the nations seek after.” The like lesson He both inculcates by examples, and repeatedly handles in parables, when He says, “Does a father take away bread from his children, and hand it to dogs?” and again, “Does a father give his son a stone when he asks for bread?” For He thus shows what it is that sons expect from their father. Nay, even that nocturnal knocker knocked for “bread.” Moreover, He justly added, “Give us this day,” seeing He had previously said, “Take no careful thought about the morrow, what you are to eat.” To which subject He also adapted the parable of the man who pondered on an enlargement of his barns for his forthcoming fruits, and on seasons of prolonged security, but that very night he dies.

S e c o n d C e n t u r y 63

Chapter 7 The Sixth Clause. It was suitable that, after contemplating the liberality of God, we should likewise address His clemency. For what will sustenance profit us, if we are really consigned to them, as it were a bull destined for a victim? The Lord knew Himself to be the only guiltless One, and so He teaches that we beg “to have our debts remitted us.” A petition for pardon is a full confession because he who begs for pardon fully admits his guilt. Thus, too, penitence is demonstrated acceptable to God who desires it rather than the death of the sinner. Moreover, debt is, in the Scriptures, a figure of guilt; because it is equally due to the sentence of judgment and is exacted by it: nor does it evade the justice of exaction, unless the exaction be remitted, just as the lord remitted to that slave in the parable his debt, for hither does the scope of the whole parable tend. For the fact withal, that the same servant, after liberated by his lord, does not equally spare his own debtor and, being on that account impeached before his lord, is made over to the tormentor to pay the uttermost farthing—that is, every guilt, however small: this corresponds with our profession that “we also remit to our debtors;” indeed elsewhere, too, in conformity with this form of prayer, He saith, “Remit, and it shall be remitted you.” And when Peter had put the question whether remission were to be granted to a brother seven times, “No,” saith He, “seventy-seven times” in order to remould the Law for the better because in Genesis vengeance was assigned “seven times” in the case of Cain, but in that of Lamech “seventy-seven times.”

Chapter 8 The Seventh or Final Clause. For the completeness of so brief a prayer He added—in order that we should supplicate not touching the remitting merely, but touching the entire averting, of acts of guilt—“Lead us not into temptation” that is, suffer us not to be led into it, by him (of course) who tempts. But far be the thought that the Lord should seem to tempt, as if He either were ignorant of the faith of any, or else were eager to overthrow it. Infirmity and malice are characteristics of the devil. For God had commanded even Abraham to make a sacrifice of his son, for the sake not of tempting, but proving, his faith in order through him to make an example for that precept of His, whereby He was, by and by, to enjoin that he should hold no pledges of affection dearer than God. He Himself, when tempted by the devil, demonstrated who it is that presides over and is the originator of temptation. This passage He confirms by subsequent ones, saying, “Pray that you be not tempted” yet they were tempted, (as they showed) by deserting their Lord, because they had given way rather to sleep than prayer. The final clause, therefore, is consonant, and interprets the sense of “Lead us not into temptation;” for this sense is, “But convey us away from the Evil One.” Source: Schaff, Philip. Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 3. A. Cleveland Coxe, ed. New York: Christian Literature Company, 1885.

64

DO C UMENTS O F THE RISE O F C HRISTIANITY

Further Reading Alikin, Valeriy A. The Earliest History of the Christian Gathering: Origin, Development and Content of the Christian Gathering in the First to Third Centuries. Leiden, the Netherlands: Brill, 2010. Allen, P. Prayer and Spirituality in the Early Church. Volume 1. Everton Park, Queensland (Australia): Centre for Early Christian Studies (Australian Catholic University), 1998. Bahr, Gordon J. “The Use of the Lord’s Prayer in the Primitive Church.” Journal of Biblical Literature 84, no. 2 (June 1965): 153–159. Botha, F. J. “Recent Research on the Lord’s Prayer.” Neotestamentica 1, The Sermon on the Mount (1967): 42–50. Brown, Michael J. “ ‘Panem Nostrum’: The Problem of Petition and the Lord’s Prayer.” Journal of Religion 80, no. 4 (October 2000): 595–614. Burns, J. P., and Robin M. Jensen, eds. Christianity in Roman Africa: The Development of Its Practices and Beliefs. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2014. Jones, C. P. Between Pagan and Christian. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2014. Osborn, Eric. “The Subtlety of Tertullian.” Vigiliae Christianae 52, no. 4 (November 1998): 361–370. Pabel, Hilmar M. Conversing with God: Prayer in Erasmus’ Pastoral Writing. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1997. Paschke, Boris A. “Tertullian on Liturgical Prayer to Christ: New Insights from De Spect. 25.5 and Apol. 2.6.” Vigiliae Christianae 66, no. 1 (2012): 20–29. Phillips, L. Edward. “Daily Prayer in the ‘Apostolic Tradition’ of Hippolytus.” Journal of Theological Studies, New Series 40, no. 2 (October 1989): 389–400. Woolfenden, Gregory W. Daily Liturgical Prayer: Origins and Theology. New York: Routledge 2004.

Document 14 TATIAN, DIATESSARON It is well known that the New Testament contains four different versions of the story of Jesus (with the Gospel of John being very different from Matthew, Mark, and Luke). There are certainly places where the stories are the same, but there are also many places where the stories diverge. One reason for this is that each author was writing from his own experience. The result is the New Testament we have today—four separate Gospels. For modern people, used to the printing press and the mass exposure to books, this is not an issue. Books are relatively cheap to create in large numbers. However, books were very time-consuming to produce in the ancient world. They were handwritten and handcarried. Many churches could only afford one whole book (if that) of what will become the New Testament because it was expensive to hire a transcriber and to buy the paper (or whatever material was being used—papyrus, lambskin, etc.). Tatian, a Syrian, writing toward the end of the second century, decided to take all four Gospels and condense them down to one text. He must have believed that condensing made a lot of sense, both for the cost and in understanding the texts—after all, there was a lot of repetition in the Gospels. Churches, primarily in the eastern part in and around Syria, must have also found Tatian’s condensed version appealing for these very reasons.

S e c o n d C e n t u r y 65

The fact that Tatian took all four Gospels and compiled them into one text is interesting in that it lets us assume that there were four separate Gospels when Tatian was writing. Another interesting part of this Diatessaron (meaning “Through the Four”) is the fact that we don’t have the original. We only have what other authors told us it consisted of. This, of course, causes headaches for historians trying to figure out the history of this text, but for now, it is all we have to work with. The condensing of the text can be seen throughout. For example, his text (Section 1) starts off with verses from John (in the ancient world what we call the New Testament started off either with Matthew or Mark) and then mixes in some from the Gospel of Luke. Section 2 starts off with Matthew and then moves on to Luke (and so on). It would probably help to have a copy of the New Testament available when reading through Tatian’s version. The following excerpts are from Chapters 1 and 2.

Diatessaron Chapter 1: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and God is the Word. This was in the beginning with God. Everything was by his hand, and without him not even one existing thing was made. In him was life, and the life is the light of men. And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not apprehend it. There was in the days of Herod the king a priest whose name was Zacharias, of the family of Abijah and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth. And they were both righteous before God, walking in all his commands, and in the uprightness of God without reproach. And they had no son, for Elizabeth was barren, and they had both advanced in age. And while he discharged the duties of priest in the order of his service before God, according to the custom of the priesthood it was his turn to burn incense, so he entered the temple of the Lord. And the whole gathering of the people were praying at the time of the incense. And there appeared to Zacharias the angel of the Lord, standing at the right of the altar of incense. Zacharias was troubled when he saw him, and fear fell upon him. But the angel said to him, Do not agitated, Zacharias, for your prayer is heard, and your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you shall call his name John; and you shall have joy and gladness, and many will rejoice at his birth. And he will be great before the Lord, and will not drink wine nor strong drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit while he is in his mother’s womb. And he will turn back many of the children of Israel to the Lord their God. And he will go before him in the spirit, and in the power of Elijah the prophet, to turn back the hearts of the fathers to the sons, and those that do not obey the knowledge of the righteous and to prepare for the Lord a perfect people. And Zacharias said to the angel, How will I know this, since I am an old man and my wife is advanced in years? And the angel answered and said to him, I am Gabriel, that stands before God; and I was sent to speak to you and give you tidings of this. Henceforth you shall be speechless, and shall not be able to speak until the day in which this will come to pass, because you didst not trust this my word which will be accomplished in its time. And the people were standing awaiting Zacharias, and

66

DO C UMENTS O F THE RISE O F C HRISTIANITY

they were perplexed at his delaying in the temple. And when Zacharias went out, he was not able to speak to them so they knew that he had seen a vision in the temple and he made signs to them, and continued to be quiet. And when the days of his service were completed, he departed to his dwelling. And after those days Elizabeth his wife conceived and she hid herself five months, and said, The Lord has done this to me in the days when he looked upon me, to remove my reproach from among men. And in the sixth month Gabriel the angel was sent from God to Galilee to a city called Nazareth, to a virgin given in marriage to a man named Joseph, of the house of David. The virgin’s name was Mary. And the angel entered to her and said to her, Peace be to you, you who are filled with grace. Our Lord is with you, blessed amongst women. And she, when she saw him, was agitated at his word, and pondered what this salutation could be. And the angel said to her, Fear not, Mary, for you have found favor with God. You shall now conceive and bear a son and call his name Jesus. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High and the Lord God will give him the throne of David his father: and he will rule over the house of Jacob forever and to his kingdom there will be no end. Mary said to the angel, How will this be to me when no man has known me? The angel answered and said to her, The Holy Spirit will come, and the power of the Most High will rest upon you, and therefore he that will be born of you will be pure, and will be called the Son of God. And lo, Elizabeth your kinswoman, she also has conceived a son in her old age and this is the sixth month with her even though she was called barren for nothing is difficult for God. Mary said, Lo, I am the handmaid of the Lord—let it be to me according to your word. And the angel departed from her. And then Mary arose in those days and went quickly into the hill country to a city of Judah and entered into the house of Zacharias and asked for the health of Elizabeth. And when Elizabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit and cried with a loud voice and said to Mary, Blessed are you amongst women, and blessed is the fruit that is in your womb. How can I have this privilege, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? When the sound of your salutation reached my ears, with great joy rejoiced the babe in my womb. And blessed is she who believed that what was spoken to her from the Lord would be fulfilled. And Mary said, my soul magnifies the Lord and my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior, who has looked upon the low estate of his handmaiden: lo, henceforth, all generations will pronounce blessing on me. For he has done great things for me, who is mighty, and holy is his name. And his mercy embraces those who fear him, throughout the ages and the times. He brought the victory with his arm and scattered those who pride themselves in their opinions. He overthrew them that acted haughtily from their thrones and raised the lowly. He satisfied the hungry with good things and left the rich without anything. He helped Israel his servant and remembered his mercy (according as he spoke with our fathers) to Abraham and to his seed forever. And Mary stayed with Elizabeth about three months and returned to her house. Section 2 Now the birth of Jesus the Messiah happened in this way: In the time when his mother was given in marriage to Joseph, before they came together, she

S e c o n d C e n t u r y 67

was found with child of the Holy Spirit. And Joseph her husband was a just man and did not wish to expose her and he purposed to put her away secretly. But when he thought of this, the angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, and said to him, Joseph, son of David, fear not to take Mary your wife, for that which is begotten in her is of the Holy Spirit. She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, and he will save his people from their sins. And all this was that the saying from the Lord by the prophet might be fulfilled: Behold, the virgin will conceive, and bear a son and they will call his name Immanuel, which is interpreted as “With us is our God.” And when Joseph arose from his sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him and took his wife and knew her not until she gave birth to her firstborn son. And in those days there went forth a decree from Augustus Caesar that all the people of his dominion should be enrolled. This first enrolment was while Quirinius was governor of Syria. And every man went to be enrolled in his city and Joseph went up also from Nazareth, a city of Galilee, to Judaea, to the city of David which is called Bethlehem (for he was of the house of David and of his tribe), with Mary his wife (she being with child), to be enrolled there. And while she was there the days for her giving birth were accomplished. And she brought forth her firstborn son and she wrapped him in swaddling clothes and laid him in a manger, because there was no place for them where they were staying. And shepherds were living in that area, keeping their flock in the watch of the night. And behold, the angel of God came to them, and the glory of the Lord shone upon them; and they were greatly terrified. And the angel said to them, Do not terrified, for I bring you tidings of great joy which will be to the whole world. There is born to you this day a Savior who is the Lord the Messiah, in the city of David. And this is a sign for you: you will find a babe wrapped in swaddling clothes and laid in a manger. And there appeared with the angels suddenly many heavenly forces praising God and saying, Praise be to God in the highest and peace on the earth, and good hope to men. Source: Schaff, Philip. Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 2. A. Cleveland Coxe, ed. New York: Christian Literature Company, 1885.

Further Reading den Hollander, August, and Ulrich Schmid. “The ‘Gospel of Barnabas’, the Diatessaron, and Method.” Vigiliae Christianae 61, no. 1 (February 2007): 1–20. Hannah, Darrell D. “The Four-Gospel ‘Canon’ in the ‘Epistula Apostolorum.’ ” Journal of Theological Studies, New Series 59, no. 2 (October 2008): 598–633. Hunt, Emily J. Christianity in the Second Century: The Case of Tatian. New York: Routledge, 2003. Metzger, Bruce M. “Tatian’s Diatessaron and a Persian Harmony of the Gospels.” Journal of Biblical Literature 69, no. 3 (September 1950): 261–280. Peterson, William L. Tatian’s Diatesseron: Its Creation, Dissemination, Significance, and History in Scholarship (Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae). Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1994. Schmid, Ulrich B. “In Search of Tatian’s Diatessaron in the West.” Vigiliae Christianae 57, no. 2 (May 2003): 176–199.

68

DO C UMENTS O F THE RISE O F C HRISTIANITY

Document 15 CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA, ON THE SALVATION OF THE RICH MAN, CHAPTERS 1–5 Clement (150–215 CE) was probably born in Athens and then later moved to Alexandria, Egypt, after traveling extensively, searching for a Christian teacher. In Alexandria, he became the head of a school for Christians who wanted to know more about their religion. Besides teaching, he also wrote on a number of different topics. One was a homily titled On the Salvation of the Rich Man. This was written in Alexandria and refers to the New Testament statement about how very difficult it is for the wealthy person to get into heaven (Mark 10:17–31). Clement lists the entire passage in Chapter 4 (given in the following excerpt). The main point is that a man wanted information on how to get eternal life. Jesus gave him a list of things he needed to do (e.g., not murder, steal), along with this statement: “You lack one thing; go, sell what you own, and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me.” The man was unhappy as he had “many possessions.” Jesus then tells the disciples how hard it is to get into heaven. As pointed out by Clarke (2009, 447), many people who read this passage focus on the rich man’s apparent rejection of becoming a disciple of Jesus. Jesus pointed out how hard it is for the rich to enter heaven and the man had wealth. The message seemed to be that if you are rich, you cannot get to heaven until you give up everything, including all that you own. This is the way this passage has been interpreted throughout a good part of Christianity. Clement of Alexandria gave a different response from others who had written about this passage from Mark. He was concerned about all people—both rich and poor (Clarke 2009, 450). Clement must have asked himself, “Why couldn’t a rich person get into heaven? What is it about ‘riches’ that might prevent someone from gaining eternal life?” This line of questioning made Clement of Alexandria think deeply about the passage from Mark. He might have been questioning this passage because he had both poor and wealthy in his classes and he wanted to make sure that the rich were not denied entry into heaven just because they were rich (Clarke 2009, 450). One way he formed his response (which is similar to other early Christians) is that he decided that the passage, as it stands, must have a hidden or spiritual meaning. It could not be as simple as the mere statement that rich people could not get into heaven because they are rich. Was it “easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get into heaven”? Before answering this, Clement of Alexandria made it very clear at the beginning of his homily that people should not be praising the rich because they are rich. What they should do is to teach them how to be better Christians. Clement also pointed out later in the homily that wealth can be used for doing good things. He also stated (in Chapter 27), “Let it teach the prosperous that they are not to neglect their own salvation as if they had been already fore-doomed, nor, on the other hand, to cast wealth into the sea or condemn it as a traitor and an enemy to life, but learn in what way and how to use wealth and obtain life.” Some ancient Christians, like Tertullian (150/160–240 CE) differed from Clement. He believed that the wealthy man refused to join Christ because he preferred wealth over salvation (Tertullian, Against Marcion 4.36).

S e c o n d C e n t u r y 69

The Salvation of the Rich Man 1–5 1. Those who make laudatory addresses on the rich appear to me to be rightly judged as not only flatterers and dishonorable in vehemently pretending that things which are disagreeable give them pleasure, but also godless and treacherous. They are godless because, neglecting to praise and glorify God, who is alone perfect and good, “of whom are all things, and by whom are all things, and for whom are all things,” they invest with divine honors men wallowing in a terrible and abominable life, and, what is the most important thing, they are liable on this account to the judgment of God. They are treacherous, because, although wealth is of itself sufficient to puff up and corrupt the souls of those who have it and to turn them from the path by which salvation is to be attained, they stupefy them still more by inflating the minds of the rich with the pleasures of extravagant praises, and by making them utterly despise all things except wealth, because that is what they are admired for. This brings, as the saying goes, fire to fire, pouring pride on pride, and adding conceit to wealth, a heavier burden to that which by nature is a weight, from which should somewhat instead be removed and taken away as being a dangerous and deadly disease. For he who elevates and magnifies himself, the change and downfall to a low condition comes in turn, as the divine word teaches. For it appears to me to be far kinder to aid them in working out their salvation in every possible way rather than to basely flatter the rich and praise them for what is bad. We ask this of God, who surely and sweetly bestows such things on His own children and thus by the grace of the Savior, healing their souls, enlightening them and leading them to the attainment of the truth. And whoever obtains this and distinguishes himself in good works will gain the prize of everlasting life. Now prayer that runs its course until the last day of life needs a strong and tranquil soul, and the conduct of life needs a good and righteous disposition, reaching out towards all the commandments of the Savior. 2. Perhaps the reason of salvation appearing more difficult to the rich than to poor men is not single but manifold. For some, merely hearing, and that in an off-hand way, the utterance of the Savior, “that it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven,” despair of themselves as not destined to live, surrender all to the world, cling to the present life as if it alone was left to them, and so diverge more from the way to the life to come. They no longer inquire either whom the Lord and Master calls rich, or how that which is impossible to man becomes possible to God. But others rightly and adequately comprehend this, but attaching little importance to the works which tend to salvation, do not make the necessary preparation for attaining to the objects of their hope. And I affirm both of these things of the rich who have learned both the Savior’s power and His glorious salvation. With those who are ignorant of the truth I have little concern. 3. Those then who are motivated by a love of the truth and love of their brethren, and are neither rudely insolent towards such rich as are called, nor, on the other hand, cringe to them for their own greedy ends, must first by the word relieve them of their groundless despair, and show with the requisite explanation of the oracles of the Lord that the inheritance of the kingdom of heaven is not quite cut off from them if they obey the commandments. Then admonish them that they entertain a causeless fear, and that the Lord gladly receives them, provided they are willing. And then, in addition, exhibit and teach how and by what deeds and dispositions they shall win the

70

DO C UMENTS O F THE RISE O F C HRISTIANITY

objects of hope, inasmuch as it is neither out of their reach, nor, on the other hand, attained without effort. But, as is the case with athletes—to compare things small and perishing with things great and immortal—let the man who is endowed with worldly wealth reckon that this depends on himself. For among those, one man, because he despaired of being able to conquer and gain crowns, did not give in his name for the contest; while another, whose mind was inspired with this hope, and yet did not submit to the appropriate labors, and diet, and exercises, remained uncrowned, and was stopped short in his expectations. So also let not the man that has been invested with worldly wealth proclaim himself excluded at the outset from the Savior’s lists, provided he is a believer and one who contemplates the greatness of God’s philanthropy; nor let him, on the other hand, expect to grasp the crowns of immortality without struggle and effort, continuing untrained, and without contest. But let him go and put himself under the Word as his trainer, and Christ the President of the contest; and for his prescribed food and drink let him have the New Testament of the Lord. And for exercises, let him have the commandments, and for elegance and ornament, the fair dispositions, love, faith, hope, knowledge of the truth, gentleness, meekness, pity, seriousness, so that, when by the last trumpet the signal shall be given for the race and departure hence, as from the stadium of life, he may with a good conscience present himself victorious before the Judge who confers the rewards, confessedly worthy of the Fatherland on high, to which he returns with crowns and the acclamations of angels. 4. May the Savior then grant to us that, having begun the subject from this point, we may contribute to the brethren what is true, and suitable, and saving, first touching the hope itself, and, second, touching the access to the hope. For there is nothing like listening again to the very same statements, which until now in the Gospels were distressing you, hearing them as you did without examination, and erroneously through immaturity: “And going forth into the way, one approached and kneeled, saying, Good Master, what good thing shall I do that I may inherit everlasting life? And Jesus says, Why do you call Me good? There is none good but one, that is, God. You know the commandments. Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, do not Defraud, Honor your father and your mother. And he, answering, says to Him, All these have I observed. And Jesus, looking upon him, loved him, and said, One thing you lack. If you would be perfect, sell what you have and give to the poor, and you shall have treasure in heaven: and come, follow Me. And he was sad at that saying, and went away grieved: for he was rich, having great possessions. And Jesus looked round about, and says to His disciples, How rarely shall those who have riches enter into the kingdom of God! And the disciples were astonished at His words. But Jesus answered again, and says to them, Children, how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God! More easily shall a camel enter through the eye of a needle than a rich man into the kingdom of God. And they were astonished out of measure, and said, Who then can be saved? And He, looking upon them, said, What is impossible with men is possible with God. For with God all things are possible. Peter began to say to Him, Lo, we have left all and followed You. And Jesus answered and said, Truly I say to you, Whoever shall leave what is his own, parents, and brethren, and possessions, for My sake and the Gospel’s, shall receive an hundred-fold now in this world, lands, and possessions, and house, and brethren, with persecutions, and in the world to come is life everlasting. But many that are first shall be last, and the last first.”

S e c o n d C e n t u r y 71

5. These things are written in the Gospel according to Mark and in all the rest correspondingly, although perhaps the expressions vary slightly in each, they all show identical agreement in meaning. But knowing well that the Savior teaches nothing in a merely human way but teaches all things to His own with divine and mystic wisdom, we must not listen to His utterances carnally, but with due investigation and intelligence must search out and learn the meaning hidden in them. For even those things which seem to have been simplified to the disciples by the Lord Himself are found to require not less but even more attention than what is expressed enigmatically, from the surpassing superabundance of wisdom in them. And whereas the things which are thought to have been explained by Him to those within (those called by Him the children of the kingdom) require still more consideration than the things which seemed to have been simply expressed, and respecting that no questions were asked by those who heard them, but, pertaining to the entire design of salvation, and contemplating with admirable and high-level depth of mind, we must not receive (the message) superficially with our ears, but with application of the mind to the very spirit of the Savior, and the unuttered meaning of the declaration.

Source: Schaff, Philip. Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 2. A. Cleveland Coxe, ed. New York: Christian Literature Company, 1885.

Further Reading Ashwin-Siejkowski, Piotr. Clement of Alexandria: A Project of Christian Perfection. New York: T & T Clark International, 2008. Buell, D. K. “ ‘Sell What You Have and Give to the Poor’: A Feminist Interpretation of Clement of Alexandria’s Who Is the Rich Person Who Is Saved?” In Walk in the Ways of Wisdom, edited by Shelly Matthews, Cynthia Briggs Kittredge, and Melanie JohnsonDebaufre, 193–213. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2003. Clarke, Andrew D. “ ‘Do Not Judge Who Is Worthy and Unworthy’: Clement’s Warning Not to Speculate about the Rich Young Man’s Response (Mark 10.17–31).” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 31, no. 4 (2009): 447–468. Cranfield, C. E. B. “Riches and the Kingdom of God: St Mark 10.17–31.” Scottish Journal of Theology 4 (1951): 302–313. Ferguson, John. “The Achievement of Clement of Alexandria.” Religious Studies 12, no. 1 (March 1976): 59–80. Hellerman, Joseph H. “Wealth and Sacrifice in Early Christianity: Revisiting Mark’s Presentation of Jesus’ Encounter with the Rich Young Ruler.” Trinity Journal 21 (2000): 143–164. Hengel, Martin. Property and Riches in the Early Church: Aspects of a Social History of Early Christianity. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1974. Maier, Harry O. “Clement of Alexandria and the Care of the Self.” Journal of the American Academy of Religion 62, no. 3 (Autumn 1994): 719–745. Osborn, Eric. “Arguments for Faith in Clement of Alexandria.” Vigiliae Christianae 48, no. 1 (March 1994): 1–24. Osborn, Eric. “One Hundred Years of Books on Clement.” Vigiliae Christianae 60, no. 4 (November 2006): 367–388.

72

DO C UMENTS O F THE RISE O F C HRISTIANITY

Document 16 IRENAEUS, AGAINST HERESIES, PREFACE 1–3 AND BOOK 3.1–3.2 Irenaeus was first a priest and then the bishop of Lyon, France. He died around 202 CE. His Against Heresies is his most famous writing, partly because although he wrote a few more books and letters, some of these did not survive. Eusebius of Caesarea, in his Church History (5.20), preserved a few letters and listed the titles of his works as To Blastus on Schism, On Monarchy, and On the Ogdoad, among others. Eusebius preserved some of the letter On Monarchy, which was addressed to Florinus, a priest in Rome. In it, he told Florinus that he remembered seeing Polycarp of Smyrna. Polycarp lived in the middle of the second century and was a bishop in Smyrna. This indicates that Irenaeus grew up there and then later moved to Lyon. Irenaeus spent a good part of Against Heresies (in Greek as Detection and Overthrow of the Pretended but False Gnosis) describing various groups of Gnostics (the word comes from the Greek word gnosis, meaning “knowledge”). These Gnostics had information about the message of Jesus that they wanted to share with those who believe in them. Many of them also saw themselves as new prophets. Irenaeus was totally against these groups and their ideas, so much so that his Against Heresies is a massive book full of descriptions of these groups and arguments against them. His goal is to expose these false teachers by describing their beliefs and pointing out how far away they really are from what the apostles taught. His hope in writing Against Heresies is that people will take what he wrote and give it to others so they don’t fall in with the wrong group (Preface, 3). There are many ways that Irenaeus demonstrated how to keep people in the correct faith. One was by the use of Scripture (both Old and New Testament). These texts are the linchpin holding Christianity together, and if people are not using them and believing in what they say, then they are considered to be heretics. Another way was to use the authority of the church, based on the original disciples. The church, and only the church, holds the true way to salvation, according to Irenaeus. There are others who form themselves into what looks like a church, with their own leaders, but if they are not following the authority of the church, then they are also heretics. He wrote Book 3 to show his readers the scriptural basis of the true faith and to show how scripture can be used to fight against these “heretics” (Chapter 3, Preface). He starts Chapter 3 by describing the “true” writers of the New Testament Gospels and then proceeds to talk about the idea of apostolic succession. This is the genealogical line of bishops who can trace their ordination all the way back to the apostles, and ultimately to Jesus. This proof, according to Irenaeus, is needed by people so that they know what they are being taught comes from Christ.

Against Heresies Chapter 1, Preface 1. Inasmuch as certain men have set aside the truth, and bring in lying words and vain genealogies, which, as the apostle says, “minister questions rather than godly

S e c o n d C e n t u r y 73

edifying which is in faith,” and by means of their craftily-constructed plausibilities draw away the minds of the inexperienced and take them captive, [I have felt constrained, my dear friend, to compose the following treatise in order to expose and counteract their machinations.] These men falsify the oracles of God and prove themselves to be evil interpreters of the good word of revelation. They also overthrow the faith of many, by drawing them away, under a pretense of [superior] knowledge from Him who founded and adorned the universe as if, undoubtedly, they had something more excellent and awe-inspiring to reveal than that God created the heaven and the earth and all things that are in it. By means of false and plausible words, they cleverly allure the simple-minded to inquire into their system. But they nevertheless clumsily destroy them, while they initiate them into their blasphemous and impious opinions respecting the Demiurge. These simple ones are unable, even in such a matter, to distinguish falsehood from truth. 2. Error, indeed, is never set forth in its naked deformity, lest, being thus exposed, it should at once be detected. But it is craftily decked out in an attractive dress, so as, by its outward form, to make it appear to the inexperienced (ridiculous as the expression may seem) more true than the truth itself. One far superior, in reference to this point, has well said to me “A clever imitation in glass casts contempt, as it were, on that precious jewel the emerald (which is most highly esteemed by some), unless it come under the eye of one able to test and expose the counterfeit. Or, again, what inexperienced person can with ease detect the presence of brass when it has been mixed up with silver?” Lest, therefore, through my neglect some should be carried off, just as sheep are by wolves, while they do not perceive the true character of these men—because they outwardly are covered with sheep’s clothing (against whom the Lord has enjoined us to be on our guard), and because their language resembles ours, while their sentiments are very different—I have deemed it my duty, after reading some of the Commentaries, as they call them, of the disciples of Valentinus and after making myself acquainted with their tenets through personal intercourse with some of them, to unfold to you, my friend, these portentous and profound mysteries which do not fall within the range of every intellect, because all have not sufficiently purged their brains. I do this in order that you, obtaining an acquaintance with these things, may in turn explain them to all those with whom you are connected, and urge them to avoid such an abyss of madness and of blasphemy against Christ. I intend, then, to the best of my ability, with brevity and clearness to set forth the opinions of those who are now spreading heresy. I refer especially to the disciples of Ptolemaeus whose school may be described as an offshoot from that of Valentinus. I shall also endeavor, according to my moderate ability, to furnish the means of overthrowing them, by showing how absurd and inconsistent with the truth are their statements. Not that I am practiced either in composition or eloquence, but my feeling of affection prompts me to make known to you and all your companions those doctrines which have been kept in concealment until now, but which are at last, through the goodness of God, brought to light. “For there is nothing hidden which shall not be revealed, nor secret that shall not be made known.” 3. You will not expect from me, who am resident among the Keltae, and am accustomed for the most part to use a barbarous dialect, any display of rhetoric, which I have never learned, or any excellence of composition, which I have never practiced, or any beauty and persuasiveness of style, to which I make no pretensions. But you will accept in a kindly spirit what I, in a like spirit write to you simply,

74

DO C UMENTS O F THE RISE O F C HRISTIANITY

truthfully, and in my own homely way, while you yourself (as being more capable than I am) will expand those ideas of which I send you, as it were, only the seminal principles. And in the comprehensiveness of your understanding you will develop to their full extent the points on which I briefly touch, so as to set with power before your companions those things which I have uttered in weakness. In the end, as I (to gratify your long-cherished desire for information regarding the tenets of these persons) have spared no pains, not only to make these doctrines known to you, but also to furnish the means of showing their falsity so that you will, according to the grace given to you by the Lord, prove an earnest and efficient minister to others, that men may no longer be drawn away by the plausible system of these heretics which I now proceed to describe.

. . . Book 3, Chapter 1–3.2 1. We have learned the plan of our salvation from none other than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public and at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures to be the ground and pillar of our faith. For it is unlawful to assert that they preached before they possessed “perfect knowledge,” as some even venture to say, boasting themselves as improvers of the apostles. For, after our Lord rose from the dead, [the apostles] were invested with power from on high when the Holy Spirit came down [upon them], were filled from all [His gifts], and had perfect knowledge: they departed to the ends of the earth, preaching the glad tidings of the good things [sent] from God to us, and proclaiming the peace of heaven to men, who indeed do all equally and individually possess the Gospel of God. Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, also handed down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke, the companion of Paul, also recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, published a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia. 2. These have all declared to us that there is one God, Creator of heaven and earth, announced by the law and the prophets, and one Christ the Son of God. If anyone does not agree to these truths, he despises the companions of the Lord, and more, he despises Christ Himself the Lord. Yes, he despises the Father also and stands self-condemned, resisting and opposing his own salvation, as is the case with all heretics.

Chapter 2 1. When, however, they are disproved from the Scriptures, they turn round and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor having authority, and [assert] that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition. For [they allege] that the truth was not delivered by means of written documents but orally: wherefore also Paul declared, “But

S e c o n d C e n t u r y 75

we speak wisdom among those that are perfect, but not the wisdom of this world.” And each one of them alleges this wisdom to be the fiction of his own inventing so that, according to their idea, the truth properly resides at one time in Valentinus, at another in Marcion, at another in Cerinthus, then afterwards in Basilides, or has even been indifferently in any other opponent, who could speak nothing pertaining to salvation. For every one of these men, being altogether of a perverse disposition, degrading the system of truth, is not ashamed to preach himself. 2. But, again, when we refer them to that tradition which originates from the apostles, which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles, because they have discovered the unadulterated truth. For [they maintain] that the apostles intermingled the things of the law with the words of the Savior; and that not the apostles alone, but even the Lord Himself, spoke as at one time from the Demiurge, at another from the intermediate place, and yet again from the Pleroma, but that they themselves, indubitably, spotlessly, and purely, have knowledge of the hidden mystery: this is, indeed, to blaspheme their Creator after a most impudent manner! It comes to this, therefore, that these men do now consent neither to Scripture nor to tradition. 3. Such are the adversaries with whom we have to deal, my very dear friend, endeavoring like slippery serpents to escape at all points. Therefore they must be opposed at all points, if perhaps, by cutting off their retreat, we may succeed in turning them back to the truth. For, though it is not an easy thing for a soul under the influence of error to repent, yet, on the other hand, it is not altogether impossible to escape from error when the truth is brought alongside it.

Chapter 3 1. It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world. We are in a position to count up those who were instituted bishops in the Churches by the apostles, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times—those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these people rave about. For if the apostles had known hidden mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting to “the perfect” apart and privately from the rest, they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the Churches themselves. For they were desirous that these men should be very perfect and blameless in all things, whom also they were leaving behind as their successors, delivering up their own place of government to these men who, if they discharged their functions honestly, would be a great boon [to the Church], but if they should fall away, the direst calamity. 2. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings, by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul

76

DO C UMENTS O F THE RISE O F C HRISTIANITY

and also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre-eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.

Source: Schaff, Philip. Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 1. A. Cleveland Coxe, ed. New York: Christian Literature Company, 1885.

Further Reading Donovan, Mary A. “Irenaeus in Recent Scholarship.” Second Century 4, no. 4 (1984): 219–241. Ferguson, Thomas C. K. “The Rule of Truth and Irenaean Rhetoric in Book 1 of ‘Against Heresies.’ ” Vigiliae Christianae 55, no. 4 (2001): 356–375. Grant, Robert M. Irenaeus of Lyons (The Early Church Fathers). New York: Routledge, 1997. Hefner, Philip. “Theological Methodology and St. Irenaeus.” Journal of Religion 44, no. 4 (October 1964): 294–309. Lashier, Jackson. “Irenaeus as Logos Theologian.” Vigiliae Christianae 66, no. 4 (2012): 341–361. Minns, Denis. Irenaeus: An Introduction, revised ed. New York: T&T Clark International, 2010. Perkins, Pheme. “Irenaeus and the Gnostics: Rhetoric and Composition in Adversus Haereses Book One.” Vigiliae Christianae 30 (1976): 193–200. Quispel, Gilles. “Valentinus and the Gnostikoi.” Vigiliae Christianae 50, no. 1 (1996): 1–4. Schoedel, William R. “Philosophy and Rhetoric in the Adversus Haereses of Irenaeus.” Vigiliae Christianae 13, no. 1 (April 1959): 22–32. Sullivan, Dale L. “Identification and Dissociation in Rhetorical Exposé: An Analysis of St. Irenaeus’ ‘Against Heresies.’ ” Rhetoric Society Quarterly 29, no. 1 (Winter 1999): 49–76.

Document 17 THE PASSION OF THE SCILLITAN MARTYRS The martyrdoms that are told in this document took place in 180 CE. The date is relatively secure because the text gives the names of the consuls and the proconsul (the governor). It seems to be a trial transcript. The very short text focuses on an interview between the Saturninus, the Proconsul, and a number of Christians who were being held. The charge seems to be that these Christians would not pray to the emperor. The interview is interesting for several reasons. The first is that the Proconsul seems eager to talk these people out of being killed for their beliefs. This is common enough from other martyrdoms, and it is plain that most Roman officials did not relish the idea of killing people just for the sake of killing them. In fact, Saturninus gives them a number of opportunities to rethink their position, including asking them if they would like to have another thirty days to consider. The second reason it is interesting is that it reveals a bit of the process that happened after someone was accused of being a Christian and not worshipping the emperor, at least from

S e c o n d C e n t u r y 77

the Christian point of view. The text states that the accused were taken into the “judgment hall” where their trial would take place. The Proconsul himself headed the proceedings by asking questions to most of the Christians. It is also the Proconsul who read out the judgment. While this account is from the Christian point of view, it needs to be noted that it reflects quite a bit of what we know about Roman law and criminal procedures (see Bryen 2014, 248). Third, it is interesting in that the Christians do not waver in their belief. This is a common theme in these martyrdoms, so it can be safely assumed this is how Christians would behave, even when faced with being killed for their beliefs. Speratus, in his questioning, repeats twice in this short document: “I am Christian.” The first time is when the Proconsul asked if he persists in being Christian and then again when the Proconsul asks that he take thirty days to reconsider. His immediate reply is “I am Christian.” This language is also repeated in other martyrdoms—namely, The Martyrdom of Carpus, Papylus, and Agathonike and The Martyrs of Lyons. There both Carpus and Sanctus (Lyons) state repeatedly the simple statement “I am Christian” when they are either being tortured or about to be tortured. Despite the promise of torture or the opportunity to recant and avoid pain and death, the Christians refused to recant. Fourth, the Proconsul asked about some texts that the Christians were carrying around in a chest. Speratus responds that they were books and letters of the Apostle Paul. It is clear from this that some Christians had access to parts of what we now call the New Testament. It is curious that these particular Christians only carried the works of Paul and not, say, the Gospels or some other early Christian writings. It is possible that they could only carry a few because texts were expensive or that they were particularly interested in the theology of Paul. The following text contains the entire transcript.

The Passion of the Scillitan Martyrs When Praesens, for the second time, and Claudianus were the consuls, on the seventeenth day of July, at Carthage, Speratus, Nartzalus, Cittinus, Donata, Secunda and Vestia were set in the judgment-hall. Saturninus the proconsul said: “You can win the indulgence of our lord the Emperor if you return to a sound mind.” Speratus said: “We have never done anything wrong; we have not lent ourselves to wrong; we have never spoken ill, but when ill-treated we have given thanks because we pay heed to our Emperor.” Saturninus the proconsul said: “We too are religious and our religion is simple, and we swear by the genius of our lord the Emperor, and pray for his welfare as you also ought to do.” Speratus said: “If you will listen peacefully, I can tell you the mystery of simplicity. Saturninus said: “I will not listen when you begin to speak evil things of our sacred rites—but rather swear by the genius of our lord the Emperor.” Speratus said: “I do not know the empire of this world, but rather I serve that God, whom no man has seen, nor with these eyes can see. I have committed no theft but if I have bought anything I pay the tax because I know my Lord, the King of kings and Emperor of all nations.

78

DO C UMENTS O F THE RISE O F C HRISTIANITY

Saturninus the proconsul said to the rest: “Cease to be of this persuasion.” Speratus said: “It is an ill persuasion to do murder, to speak false witness.” Saturninus the proconsul said: “Be not continue in this folly.” Cittinus said: “We have none other to fear except only our Lord God who is in heaven.” Donata said: “Honor to Caesar as Caesar, but fear God.” Vestia said: “I am a Christian.” Secunda said: “I wish to be what I am.” Saturninus the proconsul said to Speratus: “Do you persist in being a Christian?” Speratus said: “I am a Christian.” And with him they all agreed. Saturninus the proconsul said: “Do you want time to consider?” Speratus said: “In a matter so straightforward there is no considering.” Saturninus the proconsul said: “What are the things in your chest?” Speratus said: “Books and epistles of Paul, a just man.” Saturninus the proconsul said: “Have a delay of thirty days and rethink.” Speratus said a second time: “I am a Christian.” And with him they all agreed. Saturninus the proconsul read out the decree from the tablet: Speratus, Nartzalus, Cittinus, Donata, Vestia, Secunda and the rest having confessed that they live according to the Christian rite, and since after opportunity offered them of returning to the custom of the Romans they have obstinately persisted, it is determined that they be put to the sword. Speratus said: “We give thanks to God.” Nartzalus said: “Today we are martyrs in heaven. Thanks be to God.” Saturninus the proconsul ordered it to be declared by the herald: Speratus, Nartzalus, Cittinus, Veturius, Felix, Aquilinus, Lætantius, Januaria, Generosa, Vestia, Donata and Secunda, I have ordered to be executed. They all said: “Thanks be to God.”

And so they all together were crowned with martyrdom and they reign with the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost, for ever and ever. Amen. Source: Schaff, Philip. Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 9. A. Cleveland Coxe, ed. New York: Christian Literature Company, 1885.

Further Reading Barnes, Timothy D. “Pre-Decian ‘Acta Martyrum.’ ” Journal of Theological Studies, New Series 19, no. 2 (October 1968): 509–531. Barnes, Timothy D. Tertullian: A Historical and Literary Study. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1971. Bomgardner, David L. “The Carthage Amphitheater: A Reappraisal.” American Journal of Archaeology 93, no. 1 (January 1989): 85–103. Bradley, Keith. “Sacrificing the Family: Christian Martyrs and Their Kin.” Ancient Narrative3 (2003): 150–181. Bryen, Ari. “Martyrdom, Rhetoric, and the Politics of Procedure.” Classical Antiquity 33, no. 2 (October 2014): 243–280. Castelli, E. Martyrdom and Memory: Early Christian Culture Making. New York: Columbia University Press, 2004.

S e c o n d C e n t u r y 79

de Ste Croix, G. E. M. “Why Were the Early Christians Persecuted?” Past and Present 26 (1963): 6–38. Engberg, J. “Martyrdom and Persecution: Pagan Perspectives on the Prosecution and Execution of Christians, c.110–210 ad.” In Contextualising Early Christian Martyrdom, edited by J. Engberg, U. H. Eriksen, and A. K. Petersen, 93–117. Frankfurt, Germany: Peter Lang, 2011. Grig, L. Making Martyrs in Late Antiquity. London: Bristol Classical Press, 2004. Koscheski, Jonathan. “The Earliest Christian War: Second- and Third-Century Martyrdom and the Creation of Cosmic Warriors.” Journal of Religious Ethics 39, no. 1 (March 2011): 100–124. Sherwin-White, A. N. “The Early Persecutions and Roman Law Again.” Journal of Theological Studies, New Series 3, no. 2 (October 1952): 199–213.

Document 18 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO PETER The first few centuries of Christianity are full of texts written by Christians that never made it into the New Testament for one reason or the other. The Gospel According to Peter is one of them. Although it supposedly was written by Peter the Disciple, modern scholars reject this. Many ancient Christians also rejected it. For example, Eusebius of Caesarea discussed the various writings attributed to Peter (in his Church History 3.3.1–4): One epistle of Peter, that called the first, is acknowledged as genuine. And this the ancient elders used freely in their own writings as an undisputed work. But we have learned that his extant second Epistle does not belong to the canon; yet, as it has appeared profitable to many, it has been used with the other Scriptures. 2. The so-called Acts of Peter, however, and the Gospel which bears his name, and the Preaching and the Apocalypse, as they are called, we know have not been universally accepted, because no ecclesiastical writer, ancient or modern, has made use of testimonies drawn from them. 3. But in the course of my history I shall be careful to show, in addition to the official succession, what ecclesiastical writers have from time to time made use of any of the disputed works, and what they have said in regard to the canonical and accepted writings, as well as in regard to those which are not of this class. 4. Such are the writings that bear the name of Peter, only one of which I know to be genuine and acknowledged by the ancient elders.

While rejected, it doesn’t mean that it shouldn’t be read. Early Christianity was not a monolithic religion—a better description would be “Christianities.” There were many different forms of Christianity, all vying to be the “only legitimate” version. Many times someone would create a text and attribute it to a disciple in order to give it validity. The name of the author of this text is given as Simon Peter. Peter was the disciple that Jesus gave the keys to the kingdom to and has been considered to be the most important apostle. There are many examples of forgeries like this found all over the early Christian world. Despite being “fakes,” they can sometimes tell us quite a bit about what other Christian groups were doing and thinking.

80

DO C UMENTS O F THE RISE O F C HRISTIANITY

The Gospel According to Peter dates from the middle of the second century and was found in the tomb of a monk in Egypt. Since its original discovery in 1886, several other possible copies of this Gospel have been discovered (Foster 2007). The text contains many parallels to the crucifixion accounts in the accepted Gospels. There are, however, a few very important differences. The first is that that Herod was in charge of making the decisions on the fate of Jesus—not Pilate, as found in the New Testament. This account also has the Jewish population lamenting of what they had done to Christ. The other is that there is an earthquake when the body of Jesus is put on the ground, after removing the nails that had been driven into his hands; the sun then comes out. The resurrection scene is also expanded upon when compared to the New Testament versions.

The Gospel According to Peter 1 But of the Jews none washed his hands, neither Herod nor any one of his judges. And when they had refused to wash them, Pilate rose up. And then Herod the king commanded that the Lord be taken, he said to them, What things I commanded you to do to him, do. 2 And standing there was Joseph the friend of Pilate and of the Lord; and, knowing that they were about to crucify him, he came to Pilate and asked the body of the Lord for burial. And Pilate sent to Herod and asked his body. And Herod said, Brother Pilate, even if no one had asked for him, we purposed to bury him, especially as the sabbath draws close: for it is written in the law that the sun does not set on one who has been put to death. 3 And he delivered him to the people on the day before the unleavened bread, their feast. And they took the Lord and pushed him as they ran, and said, Let us drag away the Son of God, having obtained power over him. And they clothed him with purple, and set him on the seat of judgment, saying, Judge righteously, O king of Israel. And one of them brought a crown of thorns and put it on the head of the Lord. And others stood and spat in his eyes, and others slapped his cheeks. Others pricked him with a reed and some scourged him, saying, With this honor let us honor the Son of God. 4 And they brought two criminals and they crucified the Lord between them. But he held his peace, as though having no pain. And when they had raised the cross, they wrote the title: This is the king of Israel. And having set his garments before him they parted them among them, and cast lots for them. And one of those criminals reproached them, saying, We suffer this for the evils that we have done, but this man, who has become the Savior of men, what wrong has he done to you? And they, being angered at him, commanded that his legs should not be broken so that he might die in torment. 5

And it was noon, and darkness came over all Judaea: and they were troubled and distressed, lest the sun had set, while he was yet alive: [for] it is written for them, that the sun not set on him who has been put to death. And one of them said, Give him gall to drink with vinegar. And they mixed and gave him to drink, and fulfilled all things, and accomplished their sins against their own head. And many went about with lamps, supposing that it was night, and fell down. And the Lord cried out, saying, My

S e c o n d C e n t u r y 81

power, my power, you have forsaken me. And when he had said it he was taken up. And in that hour the veil of the temple of Jerusalem was rent in two.   6 And then they drew out the nails from the hands of the Lord, and laid him upon the earth and the whole earth quaked, and great fear arose. Then the sun shone, and it was found the ninth hour: and the Jews rejoiced, and gave his body to Joseph that he might bury it since he had seen what good things he had done. And he took the Lord and washed him, and rolled him in a linen cloth and brought him into his own tomb which was called the Garden of Joseph.   7 Then the Jews and the elders and the priests, perceiving what evil they had done to themselves, began to lament and to say, Woe for our sins: the judgment has drawn close and the end of Jerusalem. And I, along with my companions mourned and being wounded in mind we hid ourselves for we were being sought for by them as criminals, and as wishing to set fire to the temple. And upon all these things we fasted and sat mourning and weeping night and day until the sabbath.   8 But the scribes and Pharisees and elders being gathered together one with another, when they heard that all the people murmured and beat their breasts saying, If by his death these most mighty signs have come to pass, see how righteous he is—the elders were afraid and came to Pilate, beseeching him and saying, Give us soldiers, that we may guard his sepulchre for three days, lest his disciples come and steal him away and the people suppose that he is risen from the dead and do us evil. And Pilate gave them Petronius the centurion with soldiers to guard the tomb. And with them came elders and scribes to the sepulchre, and having rolled a great stone together with the centurion and the soldiers, they all together who were there set it at the door of the sepulcher. They affixed seven seals and they pitched a tent there and guarded it. And early in the morning as the sabbath was drawing on, there came a multitude from Jerusalem and the region round about so that they might see the sepulchre that was sealed.   9 And in the night in which the Lord’s day was drawing on, as the soldiers kept guard two by two in a watch, there was a great voice in the heaven and they saw the heavens opened and two men descend from there with great light and approach the tomb. And that stone which was put at the door rolled by itself and made way in part. The tomb was opened and both the young men entered in. 10 When therefore those soldiers saw it, they awakened the centurion and the elders for they too were hard by keeping guard. And, as they declared what things they had seen, again they saw three men come forth from the tomb, and two of them supporting one, and a cross following them: and of the two the head reached unto the heaven, but the head of him that was led by them overpassed the heavens. And they heard a voice from the heavens, saying, You have preached to them that sleep. And a response was heard from the cross, Yes. 11 They therefore considered one with another whether to go away and show these things to Pilate. And while they yet were thinking about this, the heavens again are seen to open, and a certain man to descend and enter into the sepulchre. When the centurion and they that were with him saw these things, they hastened in the night to Pilate, leaving the tomb which they were watching, and declared all things which they had seen, being greatly distressed and saying, Truly he was the Son of God. Pilate answered and said, I am pure from the blood of the Son of God: but it was

82

DO C UMENTS O F THE RISE O F C HRISTIANITY

you who determined this. Then they all drew near and begged and entreated him to command the centurion and the soldiers to say nothing of the things which they had seen—for it is better, say they, for us to be guilty of the greatest sin before God and not to fall into the hands of the people of the Jews and to be stoned. Pilate therefore commanded the centurion and the soldiers to say nothing. 12 And at dawn upon the Lord’s day Mary Magdalen, a disciple of the Lord, fearing because of the Jews, since they were burning with wrath, had not done at the Lord’s sepulchre the things which women do for those that die and for those that are beloved by them. She took her friends with her and came to the sepulchre where he was laid. And they feared lest the Jews should see them, and they said, Although on that day on which he was crucified we could not weep and lament, yet now let us do these things at his sepulchre. But who shall roll away for us the stone that was laid at the door of the sepulchre, that we may enter in and sit by him and do the things that are due? For the stone was great, and we fear lest some one see us. And if we cannot, yet if we but set at the door the things which we bring for a memorial of him, we will weep and lament, until we come unto our home. 13 And they went and found the tomb opened, and coming near they looked in there; and they see there a certain young man sitting in the midst of the tomb, beautiful and clothed in a robe that was exceeding bright. He said to them, Where have you come from? Whom do you seek? Him that was crucified? He is risen and gone. But if you do not believe, look in and see the place where he lay, that he is not [here]; for he is risen and gone to where he was sent from. Then the women feared and fled. 14 Now it was the last day of the unleavened bread, and many were going forth, returning to their homes as the feast was ended. But we, the twelve disciples of the Lord, wept and were grieved. And each one, being grieved for that which was come to pass, departed to his home. But I Simon Peter and Andrew my brother took our nets and went to the sea and there was with us Levi the son of Alphæus, whom the Lord . . .

Source: Schaff, Philip. Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 9. A. Cleveland Coxe, ed. New York: Christian Literature Company, 1885.

Further Reading Brown, R. E. “The Gospel of Peter and Canonical Gospel Priority.” New Testament Studies 33 (1987): 321–343. Foster, Paul. “Are There Any Early Fragments of the So-Gospel of Peter?” New Testament Studies 52 (2006): 1–28. Foster, Paul. “The Disputed Early Fragments of the So-Called ‘Gospel of Peter’: Once Again.” Novum Testamentum 49, fasc. 4 (2007): 402–406. Green, J. B. “The Gospel of Peter: Source for a Pre-Canonical Passion Narrative?” Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 78 (1987): 293–302. Head, P. M. “On the Christology of the Gospel of Peter.” Vigiliae Christianae 46, no. 3 (September 1992): 209–224. Lowe, Malcolm. “Ἰουδαῖοι of the Apocrypha: A Fresh Approach to the Gospels of James, Pseudo-Thomas, Peter and Nicodemus.” Novum Testamentum 23, fasc. 1 (January 1981): 56–90.

S e c o n d C e n t u r y 83

McCant, J. W. “The Gospel of Peter: Docetism Reconsidered.” New Testament Studies 30 (1984): 258–273. Standhartinger, Angela. “What Women Were Accustomed to Do for the Dead Beloved by Them” (‘Gospel of Peter’ 12.50): Traces of Laments and Mourning Rituals in Early Easter, Passion, and Lord’s Supper Traditions.” Journal of Biblical Literature 129, no. 3 (Fall 2010): 559–574. Wright, D. F. “Apologetic and Apocalyptic: The Miraculous in the Gospel of Peter.” In Gospel Perspectives: The Miracles of Jesus, edited by David Wenham and Craig Blomberd. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2003; 401–418.

This page intentionally left blank

Chapter 3

Third Century Introduction Theology in the third century continued, but so did the persecution. The Christian community went through periods of peace and then periods of trials and tribulations that broke up families and church organizations. Christian writers were also having to write against those who were rabidly anti-Christian, such as Origen. He wrote a large book titled Against Celsus. Celsus was absolutely against everything Christian, and even though he was dead, Origen decided that the claims that were made by Celsus warranted writing against him, and in the process, he defended Christianity. Emperor Decius ruled from 249 to 251 and issued a persecution against the Christians. Origen himself was caught up in this. He died from his tortures a few years after the official persecution had finished. Bishop Cyprian of Carthage fled during the persecution and, not only did he have to deal with that, but he also had to pull his community together when those who lapsed, or those who stated and acted as if they were not Christian during the persecution, wanted back into the church when the persecution finished. The divisions between those who lapsed and those who did not continued to plague the North African Christian community until the early fifth century. Cyprian himself was killed during a persecution, and we are fortunate that a deacon of his, Pontius, gave the account of his passion. The biggest persecution in the history of the early church, titled the Great Persecution, started in Egypt. The governor there sent a letter to Emperor Diocletian stating that there were Manichaeans (who were really Christian) who were causing problems. Diocletian was worried that these were Persian spies (Mani, the founder of Manichaeism, was from Persia) and ordered that the Manichaean leaders be killed and their religious books burned. It isn’t known exactly when the Manichaeans arrived in Egypt, but in the late 200s, someone named Alexander wrote against them. He was worried that the Manichaeans were converting his philosopher friends to that form of Christianity, and it was his goal to write about them in order to prevent these conversions.

Document 19 AGAINST CELSUS BY ORIGEN, 1.38–41 Origen, who lived from 185 to 253, was ordained a priest around 231. Later he was excommunicated for castrating himself (and for other reasons). He became one of early Christianity’s greatest theologians. His father was a Christian martyr, and although Origen did not die a martyr, he died from his wounds after being put into prison during the time of Emperor Decius (249–251 CE). Eusebius of Caesarea, in his Church

86

DO C UMENTS O F THE RISE O F C HRISTIANITY

History (6.39.5), lists the gruesome details that Origen went through when he refused to renounce his faith: But how many and how great things came upon Origen in the persecution, and what was their final result, as the demon of evil marshaled all his forces and fought against the man with his utmost craft and power, assaulting him beyond all others against whom he contended at that time. And what and how many things he endured for the word of Christ—the bonds and bodily tortures and torments under the iron collar and in the dungeon, and how for many days with his feet stretched four spaces in the stocks he bore patiently the threats of fire and whatever other things were inflicted by his enemies, and how his sufferings terminated, as his judge strove eagerly with all his might not to end his life, and what words he left after these things, full of comfort to those needing aid, a great many of his epistles show with truth and accuracy.

Celsus lived in the second century and wrote a book called True Discourse, probably around 180 CE. The goal of Celsus was to convince Christians that they had made a mistake in choosing Christianity. He tried to show them the inconsistencies of the religion. Celsus certainly knew of Christianity—its tenets, its texts, and those who professed Christianity. Although his True Discourse does not exist today, it is clear that Celsus was a dangerous opponent. He would use the Old and New Testaments against Christians and knew of the many controversies that were taking place in Christian circles during the second century. These were used as weapons. Although we don’t have evidence that it made an impact during the time of Celsus, we know that someone named Ambrose sent this text to his friend Origen around 246 CE, after the death of Celsus. The fact that he was dead did not matter to Origen—it was the message of Celsus that needed to be dealt with. Origen read through it and knew it was something he had to respond to. The method Origen used was to copy what Celsus wrote, and then Origen commented on that. This continued throughout the entire document. The method is fortunate for us because much of the text of Celsus would have been lost without it. It is thought that Origen preserved about three-fourths of the original text. Celsus had many issues with Christianity. The biggest was that he believed Jesus was a fake messiah and really just a person who used others to inflate himself into looking like the Son of God. One of the ways he tried to prove this was to examine the miracles of Jesus. According to Celsus, the miracles were just magic and not miracles at all. Celsus also attacked the idea that Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary. Origen, of course, disagreed, and this is an important text to use to examine not only what ancient Christians thought about magic but also what they thought about miracles and their place in the story of Jesus.

Against Celsus Chapter 38 But, moreover, taking the history, contained in the Gospel according to Matthew, of our Lord’s descent into Egypt, he refuses to believe the miraculous circumstances

T h i r d C e n t u r y 87

attending it, viz., either that the angel gave the divine allusions, or that our Lord’s quitting Judea and residing in Egypt was an event of any significance. But he invents something altogether different, admitting somehow the miraculous works done by Jesus by which He induced the multitude to follow Him as the Christ. And yet he desires to throw discredit on them, saying they were done by help of magic and not by divine power; for he asserts “that he (Jesus), having been brought up as an illegitimate child, and having served for hire in Egypt, and then coming to the knowledge of certain miraculous powers, returned from there to his own country, and by means of those powers proclaimed himself a god.” Now I do not understand how a magician should exert himself to teach a doctrine which persuades us always to act as if God were to judge every man for his deeds and should have trained his disciples, whom he was to employ as the ministers of his doctrine, in the same belief. For did the latter make an impression upon their hearers, after they had been so taught to work miracles or was it without the aid of these? The assertion, therefore, that they did no miracles at all, but that they, after yielding their belief to arguments which were not at all convincing (like the wisdom of Grecian dialectics) gave themselves up to the task of teaching the new doctrine to those persons among whom they lived with, is altogether absurd. For what did they place their confidence in when they taught the doctrine and disseminated the new opinions? But if they indeed performed miracles, then how can it be believed that magicians exposed themselves to such hazards to introduce a doctrine which forbid the practice of magic?

Chapter 39 I do not think it necessary to grapple with an argument advanced not in a serious but in a scoffing spirit, such as the following: “If the mother of Jesus was beautiful, then the god whose nature is not to love a corruptible body, had intercourse with her because she was beautiful;” or, “It was improbable that the god would entertain a passion for her, because she was neither rich nor of royal rank, seeing no one, even of her neighbors, knew her.” And it is in the same scoffing spirit that he adds: “When hated by her husband, and turned out of doors, she was not saved by divine power, nor was her story believed. Such things,” he says, “have no connection with the kingdom of heaven.” In what respect does such language differ from that of those who pour abuse on others on the public streets, and whose words are unworthy of any serious attention?

Chapter 40 After these assertions, he takes from the Gospel of Matthew, and perhaps also from the other Gospels, the account of the dove alighting upon our Savior at His baptism by John, and desires to throw discredit upon the statement, alleging that the narrative is a fiction. Having completely disposed, as he imagined, of the story

88

DO C UMENTS O F THE RISE O F C HRISTIANITY

of our Lord’s birth from a virgin, he does not proceed to deal in an orderly manner with the accounts that follow it since passion and hatred observe no order, but angry and vindictive men slander those whom they hate, as the feeling comes upon them, being prevented by their passion from arranging their accusations on a careful and orderly plan. For if he had observed a proper arrangement, he would have taken up the Gospel, and, with the view of assailing it, would have objected to the first narrative, then passed on to the second, and so on to the others. But now, after the birth from a virgin, this Celsus, who professes to be acquainted with all our history, attacks the account of the appearance of the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove at the baptism. He then, after that, tries to throw discredit upon the prediction that our Lord was to come into the world. In the next place, he runs away to what immediately follows the narrative of the birth of Jesus—the account of the star, and of the wise men who came from the east to worship the child. And you yourself may find, if you take the trouble, many confused statements made by Celsus throughout his whole book; so that even in this account he may, by those who know how to observe and require an orderly method of arrangement, be convicted of great rashness and boasting, in having inscribed upon his work the title of A True Discourse—a thing which is never done by a learned philosopher. For Plato says that it is not an indication of an intelligent man to make strong assertions respecting those matters which are somewhat uncertain. And the celebrated Chrysippus even, who frequently states the reasons by which he makes a decision, refers us to those whom we shall find to be better speakers than himself. This man, however, who is wiser than those already named and all the other Greeks, agreeably to his assertion of being acquainted with everything, inscribed upon his book the words, A True Discourse!

Chapter 41 But, that we may not have the appearance of intentionally passing by his charges through inability to refute them, we have resolved to answer each one of them separately according to our ability, attending not to the connection and sequence of the nature of the things themselves, but to the arrangement of the subjects as they occur in this book. Let us therefore notice what he has to say by way of questioning the bodily appearance of the Holy Spirit to our Savior in the form of a dove. And it is a Jew who addresses the following language to Him whom we acknowledge to be our Lord Jesus: “When you were bathing,” says the Jew, “beside John, you say that what had the appearance of a bird from the air alighted upon you.” And then this same Jew of his, continuing his interrogations, asks, “What credible witness beheld this appearance? Or who heard a voice from heaven declaring you to be the Son of God? What proof is there of it, save your own assertion, and the statement of another of those individuals who have been punished along with you?” Source: Schaff, Philip. Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 4. A. Cleveland Coxe, ed. New York: Christian Literature Company, 1885.

T h i r d C e n t u r y 89

Further Reading Burke, Gary T. “Celsus and the Old Testament.” Vetus Testamentum 36, fasc. 2 (April 1986): 241–245. Gallagher, Eugene V. Divine Man or Magician? Celsus and Origen on Jesus. Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1982. Heine, Ronald E. Origen: Scholarship in the Service of the Church. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. Kannengiesser, C., and William L. Petersen, eds. Origen of Alexandria: His World and His Legacy. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1988. Perrone, Lorenzo. “Prayer in Origen’s ‘Contra Celsum’: The Knowledge of God and the Truth of Christianity.” Vigiliae Christianae 55, no. 1 (2001): 1–19. Rabinowitz, Celia E. “Personal and Cosmic Salvation in Origen.” Vigiliae Christianae 38, no. 4 (December 1984): 319–329. Sedina, Miroslav. “Magical Power of Names in Origen’s Polemic against Celsus.” Listy filologické/Folia Philologica 136, no. 1/2 (2013): 7–25. Trigg, Joseph W. Origen. New York: Routledge, 2012.

Document 20 ORIGEN, AGAINST CELSUS II (ON THE RESURRECTION OF THE BODY), 5.14, 18–19, 23 The belief that one will be resurrected is a cornerstone of Christian belief. It is really the carrot—if someone lives according to the rules found in the New Testament and believes that Jesus is the savior and Son of God, then they will be guaranteed to be resurrected in heaven. There are many, many places in the New Testament where resurrection, both of Jesus and his followers, can be found. The idea of resurrection is also found in some Jewish circles, such as in the Pharisees. Christians also saw signs of the resurrection of Christ in some of the Old Testament accounts, especially with Jonah (Matt. 12:39–40): “But he answered them, ‘An evil and adulterous generation asks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. For just as Jonah was for three days and three nights in the belly of the sea monster, so for three days and three nights the Son of Man will be in the heart of the earth.” Matthew 16:21 states that Jesus will be resurrected: “From that time on, Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and undergo great suffering at the hands of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised.” Finally, Paul (in Rom. 6:3–9) promises that Christians, if they follow Christ, will also be resurrected like Christ: Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? Therefore we have been buried with him by baptism into death, so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we will certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his. We know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body of sin might be destroyed, and we might no longer be enslaved to sin. For whoever has died is freed from sin. But if we have died with Christ,

90

DO C UMENTS O F THE RISE O F C HRISTIANITY

we believe that we will also live with him. We know that Christ, being raised from the dead, will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him.

Naturally this belief continued on with the early Christian writers after the New Testament. However, many ancient non-Christians had issues with the Christian belief in the resurrection of the flesh. Philosophers, in particular, were unconvinced because they believed that only the soul was immortal and the body was not. How could a corruptible body be resurrected into something it is not? Others found the idea of bodily resurrection repulsive, especially when all of the bodily functions were considered. Would a resurrected body still need to urinate and defecate? Many early Christians had to start dealing with these questions. Some, like Irenaeus and Justin Martyr, believed that the power of God would transform the body into something immortal after the resurrection. That too caused issues because Christians believed that only Christ had a perfect body. Would resurrected Christians also be perfect, like Christ? Origen, in Chapter 5.23 in the following excerpt, also needed to address this problem. Celsus, writing his On True Doctrine around 180, was very educated on what Christians believed. We are fortunate that Origen preserved quite a bit of this text—especially what he wrote about the resurrection. This is found in Chapter 14 (in the following excerpt). Origen directly addressed this, starting in Chapter 18. Celsus “ridiculed” the idea of resurrection, and Origen’s answer is that the body is not resurrected as the replica of the human on earth, but what is resurrected is the perfect part of the human.

Against Celsus, 5.14, 18–19, 23 Chapter 14 The following, then, are his (Celsus) words: “It is folly on their part to suppose that when God, as if He were a cook, introduces the fire (which is to consume the world), all the rest of the human race will be burnt up, while they alone will remain, not only such of them as are then alive, but also those who are long since dead, which latter will arise from the earth clothed with the self-same flesh (as during life). Such a hope is simply one which might be cherished by worms. For what sort of human soul is that which would still long for a body that had been subject to corruption? This opinion of yours, also, is not shared by some of the Christians, and they pronounce it to be exceedingly vile, and loathsome, and impossible, for what kind of body is that which, after being completely corrupted, can return to its original nature, and to that self-same first condition out of which it fell into dissolution? Being unable to return any answer, they move to a most absurd refuge— that all things are possible to God. And yet God cannot do things that are disgraceful, nor does He wish to do things that are contrary to His nature; nor, if (in accordance with the wickedness of your own heart) you desired anything that was evil, would God accomplish it; nor must you believe at once that it will be done. For God does not rule the world in order to satisfy inordinate desires, or to allow disorder and confusion, but to govern a nature that is upright and just. For the soul,

T h i r d C e n t u r y 91

indeed, He might be able to provide an everlasting life—while dead bodies, on the contrary, are, as Heraclitus observes, more worthless than dung. God, however, neither can nor will declare, contrary to all reason, that the flesh, which is full of those things which it is not even honorable to mention, is to exist for ever. For He is the reason of all things that exist, and therefore can do nothing either contrary to reason or contrary to Himself.”

Chapter 18 But since he has ridiculed at great length the doctrine of the resurrection of the flesh, which has been preached in the Churches, and which is more clearly understood by the more intelligent believer, and as it is unnecessary again to quote his words, which have been already adduced, let us, with regard to the problem (as in an apologetic work directed against an alien from the faith, and for the sake of those who are still “children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive”), state and establish to the best of our ability a few points expressly intended for our readers. Neither we nor the holy Scriptures assert that with the same bodies, without a change to a higher condition, “shall those who were long dead arise from the earth and live again;” for in so speaking, Celsus makes a false charge against us. For we may listen to many passages of Scripture treating of the resurrection in a manner worthy of God, although it may suffice for the present to quote the language of Paul from the first Epistle to the Corinthians, where he says: “But some man will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come? You fool, that which you sow is not quickened, except it die. And that which you sow, you sow not that body that shall be, but bare grain—it may chance of wheat, or of some other grain—but God gives it a body as it has pleased Him, and to every seed his own body.” Now, observe how in these words he says that there is sown, “not that body that shall be,” but that of the body which is sown and cast naked into the earth (God giving to each seed its own body), there takes place as it were a resurrection: from the seed that was cast into the ground there arising a stalk, e.g., among such plants as the following, for example, the mustard plant, or of a larger tree, as in the olive or one of the fruit-trees.

Chapter 19 God, then, gives to each thing its own body as He pleases, as in the case of plants that are sown, so also in the case of those beings who are, as it were, sown in dying, and who in due time receive out of what has been “sown,” the body assigned by God to each one according to his rewards. And we may hear, moreover, the Scripture teaching us at great length the difference between that which is, as it were, “sown,” and that which is, as it were, “raised” from it in these words: “It is sown in corruption, it is raised in incorruption; it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory;

92

DO C UMENTS O F THE RISE O F C HRISTIANITY

it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.” And let him who has the capacity understand the meaning of the words: “As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy; and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.” And although the apostle wished to conceal the secret meaning of the passage, which was not adapted to the simpler class of believers and to the understanding of the common people who are led by their faith to enter on a better course of life, he was nevertheless obliged afterwards to say (in order that we might not misapprehend his meaning), after “Let us bear the image of the heavenly,” these words also: “Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.” Then, knowing that there was a secret and mystical meaning in the passage, as was becoming in one who was leaving, in his Epistles, to those who were to come after him words full of significance, he adds the following, “Behold, I show you a mystery.” This is his usual style in introducing matters of a profounder and more mystical nature and such as are fittingly concealed from the multitude, as is written in the book of Tobit: “It is good to keep close the secret of a king, but honorable to reveal the works of God.” This is consistent with truth and God’s glory and so as to be to the advantage of the multitude. Our hope, then, is not “the hope of worms, nor does our soul long for a body that has seen corruption,” for although it may require a body, for the sake of moving from place to place, yet it understands—as having meditated on the wisdom (that is from above), agreeably to the declaration, “The mouth of the righteous will speak wisdom”—the difference between the “earthly house,” in which is the tabernacle of the building that is to be dissolved, and that in which the righteous do groan, being burdened—not wishing to “put off” the tabernacle, but to be “clothed therewith,” that by being clothed upon, mortality might be swallowed up of life. For, in virtue of the whole nature of the body being corruptible, the corruptible tabernacle must put on incorruption and its other part, being mortal, and becoming liable to the death which follows sin, must put on immortality, in order that, when the corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and the mortal immortality, then shall come to pass what was predicted of old by the prophets—the annihilation of the “victory” of death (because it had conquered and subjected us to his sway), and of its “sting,” with which it stings the imperfectly defended soul, and inflicts upon it the wounds which result from sin.

Chapter 23 We, therefore, do not maintain that the body which has undergone corruption resumes its original nature, any more than the grain of wheat which has decayed returns to its former condition. But we do maintain, that as above the grain of wheat there arises a stalk, so a certain power is implanted in the body, which is not destroyed, and from which the body is raised up in incorruption. The philosophers of the Porch, however, in consequence of the opinions which they hold

T h i r d C e n t u r y 93

regarding the unchangeableness of things after a certain cycle, assert that the body, after undergoing complete corruption, will return to its original condition, and will again assume that first nature from which it passed into a state of dissolution, establishing these points, as they think, by irresistible arguments. We, however, do not move ourselves to a most absurd refuge, saying that with God all things are possible, for we know how to understand this word “all” as not referring either to things that are “non-existent” or that are inconceivable. But we maintain, at the same time, that God cannot do what is disgraceful since then He would be capable of ceasing to be God. For if He do anything that is disgraceful, He is not God. Since, however, he lays it down as a principle that “God does not desire what is contrary to nature,” we have to make a distinction and say that if any one asserts that wickedness is contrary to nature, while we maintain that “God does not desire what is contrary to nature”—either what springs from wickedness or from an irrational principle— yet, if such things happen according to the word and will of God, we must at once necessarily hold that they are not contrary to nature. Therefore things which are done by God, although they may be or may appear to some to be incredible, are not contrary to nature. And if we must press the force of words, we would say that in comparison with what is generally understood as “nature,” there are certain things which are beyond its power which God could do at any time, as, for example, in raising man above the level of human nature and causing him to pass into a better and more divine condition, and preserving him in the same so long as he who is the object of His care shows by his actions that he desires (the continuance of His help). Source: Schaff, Philip. Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 4. A. Cleveland Coxe, ed. New York: Christian Literature Company, 1885.

Further Reading Bovon, François. “The Soul’s Comeback: Immortality and Resurrection in Early Christianity.” Harvard Theological Review 103, no. 4 (October 2010): 387–406. Chadwick, Henry. “Origen, Celsus, and the Resurrection of the Body.” Harvard Theological Review 41, no. 2 (April 1948): 83–102. Decock, Paul B. “Origen: On Making Sense of the Resurrection as a Third Century Christian.” Neotestamentica 45, no. 1 (2011): 76–91. Habermas, Gary R. “Resurrection Claims in Non-Christian Religions.” Religious Studies 25, no. 2 (June 1989): 167–177. Steinhart, Eric. “The Revision Theory of Resurrection.” Religious Studies 44, no. 1 (March 2008): 63–81. Vorster, Willem S. “The Religio-Historical Context of the Resurrection of Jesus and Resurrection Faith in the New Testament.” Neotestamentica 23, no. 2 (1989): 159–175. Walker, Wm. O., Jr. “Christian Origins and Resurrection Faith.” Journal of Religion 52, no. 1 (January 1972): 41–55. Ware, James. “Paul’s Understanding of the Resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15:36–54.” Journal of Biblical Literature 133, no. 4 (Winter 2014): 809–835. Wright, N. T. “Jesus’ Resurrection and Christian Origins.” Gregorianum 83, no. 4 (2002): 615–635.

94

DO C UMENTS O F THE RISE O F C HRISTIANITY

Document 21 CYPRIAN, LETTER 35: TO THE CLERGY, CONCERNING THE CARE OF THE POOR AND STRANGERS AND LETTER 36: TO THE CLERGY, BIDDING THEM SHOW EVERY KINDNESS TO THE CONFESSORS IN PRISON Cyprian, who was martyred in 258 CE, was the bishop of Carthage from 248 until his death. A number of his letters survive, and as expected, the topic varies. Some are about those who lapsed during persecution. Some are related to the fact that Cyprian fled during persecution and yet remained the bishop, despite his absence. Others are strictly pastoral. Two letters (Letter 35 and 36) have similar themes—Letter 35 is about taking care of the poor and strangers by the clergy, while Letter 36 is about caring for a group of people called Confessors while they are in prison. In Letter 35, titled To the Clergy, Concerning the Care of the Poor and Strangers, Cyprian’s clergy had sent him some information about his dioceses, while Cyprian himself had fled during persecution. He believed it was necessary for him to flee in order to have a living bishop for his flock. It is clear from this letter that he was not ready to come back. He would wait for word, either from them or from God, when it was safe to return. His clergy then kept him informed of what was happening, and he also wrote letters to them, telling them what they should be doing in his absence. While the bulk of the short letter is about his absence, the end is about taking care of the widows, the sick, the poor, and strangers. This was a duty of Christians, as spelled out in the New Testament. Cyprian told them to use the money that he left with one of his presbyters and if that money ran out, he was going to send more from another source. Letter 36 is about the care of the Confessors, who were people who refused to deny Christ when they were persecuted. These people were believed by those not in prison to have considerable power, especially if they were somehow released from prison and survived their tortures. The fact that they survived gave them clout in their community. However, they needed to survive. As discussed in a previous text, prison was a terrible place. Some prisons were given a subsidy to feed the prisoners, but some did not have this, and it was up to family members and the community (in particular, the church) to feed them. Cyprian was clearly not in Carthage as he mentioned he wished he himself could care for the Confessors. The letter is also about the care of the bodies of those who died in prison. In particular, he wanted his priests to keep track of the days that these martyrs have died so that they could be remembered on their anniversary. He finished his letter by reminding them also to take care of the poor.

Letter 35: To the Clergy, Concerning the Care of the Poor and Strangers Cyprian to the presbyters and deacons, his beloved brethren, greeting. In safety, by God’s grace, I greet you, beloved brethren, desiring soon to come to you, and

T h i r d C e n t u r y 95

to satisfy the wish as well of myself and you, as of all the brethren. It is necessary for me also, however, to have regard to the common peace, and in the meantime, although with weariness of spirit, to be absent from you, lest my presence should provoke the jealousy and violence of the heathens and I should be the cause of breaking the peace, who should rather to be careful for the quiet of all. Therefore when you write that matters are arranged and that I should come, or if the Lord should condescend to hint it to me before, then I will come to you. For where could I be better or more joyful than there where the Lord willed me both to believe and to grow up? I request that you will diligently take care of the widows, and of the sick, and of all the poor. Moreover, you may supply the expenses for strangers, if any should be indigent, from my own portion which I have left with Rogatianus our fellow-presbyter unless it is all appropriated, then I have supplemented it by sending to the same by Naricus the acolyte another share, so that the sufferers may be more largely and promptly dealt with. I bid you, beloved brethren, ever heartily farewell; and have me in remembrance. Greet your brotherhood in my name and tell them to be mindful of me.

Letter 36: To the Clergy, Bidding Them Show Every Kindness to the Confessors in Prison 1. Cyprian to the presbyters and deacons, his brethren, greeting. Although I know, dearest brethren, that you have frequently been admonished in my letters to manifest all care for those who with a glorious voice have confessed the Lord and are confined in prison; yet, again and again, I urge it upon you, that no consideration be wanting to them to whose glory there is nothing wanting. And I wish that the circumstances of the place and of my station would permit me to present myself at this time with them; promptly and gladly would I fulfil all the duties of love towards our most courageous brethren in my appointed ministry. But I beseech you, let your diligence be the representative of my duty, and do all those things which is necessary to be done in respect of those whom the divine condescension has rendered illustrious in such merits of their faith and virtue. Let there be also a more zealous watchfulness and care bestowed upon the bodies of all those who, although they were not tortured in prison, yet depart thence by the glorious exit of death. For neither is their virtue nor their honor too little for them also to be allied with the blessed martyrs. As far as they could, they bore whatever they were prepared and equipped to bear. He who under the eyes of God has offered himself to tortures and to death, has suffered whatever he was willing to suffer; for it was not he that was wanting to the tortures, but the tortures that were wanting to him. “Whosoever shall confess me before men, him will I also confess before my Father which is in heaven,” said the Lord. They have confessed Him. “He that endures to the end, the same shall be saved,” said the Lord. They have endured and have carried the uncorrupted and unstained merits of their virtues through, even to the end. And, again, it is written, “Be faithful unto death, and I will give you a crown of life.” They have persevered in their faithfulness, steadfastness, and invincibleness, even unto death. When to the willingness and the confession of the name in prison and in chains is added also the conclusion of dying, the glory of the martyr is consummated.

96

DO C UMENTS O F THE RISE O F C HRISTIANITY

2. Finally, also, take note of their days on which they depart, that we may celebrate their commemoration among the memorials of the martyrs, although Tertullus, our most faithful and devoted brother, who, in addition to the other solicitude and care which he shows to the brethren in all service of labor, is not wanting besides in that respect in any care of their bodies, has written, and does write and tells me the days in which our blessed brethren in prison pass by the gate of a glorious death to their immortality and there are celebrated here by us oblations and sacrifices for their commemorations. These things, with the Lord’s protection, we shall soon celebrate with you. Let your care also (as I have already often written) and your diligence not be wanting to the poor—to such, I mean, as stand fast in the faith and bravely fight with us, and have not left the camp of Christ; to whom, indeed, we should now show a greater love and care, in that they are neither constrained by poverty nor prostrated by the tempest of persecution, but faithfully serve with the Lord, and have given an example of faith to the other poor. I bid you, brethren beloved, and greatly longed-for, ever heartily farewell; and remember me. Greet the brotherhood in my name. Goodbye!

Source: Schaff, Philip. Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 5. A. Cleveland Coxe, ed. New York: Christian Literature Company, 1885.

Further Reading Brent, A. Cyprian and Roman Carthage. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2010. Countryman, L. M. The Rich Christian in the Church of the Early Empire: Contradictions and Accommodations. Texts and Studies in Religion 7. New York: Edwin Mellen, 1980. Dunn, Geoffrey D. “Cyprian and Women in a Time of Persecution.” Journal of Ecclesiastical History 57, no. 2 (2006): 205–225. Dunn, Geoffrey D. “Cyprian’s Care for the Poor: The Evidence of the de Opere et Eleemosynis.” Studia Patristica 42 (2006): 363–368. Dunn, Geoffrey D. “Infected Sheep and Diseased Cattle or the Pure and Holy Flock: Cyprian’s Pastoral Care of Virgins.” Journal of Early Christian Studies 11 (2003): 5–12. Haas, Christopher J. “Imperial Religious Policy and Valerian’s Persecution of the Church, A.D. 257–260.” Church History 52, no. 2 (June 1983): 133–144. Hengel, Martin. Property and Riches in the Early Church: Aspects of a Social History of Early Christianity. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1974. Sage, Michael M. Cyprian. Cambridge, MA: Philadelphia Patristic Foundation, 1975. Weaver, Rebecca H. “Wealth and Poverty in the Early Church.” Interpretation 41, no. 4 (1987): 368–381.

Document 22 CYPRIAN, LETTER 26: TO THE LAPSED AND LETTER 53: TO CORNELIUS, CONCERNING GRANTING PEACE TO THE LAPSED North Africa seems to have been a place of persecution for some Christians in the 200s CE, at least based on the surviving early Christian texts. Cyprian, who was the bishop of

T h i r d C e n t u r y 97

Carthage from 248/9 to 258 CE, did not escape this persecution. Not long after he became bishop, Emperor Decius began an empire-wide persecution against the Christians. When this happened, he fled from his diocese, believing that Carthage was better off with a fleeing bishop than a dead one. His fleeing did not make some happy as they believed the bishop should suffer just as much as the laypeople. They did not have the luxury of fleeing during persecution, so they had to stay. They were given a choice: either pray to the emperor and curse Christ or face a painful death. It isn’t surprising that some decided to renounce their faith to the authorities in order to save their own lives. While some certainly remained non-Christians after the persecution finished, some wanted reentry back into the church (called the Lapsed) when the persecution stopped. Great debates were held by the Christians on whether or not to allow them back. Some were adamantly refusing to allow them reentry. They believed that cursing Christ was unforgivable, and they should never be allowed to return. It was felt they could not be trusted to be true Christians. Others, like Cyprian, believed that ultimately those who cursed Christ should be forgiven but not allowed back without some type of penalty and proof that they were now Christians again. While the lapsed were allowed back into the churches run by Cyprian, they had to prove themselves worthy of this, while at the same time they should not assert themselves as anything more than being lapsed Christians. At the beginning of his Letter 26, titled To the Lapsed, Cyprian reminded his readers that the bishop is the church and what the bishop says should be the law. Cyprian referred to apostolic succession, which is where any bishop should be able to trace his lineage back to Christ and the original disciples. Cyprian reminded his readers that he is the bishop. Some of the lapsed had started to determine that their voices needed to be heard, but it was Cyprian’s job to remind them that, as lapsed, they need to do penance before they can get any power back. Some, as Cyprian pointed out, have also written to him and have submitted themselves to his authority. Cyprian also wrote that some of the lapsed have letters of recommendation from the martyrs (people who were persecuted) vouching for their Christianity. While Cyprian recognized their power, he tried to curb this by asking those who had written to him to provide these certificates from the martyrs. He was also concerned that he was apparently sent an anonymous letter and he asked to be given names so he knows whom to respond to. The second letter discussed next, titled Granting Peace to the Lapsed, really sets the ground rules for deciding how the lapsed are to be treated, especially for those who were about to die: should they be administered the last rites or be allowed to die without them? This is the question that Cyprian had to deal with. His answer is that yes, the last rites should be given to those who are now Christians in order to prepare them for their coming death. The urgency of this is made clear in Cyprian’s letter—he stated that there is yet another persecution coming, and if there are lapsed who have seriously repented, then they should not be denied. In fact, he stated that any clergy who denies them will face the judgment of God.

Letter 26: To the Lapsed 1. Our Lord, whose precepts and admonitions we ought to observe, describing the honor of a bishop and the order of His Church, speaks in the Gospel, and says to

98

DO C UMENTS O F THE RISE O F C HRISTIANITY

Peter: “I say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Thereafter, through the changes of times and successions, the ordering of bishops and the plan of the Church flow onwards so that the Church is founded upon the bishops, and every act of the Church is controlled by these same rulers. Since this, then, is founded on the divine law, I marvel that some, with daring temerity, have chosen to write to me as if they wrote in the name of the Church, when the Church is established in the bishop and the clergy and all who stand fast in the faith. For far be it from the mercy of God and His uncontrolled might to suffer the number of the lapsed to be called the Church since it is written, “God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.” For we indeed desire that all may be made alive and we pray that, by our supplications and groans, they may be restored to their original state. But if certain lapsed ones claim to be the Church, and if the Church be among them and in them, what is left but for us to ask of these very persons that they would deign to admit us into the Church? Therefore it is their responsibility to be submissive and quiet and modest as those who ought to appease God in remembrance of their sin, and not to write letters in the name of the Church when they should rather be aware that they are writing to the Church. 2. But some who are of the lapsed have lately written to me who are humble and meek and trembling and fearing God, and who have always labored in the Church gloriously and liberally, and who have never made a boast of their labor to the Lord, knowing that He has said, “When you shall have done all these things, say, We are unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do.” And although they had received certificates from the martyrs, these persons have written to me (so that their satisfaction might be admitted by the Lord), pleading that they acknowledge their sin and are truly repentant, and that they do not hurry rashly or importunately to secure peace—they are waiting for my presence, saying that even peace itself, if they should receive it when I was present, would be sweeter to them. The Lord is my witness: how greatly I congratulate those who have decided to tell what sort of servants are deserving of His kindness. I have recently received some letters where you have written different things—I beg that you will decide what you want, and whoever you are who have sent this letter, add your names to the certificate, and transmit the certificate to me with your names. For I must first know to whom I have to reply and then I will respond to each of the matters that you have written, having regard to the mediocrity of my place and conduct. I bid you, beloved brethren, ever heartily farewell, and live quietly and tranquilly according to the Lord’s discipline. Good Bye.

Letter 53: To Cornelius, Concerning Granting Peace to the Lapsed Cyprian, Liberalis, Caldonius, Nicomedes, Cæcilius, Junius, Marrutius, Felix, Successus, Faustinus, Fortunatus, Victor, Saturninus, another Saturninus, Rogatianus, Tertullus, Lucianus, Eutyches, Amplus, Sattius, Secundinus, another Saturninus,

T h i r d C e n t u r y 99

Aurelius, Priscus, Herculanus, Victoricus, Quintus, Honoratus, Montanus, Hortensianus, Verianus, Iambus, Donatus, Pompeius, Polycarpus, Demetrius, another Donatus, Privatianus, another Fortunatus, Rogatus and Monulus, to Cornelius their brother, greeting. 1. We had indeed decided some time ago, dearest brother, having mutually taken counsel one with another that they who, in the fierceness of persecution, had been overthrown by the adversary and had lapsed and had polluted themselves with unlawful sacrifices, should undergo a long and full repentance. And if the risk of sickness should be urgent, they should receive peace on the very point of death. For it was not right that neither the love of the Father nor divine mercy allowed that the Church should be closed to those that knock or that the help of the hope of salvation be denied to those who mourn and entreat, so that when they pass from this world, they should be dismissed from their Lord without communion and peace, since He Himself, who gave the law that things which were bound on earth should also be bound in heaven, allowed moreover, that things might be loosed there which were here first loosed in the Church. But now, when we see that the day of another trouble is again beginning to draw near and are admonished by frequent and repeated allusions that we should be prepared and armed for the struggle which the enemy announces to us, we should also prepare the people committed to us by divine condescension by our exhortations, and gather together from all parts all the soldiers of Christ who desire arms, and are anxious for the battle within the Lord’s camp. Under the compulsion of this necessity, we have decided that peace is to be given to those who have not withdrawn from the Church of the Lord and have not ceased from the first day of their lapse to repent, lament, and to implore to the Lord. We have decided that they ought to be armed and equipped for the battle which is at hand. 2. For we must comply with fitting intimations and admonitions that the sheep may not be deserted in danger by the shepherds, but that the whole flock may be gathered together into one place, and the Lord’s army may be arrived for the contest of the heavenly warfare. Help was only being offered to the sick on their deathbed, so long as peace and tranquility prevailed. This permitted the assistance of the dying in their sickness, which permitted the long delay of the tears of the mourners. But now indeed peace is necessary, not for the sick, but for the strong; nor is communion to be granted by us to the dying, but to the living, that we may not leave those whom we stir up and exhort to the battle unarmed and naked, but may fortify them with the protection of Christ’s body and blood. And, as the Eucharist is appointed for this very purpose that it may be a safeguard to the receivers, it is needful that we may arm those whom we wish to be safe against the adversary with the protection of the Lord’s abundance. For how do we teach or provoke them to shed their blood in confession of His name if we deny to those who are about to enter on the warfare the blood of Christ? Or how do we make them fit for the cup of martyrdom, if we do not first admit them to drink, in the Church, the cup of the Lord by the right of communion? 3. We should make a difference, dearest brother, between those who either have apostatized and, having returned to the world which they have renounced, are living heathenish lives or, having become deserters to the heretics, are daily taking up

100

DO C UMENTS O F THE RISE O F C HRISTIANITY

parricidal arms against the Church; and between those who do not depart from the Church’s threshold, and, constantly and sorrowfully imploring divine and paternal consolation, profess that they are now prepared for the battle, and ready to stand and fight bravely for the name of their Lord and for their own salvation. In these times we grant peace, not to those who sleep, but to those who watch. We grant peace, not amid indulgences, but amid arms. We grant peace, not for rest, but for the field of battle. If, according to what we hear and desire and believe of them, they shall stand bravely and shall overthrow the adversary with us in the encounter, we shall not repent of having granted peace to men so brave. Yes, it is the great honor and glory of our episcopate to have granted peace to martyrs so that we, as priests who daily celebrate the sacrifices of God, may prepare offerings and victims for God. But if—which may the Lord avert from our brethren—any one of the lapsed should deceive, seeking peace by guile, and at the time of the impending struggle receiving peace without any purpose of doing battle, he betrays and deceives himself, hiding one thing in his heart and pronouncing another with his voice. We, so far as it is allowed to us to see and to judge, look upon the face of each one—we are not able to scrutinize the heart and to inspect the mind. Concerning these the Discerner and Searcher of hidden things judges, and He will quickly come and judge of the secrets and hidden things of the heart. But the evil should not to stand in the way of the good, but rather the evil ought to be assisted by the good. Neither is peace, therefore, to be denied to those who are about to endure martyrdom, because there are some who will refuse it, since for this purpose peace should be granted to all who are about to enter upon the warfare that through our ignorance he may not be the first one to be passed over who in the struggle is to be crowned. 4. Nor let any one say that he who accepts martyrdom is baptized in his own blood, and peace is not necessary to him from the bishop since he is about to have the peace of his own glory and about to receive a greater reward from the condescension of the Lord. First of all, he cannot be fitted for martyrdom who is not armed for the contest by the Church and his spirit is deficient which the Eucharist received does not raise and stimulate. For the Lord says in His Gospel: “But when they deliver you up, take no thought what you shall speak for it shall be given you in that hour what you shall speak. For it is not you that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaks in you.” Now, since He says that the Spirit of the Father speaks in those who are delivered up and set in the confession of His name, how can he be found prepared or fit for that confession who has not first, in the reception of peace, received the Spirit of the Father, who, giving strength to His servants, Himself speaks and confesses in us? Then, besides—if, having forsaken everything that he has, a man shall flee and dwell in hiding-places and in solitude, shall fall by chance among thieves, or shall die in fever and in weakness, will it not be charged upon us that so good a soldier, who has forsaken all that he has, and disregarding his house, his parents, and his children, has preferred to follow his Lord, dies without peace and without communion? Will not either inactive negligence or cruel hardness be ascribed to us in the day of judgment, because though we are pastors, we have neither been willing to take care of the sheep trusted and committed to us in peace, nor to arm them in battle? Would not the charge be brought against us by the Lord, which by His prophet He utters and says “Behold, you consume the milk, and you clothe yourself with the wool, and you kill them that are fed—but you do not feed my flock. You have not strengthened the weak, nor have you healed those who were sick, neither have you comforted

T h i r d C e n t u r y 101

that which was broken, neither have you brought back that which strayed, neither have you sought that which was lost, and that which was strong you wore out with labor. And my sheep were scattered because there were no shepherds and they became meat to all the beasts of the field. There was none who sought after them, nor anyone who brought them back. Therefore said the Lord, Behold, I am against the shepherds and I will require my sheep of their hand and cause them to cease from feeding my sheep—neither shall they feed them any more: and I will deliver my sheep from their mouth, and I will feed them with judgment.” 5. Lest, then, the sheep committed to us by the Lord be demanded back from our mouth, through which we deny them peace, by which we give to them the severity of human cruelty rather than the benignity of divine and paternal love, we have determined by the suggestion of the Holy Spirit and the admonition of the Lord, conveyed by many and manifest visions, that, because the enemy is foretold and shown to be at hand, to gather within the camp the soldiers of Christ, to examine the cases of each one and to grant peace to the lapsed—yes, to furnish arms to those who are about to fight. And this, we trust, will please you in contemplation of the paternal mercy. But if there be any (one) of our colleagues who, now that the contest is urgent, thinks that peace should not be granted to our brethren and sisters, he shall give an account to the Lord in the day of judgment, either of his grievous rigor or of his inhuman hardness. We, as befitted our faith and charity and solicitude, have laid before you what was in our own mind, namely, that the day of contest has approached, that a violent enemy will soon rise up against us, that a struggle is coming on, not like it was before but much more serious and fierce. This is frequently shown to us from above. Concerning this we are often admonished by the providence and mercy of the Lord, of whose help and love we who trust in Him may be secure, because He who in peace foretells to His soldiers that the battle will come, will give to them when they are warring victory in the encounter. We bid you, dearest brother, a heartily farewell.

Source: Schaff, Philip. Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 5. A. Cleveland Coxe, ed. New York: Christian Literature Company, 1885.

Further Reading Bakker, H., P. Van Geest, and H. Van Loon, eds. Cyprian of Carthage: Studies in His Life, Language and Thought (Late Antique History and Religion). Leuven, Belgium: Peeters, 2010. Clarke, G. W. “Double-Trials in the Persecution of Decius.” Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte, Bd. 22, H. 4 (4th Qtr., 1973): 650–663. Dunn, Geoffrey D. “Heresy and Schism according to Cyprian of Carthage.” Journal of Theological Studies, New Series 55, no. 2 (October 2004): 551–574. Fahey, Michael A. Cyprian and the Bible: A Study of Third-Century Exegesis. Tubingen, Germany: J.C.M. Mohr, 1971. Keresztes, P. “The Decian Libelli and Contemporary Literature.” Latomus, T. 34, fasc. 3 (July–September 1975): 761–781. Patout Burns, J., Jr. Cyprian the Bishop (Routledge Early Church Monographs). New York: Routledge, 2002. Stewart-Sykes, Alistair. “Ordination Rites and Patronage Systems in Third-Century Africa.” Vigiliae Christianae 56, no. 2 (May 2002): 115–130.

102

DO C UMENTS O F THE RISE O F C HRISTIANITY

Document 23 PONTIUS THE DEACON, THE LIFE AND PASSION OF CYPRIAN, BISHOP AND MARTYR, 1, 14–19 This volume has already discussed the life of Cyprian. He was a bishop in Carthage, North Africa, a Roman province. Cyprian’s role in church politics was an interesting one in that, while he was bishop, he fled when persecution arrived during the reign of Emperor Decius. While Cyprian survived this persecution, he did not survive the one that started in 257 CE under the rule of Emperor Valerian. Valerian, who ruled from 253 until 260 when he was captured by the Persians, did not seem to be interested in the Christians early on in his imperial career. He did not persecute the Christians in the beginning and genuinely seemed to be interested in securing peace for the Romans, including Christians. However, in 257 and 258 the emperor issued several edicts against the Christians. This included banishment for clergy like Cyprian and death to Christians who met, presumably to hold their church services (Haas 1983, 136). Bishop Cyprian was first sent into exile and then was beheaded in the persecution that swept through North Africa. It was a sad ending to a bishop who had dealt with persecution for a good part of the time he was bishop (from 248 to 258 CE). The following text is excerpts from The Life and Passion of Cyprian, written by Pontius, a deacon under Cyprian. As can be seen from the account, Pontius knew and loved Cyprian and was still grieving his martyrdom as he wrote the last bit of it. The excerpts contain the first chapter, which is an introduction to the whole work, followed by the final six chapters.

The Life and Passion of Cyprian, Bishop and Martyr, 1, 14–191 1. Although Cyprian, the devout priest and glorious witness of God, composed many writings whereby the memory of his worthy name survives and although the profuse fertility of his eloquence and of God’s grace so expands itself in the exuberance and richness of his discourse, he will probably never cease to speak even to the end of the world. Yet, since to his works and actions it is justly due that his example should be recorded in writing, I have thought it good to prepare this brief and compendious narrative. Not that the life of so great a man can be unknown to any even of the heathen nations, but that to our posterity also this incomparable and lofty pattern may be prolonged into immortal remembrance. It would assuredly be hard that the passion of such a priest and such a martyr as Cyprian should be passed over, who, independently of his martyrdom had much to teach, and that what he did while he lived should be hidden from the world, when our fathers have given such honor even to lay-people and catechumens who have obtained martyrdom, for reverence of their very martyrdom to record many (or I had nearly said, nearly all) of the circumstances of their sufferings so that they might be brought to our knowledge also to those who were not yet born. And, indeed, these actions of his were so great and so admirable that I am deterred by the contemplation of their greatness, and confess

T h i r d C e n t u r y 103

myself incompetent to converse in a way that shall be worthy of the honor of his actions and unable to relate such noble deeds in such a way that they may appear as great as in fact they are, except that the multitude of his glories is itself sufficient for itself, and needs no other notice.   It also makes it more difficult that you also are anxious to hear very much or if it be possible everything about him, longing with eager warmth at least to become acquainted with his deeds, although now his living words are silent. And in this behalf, if I should say that the powers of eloquence fail me I should say too little. For eloquence itself fails of suitable powers fully to satisfy your desire. And thus I am sorely pressed on both sides, since he burdens me with his virtues and you press me hard with your requests. . . . 14. Now also a messenger came to him, the good and peace-making priest, from the city from Xistus, and on that account most blessed martyr. The coming executioner was instantly looked for who should strike through that devoted neck of the most sacred victim; and thus, in the daily expectation of dying, every day was to him as if the crown might be attributed to each. In the meantime, there assembled many eminent people before him and people of most illustrious rank and family, and noble with the world’s distinctions, who, on account of ancient friendship with him, repeatedly urged his withdrawal. And so that their urgency might not be in some sort hollow, they also offered places to which he might retire. But he had now set the world aside, having his mind suspended upon heaven, and did not consent to their tempting persuasions. He would perhaps even then have done what was asked for by so many and faithful friends, if it had been bidden him by divine command. But that lofty glory of so great a man must not be passed over without announcement, that now, when the world was swelling and of its trust in its princes breathing out hatred of the name, he was instructing God’s servants, as opportunity was given, in the exhortations of the Lord and was animating them to tread under foot the sufferings of this present time by the contemplation of a glory to come hereafter. Indeed, such was his love of sacred discourse that he wished his prayers in regard to his suffering might be so answered so that he would be put to death in the very act of speaking about God. 15. And these were the daily acts of a priest destined for a pleasing sacrifice to God, when, behold, at the bidding of the proconsul, the officer with his soldiers on a sudden came unexpectedly on him—or rather, to speak more truly, thought that he had come unexpectedly on him at his gardens—at his gardens, I say, which at the beginning of his faith he had sold and which, being restored by God’s mercy, he would assuredly have sold again for the use of the poor, if he had not wished to avoid ill-will from the persecutors. But when could a mind ever prepared to be taken by surprise, as if by an unforeseen attack? Therefore now he went forward, certain that what had been long delayed would be settled. He went forward with a lofty and elevated manner, manifesting cheerfulness in his look and courage in his heart. But being delayed to the next day, he returned from the praetorium to the officer’s house, when on a sudden a scattered rumor prevailed throughout all Carthage that now Thascius was brought forward, whom everyone knew well for his illustrious fame in the honorable opinion of all and on account of the recollection of his most renowned work. On all sides all men were flocking together to a

104

DO C UMENTS O F THE RISE O F C HRISTIANITY

spectacle—to us glorious from the devotion of faith and to be mourned over even by the Gentiles.   A gentle custody, however, had him in charge when taken and placed for one night in the officer’s house so that we, his associates and friends, were as usual in his company. The whole people in the meantime, in anxiety that nothing should be done throughout the night without their knowledge, kept watch before the officer’s door. The goodness of God granted him at that time, so truly worthy of it, that even God’s people should watch on the passion of the priest. Yet, perhaps, someone may ask what was the reason of his returning from the praetorium to the officer? And some think that this arose from the fact that for his own part the proconsul was then unwilling. Far be it from me to complain in matters divinely ordered, of slothfulness or aversion in the proconsul. Far be it from me to admit such an evil into the consciousness of a religious mind, as that the whim of man should decide the fate of so blessed a martyr. But the next day, which a year before the divine condescension had foretold, required to be literally the next day. 16. At last that other day dawned—that destined, that promised, that divine day, which, if even the tyrant himself had wished to put off, he would not have had any power to do so—the day rejoicing at the consciousness of the future martyr and the clouds being scattered throughout the circuit of the world—the day shone upon them with a brilliant sun. He went out from the house of the officer, though he was the officer of Christ and God, and was walled in on all sides by the ranks of a mingled multitude. And such a numberless army hung upon his company, as if they had come with an assembled troop to assault death itself. Now, as he went, he had to pass by the race-course. And rightly, and as if it had been contrived on purpose, he had to pass by the place of a corresponding struggle, who, having finished his contest, was running to the crown of righteousness. But when he had come to the praetorium, as the proconsul had not yet come forth, a place of retirement was accorded him. There, as he sat moistened after his long journey with excessive perspiration (the seat was by chance covered with linen, so that even in the very moment of his passion he might enjoy the honor of the episcopate), one of the officers (“Tesserarius”), who had formerly been a Christian, offered him his clothes, as if he might wish to change his moistened garments for drier ones. He doubtless coveted nothing further in respect of his offered kindness than to possess the now blood-stained sweat of the martyr going to God. He made reply to him, and said, “We apply medicines to annoyances which probably to-day will no longer exist.” Is it any wonder that he despised suffering in body who had despised death in soul? Why should we say more? He was suddenly announced to the proconsul—he is brought forward; he is placed before him; he is interrogated as to his name. He answers who he is, and nothing more. 17. And thus, therefore, the judge reads from his tablet the sentence which lately in the vision he had not read—a spiritual sentence, not rashly to be spoken—a sentence worthy of such a bishop and such a witness; a glorious sentence, wherein he was called a standard-bearer of the sect, and an enemy of the gods, and one who was to be an example to his people, and that with his blood discipline would begin to be established. Nothing could be more complete, nothing more true, than this sentence. For all the things which were said, although said by a heathen, are divine. Nor is it indeed to be wondered at, since priests are accustomed to prophesy of the

T h i r d C e n t u r y 105

passion. He had been a standard-bearer, who was accustomed to teach concerning the bearing of Christ’s standard; he had been an enemy of the gods, who commanded the idols to be destroyed. Moreover, he gave example to his friends, since, when many were about to follow in a similar manner, he was the first in the province to consecrate the first-fruits of martyrdom. And by his blood discipline began to be established; but it was the discipline of martyrs, who, emulating their teacher, in the imitation of a glory like his own, themselves also gave a confirmation to discipline by the very blood of their own example. 18. And when he left the doors of the praetorium, a crowd of soldiers accompanied him; and so that nothing might be wanting in his passion, centurions and tribunes guarded his side. Now the place itself where he was about to suffer is level, so that it affords a noble spectacle, with its trees thickly planted on all sides. But as, by the extent of the space beyond, the view was not attainable to the confused crowd. Persons who favored him had climbed up into the branches of the trees, so that there might not even be wanting to him (what happened in the case of Zacchæus), that he was gazed upon from the trees.   And now, having with his own hands bound his eyes, he tried to quicken the slowness of the executioner, whose office was to wield the sword and who, with difficulty, clasped the blade in his failing right hand with trembling fingers, until the mature hour of glorification strengthened the hand of the centurion with power granted from above to accomplish the death of the excellent man, and at length supplied him with the permitted strength. O blessed people of the Church, who, as well in sight as in feeling, and, what is more, in outspoken words, suffered with such a bishop as theirs; and, as they had ever heard him in his own discourses, were crowned by God the Judge! For although that which the general wish desired could not occur, viz., that the entire congregation should suffer at once in the fellowship of a like glory, yet whoever under the eyes of Christ beholding, and in the hearing of the priest, eagerly desired to suffer, by the sufficient testimony of that desire did in some sort send a missive to God, as his ambassador. 19. His passion being thus accomplished, it resulted that Cyprian, who had been an example to all good men, was also the first who in Africa imbued his priestly crown with blood of martyrdom, because he was the first who began to be such after the apostles. For from the time at which the episcopal order is enumerated at Carthage, not one is ever recorded, even of good men and priests, to have come to suffering. Although devotion surrendered to God is always in consecrated men reckoned instead of martyrdom, yet Cyprian attained even to the perfect crown by the consummation of the Lord so that in that very city in which he had lived and in which he had been the first to do many noble deeds, he also was the first to decorate the insignia of his heavenly priesthood with glorious gore. What shall I do now? Between joy at his passion, and grief at still remaining, my mind is divided in different directions, and twofold affections are burdening a heart too limited for them. Shall I grieve that I was not his associate? But yet I must triumph in his victory. Shall I triumph at his victory? Still I grieve that I am not his companion. Yet to you I must in simplicity still confess what you also are aware of—that it was my intention to be his companion. Much and excessively I exult at his glory but still more do I grieve that I remained behind.

106

DO C UMENTS O F THE RISE O F C HRISTIANITY

Source: Schaff, Philip. Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 5. A. Cleveland Coxe, ed. New York: Christian Literature Company, 1885.

Further Reading Bobertz, Charles. “An Analysis of ‘Vita Cypriani’ 3.6–10 and the Attribution of ‘Ad Quirinum’ to Cyprian of Carthage.” Vigiliae Christianae 46, no. 2 (June 1992): 112–128. Bryen, Ari. “Martyrdom, Rhetoric, and the Politics of Procedure.” Classical Antiquity 33, no. 2 (October 2014): 243–280. Evans, Suzanne. “The Scent of a Martyr.” Numen 49, no. 2 (2002): 193–211. Haas, Christopher J. “Imperial Religious Policy and Valerian’s Persecution of the Church, A.D. 257–260.” Church History 52, no. 2 (June 1983): 133–144. Kelley, Nicole. “Philosophy as Training for Death: Reading the Ancient Christian Martyr Acts as Spiritual Exercises.” Church History 75, no. 4 (December 2006): 723–747. Moss, Candida R. “The Discourse of Voluntary Martyrdom: Ancient and Modern.” Church History 81, no. 3 (September 2012): 531–551. Rewa, Michael P. “Early Christian Life-Writing: Panegyric and Hagiography.” Biography 2, no. 1 (Winter 1979): 60–82. Tilley, Maureen A. “The Ascetic Body and the (Un)Making of the World of the Martyr.” Journal of the American Academy of Religion 59, no. 3 (Autumn 1991): 467–479. Tilley, Maureen A. “Scripture as an Element of Social Control: Two Martyr Stories of Christian North Africa.” Harvard Theological Review 83, no. 4 (October 1990): 383–397.

Document 24 JULIUS AFRICANUS (SPURIOUS), THE PASSION OF ST. SYMPHOROSA AND HER SEVEN SONS It should be made clear at the beginning of this discussion that although some early modern scholars ascribed this text to Julius Africanus, modern scholars no longer believe this. It is included in this collection partly for that very reason—sometimes we do not know the name of the author of a text, and by trial and error (and a bit of guessing), it is hoped that we can at least point in the right direction. In the Anti-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 6, published in 1885, there is a short note on the history of the manuscript titled The Passion of St. Symphorosa and Her Seven Sons. It repeats the idea that Julius Africanus, “a writer of the highest repute,” is probably the author of this text (p. 335). But this isn’t thought to be the case now. It is also the case that the whole martyrdom itself is being questioned. There is a text that dates to the 400s that talks about a St. Symphorosa who was martyred along with her seven sons. The names of the sons, however, are different from the seven mentioned in the following excerpt. The text, named the Hieronymian Martyrology (or the Martydoms of Jerome), is also considered to be spurious. Jerome lived in the late 300s and early 400s and wanted to make a list of the martyrs from the beginnings of Christianity, and it appears that someone made this list and then attached the name of Jerome to it. Despite these difficulties, it is a useful text to read. What is probably happening is that the story of the martyrdom of Symphorosa

T h i r d C e n t u r y 107

was influenced by the account in 4 Maccabees 8:1ff that describes a woman and her seven sons (Cooper 2007, 224): For this is why even the very young, by following a philosophy in accordance with devout reason, have prevailed over the most painful instruments of torture. For when the tyrant was conspicuously defeated in his first attempt, being unable to compel an aged man to eat defiling foods, then in violent rage he commanded that others of the Hebrew captives be brought, and that any who ate defiling food would be freed after eating, but if any were to refuse, they would be tortured even more cruelly. When the tyrant had given these orders, seven brothers—handsome, modest, noble, and accomplished in every way—were brought before him along with their aged mother.

Someone in early Christianity took this Old Testament story and adapted it to fit the Christian martyrdom genre. About Julius Africanus: Despite his name, Julius Africanus was born in Jerusalem, around 160 CE. He was a Christian and was very involved in the civic affairs of his native homeland. Around 221 CE he was an ambassador for the town of Emmaus when the townspeople petitioned the emperor to have it upgraded officially to a city. He also did other work for the Roman government. Julius has remained an enigma for many early Christian scholars, primarily because he doesn’t always write about Christianity. For example, he wrote a book called Kestoi, which can be translated as “Embroideries.” It is an encyclopedia that covers a number of topics from magic to agriculture. He doesn’t mention Christianity (at least in the surviving parts), and this led some scholars to believe that it must have been written by him before he converted. However, Adler makes a good argument that Julius Africanus was capable of being both Christian and Roman elite, without having to set the two against each other. It is also clear that Africanus was able to be involved with the imperial circles without his Christianity “getting in the way.” He was able to do so partly because he was wealthy, but mostly it was due to the fact that he was a well-known scholar. This alone allowed him to have dealings with the imperial household—and this is what led nearly all modern scholars to reject the belief that Julius Africanus was the author of the very anti-Roman Passion of St. Symphorosa and Her Seven Sons. Please keep this in mind while reading the following martyrdom! The martyrdom described in the text took place during the reign of Emperor Hadrian who was emperor from 117 to 138 CE. As he is building his palace and offering sacrifices, demons (according to the text) tell Hadrian that Symphorosa and her sons are causing them difficulties. They promise Emperor Hadrian to help him if he will get rid of her and her family. The rest of the text is about their trial, their killings, and their burials.

Julius Africanus (spurious), The Passion of St. Symphorosa and Her Seven Sons 1. When Hadrian had built a palace, and wished to dedicate it by that wicked ceremonial, and began to seek responses by sacrifices to idols, and to the demons that

108

DO C UMENTS O F THE RISE O F C HRISTIANITY

dwell in idols, they replied, and said: “The widow Symphorosa, with her seven sons, wounds us day by day in invoking her God. If she therefore, together with her sons, shall offer sacrifice, we promise to make good all that you ask.” Then Hadrian ordered her to be seized, along with her sons, and advised them in courteous terms to consent to offer sacrifice to the idols. To him, however, the blessed Symphorosa answered: “My husband Getulius, together with his brother Amantius, when they were tribunes in your service, suffered different punishments for the name of Christ, rather than consent to sacrifice to idols, and, like good athletes, they overcame your demons in death. For, rather than be prevailed on, they chose to be beheaded and suffered death. This death, being endured for the name of Christ, gained them temporal ignominy indeed among men of this earth, but everlasting honor and glory among the angels; and moving now among them, and exhibiting trophies of their sufferings, they enjoy eternal life with the King eternal in the heavens.” 2. The Emperor Hadrian said to the holy Symphorosa: “Either sacrifice, you along with your sons to the omnipotent gods, or else I shall cause you to be sacrificed yourself, together with your sons.” The blessed Symphorosa answered: “And whence is this great good to me, that I should be deemed worthy along with my sons to be offered as an oblation to God?” The Emperor Hadrian said: “I shall cause thee to be sacrificed to my gods.” The blessed Symphorosa replied: “Your gods cannot take me in sacrifice; but if I am burned for the name of Christ, my God, I shall rather consume those demons of thine.” The Emperor Hadrian said: “Choose thou one of these alternatives: either sacrifice to my gods, or perish by an evil death.” The blessed Symphorosa replied: “Thou thinkest that my mind can be altered by some kind of terror; whereas I long to rest with my husband Getulius, whom thou didst put to death for Christ’s name.” Then the Emperor Hadrian ordered her to be led away to the temple of Hercules, and there first to be beaten with blows on the cheek, and afterwards to be suspended by the hair. But when by no argument and by no terror could he divert her from her good resolution, he ordered her to be thrown into the river with a large stone fastened to her neck. And her brother Eugenius, principal of the district of Tiber, picked up her body, and buried it in a suburb of the same city. 3. Then, on another day, the Emperor Hadrian ordered all her seven sons to be brought before him in company; and when he had challenged them to sacrifice to idols, and perceived that they yielded by no means to his threats and terrors, he ordered seven stakes to be fixed around the temple of Hercules, and commanded them to be stretched on the blocks there. And he ordered Crescens, the first, to be transfixed in the throat; and Julian, the second, to be stabbed in the breast; and Nemesius, the third, to be struck through the heart; and Primitivus, the fourth, to be wounded in the navel; and Justin, the fifth, to be struck through in the back with a sword; and Stracteus, the sixth, to be wounded in the side; and Eugenius, the seventh, to be cleft in twain from the head downwards. 4. The next day again the Emperor Hadrian came to the temple of Hercules, and ordered their bodies to be carried off together, and cast into a deep pit; and the pontiffs gave to that place the name, To the Seven Biothanati. After these things the persecution ceased for a year and a half, in which period the holy bodies of all the martyrs were honoured, and consigned with all care to tumuli erected for that purpose, and their names are written in the book of life. The natal day, moreover, of the holy martyrs of Christ, the blessed Symphorosa and her seven sons, Crescens,

T h i r d C e n t u r y 109

Julian, Nemesius, Primitivus, Justin, Stracteus, and Eugenius, is held on the 18th July. Their bodies rest on the Tiburtine road, at the eighth mile-stone from the city, under the kingship of our Lord Jesus Christ, to whom is honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen.

Source: Schaff, Philip. Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 6. A. Cleveland Coxe, ed. New York: Christian Literature Company, 1885.

Further Reading Cooper. Kate. The Fall of the Roman Household. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007. Ferrero, Mario. “The Cult of Martyrs.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 57, no. 5 (October 2013): 881–904. Gaddis, Michael. There Is No Crime for Those Who Have Christ: Religious Violence in the Christian Roman Empire. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2005. Kitzler, Petr. From “Passio Perpetuae” to “Acta Perpetuae”: Recontextualizing a Martyr Story in the Literature of the Early Church. Boston: De Gruyter, 2015. Koscheski, Jonathan. “The Earliest Christian War: Second- and Third-Century Martyrdom and the Creation of Cosmic Warriors.” Journal of Religious Ethics 39, no. 1 (March 2011): 100–124. Moss, Candida R. Ancient Christian Martyrdom: Diverse Practices, Theologies, and Traditions. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2012. Noga-Banai, Galit. The Trophies of the Martyrs: An Art Historical Study of Early Christian Silver Reliquaries. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008. Schatkin, Margaret. “The Maccabean Martyrs.” Vigiliae Christianae 28, no. 2 (June 1974): 97–113. Wojda, Paul J. “Dying for One’s Friends: The Martyrological Shape of Christian Love.” Annual of the Society of Christian Ethics 17 (1997): 121–142.

Document 25 GREGORY THE WONDERWORKER, THE ORATION AND PANEGYRIC ADDRESSED TO ORIGEN, ARGUMENT 6 Gregory, also known as Gregory the Wonderwork, was born around 213 CE and died in the 270s. Not too much is known about his early life. He had pagan parents who had some wealth as it allowed Gregory and his brother to travel to get his education. Gregory’s sister was married to a lawyer who worked with the governor of Palestine (Van Dam 1982, 273). Gregory originally wanted to travel from his home city, Pontus (near the Black Sea), to a law school in Beirut (“Berytus” in the text) but went to Caesarea with his sister. It was here that he and his brother met Origen and was undoubtedly given access to Origen’s famed library. It is clear from this part of Gregory’s work that he was totally struck by the personality and intellect of Origen. In this section Gregory is talking about the methods that Origen used to keep Gregory near him. At this point he had been

110

DO C UMENTS O F THE RISE O F C HRISTIANITY

studying with Origen for some time between five and eight years. Eusebius, in his Church History (6.30), also wrote briefly about Gregory and Origen: While Origen was carrying on his customary duties in Cæsarea, many pupils came to him not only from the vicinity, but also from other countries. Among these were Theodorus, the same that was distinguished among the bishops of our day under the name of Gregory, and his brother Athenodorus, we know to have been especially celebrated. Finding them deeply interested in Greek and Roman learning, he infused into them a love of philosophy, and led them to exchange their old zeal for the study of divinity. Remaining with him five years, they made such progress in divine things, that although they were still young, both of them were honored with a bishopric in the churches of Pontus.

This meeting and time spent with Origen changed his life. Origen himself had just moved to Caesarea and began taking students. Origen, known for his prolific writings, was one of the most intellectual Christian writers of his time. Although he faced many problems both during his life (he was ordained outside of his own diocese) and after his death when his reputation suffered after he was anathematized for some of his beliefs, he was famous both during and after his life. This volume has already examined his massive Against Celsus. Origen also wrote commentaries (explanations of texts, usually line by line) on most of the New and Old Testaments, letters, and books on various topics. He also knew a number of different languages, all of which helped him with his biblical scholarship. For example, he was able to read the Hebrew of the Old Testament and made corrections to the Greek text. The Greek Septuagint (the Greek Old Testament) was what most people, including some in the Jewish community, were familiar with—not the Hebrew original. Gregory, having stayed with Origen until the late 230s or early 240s, then decided to go back home to Pontus. Before he left he composed this Panegyric, or speech of praise, to Origen. Care must be taken when reading panegyrics as their whole point is to glorify those who are being written about. It is rare to see something negative in a panegyric. It was read out loud to an audience, which included Origen. The section in the following excerpt (Argument 6) is from the section of the Oration and Panegyric where Gregory talks about the difficulties that Origen gave him when he was planning on going home or even thinking about going home (see the first part of Argument 6). Origen tried and tried to convince him to stay and to continue learning about philosophy (meaning here, mostly Christian philosophy). Despite the begging to stay, Gregory went back to Pontus, and despite what he wanted, he was made bishop of Neocaesarea. He received the epithet Gregory “the Wonderworker” because of all the miracles or wonders he did as he was preaching and traveling (according to The Life of Gregory, written one hundred years later by Gregory of Nyssa).

Argument 6 And from the very first day of his receiving us (which day was, in truth, the first day to me, and the most precious of all days, if I may so speak, since then for the

T h i r d C e n t u r y 111

first time the true Sun began to rise upon me), while we, like some wild creatures of the fields, or like fish, or some sort of birds that had fallen into the toils or nets, and were endeavoring to slip out again and escape, were bent on leaving him, and making off for Berytus or our native country, he studied by all means to associate us closely with him, contriving all kinds of arguments, and putting every rope in motion (as the proverb goes), and bringing all his powers to bear on that object. With that intent he lauded the lovers of philosophy with great praises and many noble utterances, declaring that those only live a life truly worthy of reasonable creatures who aim at living an upright life and who seek to know first of all themselves, what manner of persons they are, and then the things that are truly good, which man ought to strive after, and then the things that are really evil, from which man ought to flee. And then he chastised ignorance and all the ignorant. There are many such, who, like brute cattle, are blind in mind and have no understanding even of what they are, and are as far astray as though they were wholly void of reason and neither know for themselves what is good and what is evil, nor care at all to learn it from others. Instead they toil feverishly in quest of wealth and glory, and such honors as belong to the crowd, and bodily comforts, and go crazy about things like these as if they were the real good. And as though such objects were worth much, yes—worth all else, they prize the things themselves and the arts by which they can acquire them, and the different lines of life which give scope for their attainment—the military profession, and the juridical, and the study of the laws. And with earnest and sagacious words he told us that these are the objects that weaken us when we despise that reason which ought to be the true master within us. I cannot recount at present all the addresses of this kind which he delivered to us, with the view of persuading us to take up the pursuit of philosophy. Nor was it only for a single day that he thus dealt with us, but for many days and, in fact, as often as we were in the habit of going to him at the outset. We were pierced by his argumentation as with an arrow from the very first occasion of our hearing him (for he was possessed of a rare combination of a certain sweet grace and persuasiveness, along with a strange power of constraint), though we still wavered and debated the matter undecidedly with ourselves, holding so far by the pursuit of philosophy, without however being brought thoroughly over to it, while somehow or other we found ourselves quite unable to withdraw from it conclusively, and thus were always drawn towards him by the power of his reasonings, as by the force of some superior necessity. For he asserted further that there could be no genuine piety towards the Lord of all in the man who despised this gift of philosophy—a gift which man alone of all the creatures of the earth has been deemed honorable and worthy enough to possess, and one which every man reasonably embraces, whether he is wise or is ignorant, who has not utterly lost the power of thought by some mad distraction of mind. He asserted, then, as I have said, that it was not possible (to speak correctly) for anyone to be truly pious who did not philosophize. And thus he continued to do with us, until, by pouring in upon us many such argumentations, one after the other, he at last carried us fairly off somehow or other by a kind of divine power, like people with his reasonings,

112

DO C UMENTS O F THE RISE O F C HRISTIANITY

and established us (in the practice of philosophy), and set us down without the power of movement, as it were, beside himself by his arts. Moreover, the stimulus of friendship was also brought to bear upon us (a stimulus, indeed, not easily withstood, but keen and most effective) the argument of a kind and affectionate disposition, which showed itself kindly in his words when he spoke to us and associated with us. For he did not aim merely at getting around us by any kind of reasoning but his desire was, with a friendly, affectionate, and most benevolent mind, to save us, and make us partakers in the blessings that flow from philosophy, and most especially also in those other gifts which the Deity has bestowed on him above most men, or, as we may perhaps say, above all men of our own time. I mean the power that teaches us piety, the word of salvation, that comes to many and subdues to itself all whom it visits: for there is nothing that shall resist it, inasmuch as it is and shall be itself the king of all. And although as yet it is hidden and is not recognized, whether with ease or with difficulty, by the common crowd, in such a way that, when interrogated regarding it, they should be able to speak intelligently about it. And thus, like some spark lighting upon our inmost soul, love was kindled and burst into flame within us—a love at once to the Holy Word, the most loveliest object of all, who attracts all irresistibly toward Himself by His unutterable beauty, and to this man, His friend and advocate. And being most mightily smitten by this love, I was persuaded to give up all those objects or pursuits which seem to us befitting, and among others even my boasted study of law—yes, my very fatherland and friends, both those who were present with me then and those from whom I had parted. And in my estimation there arose but one object dear and worth desire—that is philosophy and that master of philosophy, this inspired man. “And the soul of Jonathan was knit with David.” This word, indeed, I did not read until afterwards in the sacred Scriptures but I felt it before that time, not less clearly than it is written, for in truth, it reached me then by the clearest of all revelations. For it was not simply Jonathan that was knit with David, but those things were knit together which are the ruling powers in man—their souls—those objects which, even though all the things which are apparent and ostensible in man are severed, cannot by any skill be forced to a severance when they themselves are unwilling. For the soul is free, and cannot be coerced by any means, not even though one should confine it and keep guard over it in some secret prison-house. For wherever the intelligence is, there it is also of its own nature and by the first reason. And if it seems to you to be in a kind of prison-house, it is represented as there to you by a sort of second reason. But for all that, it is by no means precluded from subsisting anywhere according to its own determination—rather it is both able to be, and is reasonably believed to be, there alone and altogether, wheresoever and in connection with all things, those actions which are proper only to it are in operation. Wherefore, what I experienced has been most clearly declared in this very short statement, that “the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David,” objects which, as I said, cannot by any means be forced to a separation against their will, and which of their own inclination certainly will not readily choose it. Nor is it, in my opinion, in the inferior

T h i r d C e n t u r y 113

subject, who is changeful and very prone to vary in purpose, and in whom singly there has been no capacity of union at first, that the power of loosening the sacred bonds of this affection rests, but rather in the nobler one, who is constant and not readily shaken, and through whom it has been possible to tie these bonds and to fasten this sacred knot. Therefore it is not the soul of David that was knit by the divine word with the soul of Jonathan but on the contrary, the soul of the latter, who was the inferior, is said to be thus affected and knit with the soul of David. For the nobler object would not choose to be knit with one inferior, inasmuch as it is sufficient for itself, but the inferior object, as standing in need of the help which the nobler can give, ought properly to be knit with the nobler, and fitted dependently to it so that this latter, retaining still its sufficiency in itself, might sustain no loss by its connection with the inferior and that which is of itself without order being now united and fitted harmoniously with the nobler, might, without any detriment done, be perfectly subdued to the nobler by the constraints of such bonds. Wherefore, to apply the bonds is the part of the superior, and not of the inferior but to be knit to the other is the part of the inferior, and this too in such a manner that it shall possess no power of loosening itself from these bonds. And by a similar constraint, then, did this David of ours once bind us to himself and he holds us now, and has held us ever since that time, so that, even though we desired it, we could not loose ourselves from his bonds. And hence it follows that, even though we were to depart, he would not release this soul of mine, which, as the Holy Scripture puts it, he holds knit so closely with himself. Source: Schaff, Philip. Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 6. A. Cleveland Coxe, ed. New York: Christian Literature Company, 1885.

Further Reading Brown, Peter. “Enjoying the Saints in Late Antiquity.” Early Medieval Europe 9, no. 1 (2000): 1–24. Holliday, Lisa. “From Alexandria to Caesarea: Reassessing Origen’s Appointment to the Presbyterate.” Numen 58, no. 5/6 (2011): 674–696. Ramelli, Ilaria L. E. “Origen, Patristic Philosophy, and Christian Platonism Re-Thinking the Christianisation of Hellenism.” Vigiliae Christianae 63, no. 3 (2009): 217–263. Richardson, Cyril C. “The Condemnation of Origen.” Church History 6, no. 1 (March 1937): 50–64. Stefinaw, Blossum. “Gregory Taught: Gregory Listened: The Effacement and Definition of Individualization in the Address to Origen and the Life of Gregory the Wonderworker.” In Reflections on Religious Individuality: Greco-Roman and Judaeo-Christian Texts and Practices, edited by Jörg Rüpke and Wolfgang Spickermann, 119–144. Boston: De Gruyter, 2012. Telfer, W. “The Cultus of St. Gregory Thaumaturgus.” Harvard Theological Review 29, no. 4 (October 1936): 225–344. Van Dam, Raymond. “Hagiography and History: The Life of Gregory Thaumaturgus.” Classical Antiquity 1, no. 2 (October 1982): 272–308.

114

DO C UMENTS O F THE RISE O F C HRISTIANITY

Document 26 GREGORY THE WONDERWORKER, CANONICAL LETTER (CANON 1–2 AND 6–10) Gregory Thaumaturgus, or Gregory the Wonderworker, went home to Pontus after spending five to eight years with Origen in Caesarea. It was sometime around 240 CE that he was made bishop of Neocaesarea, the first bishop for this area. While many scholars and certainly Christians one hundred years after Gregory believed he was an active missionary, spreading the faith of Christ around Pontus, some scholars have questioned this (see Van Dam 1982, 274). Van Dam, in particular, thought it unlikely that someone could convert many people to Christianity in an area where people spoke many dialects and probably wouldn’t understand all the theological differences between those labeled “orthodox” and those labeled “heretics.” One thing that scholars do agree on is that Gregory lived through invasions and persecutions. Non-Romans from the north, given the name “barbarians,” had been a thorn in the side of the Romans for quite a while. During the reign of Emperor Decius, the incursions into Roman territory became more severe. In fact, Emperor Decius was killed while fighting with tribes who were invading. The barbarians then captured parts of Roman territory around the Black Sea, including Gregory the Wonderworker’s home city, Pontus. Like war in the ancient world, territory was plundered, people were captured, and women were raped. When the barbarians were driven out of the area, people who were Christians and now free began to wonder what their capture meant in terms of remaining Christian. This situation was very similar to the lapsed or people who cursed Christ during the persecution and then wanted to be allowed back in the church once persecution had finished. An unnamed bishop had written to Gregory about these problems, and he was hoping that Gregory could give him answers on what to do with these people. There were four major issues that needed to be solved. The first was what to do about the fact that some captured Christians had eaten meat sacrificed to the pagan gods. The second was on what to do with people who were stealing property during the incursion. The third was what to do with people who joined with the barbarians while they were there but were left behind, either because they wanted to or because they weren’t allowed to retreat. The fourth (and certainly not the last) issue dealt with those who essentially became the very people who were invading. Were these people still Christians? If not, could they become Christian again? Gregory’s Canonical Epistle attempts to answer these questions, and he does so in a very Christian-like manner—he refers to the New Testament writings. For example, the people who ate sacrificed meat: Gregory cites Paul, 1 Corinthians 6:13, where he states that it doesn’t matter what you eat. The same goes for those who are greedy and steal—Gregory cites Ephesians 5.5–8 to give proof to his statements that it is not o.k. to be associating with those who steal.

Canon 1 The meats are no burden to us, most holy father, if the captives ate things which their conquerors set before them, especially since there is one report from all,

T h i r d C e n t u r y 115

namely, that the barbarians who have made inroads into our parts have not sacrificed to idols. For the apostle says, “Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats: but God shall destroy both it and them.” But the Savior also, who cleanses all meats, says, “Not that which goes into a man defiles the man, but that which comes out.” And this meets the case of the captive women defiled by the barbarians who outraged their bodies. But if the previous life of any such person convicted him of going, as it is written, after the eyes of fornicators, the habit of fornication evidently becomes an object of suspicion also in the time of captivity. And one ought not readily to have communion with such women in prayers. If anyone, however, has lived in the utmost chastity, and has shown in time past a manner of life pure and free from all suspicion, and now falls into wantonness through force of necessity, we have an example for our guidance—namely, the instance of the woman in Deuteronomy, whom a man finds in the field, and forces her and lies with her. “To the young woman,” he says, “you shall do nothing—there is in the young woman no sin worthy of death, for as when a man rises against his neighbor and kills him, even so is this matter: the young woman cried, and there was none to help her.”

Canon 2 Greediness is a great evil and it is not possible in a single letter to set forth those scriptures in which not robbery alone is declared to be a thing horrible and to be abhorred, but in general the grasping mind, and the disposition to meddle with what belongs to others, in order to satisfy the sordid love of gain. And all persons of that spirit are excommunicated from the Church of God. But that at the time of the invasion, in the midst of such woeful sorrows and bitter lamentations, some should have been audacious enough to consider the crisis which brought destruction to all the very period for their own private aggrandizement—that is a thing which can be claimed only of men who are impious and hated of God, and of unsurpassable immorality. Wherefore it seemed good to excommunicate such persons, lest the wrath (of God) should come upon the whole people, and upon those first of all who are set over them in office, and yet fail to make inquiry. For I am afraid, as the Scripture says, lest the impious work the destruction of the righteous along with his own. “For fornication,” it says, “and covetousness are things on account of which the wrath of God comes to the children of disobedience. Therefore do not be partakers with them. For you were sometimes darkness, but now you are light in the Lord: walk as children of light (for the fruit of the light is in all goodness, and righteousness, and truth), proving what is acceptable unto the Lord. And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them for it is a shame even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret. But all things that are reproved are made manifest by the light.” In this way the apostle speaks. But if certain parties who pay the proper penalty for that former covetousness of theirs, which exhibited itself in the time of peace, now turn aside again to the indulgence of covetousness in the very time of trouble (i.e., in the troubles of the inroads by the barbarians), and make gain out of the blood and ruin of men who have been utterly despoiled, or taken captive, (or) put

116

DO C UMENTS O F THE RISE O F C HRISTIANITY

to death, what else ought to be expected than that those who struggle so hotly for covetousness should heap up wrath both for themselves and for the whole people? . . .

Canon 6 Moreover, it has been reported to us that a thing has happened in your country which is surely incredible, and which, if done at all, is altogether the work of unbelievers and impious men and men who know not the very name of the Lord. In particular, some have gone to such a pitch of cruelty and inhumanity as to be detaining by force certain captives who have made their escape. Dispatch your commissioners into the country before the thunderbolts of heaven fall all too surely upon those who perpetrate such deeds.

Canon 7 Now as regards those who have been enrolled among the barbarians and have accompanied them in their invasion in a state of captivity, and who, forgetting that they were from Pontus and Christians, have become such thorough barbarians as even to put those of their own race to death by the hanging or strangulation, and to show their roads or houses to the barbarians, who otherwise would have been ignorant of them—it is necessary for you to debar such persons even from being auditors in the public congregations until some common decision about them is come to by the saints assembled in council, and by the Holy Spirit prior to them.

Canon 8 Now those who have been so audacious as to invade the houses of others—if they have once been put on their trial and convicted, they should not be deemed fit even to be hearers in the public congregation. But if they have declared themselves and made restitution, they should be placed in the rank of the repentant.

Canon 9 Now those who have found in the open field or in their own houses anything left behind by the barbarians—if they have once been put on their trial and convicted, they should fall under the same class of the repentant. But if they have declared themselves and made restitution, they should be deemed fit for the privilege of prayer.

T h i r d C e n t u r y 117

Canon 10 And they who keep the commandment should keep it without any sordid covetousness, demanding neither recompense, nor reward, nor fee, nor anything else that bears the name of acknowledgment. Source: Schaff, Philip. Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 6. A. Cleveland Coxe, ed. New York: Christian Literature Company, 1885.

Further Reading Bogucki, Peter, and Pam J. Crabtree, eds. Ancient Europe 8000 B.C. to A.D. 1000: Encyclopedia of the Barbarian World. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 2004. Countryman, L. William. “The Intellectual Role of the Early Catholic Episcopate.” Church History 48, no. 3 (September 1979): 261–268. Thompson, E. A. Romans and Barbarians: The Decline of the Western Empire. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1982. Van Dam, Raymond. Becoming Christian: The Conversion of Roman Cappadocia. Philadelphia: University of Pittsburgh Press, 2003. Van Dam, Raymond. “Hagiography and History: The Life of Gregory Thaumaturgus.” Classical Antiquity 1, no. 2 (October 1982): 272–308.

Document 27 ALEXANDER OF LYCOPOLIS, AGAINST THE MANICHAEANS The Manichaeans were a Christian group that originated in Persia. It isn’t known exactly when they started to arrive in Egypt, but it was probably in the middle or late 200s. Rome and Persia had been fighting with each other for centuries, and when the Manichaeans came to the attention of the Roman authorities, they believed that the Manichaeans were trying to infiltrate the Egyptian population with Persian ideas. Julianus, the Proconsul (the governor) of Egypt, sent Emperor Diocletian a letter about the presence of Manichaeans there. Emperor Diocletian then issued an Edict against them in 302 CE, and it appears that his main problem with them was not that they were Manichaean Christians but that they were from Persia, the bitter enemy of Rome. Part of his Edict stated that they were committing crimes and that they might “corrupt men of more innocent nature.” The emperor wanted the Manichaean leaders and their writings to be burned and any money they have, including the money of their followers, to be given to the Roman treasury. The religion itself started with Mani, a Persian, who was born in 216 and was martyred in 274 or 276. A little is known about his youth—at least if we can believe the Cologne Mani Codex, which tells us a bit about his family life. Mani had a series of revelations and started to convert people to his beliefs. While he was fairly successful at this during the rule of the Persian king Shapur I, according to Manichaean texts, Mani was

118

DO C UMENTS O F THE RISE O F C HRISTIANITY

allowed to travel throughout Persia spreading his religion. But the sons of Shapur did not like the message, and they began persecuting the Manichaeans. Mani was eventually put to death in 274 or 276 CE when the chief priest of the Zoroastrian faith, Kardir, helped convince King Bahram I. In the persecution the Manichaean Christians then went west into the Roman Empire and east into central Asia and eventually making it all the way to China. Quite a bit is now known about the Manichaeans in Egypt, thanks to all the new discoveries of Manichaean texts, particularly in the Dakhla Oasis (see Gardner and Lieu 1996). While the Edict itself sounded bad, it is clear that it didn’t affect all Manichaeans. They were thriving in the fourth century, both in Egypt and in many other parts of the Roman Empire. We know quite a bit about them from Augustine, who was bishop of Hippo in North Africa in the late 300s and early 400s, as well as Pope Leo I in the middle part of the 400s CE. Alexander, the author of Against the Manichaeans, lived in Lycopolis, Egypt. He was a philosopher, at least according to the description he gives us. He does not appear to be a Christian although he certainly knew quite a bit about it. He wrote Against the Manichaeans out of fear that his philosopher friends were beginning to convert to Manichaeism— implying that Manichaeism was the perfect religion or belief system for philosophers. Alexander was astonished that this was happening and decided to write this treatise against them. He hoped to expose their ideas to his fellow philosophers in hopes that they would reject its tenets. While primarily discussing Manichaeaism, Alexander gave a description of Christianity at the very beginning of his work. He believed that it was a simple philosophy and that it could lead people to behave better. He also wrote that he knew that there were competing Christianities, leading to what he called sects and heresies. He recognized that Manichaeism was a form of Christianity. Alexander was not alone in writing against the Manichaeans—they were a common target in Christian writings in the 300s CE. The similarity of Mani’s name to “mania” was a common epithet against him. Alexander discussed Christianity in general in the first chapter. He then took apart the Manichaean religion in the rest of the book. In particular, he went into great detail on their cosmogony or how they saw the world. The following section contains the beginning of the book and details the Manichaean struggle between the Light and the Darkness and how the soul found itself within humankind. While his descriptions do not really sound like Christianity, Jesus played a large role in this religion, and there is no doubt that they were Christians.

Alexander of Lycopolis, Against the Manichaeans, Chapter 1–4 Chapter 1 The philosophy of the Christians is termed simple. It gives very great attention to the formation of morals, but is mysterious when it comes to certain truth regarding God. This effort, so far as any earnest serious purpose in those matters is concerned, will have received favorably by all when they assume the idea, which is very

T h i r d C e n t u r y 119

noble and very ancient, that God is the originator of all things that have existence. The Christians leave more toilsome and difficult matters to ethical students— such as what is moral virtue and intellectual virtue, and those who employ their time in forming hypotheses respecting morals, passions and affections, without pointing out any element by which each virtue is to be attained and instead heaped up random precepts that are clearer. The common people, hearing these, even as we learn by experience, make great progress in modesty, and a character of piety is imprinted on their manners, quickening the moral disposition which from such usages is formed, and leading them by degrees to the desire of what is honorable and good. But in this philosophy, being divided into many questions by the number of those who came after, there arose many people, just as is the case with those who are devoted to dialectics—some more skillful than others, and, so to speak, more wise in handling the nice and subtle questions—so that now they come forward as parents and originators of sects and heresies. And because of these people, the formation of morals is hindered and rendered unclear, for those who wish to become the heads of the sects do not attain to certain truth of discourse, and because of this the common people are to a greater degree excited to strife and contention. And there were no rules nor laws by which a solution may be obtained of the things which are called in question, but, as in other matters, with this ambitious rivalry running on excessively, there is nothing to which it does not cause damage and injury.

Chapter 2 So in these matters also, while in novelty of opinion each attempts to show himself first and superior, they brought this philosophy, which is simple, almost to a point of non-understanding. This is the case with the one whom they call Manichæus, a Persian by race. My instructor in this doctrine was one Papus by name, and after him Thomas, and some others followed them. They say that the man lived when Valerian was emperor, and that he served under Shapur, the king of the Persians and having offended him in some way, was put to death. Such reports of his character and reputation have come to me from those who were intimately acquainted with him. He laid down two principles, God and Matter. God he called good, and matter he affirmed to be evil. But God excelled more in good than matter in evil. But he doesn’t call matter like what Plato calls it, which becomes everything when it has received quality and figure, from where he terms it all-embracing— the mother and nurse of all things. Nor is it like what Aristotle calls an element, with which form and privation have, but something besides these. For the motion which in individual things is inseparable—this he calls matter. On the side of God are arranged powers, like handmaids, and all good; and likewise, on the side of matter are arranged other powers, all evil. Moreover, the bright shining, the light, and the superior—all these are with God, while the obscure, and the darkness, and the inferior are with matter. God, too, has desires, but they are all good, and matter, likewise, which are all evil.

120

DO C UMENTS O F THE RISE O F C HRISTIANITY

Chapter 3 It came to pass in time that matter conceived a desire to attain to the superior region and when it had arrived there, it admired the brightness and the light which was with God. And, indeed, it wished to seize for itself the place of pre-eminence and to remove God from His position. God, moreover, deliberated how to avenge Himself upon matter, but was destitute of the evil necessary to do so, for evil does not exist in the house and abode of God. He sent, therefore, the power which we call the soul into matter and to permeate it entirely. For it will be the death of matter, when at length later this power is separated from it. So, therefore, by the providence of God, the soul was commingled with matter, an unlike thing with an unlike. Now by this commingling the soul has contracted evil, and labors under the same infirmity as matter. For, just as in a corrupted vessel, the contents are oftentimes spoiled in quality, so, also the soul that is in matter suffers some such change and is deteriorated from its own nature because of its participate in the evil of matter. But God had compassion upon the soul and sent forth another power, which we call Demiurge, that is, the Creator of all things. And when this power had arrived, and taken in hand the creation of the world, it separated from matter as much power as from the commingling had contracted no bad thing and stain, and hence the sun and moon were first formed. But that which had contracted some slight and moderate stain—this became the stars and the expanse of heaven. Of the matter from which the sun and the moon was separated, part was cast entirely out of the world and is that fire in which, indeed, there is the power of burning, although in itself it is dark and void of light, being closely similar to night. But in the rest of the elements, both animal and vegetable, in those the divine power is unequally mingled. And therefore the world was made, and in it the sun and moon who preside over the birth and death of things, by separating the divine virtue from matter, and transmitting it to God.

Chapter 4 He ordained this, undoubtedly, to supply to the Demiurge or Creator, another power which might attract to the splendor of the sun; and the thing is clear, as one might say, even to a blind person. For the moon in its increase receives the virtue which is separated from matter, and during the time of its fullness comes forth full of it. But when it is full and begins to wane, it remits it to the sun, and the (virtue in the) sun goes back to God. And when it has done this, it waits again to receive from another full moon a migration of the soul to itself, and receiving this in the same way, it works it to pass on to God. And this is its work continually, and in every age. And in the sun some such image is seen like the form of man. And matter ambitiously strove to make man from itself by mingling together all its virtue, so that it might have some portion of soul. But his form contributed much to man’s obtaining a greater share, and one beyond all other animals in the divine virtue. For he is the image of the divine virtue, but Christ is the intelligence, who, when

T h i r d C e n t u r y 121

He had at length come from the superior region, dismissed a very great part of this virtue to God. And at length being crucified, in this way He furnished knowledge, and fitted the divine virtue to be crucified in matter. Because, therefore, it is the Divine will and decree that matter should perish, they abstain from those things which have life, and feed upon vegetables, and everything which is void of sense. They abstain also from marriage and the rites of Venus, and the procreation of children, that virtue may not strike its root deeper in matter by the succession of race; nor do they go abroad, seeking to purify themselves from the stain which virtue has contracted from its admixture with matter. Source: Schaff, Philip. Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 6. A. Cleveland Coxe, ed. New York: Christian Literature Company, 1885.

Further Reading Bagnall, R. S., Nicola Aravecchia, Raffaella Cribiore, Paola Davoli, Olaf E. Kaper, and Susanna McFadden. An Oasis City. New York: NYU Press, 2015. Brand, Mattias. “Religious Diversity in the Egyptian Desert. New Findings from the Dakhleh Oasis.” Entangled Religions—Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Religious Contact and Transfer 4 (July 1, 2017): 17–39. Edwards, M. J. “A Christian Addition to Alexander of Lycopolis.” Mnemosyne, Fourth Series 42, fasc. 3/4 (1989): 483–487. Gardner, I. M. F., and S. N. C. Lieu. “From Narmouthis (Medinet Madi) to Kellis (Ismant El-Kharab): Manichaean Documents from Roman Egypt.” Journal of Roman Studies 86 (1996): 146–169. Lieu, Samuel N. C. “The Self-Identity of the Manichaeans in the Roman East.” Mediterranean Archaeology 11 (1998): 205–227. Stroumsa, Sarah, and Gedaliahu G. Stroumsa. “Aspects of Anti-Manichaean Polemics in Late Antiquity and under Early Islam.” Harvard Theological Review 81, no. 1 (January 1988): 37–58.

This page intentionally left blank

Chapter 4

Fourth Century Introduction The fourth century was probably the most important century in the history of early Christianity. It started off with the Great Persecution, led by Emperor Diocletian and later Emperor Galerius, but ended with Christianity being the only legal religion that could be practiced in the Roman Empire. It was also the time when Christians really began to be forced into refining their theological beliefs, especially on the nature of Christ. The Great Persecution, at least according to the eyewitness Eusebius of Caesarea, was a terrible time for Christians. He wrote about this in his Church History and stated that churches were torn down, religious texts were burned, and those in the church hierarchy were either killed or tortured. Some writers such as Lactantius believed that God himself was angry about what had happened and then tortured those who tortured Christians (see his A Treatise on the Anger of God and On the Deaths of the Persecutors). Those who survived (called Confessors) had great influence in the church, and sometimes their advice had more authority than that of the local bishop. Those who were killed also had great influence in that their body parts and/or clothing became holy relics. The biggest debate in the fourth century was over the nature of Christ—what did it mean that Christ was the Son of God? In the late 310s, Arius, a priest living near Alexandria, Egypt, began telling his flock that Christ came second (after all, according to Arius, he was the son and sons come second after their fathers) and that God came first. Arius’s bishop, Alexander, ultimately excommunicated Arius as Alexander believed that God and the Son and the Holy Spirit were always in existence (see letters of Arius). This led to a large break in the church with these two opposing sides. Many people, such as Arius, Alexander, Eusebius, bishop of Nicomedia, and even Emperor Constantine, took sides and wrote a flurry of letters either in condemnation or in support. The Arian controversy lasted for nearly the entire fourth century. In the 370s the city of Milan, Italy, had an Arian bishop. When he died, Ambrose, a Catholic, took over. Ambrose also had to deal with the mother of the emperor, Justina, who was also an Arian. Ambrose took advantage of the martyrs when, miraculously, bodies of two martyrs were discovered near the place where Ambrose was dedicating a church. The bodies were used to support his Catholic cause (see his Letter 22). Ambrose also baptized Augustine, a North African Manichaean who had rose in the government to become the rhetor of Milan. Essentially a speechwriter, Augustine also gave speeches of praise for the emperor. After his conversion to Catholicism, Augustine had to deal head-on with his Manichaean past. He held debates with the Manichaeans and wrote many books against them (see his Confessions and Against Fortunatus). Augustine also argued with Jerome, a Catholic priest who set up a monastery in Bethlehem (see Augustine’s Letter 28 to Jerome).

124

DO C UMENTS O F THE RISE O F C HRISTIANITY

Document 28 EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA, CHURCH HISTORY, THE PLAN OF THE WORK Eusebius of Caesarea (hereafter just Eusebius) was famous during his own lifetime (born around 260 and died in 339 or 340), and his fame certainly reached into the modern world, primarily because of his extensive writings, including his Church History, written between the early 300s and finished sometime toward the late 320s, in the reign of Emperor Constantine. He was the bishop of Caesarea. His book is considered to be one of the earliest histories of Christianity. He himself stated that he knew of no other histories (Preface, section 4 and 6), and that was one reason why he decided to do it. It is clear throughout this work that he had access to a large number of texts from which he could write. The primary source for him was letters. He followed a tradition in writing whereby he copied the letter in his own book. This, in many cases, preserved the only copy of what would have been lost otherwise. This Church History also had a massive impact on this history of writing history (called “historiography”). Eusebius is one of the earliest writers to cite his sources, by way of the letters and other documents he gives us. The main reason he did this is that he used them for proof of what he was writing about and showing the actual document would give his argument more weight. This is something that all modern historians must follow. Eusebius also wrote several other books. One is titled Chronicle and another Life of Constantine. Eusebius knew Emperor Constantine, and both seemed to have high regard for each other. His life was not without controversy. Eusebius originally sided with the views of Arius and Eusebius of Nicomedia and sat on Arian councils that denounced Nicene bishops. This led to his temporary excommunication in late 324 or early 325. He then attended the Council of Nicea and came down firmly in support of the Nicene Creed (and some think he actually wrote this). This allowed him entry back into the Church, but siding with Arianism did not end as he supported Eusebius of Nicomedia and supported the excommunication of Athanasius, a staunch Nicene bishop from Alexandria, Egypt, in 335. Many Christians knew of his writings and, in particular, the Church History, after his death. This work was so influential, and many early Christian historians would not cover the same material as Eusebius—they tended to start where he left off instead of covering the same ground. Eusebius was clearly a good writer. His introduction to his Church History gives us the outline of the entire work and in that he sets out the items that he will focus on—the succession of the apostles. This is called “apostolic succession,” and it was used to validate bishops and invalidate those false bishops who could not trace their bishopric back to Christ. He wanted to document the various problems that were plaguing the church during this period. He wanted to discuss those who attacked Christians, from the Jewish population (according to Eusebius they “plotted against the savior”) to the Roman government and those who killed Christians just for being Christians. Finally, he wanted to talk about the Savior himself, and this takes up most of Book 1. Eusebius showed that Christ was in existence at least by the time that God was creating the world. Eusebius was an expert in prefigurement, or looking for Christ before the time of his birth, especially in the



F o u r t h C e n t u r y 125

Hebrew scripture (or the Old Testament). Many writers had used this technique previously, but Eusebius really made it an art form. For example, he claimed that the sentence from Genesis, “God said, Let us make man in our image and in our likeness,” shows that the plural “us” refers to God and Christ, as well as the phrase, “He spoke and they were made; he commanded and they were created.” Eusebius interpreted thus: God spoke and it was Christ who created. The name of Christ was not mentioned in these passages, but Eusebius and other Christians wanted proof that Christ existed before his birth.

Church History, Preface and Part of Chapter 1 1. It is my purpose to write an account of the successions of the holy apostles, as well as of the times which have elapsed from the days of our Savior to our own; to relate the many important events which are said to have occurred in the history of the Church; and to mention those who have governed and presided over the Church in the most prominent parishes and those who in each generation have proclaimed the divine word either orally or in writing. 2. It is my purpose also to give the names and number and times of those who through love of innovation have run into the greatest errors, and, proclaiming themselves discoverers of knowledge falsely so-called have like fierce wolves unmercifully devastated the flock of Christ. 3. It is my intention, moreover, to recount the misfortunes which immediately came upon the whole Jewish nation in consequence of their plots against our Savior; to record the ways and the times in which the divine word has been attacked by the Gentiles; to describe the character of those who at various periods have contended for it in the face of blood and of tortures, as well as the confessions which have been made in our own days; and finally the gracious and kindly help which our Savior has afforded them all. Since I propose to write of all these things I shall commence my work with the beginning of the dispensation of our Savior and Lord Jesus Christ. 4. But at the outset I must crave for my work the indulgence of the wise, for I confess that it is beyond my power to produce a perfect and complete history and since I am the first to enter upon the subject, I am attempting to traverse as it were a lonely and untrodden path. I pray that I may have God as my guide and the power of the Lord as my aid, since I am unable to find even the bare footsteps of those who have traveled the way before me, except in brief fragments, in which some in one way, others in another, have transmitted to us particular accounts of the times in which they lived. From afar they raise their voices like torches, and they cry out, as from some lofty and conspicuous watch-tower, admonishing us where to walk and how to direct the course of our work steadily and safely. 5. Having gathered therefore from the matters mentioned here and there by them whatever we consider important for the present work, and having plucked like flowers from a meadow the appropriate passages from ancient writers, we shall endeavor to embody the whole in an historical narrative, content if we preserve the memory of the successions of the apostles of our Savior; and if not indeed of all, but of the most renowned of them in those churches which are the most noted, and which even to the present time are held in honor.

126

DO C UMENTS O F THE RISE O F C HRISTIANITY

6. This work seems to me of special importance because I know of no ecclesiastical writer who has devoted himself to this subject; and I hope that it will appear most useful to those who are fond of historical research. 7. I have already given an epitome of these things in the Chronological Canons which I have composed, but notwithstanding that, I have undertaken in the present work to write as full an account of them as I am able. 8. My work will begin, as I have said, with the dispensation of the Savior Christ— which is loftier and greater than human conception—and with a discussion of his divinity (9) for it is necessary, inasmuch as we derive even our name from Christ, for one who proposes to write a history of the Church to begin with the very origin of Christ’s dispensation, a dispensation more divine than many think.

Chapter 2 1. Since in Christ there is a twofold nature, and the one—in so far as he is thought of as God—resembles the head of the body, while the other may be compared with the feet, in so far as he, for the sake of our salvation, put on human nature with the same passions as our own, the following work will be complete only if we begin with the chief and lordliest events of all his history. In this way will the antiquity and divinity of Christianity be shown to those who suppose it of recent and foreign origin, and imagine that it appeared only yesterday. 2. No language is sufficient to express the origin and the worth, the being and the nature of Christ. Wherefore also the divine Spirit says in the prophecies, “Who shall declare his generation?” For no one knows the Father except the Son, neither can anyone know the Son adequately except the Father alone who has begotten him. 3. For who beside the Father could clearly understand the Light which was before the world, the intellectual and essential Wisdom which existed before the ages, the living Word which was in the beginning with the Father and which was God, the first and only begotten of God which was before every creature and creation visible and invisible, the commander-in-chief of the rational and immortal host of heaven, the messenger of the great counsel, the executor of the Father’s unspoken will, the creator, with the Father, of all things, the second cause of the universe after the Father, the true and only-begotten Son of God, the Lord and God and King of all created things, the one who has received dominion and power, with divinity itself, and with might and honor from the Father; as it is said in regard to him in the mystical passages of Scripture which speak of his divinity: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” and “All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made.” 4. This, too, the great Moses teaches, when, as the most ancient of all the prophets, he describes under the influence of the divine Spirit the creation and arrangement of the universe. He declares that the maker of the world and the creator of all things yielded to Christ himself, and to none other than his own clearly divine and firstborn Word, the making of inferior things, and communed with him respecting the creation of man. “For,” says he, “God said, Let us make man in our image and in our likeness.”



F o u r t h C e n t u r y 127

5. And another of the prophets confirms this, speaking of God in his hymns as follows: “He spoke and they were made; he commanded and they were created.” He here introduces the Father and Maker as Ruler of all, commanding with a kingly nod, and second to him the divine Word, none other than the one who is proclaimed by us, as carrying out the Father’s commands. 6. All that are said to have excelled in righteousness and piety since the creation of man, the great servant Moses and before him in the first place Abraham and his children, and as many righteous men and prophets as afterward appeared, have contemplated him with the pure eyes of the mind, and have recognized him and offered to him the worship which is due him as Son of God. 7. But he, by no means neglectful of the reverence due to the Father, was appointed to teach the knowledge of the Father to them all. For instance, the Lord God, it is said, appeared as a common man to Abraham while he was sitting at the oak of Mambre. And he, immediately falling down, although he saw a man with his eyes, nevertheless worshipped him as God, and sacrificed to him as Lord, and confessed that he was not ignorant of his identity when he uttered the words, “Lord, the judge of all the earth, will you not execute righteous judgment?” 8. For if it is unreasonable to suppose that the unbegotten and immutable essence of the almighty God was changed into the form of man or that it deceived the eyes of the beholders with the appearance of some created thing, and if it is unreasonable to suppose, on the other hand, that the Scripture should falsely invent such things, when the God and Lord who judges all the earth and executes judgment is seen in the form of a man—who else can he be called, if it be not lawful to call him the first cause of all things, than his only pre-existent Word? Concerning whom it is said in the Psalms, “He sent his Word and healed them, and delivered them from their destructions.”

Source: Wace, Henry, and Philip Schaff. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series II, Vol. II. Grand Rapids, MI: WM. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1886.

Further Reading Barnes, T. D. “Some Inconsistencies in Eusebius.” Journal of Theological Studies, New Series 35, no. 2 (October 1984): 470–475. English, John C. “Nonlinear Elements in Eusebius’s Ecclesiastical History.” Social Science 49, no. 1 (Winter 1974): 3–10. Grant, Robert M. Eusebius as Church Historian. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock Publishers, 1980. Hollerich, Michael J. “Religion and Politics in the Writings of Eusebius: Reassessing the First ‘Court Theologian.’ ” Church History 59, no. 3 (September 1990): 309–325. Johnson, Aaron, and Jeremy Schott, eds. Eusebius of Caesarea: Tradition and Innovations (Hellenic Studies Series). Washington: Center for Hellenic Studies, 2013. Louth, Andrew. “The Date of Eusebius’ Historia Ecclesiastica.” Journal of Theological Studies, New Series 41, no. 1 (April 1990): 111–123. Munck, Johannes. “Presbyters and Disciples of the Lord in Papias: Exegetic Comments on Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, III, 39.” Harvard Theological Review 52, no. 4 (October 1959): 223–243. Somerville, Robert E. “An Ordering Principle for Book VIII of Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History: A Suggestion.” Vigiliae Christianae 20, no. 2 (June 1966): 91–97.

128

DO C UMENTS O F THE RISE O F C HRISTIANITY

Document 29 EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA, CHURCH HISTORY, 8.1–3 AND 8.12 It would not be an exaggeration to say that Eusebius was obsessed with persecution. It makes sense, considering that his teacher, Pamphilius, was martyred during the persecution under Emperor Diocletian. Pamphilius was the main reason why Eusebius stayed in Caesarea his whole life—he had a large library and the two of them worked together, using the sources that were collected. Eusebius himself was imprisoned in Egypt sometime between 311 and 313 CE and then became bishop of Caesarea. Being a historian of Christianity, Eusebius was certainly aware of the tortures that his fellow Christians had undergone, and now he could relate to these in a very personal way. One of the reasons this topic became a major part of his Church History is to compare it to the time of Constantine, when persecution of Christians stopped—the bad times and then the good times under this new emperor. Constantine and his co-emperor Licinius issued the Edict of Milan in 313, which allowed everyone, of all faiths—including the Christians—to practice their faith without fear of persecution. Eusebius practically hero-worshipped the emperor for bringing peace to the church. The horrible persecutions (described in detail in the following excerpt) were finally finished, and Eusebius must have felt it was a fitting tribute to discuss the tortures and then stated exactly what the result was (besides the maiming and killing): they showed the power of Christ, the power of these martyrs, and the power of those who survived. They mimicked the tortures and death of Jesus and because of this they certainly held some power—those who were tortured and survived were seen as near-perfect Christians and sometimes were seen as just as powerful (or in some cases, more powerful) than the bishop. It was believed they could intercede to Christ on behalf of those who sought out the martyrs. Later in the fourth century, some bishops tried to limit their power. The following excerpt is Eusebius’s account of more persecution of the Christians. The account begins with what happened during the life of Eusebius. The account is interesting in that he began with discussing the troubles and infighting that had happened in the Christian communities and then described the official persecution by the Roman government. Section 8.12 is one of the most graphic parts of the Church History of Eusebius. He did not hesitate to describe the various tortures that Christians were put through. They range from being pulled apart, being drenched with hot lead, beheaded, the removal of limbs, and so on. The main reason for describing these tortures in detail is really a lesson in how Christians should face persecution. These people become martyrs and examples of the behavior of true Christians. This was not the only place that Eusebius discussed the martyrs—he wrote The Martyrs of Palestine where he described the martyrdom of Pamphilius.

Chapter 8 1. 1. It is beyond our ability to describe in a suitable manner the extent and nature of the glory and freedom with which the word of piety toward the God of the



F o u r t h C e n t u r y 129

universe, proclaimed to the world through Christ, was honored among all men, both Greeks and barbarians, before the persecution in our day. 2. The favor shown to our people by the rulers might be adduced as evidence, as they committed to them the government of provinces, and on account of the great friendship which they entertained toward their doctrine, released them from anxiety in regard to sacrificing. 3. Why need I speak of those in the royal palaces, and of the rulers over all, who allowed the members of their households, wives and children and servants, to speak openly before them for the Divine word and life, and suffered them almost to boast of the freedom of their faith? 4. Indeed they esteemed them highly, and preferred them to their fellow-servants. Such a one was that Dorotheus, the most devoted and faithful to them of all, and on this account especially honored by them among those who held the most honorable offices and governments. With him was the celebrated Gorgonius, and as many as had been esteemed worthy of the same distinction on account of the word of God. 5. And one could see the rulers in every church accorded the greatest favor by all officers and governors. But how can anyone describe those vast assemblies, and the multitude that crowded together in every city, and the famous gatherings in the houses of prayer, on whose account not being satisfied with the ancient buildings they erected from the foundation large churches in all the cities? 6. No envy hindered the progress of these affairs which advanced gradually and grew and increased day by day. Nor could any evil demon slander them or hinder them through human counsels, so long as the divine and heavenly hand watched over and guarded his own people as worthy. 7. But when on account of the abundant freedom, we fell into laxity and sloth and envied and reviled each other, and were almost, as it were, taking up arms against one another, rulers assailing rulers with words like spears, and people forming parties against people, and monstrous hypocrisy and dissimulation rising to the greatest height of wickedness, the divine judgment with forbearance, as is its pleasure, while the multitudes yet continued to assemble, gently and moderately harassed the episcopacy. 8. This persecution began with the brethren in the army. But as if without sensibility, we were not eager to make the Deity favorable and propitious, and some, like atheists, thought that our affairs were unheeded and ungoverned and thus we added one wickedness to another. And those esteemed our shepherds, casting aside the bond of piety, were excited to conflicts with one another, and did nothing else than heap up conflicts and threats and jealousy and enmity and hatred toward each other, like tyrants eagerly endeavoring to assert their power. Then, truly, according to the word of Jeremiah, “The Lord in his wrath darkened the daughter of Zion, and cast down the glory of Israel from heaven to earth, and remembered not his foot-stool in the day of his anger. The Lord also overwhelmed all the beautiful things of Israel, and threw down all his strongholds.” 9. And according to what was foretold in the Psalms: “He has made void the covenant of his servant, and profaned his sanctuary to the earth, in the destruction of the churches, and has thrown down all his strongholds, and has made his fortresses cowardice. All that pass by have plundered the multitude of the people; and he has become besides a reproach to his neighbors. For he has exalted the right hand of his enemies, and has turned back the help of his sword, and has not taken his part in the war. But he has deprived him of purification, and has cast his throne to the ground. He has shortened the days of his time, and besides all, has poured out shame upon him.”

130

DO C UMENTS O F THE RISE O F C HRISTIANITY

Chapter 2 1. 1. All these things were fulfilled in us, when we saw with our own eyes the houses of prayer thrown down to the very foundations, and the Divine and Sacred Scriptures committed to the flames in the midst of the market-places, and the shepherds of the churches basely hidden here and there, and some of them captured ignominiously, and mocked by their enemies. When also, according to another prophetic word, “Contempt was poured out upon rulers, and he caused them to wander in an untrodden and pathless way.” 2. But it is not our place to describe the sad misfortunes which finally came upon them, as we do not think it proper, moreover, to record their divisions and unnatural conduct to each other before the persecution. Wherefore we have decided to relate nothing concerning them except the things in which we can vindicate the Divine judgment. 3. Hence we shall not mention those who were shaken by the persecution, nor those who in everything pertaining to salvation were shipwrecked, and by their own will were sunk in the depths of the flood. But we shall introduce into this history in general only those events which may be useful first to ourselves and afterwards to posterity. Let us therefore proceed to describe briefly the sacred conflicts of the witnesses of the Divine Word. 4. It was in the nineteenth year of the reign of Diocletian, in the month Dystrus, called March by the Romans, when the feast of the Savior’s passion was near at hand, that royal edicts were published everywhere, commanding that the churches be leveled to the ground and the Scriptures be destroyed by fire, and ordering that those who held places of honor be degraded, and that the household servants, if they persisted in the profession of Christianity, be deprived of freedom. 5. Such was the first edict against us. But not long after, other decrees were issued, commanding that all the rulers of the churches in every place be first thrown into prison, and afterwards by every artifice be compelled to sacrifice.

Chapter 3 1. 1. Then truly a great many rulers of the churches eagerly endured terrible sufferings, and furnished examples of noble conflicts. But a multitude of others, numbed in spirit by fear, were easily weakened at the first onset. Of the rest each one endured different forms of torture. The body of one was scourged with rods. Another was punished with insupportable rackings and scrapings, in which some suffered a miserable death. 2. Others passed through different conflicts. Thus one, while those around pressed him on by force and dragged him to the abominable and impure sacrifices, was dismissed as if he had sacrificed, though he had not. Another, though he had not approached at all, nor touched any polluted thing, when others said that he had sacrificed, went away, bearing the accusation in silence. 3. Another being taken up half dead, was cast aside as if already dead, and again a certain one lying upon the ground was dragged a long distance by his feet and counted among those who had sacrificed. One cried out and with a loud voice testified his rejection of the sacrifice; another shouted that he was a Christian, being resplendent in the confession of the saving Name. Another protested that he had not sacrificed and never would. 4. But they were struck in the mouth and silenced by a large band of soldiers who were drawn up for this purpose; and they were smitten on the face and cheeks and driven away by force; so important



F o u r t h C e n t u r y 131

did the enemies of piety regard it, by any means, to seem to have accomplished their purpose. But these things did not avail them against the holy martyrs for an accurate description of whom, what word of ours could suffice?

8.12.1–11 1. Why do we need to mention the rest by name, or number the multitude of the men, or picture the various sufferings of the admirable martyrs of Christ? Some of them were slain with the axe, as in Arabia. The limbs of some were broken, as in Cappadocia. Some, raised on high by the feet, with their heads down, while a gentle fire burned beneath them, were suffocated by the smoke which arose from the burning wood, as was done in Mesopotamia. Others were mutilated by cutting off their noses and ears and hands and cutting to pieces the other members and parts of their bodies, as in Alexandria. 2. Why do we need to revive the recollection of those in Antioch who were roasted on grates, not so as to kill them, but so as to subject them to a lingering punishment? Or of others who preferred to thrust their right hand into the fire rather than touch the impious sacrifice? Some, shrinking from the trial, rather than be taken and fall into the hands of their enemies, threw themselves from lofty houses, considering death preferable to the cruelty of the impious. 3. A certain holy person, in soul admirable for virtue, in body a woman, who was illustrious beyond all in Antioch for wealth and family and reputation, had been brought up in the principles of religion her two daughters, who were now in the freshness and bloom of life. Since great envy was excited on their account, every means was used to find them in their concealment and when it was ascertained that they were away, they were summoned deceitfully to Antioch. Thus they were caught in the nets of the soldiers. When the woman saw herself and her daughters thus helpless and knew the things terrible to speak of that men would do to them—and the most unbearable of all terrible things, the threatened violation of their chastity—she exhorted herself and the maidens that they should not to submit even to hear of this. For, she said, that to surrender their souls to the slavery of demons was worse than all deaths and destruction and she set before them the only deliverance from all these things—escape to Christ. 4. They then listened to her advice. And after arranging their garments suitably, they went aside from the middle of the road, having requested of the guards a little time for retirement, and cast themselves into a river which was flowing by. 5. Thus they destroyed themselves. But there were two other virgins in the same city of Antioch who served God in all things, and were true sisters, illustrious in family and distinguished in life, young and blooming, serious in mind, pious in deportment, and admirable for zeal. As if the earth could not bear such excellence, the worshippers of demons commanded to cast them into the sea. And this was done to them. 6. In Pontus, others endured sufferings horrible to hear. Their fingers were pierced with sharp reeds under their nails. Melted lead, bubbling and boiling with the heat, was poured down the backs of others, and they were roasted in the most sensitive parts of the body. 7. Others endured on their bowels and privy members shameful and inhuman and unmentionable torments, which the noble and law-observing judges, to show their severity, devised, as more honorable manifestations of wisdom. And new tortures were continually invented, as if they were endeavoring, by surpassing

132

DO C UMENTS O F THE RISE O F C HRISTIANITY

one another, to gain prizes in a contest. 8. But at the close of these calamities, when finally they could contrive no greater cruelties and were weary of putting to death and were filled and satiated with the shedding of blood, they turned to what they considered merciful and humane treatment, so that they seemed to be no longer devising terrible things against us. 9. For they said that it was not fitting that the cities should be polluted with the blood of their own people, or that the government of their rulers, which was kind and mild toward all, should be defamed through excessive cruelty; but that rather the beneficence of the humane and royal authority should be extended to all, and we should no longer be put to death. For the infliction of this punishment upon us should be stopped in consequence of the humanity of the rulers. 10. Therefore it was commanded that our eyes should be put out, and that we should be maimed in one of our limbs. For such things were humane in their sight, and the lightest of punishments for us. So that now on account of this kindly treatment accorded us by the impious, it was impossible to tell the incalculable number of those whose right eyes had first been cut out with the sword, and then had been cauterized with fire, or who had been disabled in the left foot by burning the joints, and afterward condemned to the provincial copper mines, not so much for service as for distress and hardship. Besides all these, others encountered other trials, which it is impossible to recount for their manly endurance surpasses all description. 11. In these conflicts the noble martyrs of Christ shone illustrious over the entire world, and everywhere astonished those who beheld their manliness; and the evidences of the truly divine and unspeakable power of our Savior were made manifest through them. To mention each by name would be a long task, if not indeed impossible.

Source: Wace, Henry, and Philip Schaff. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series II, Vol. II. Grand Rapids, MI: WM. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1886.

Further Reading Buck, P. Lorraine. “Voluntary Martyrdom Revisited.” Journal of Theological Studies 63, no. 1 (2012): 125–135. Drake, H. A. Constantine and the Bishops: The Politics of Intolerance. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002. Gemeinhardt, Peter, and Johan Leemans, eds. Christian Martyrdom in Late Antiquity: History and Discourse, Tradition and Religious Identity. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2012. Keresztes, Paul. “From the Great Persecution to the Peace of Galerius.” Vigiliae Christianae 37, no. 4 (December 1983): 379–399. Koscheski, Jonathan. “The Earliest Christian War: Second- and Third-Century Martyrdom and the Creation of Cosmic Warriors.” Journal of Religious Ethics 39, no. 1 (March 2011): 100–124. Moss, Candida R. “The Discourse of Voluntary Martyrdom: Ancient and Modern.” Church History 81, no. 3 (September 2012): 531–551. Moss, Candida R. The Myth of Martyrdom: How Early Christians Invented a Story of Martyrdom. New York: Harper One, 2013. Tabbernee, William. “Eusebius’ ‘Theology of Persecution’: As Seen in the Various Editions of His Church History.” Journal of Early Christian Studies 5, no. 3 (1997): 319–334.



F o u r t h C e n t u r y 133

Document 30 SELECTIONS OF LETTERS FROM ARIUS, THEODORET, CHURCH HISTORY, BOOK 1 CHAPTER 4 ATHANASIUS, ON THE SYNODS, 16 AND SOZOMEN, CHURCH HISTORY, 2.27 One of the biggest Christian controversies in the 300s was Arianism. A number of early Christian historians wrote about this movement, including Theodoret of Cyrrhus (see previous section). It is fortunate for us that many times these historians or those directly involved in the issues took the time to copy down bits and pieces of texts that they were writing against. This was a common practice in early Christianity, and it was done for two reasons. The first is that it provided the document to the reader who, in late antiquity, may not have access to it. It also provided the proof from which the author was arguing. This is the case for the letters of Arius, an Egyptian priest, whose Christian beliefs set off a storm that lasted for nearly the entire fourth century CE. Arius lived from about 256 to 336 CE, when, as Socrates Scholasticus tells us, Arius died as his bowels exploded due to punishment for causing so many difficulties to the church. He was a talented priest and speaker and theologian, from most of the accounts we have of him. The process of why people converted to Christianity and how they converted is sometimes lacking in early sources, but we know that Arius had a few techniques he used to get people to accept and remember his form of Christianity. One was to create little songs that no doubt contained rhymes that made it easy for people to recall what he was teaching them about. He was also a very good speaker, and that was always one of the best ways of getting a message out to his flock. Another thing he could do was to write letters to those who were in some type of ecclesiastical power and who could support him, especially when his own bishop, Alexander of Alexandria, Egypt, threatened him with excommunication (and he was excommunicated). The following excerpt includes three letters of Arius. The first is written to Eusebius, the bishop of Nicomedia. Nicomedia was a royal city and being its bishop gave Eusebius quite a bit of power over what was happening in the church. The following letter was preserved in Theodoret’s Church History, and in it Arius described his belief and begged Eusebius to help him as he claimed they were being persecuted. Part of Theodoret’s commentary on the letter is also given and that has been indicated with brackets. Theodoret ended this excerpt by giving the letter from Eusebius of Nicomedia to Paulinus of Tyre. The second letter is one that Arius sent to his bishop, Alexander. In it he tried to show Alexander what his theology was in hopes that Alexander would understand and quite possibly agree with Arius. This letter, given next, was preserved by Athanasius, the bishop of Alexandria (who came next after Alexander). Athanasius and Arius were bitter enemies, and Athanasius spent quite a bit of his life writing against the Arians. Emperor Constantine was also dragged into this controversy. Constantine had a hard time understanding why the theological differences between Arius

134

DO C UMENTS O F THE RISE O F C HRISTIANITY

and Alexander were causing so many problems. After the Council of Nicea (325 CE) ruled on the side of Alexander of Alexandria, Arius was sent into exile. This was done to prevent further damage to the church. However, Arius did not take this laying down. He wrote more letters, including the one in the following excerpt. Constantine asked Arius for an official statement of his faith, in the assumption that he would keep Arius in exile or recall him back. In this case Constantine thought his statement of faith was orthodox, or correct, and Arius was recalled from exile. However, Arius did not get his wish that he be let back into the church at Alexandria as a priest. This set off a whole new storm of controversy since it was believed that Constantine would always side with the Nicenes. The last letter of Arius given here was preserved by a writer named Sozomen (who lived from the early 400s to around 450 CE), in his own book titled Church History.

Theodoret Book 1, Chapter 4—The Letter of Arius to Eusebius, Bishop of Nicomedia “To his very dear lord, the man of God, the faithful and orthodox Eusebius, Arius, unjustly persecuted by Alexander the Pope, on account of that all-conquering truth of which you also are a champion, sends greeting in the Lord. Since Ammonius, my father, was about to depart for Nicomedia, I considered myself bound to salute you through him, and in addition to inform that natural affection which you bear towards the brethren for the sake of God and His Christ, that the bishop (Alexander) greatly wastes and persecutes us, and leaves no stone unturned against us. He has driven us out of the city as atheists because we do not concur in what he publicly preaches, namely that: God always, the Son always; as the Father so the Son; the Son co-exists unbegotten with God; He is everlasting; neither by thought nor by any interval does God precede the Son; always God, always Son; he is begotten of the unbegotten; the Son is of God Himself.

Eusebius, your brother bishop of Cæsarea, Theodotus, Paulinus, Athanasius, Gregorius, Aetius, and all the bishops of the East, have been condemned because they say that God had an existence prior to that of His Son; except Philogonius, Hellanicus, and Macarius who are unlearned men and who have embraced heretical opinions. Some of them say that the Son is an ejection, others that He is a production, others that He is also unbegotten. These are impieties to which we cannot listen, even though the heretics threaten us with a thousand deaths. But we say and believe, and have taught and do teach that: the Son is not unbegotten, nor in any way part of the unbegotten; and that He does not derive His subsistence from any matter but that by His own will and counsel He has subsisted before time, and before ages, as perfect God, only begotten and unchangeable, and that before He was begotten, or created, or purposed, or established, He was not, for He was not unbegotten.



F o u r t h C e n t u r y 135

We are persecuted, because we say that the Son has a beginning but that God is without beginning. This is the cause of our persecution, and likewise, because we say that He is of the non-existent. And this we say, because He is neither part of God, nor of any essential being. For this are we persecuted—the rest you know. I bid you farewell in the Lord, remembering our afflictions, my fellow-Lucianist, and true Eusebius.” [Theodoret writes:] Of those whose names are mentioned in this letter, Eusebius was bishop of Cæsarea, Theodotus of Laodicea, Paulinus of Tyre, Athanasius of Anazarbus, Gregorius of Berytus, and Aetius of Lydda. Lydda is now called Diospolis. Arius prided himself on having these men of one mind with himself. He names as his adversaries, Philogonius, bishop of Antioch, Hellanicus, of Tripolis, and Macarius, of Jerusalem. He spread calumnies against them because they said that the Son is eternal, existing before all ages, of equal honour and of the same substance with the Father. When Eusebius received the epistle, he too vomited forth his own impiety, and wrote to Paulinus, chief of the Tyrians, in the following words. . . Source: Wace, Henry, and Philip Schaff. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series II, Vol. III. Grand Rapids, MI: WM. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1886.

Athanasius, On the Synods 16 [Athanasius wrote:] And what they wrote by letter to the blessed Alexander, the Bishop, runs as follows: To Our Blessed Pope and Bishop, Alexander, the Presbyters and Deacons send health in the Lord. Our faith from our forefathers, which also we have learned from you, Blessed Pope, is this: We acknowledge One God, alone Ingenerate, alone Everlasting, alone Unbegun, alone True, alone having Immortality, alone Wise, alone Good, alone Sovereign; Judge, Governor, and Providence of all, unalterable and unchangeable, just and good, God of Law and Prophets and New Testament who begat an Only-begotten Son before eternal times, through whom He has made both the ages and the universe; and begat Him, not in semblance, but in truth; and that He made Him subsist at His own will, unalterable and unchangeable; perfect creature of God, but not as one of the creatures; offspring, but not as one of things begotten; nor as Valentinus pronounced that the offspring of the Father was an issue; nor as Manichæus taught that the offspring was a portion of the Father, one in essence; or as Sabellius, dividing the Monad, speaks of a Son-and-Father; nor as Hieracas, of one torch from another, or as a lamp divided into two; nor that He who was before, was afterwards generated or new-created into a Son, as you too yourself, Blessed Pope, in the midst of the Church and in session have often condemned; but, as we say, at the will of God, created before times and before ages, and gaining life and being from the Father, who gave subsistence to His glories together with Him. For the Father did not, in giving to Him the inheritance of all things, deprive Himself of what He has ingenerately in Himself; for He is the Fountain of all things. Thus there are

136

DO C UMENTS O F THE RISE O F C HRISTIANITY

Three Subsistences. And God, being the cause of all things, is Unbegun and altogether Sole, but the Son being begotten apart from time by the Father, and being created and founded before ages, was not before His generation, but being begotten apart from time before all things, alone was made to subsist by the Father. For He is not eternal or co-eternal or co-unoriginate with the Father, nor has He His being together with the Father, as some speak of relations, introducing two ingenerate beginnings, but God is before all things as being Monad and Beginning of all. Wherefore also He is before the Son; as we have learned also from thy preaching in the midst of the Church. So far then as from God He has being, and glories, and life, and all things are delivered unto Him, in such sense is God His origin. For He is above Him, as being His God and before Him. But if the terms from Him, “and from the womb,” and I came forth from the Father, and I am come, be understood by some to mean as if a part of Him, one in essence or as an issue, then the Father is according to them compounded and divisible and alterable and material, and, as far as their belief goes, has the circumstances of a body, Who is the Incorporeal God.

[Athanasius wrote:] This is a part of what Arius and his fellows vomited from their heretical hearts. Source: Wace, Henry, and Philip Schaff. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series II, Vol. IV. Grand Rapids, MI: WM. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1886.

Sozomen, Church Histories 2.27 Letter from Arius to Constantine Arius and Euzoïus, presbyters, to Constantine, our most pious emperor and most beloved of God: According as your piety commanded, beloved of God, O sovereign emperor, we here furnish a written statement of our own faith, and we protest before God that we, and all those who are with us, believe what is here set forth: We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, and in His Son the Lord Jesus Christ, who was begotten from Him before all ages, God the Word, by whom all things were made, whether things in heaven or things on earth. He came and took upon Him flesh, suffered and rose again, and ascended into heaven, whence He will again come to judge the quick and the dead. We believe in the Holy Ghost, in the resurrection of the body, in the life to come, in the kingdom of heaven, and in one Catholic Church of God, established throughout the earth. We have received this faith from the Holy Gospels, in which the Lord says to His disciples, “Go forth and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.”

If we do not so believe this, and if we do not truly receive the doctrines concerning the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, as they are taught by the whole Catholic Church and by the sacred Scriptures, as we believe in every point, let God be our judge, both now and in the day which is to come. Wherefore we appeal to your



F o u r t h C e n t u r y 137

piety, O our emperor most beloved of God, that, as we are enrolled among the members of the clergy, and as we hold the faith and thought of the Church and of the sacred Scriptures, we may be openly reconciled to our mother, the Church, through your peacemaking and pious piety; so that useless questions and disputes may be cast aside, and that we and the Church may dwell together in peace, and we all in common may offer the customary prayer for your peaceful and pious empire and for your entire family. Source: Wace, Henry, and Philip Schaff. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series II, Vol. II. Grand Rapids, MI: WM. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1886.

Further Reading Barnard, L. W. “The Antecedents of Arius.” Vigiliae Christianae 24, no. 3 (September 1970): 172–188. Davies, P. S. “Constantine’s Editor.” Journal of Theological Studies, New Series 42, no. 2 (October 1991): 610–618. Haas, Christopher. “The Arians of Alexandria.” Vigiliae Christianae 47, no. 3 (September 1993): 234–245. Haugaard, William P. “Arius: Twice a Heretic? Arius and the Human Soul of Jesus Christ.” Church History 29, no. 3 (September 1960): 251–263. Kaatz, Kevin. Early Controversies and the Growth of Christianity. Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger, 2012. Pollard, T. E. “The Origins of Arianism.” Journal of Theological Studies, New Series 9, no. 1 (April 1958): 103–111. Telfer, W. “Arius Takes Refuge at Nicomedia.” Journal of Theological Studies 37, no. 145 (January 1936): 60–63. Wiles, Maurice. “In Defence of Arius.” Journal of Theological Studies, New Series 13, no. 2 (October 1962): 339–347. Williams, R. D. “The Logic of Arianism.” Journal of Theological Studies, New Series 34, no. 1 (April 1983): 56–81. Williams, Rowan. Arius: Heresy and Tradition. London: Darton, Longman, and Todd, 1987.

Document 31 HILARY OF POITIERS, ON THE COUNCILS, 1–10 AND 91–92 Hilary, also known as Hilary of Poitiers, was bishop of that city from 353 to his death, sometime around 367 CE. He grew up in a pagan household, and it wasn’t until he was an adult when he converted to Christianity and was baptized. Hilary took his faith very seriously and spent quite a bit of his time writing about theology. His main concern, like many bishops in the early or middle 300s, was about the Arian form of Christianity. Hilary was a Nicene, or Catholic believer, meaning he believed in the Nicene Creed—that God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit were always in existence and of the same nature. The

138

DO C UMENTS O F THE RISE O F C HRISTIANITY

Arians believed that God, as the Father, was first and later came Jesus and the Holy Spirit. The Arians also believed (at least some) that Jesus was like the nature of God but not exactly of the same nature (because God came first). Hilary happened to become a Christian during the reign of Constantine’s son, Constantius II. Constantius II was a supporter in the Arian form of Christianity and often fought with Nicene or Catholic bishops. Hilary was one of these bishops who got on the bad side of the emperor. Because of this he was first exiled to Phrygia in 356 for his refusal to condemn Bishop Athanasius, another powerful Nicene bishop. Athanasius was on the front line in Alexandria, Egypt, in the fight against the Arians. He too was sent into exile numerous times for refusing to accept the Arian version of Christianity. Hilary was recalled from exile in 360 when it was discovered he was creating too many problems in this area. Hilary of Poitiers wrote On the Councils, to explain to the West what the eastern Christian beliefs were. In it he gave the findings of various church councils, thereby providing the Western bishops their (sometimes) first view of what these theological topics or arguments were in the East. The issue of “the same nature” (homousius) and “like nature” (homoiousius) was causing manifold problems, partly because of the use of Greek words in the Latin West (which used the term naturae for “natures” or substantiae for “substances”) and partly because the words themselves were not understood in a theological context. The Arians believed that Christ was not of the same nature as God at all. However, many thought “like nature” was also heretical. His mission in this work was to clarify the problems. This is especially clear at the end of the book when he tries to convince the bishops that homoiousius is not to be condemned but is in fact part of the definition of homoousian. He pleads for the two pro-Nicene sides to come together and instead of fighting with each other over these words, they should come together to fight against the Arians. The following excerpt contains the first part and the last two chapters of his On the Councils. While the introduction makes it look like it was sent only to Western bishops (those in Germania, Gaul, and Britain), toward the end of this work, it is made clear that it will be sent to the East.

On the Councils To the most dearly loved and blessed brethren our fellow-bishops of the province of Germania Prima and Germania Secunda, Belgica Prima and Belgica Secunda, Lugdunensis Prima and Lugdunensis Secunda, and the province of Aquitania, and the province of Novempopulana, and to the laity and clergy of Tolosa in the Provincia Narbonensis, and to the bishops of the provinces of Britain, Hilary the servant of Christ, eternal salvation in God our Lord. 1. I had determined, beloved brethren, to send no letter to you concerning the affairs of the Church in consequence of your prolonged silence. For when I had by writing from several cities of the Roman world frequently informed you of the faith and efforts of our religious brethren, the bishops of the East, and how the Evil



F o u r t h C e n t u r y 139

One profiting by the discords of the times had with envenomed lips and tongue hissed out his deadly doctrine, I was afraid. I feared lest while so many bishops were involved in the serious danger of disastrous sin or disastrous mistake, you were holding your peace because a defiled and sin-stained conscience tempted you to despair. Ignorance I could not attribute to you; you had been too often warned. I judged therefore that I also ought to observe silence towards you, carefully remembering the Lord’s saying, that those who after a first and second entreaty, and in spite of the witness of the Church, neglect to hear, are to be unto us as heathen men and publicans. 2. But when I received the letters that your blessed faith inspired, and understood that their slow arrival and their paucity were due to the remoteness and secrecy of my place of exile, I rejoiced in the Lord that you had continued pure and undefiled by the contagion of any execrable heresy, and that you were united with me in faith and spirit, and so were partakers of that exile into which Saturninus, fearing his own conscience, had thrust me after beguiling the Emperor, and after that you had denied him communion for the whole three years ago until now. I equally rejoiced that the impious and infidel creed which was sent straightway to you from Sirmium was not only not accepted by you but condemned as soon as reported and notified. I felt that it was now binding on me as a religious duty to write sound and faithful words to you as my fellow-bishops, who communicate with me in Christ. I, who through fear of what might have been could at one time only rejoice with my own conscience that I was free from all these errors, was now bound to express delight at the purity of our common faith. Praise God for the unshaken stability of your noble hearts, for your firm house built on the foundation of the faithful rock, for the undefiled and unswerving constancy of a will that has proved immaculate! For since the good profession at the Council of Biterrae, where I denounced the ringleaders of this heresy with some of you for my witnesses, it has remained and still continues to remain, pure, unspotted and scrupulous. 3. You awaited the noble triumph of a holy and steadfast perseverance without yielding to the threats, the powers and the assaults of Saturninus: and when all the waves of awakening blasphemy struggled against God, you who still remain with me faithful in Christ did not give way when threatened with the onset of heresy, and now by meeting that onset you have broken all its violence. Yes, brethren, you have conquered, to the abundant joy of those who share your faith: and your unimpaired constancy gained the double glory of keeping a pure conscience and giving an authoritative example. For the fame of your unswerving and unshaken faith has moved certain Eastern bishops, late though it be, to some shame for the heresy fostered and supported in those regions: and when they heard of the godless confession composed at Sirmium, they contradicted its audacious authors by passing certain decrees themselves. And though they withstood them not without in their turn raising some scruples, and inflicting some wounds upon a sensitive piety, yet they withstood them so vigorously as to compel those who at Sirmium yielded to the views of Potamius and Hosius as accepting and confirming those views, to declare their ignorance and error in so doing. In fact they had to condemn in writing their own action. And they subscribed with the express purpose of condemning something else in advance. 4. But your invincible faith keeps the honorable distinction of conscious worth, and content with repudiating crafty, vague, or hesitating action, safely abides in Christ,

140

DO C UMENTS O F THE RISE O F C HRISTIANITY

preserving the profession of its liberty. You abstain from communion with those who oppose their bishops with their blasphemies and keep them in exile, and do not by assenting to any crafty subterfuge bring yourselves under a charge of unrighteous judgment. For since we all suffered deep and grievous pain at the actions of the wicked against God, within our boundaries alone is communion in Christ to be found from the time that the Church began to be harried by disturbances such as the expatriation of bishops, the deposition of priests, the intimidation of the people, the threatening of the faith, and the determination of the meaning of Christ’s doctrine by human will and power. Your resolute faith does not pretend to be ignorant of these facts or profess that it can tolerate them, perceiving that by the act of hypocritical assent it would bring itself before the bar of conscience. 5. And although in all your actions, past and present, you bear witness to the uninterrupted independence and security of your faith; yet in particular you prove your warmth and fervor of spirit by the fact that some of you whose letters have succeeded in reaching me have expressed a wish that I, unfit as I am, should notify to you what the Easterns have since said in their confessions of faith. They affectionately laid the additional burden upon me of indicating my sentiments on all their decisions. I know that my skill and learning are inadequate, for I feel it most difficult to express in words my own belief as I understand it in my heart; far less easy must it be to expound the statements of others. 6. Now I beseech you by the mercy of the Lord, that as I will in this letter according to your desire write to you of divine things and of the witness of a pure conscience to our faith, no one will think to judge me by the beginning of my letter before he has read the conclusion of my argument. For it is unfair before the complete argument has been grasped, to conceive a prejudice on account of initial statements, the reason of which is yet unknown, since it is not with imperfect statements before us that we must make a decision for the sake of investigation, but on the conclusion for the sake of knowledge. I have some fear, not about you, as God is witness of my heart, but about some who in their own esteem are very cautious and prudent but do not understand the blessed apostle’s precept not to think of themselves more highly than they ought: for I am afraid that they are unwilling to know all those facts, the complete account of which I will offer at the end, and at the same time they avoid drawing the true conclusion from the aforesaid facts. But whoever takes up these lines to read and examine them has only to be consistently patient with me and with himself and peruse the whole to its completion. Perchance all this assertion of my faith will result in those who conceal their heresy being unable to practice the deception they wish, and in true Catholics attaining the object which they desire. 7. Therefore I comply with your affectionate and urgent wish, and I have set down all the creeds which have been promulgated at different times and places since the holy Council of Nicaea, with my appended explanations of all the phrases and even words employed. If they be thought to contain anything faulty, no one can impute the fault to me: for I am only a reporter, as you wished me to be, and not an author. But if anything is found to be laid down in right and apostolic fashion, no one can doubt that it is no credit to the interpreter but to the originator. In any case I have sent you a faithful account of these transactions: it is for you to determine by the decision your faith inspires whether their spirit is Catholic or heretical.



F o u r t h C e n t u r y 141

8. For although it was necessary to reply to your letters, in which you offered me Christian communion with your faith, (and, moreover, certain of your number who were summoned to the Council which seemed pending in Bithynia did refuse with firm consistency of faith to hold communion with any but myself outside Gaul), it also seemed fit to use my episcopal office and authority, when heresy was so rife, in submitting to you by letter some godly and faithful counsel. For the word of God cannot be exiled as our bodies are, or so chained and bound that it cannot be imparted to you in any place. But when I had learnt that synods were to meet in Ancyra and Ariminum, and that one or two bishops from each province in Gaul would assemble there, I thought it especially needful that I, who am confined in the East, should explain and make known to you the grounds of those mutual suspicions which exist between us and the Eastern bishops, though some of you know those grounds; in order that whereas you had condemned and they had anathematized this heresy that spreads from Sirmium, you might nevertheless know with what confession of faith the Eastern bishops had come to the same result that you had come to, and that I might prevent you, whom I hope to see as shining lights in future Councils, differing, through a mistake about words, even a hair’s-breadth from pure Catholic belief, when your interpretation of the apostolic faith is identically the same and you are Catholics at heart. 9. Now it seems to me right and appropriate, before I begin my argument about suspicions and dissensions as to words, to give as complete an account as possible of the decisions of the Eastern bishops adverse to the heresy compiled at Sirmium. Others have published all these transactions very plainly, but much obscurity is caused by a translation from Greek into Latin, and to be absolutely literal is to be sometimes partly unintelligible. 10. You remember that in the Blasphemia, lately written at Sirmium, the object of the authors was to proclaim the Father to be the one and only God of all things, and deny the Son to be God: and while they determined that men should hold their peace about homoousion and homoiousion, they determined that God the Son should be asserted to be born not of God the Father, but of nothing, as the first creatures were, or of another essence than God, as the later creatures. And further that in saying the Father was greater in honor, dignity, splendor and majesty, they implied that the Son lacked those things which constitute the Father’s superiority. Lastly, that while it is affirmed that His birth is unknowable, we were commanded by this Compulsory Ignorance Act not to know that He is of God: just as if it could be commanded or decreed that a man should know what in future he is to be ignorant of or be ignorant of what he already knows. I have subjoined in full this pestilent and godless blasphemy, though against my will, to facilitate a more complete knowledge of the worth and reason of the replies made on the opposite side by those Easterns who endeavored to counteract all the wiles of the heretics according to their understanding and comprehension. . . . 91. I pray you, brethren, remove all suspicion and leave no occasion for it. To approve of homoiousion, we need not disapprove of homoousion. Let us think of the many holy prelates now at rest: what judgment will the Lord pronounce upon us if we now say anathema to them? What will be our case if we push the matter so far as to deny that they were bishops and so deny that we are ourselves bishops? We were ordained

142

DO C UMENTS O F THE RISE O F C HRISTIANITY

by them and are their successors. Let us renounce our episcopate, if we took its office from men under anathema. Brethren, forgive my anguish: it is an impious act that you are attempting. I cannot endure to hear the man anathematized who says homoousion and says it in the right sense. No fault can be found with a word which does no harm to the meaning of religion. I do not know the word homoiousion, or understand it, unless it confesses a similarity of essence. I call the God of heaven and earth to witness, that when I had heard neither word, my belief was always such that I should have interpreted homoiousion by homoousion. That is, I believed that nothing could be similar according to nature unless it was of the same nature. Though long ago regenerate in baptism, and for some time a bishop, I never heard of the Nicene creed until I was going into exile, but the Gospels and Epistles suggested to me the meaning of homoousion and homoiousion. Our desire is sacred. Let us not condemn the fathers, let us not encourage heretics, lest while we drive one heresy away, we nurture another. After the Council of Nicæa our fathers interpreted the due meaning of homoousion with scrupulous care; the books are extant, the facts are fresh in men’s minds: if anything has to be added to the interpretation, let us consult together. Between us we can thoroughly establish the faith, so that what has been well settled need not be disturbed, and what has been misunderstood may be removed. 92. Beloved brethren, I have passed beyond the bounds of courtesy, and forgetting my modesty I have been compelled by my affection for you to write thus of many abstruse matters which until this our age were not attempted and left in silence. I have spoken what I myself believed, conscious that I owed it as my soldier’s service to the Church to send to you in accordance with the teaching of the Gospel by these letters the voice of the office which I hold in Christ. It is yours to discuss, to provide and to act, that the inviolable fidelity in which you stand you may still keep with conscientious hearts, and that you may continue to hold what you hold now. Remember my exile in your holy prayers. I do not know, now that I have thus expounded the faith, whether it would be as sweet to return unto you again in the Lord Jesus Christ as it would be full of peace to die. That our God and Lord may keep you pure and undefiled unto the day of His appearing is my desire, dearest brethren.

Source: Wace, Henry, and Philip Schaff. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series II, Vol. IX. Grand Rapids, MI: WM. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1886.

Further Reading Abogado, J. Hilary of Poitiers on Conciliating the Homouseans and the Homoeouseans: An Inquiry on the Fourth-Century Trinitarian Controversy. Bern: Peter Lang, 2016. Barnes, T. D. “Hilary of Poitiers on His Exile.” Vigiliae Christianae 46, no. 2 (1992): 129–140. Beckwith, Carl L. “The Condemnation and Exile of Hilary of Poitiers at the Synod of Beziers (356 C.E.).” Journal of Early Christian Studies13, no. 1 (2005): 21–38. Borchardt, C. F. A. Hilary of Poitiers’ Role in the Arian Struggle. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1966. Toom, Tarmo. “Hilary of Poitiers’ De Trinitate and the Name(s) of God.” Vigiliae Christianae 64 (2010): 456–479.



F o u r t h C e n t u r y 143

Weedman, M. The Trinitarian Theology of Hilary of Poitiers. Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae: Texts and Studies of Early Christian Life and Language 89. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill, 2007. Wickman, Eric. “Shaping Church-State Relations after Constantine: The Political Theology of Hilary of Poitiers.” Church History 86, no. 2 (June 2017): 287–310. Williams, Daniel H. “The Anti-Arian Campaigns of Hilary of Poitiers and the ‘Liber Contra Auxentium.’ ” Church History 61, no. 1 (1992): 7–22.

Document 32 LACTANTIUS, ON THE ANGER OF GOD, 1, 4–5, 16 Lactantius was a very important figure in Nicomedia, under the rule of Emperor Diocletian. He held the chair of Latin Rhetoric, which meant he would be giving panegyrics (speeches of praise) for the emperor. Barnes notes that this is where Lactantius would have been introduced to Constantine, the future emperor (2007, 176). When Diocletian decided to persecute the Christians, Lactantius, being a Christian, left his position. At some point after this he was called by Emperor Constantine to tutor his son Crispus and when finished with that it is probable that he retook his chair of Latin Rhetoric after Licinius allowed Christians to safely practice their religion (Barnes 2007, 176–178). Lactantius died in Nicomedia. Could God get angry about something? Is God capable of being angry? If so, what does this mean for God? These are questions that bothered some Christians—and, in particular, Lactantius. On the Anger of God, written in 314 or 315, can be seen as a supplement to Lactantius’s On the Deaths of the Persecutors (Penwill 2004, 24). It is there that Lactantius takes great pleasure in describing the divine vengeance on those rulers who persecuted the Christians. To write about divine vengeance means that you need to believe that God was capable of feeling vengeance and anger—which is exactly what Lactantius argued in On the Anger of God. In it Lactantius needed to counter some Greek philosophies (like Epicureanism) that thought God was aloof and was only interested in maintaining the universe. Lactantius certainly had enough evidence to use to show that God felt angry and also acted when angry—the Old Testament. These books are filled with descriptions of God getting angry and killing people who were against Him. Lactantius could also look at the evidence he used in his On the Deaths of the Persecutors to see the hand of God playing the role of torturing and killing those who persecuted Christians. One key to understanding this text (and On the Deaths of the Persecutors) is that it is dedicated to a person named Donatus. Donatus was persecuted under Diocletian and survived. Lactantius was giving him the evidence so that he can understand that God can and did get angry about his persecution. For him, if God cannot have anger, then God cannot also feel “neither fear, nor joy, nor grief, nor pity” (Chapter 4). His whole argument can be summed up in Chapter 5: “And as he who loves confers good things on those whom he loves, so he who hates inflicts evils upon those whom he hates; which argument, because it is true, can in no way be refuted.”

144

DO C UMENTS O F THE RISE O F C HRISTIANITY

On the Anger of God Chapter 1 I have often observed, Donatus, that many persons hold this opinion, which some philosophers also have maintained, that God is not subject to anger; since the divine nature is either altogether beneficent, and that it is inconsistent with His surpassing and excellent power to do injury to any one; or, at any rate, He takes no notice of us at all, so that no advantage comes to us from His goodness, and no evil from His ill-will. But the error of these men, because it is very great, and tends to overthrow the condition of human life, must be refuted by us, lest you yourself also should be deceived, being incited by the authority of men who deem themselves wise. Nor, however, are we so arrogant as to boast that the truth is comprehended by our intellect; but we follow the teaching of God, who alone is able to know and to reveal secret things. But the philosophers, being destitute of this teaching, have imagined that the nature of things can be ascertained by conjecture. But this is impossible; because the mind of man, enclosed in the dark abode of the body, is far removed from the perception of truth: and in this the divine nature differs from the human, that ignorance is the property of the human, knowledge of the divine nature. On which account we have need of some light to dispel the darkness by which the reflection of man is overspread, since, while we live in mortal flesh, we are unable to divine by our senses. But the light of the human mind is God, and he who has known and admitted Him into his breast will acknowledge the mystery of the truth with an enlightened heart; but when God and heavenly instruction are removed, all things are full of errors. And Socrates, though he was the most learned of all the philosophers, yet, that he might prove the ignorance of the others, who thought that they possessed something, rightly said that he knew nothing, except one thing—that he knew nothing. For he understood that that learning had nothing certain, nothing true in itself; nor, as some imagine, did he pretend to learning that he might refute others, but he saw the truth in some measure. And he testified even on his trial (as is related by Plato) that there was no human wisdom. He so despised, derided, and cast aside the learning in which the philosophers then boasted, that he professed that very thing as the greatest learning, that he had learnt that he knew nothing. If, therefore, there is no human wisdom, as Socrates taught, as Plato handed down, it is evident that the knowledge of the truth is divine, and belongs to no other than to God. Therefore God must be known, in whom alone is the truth. He is the Parent of the world, and the Framer of all things; who is not seen with the eyes, and is scarcely distinguished by the mind; whose religion is accustomed to be attacked in many ways by those who have neither been able to attain true wisdom, nor to comprehend the system of the great and heavenly secret. . . .



F o u r t h C e n t u r y 145

Chapter 4 That which follows is concerning the school of Epicurus; that as there is no anger in God, so indeed there is no kindness. For when Epicurus thought that it was inconsistent with God to injure and to inflict harm, which for the most part arises from the affection of anger, he took away from Him beneficence also, since he saw that it followed that if God has anger, He must also have kindness. Therefore, lest he should concede to Him a vice, he deprived Him also of virtue. From this, he says, He is happy and uncorrupted, because He cares about nothing, and neither takes trouble Himself nor occasions it to another. Therefore He is not God, if He is neither moved, which is peculiar to a living being, nor does anything impossible for man, which is peculiar to God, if He has no will at all, no action, in short, no administration, which is worthy of God. And what greater, what more worthy administration can be attributed to God, than the government of the world, and especially of the human race, to which all earthly things are subject? What happiness, then, can there be in God, if He is always inactive, being at rest and unmovable? if He is deaf to those who pray to Him, and blind to His worshippers? What is so worthy of God, and so befitting to Him, as providence? But if He cares for nothing, and foresees nothing, He has lost all His divinity. What else does he say, who takes from God all power and all substance, except that there is no God at all? In short, Marcus Tullius relates that it was said by Posidonius, that Epicurus understood that there were no gods, but that he said those things which he spoke respecting the gods for the sake of driving away odium; and so that he leaves the gods in words, but takes them away in reality, since he gives them no motion, no office. But if this is so, what can be more deceitful than him? And this ought to be foreign to the character of a wise and weighty man. But if he understood one thing and spoke another, what else is he to be called than a deceiver, double-tongued, wicked, and moreover foolish? But Epicurus was not so crafty as to say those things with the desire of deceiving, when he consigned these things also by his writings to everlasting remembrance; but he erred through ignorance of the truth. For, being led from the beginning by the probability of a single opinion, he necessarily fell into those things which followed. For the first opinion was, that anger was not consistent with the character of God. And when this appeared to him to be true and unassailable, he was unable to refuse the consequences; because one affection being removed, necessity itself compelled him to remove from God the other affections also. Thus, he who is not subject to anger is plainly uninfluenced by kindness, which is the opposite feeling to anger. Now, if there is neither anger nor kindness in Him, it is manifest that there is neither fear, nor joy, nor grief, nor pity. For all the affections have one system, one motion, which cannot be the case with God. But if there is no affection in God, because whatever is subject to affections is weak, it follows that there is in Him neither the care of anything, nor providence. The disputation of the wise man extends thus far: he was silent as to the other things which follow; namely, that because there is in Him neither care nor providence, therefore there is no reflection nor any perception in Him, by which it

146

DO C UMENTS O F THE RISE O F C HRISTIANITY

is effected that He has no existence at all. Thus, when he had gradually descended, he remained on the last step, because he now saw the precipice. But what does it avail to have remained silent, and concealed the danger? Necessity compelled him even against his will to fall. For he said that which he did not mean, because he so arranged his argument that he necessarily came to that point which he wished to avoid. You see, therefore, to what point he comes, when anger is removed and taken away from God. In short, either no one believes that, or a very few, and they the guilty and the wicked, who hope for impunity for their sins. But if this also is found to be false, that there is neither anger nor kindness in God, let us come to that which is put in the third place.

Chapter 5 The Stoics and some others are supposed to have entertained much better sentiments respecting the divine nature, who say that there is kindness in God, but not anger. A very pleasing and popular speech, that God is not subject to such littleness of mind as to imagine that He is injured by any one, since it is impossible for Him to be injured; so that that serene and holy majesty is excited, disturbed, and maddened, which is the part of human frailty. For they say that anger is a commotion and perturbation of the mind, which is inconsistent with God. Since, when it falls upon the mind of any one, as a violent tempest it excites such waves that it changes the condition of the mind, the eyes gleam, the countenance trembles, the tongue stammers, the teeth chatter, the countenance is alternately stained now with redness spread over it, now with white paleness. But if anger is unbecoming to a man, provided he be of wisdom and authority, how much more is so foul a change unbecoming to God! And if man, when he has authority and power, inflicts widespread injury through anger, sheds blood, overthrows cities, destroys communities, reduces provinces to desolation, how much more is it to be believed that God, since He has power over the whole human race, and over the universe itself, would have been about to destroy all things if He were angry. Therefore they think that so great and so pernicious an evil ought to be absent from Him. And if anger and excitement are absent from Him, because it is disfiguring and injurious, and He inflicts injury on no one, they think that nothing else remains, except that He is mild, calm, propitious, beneficent, the preserver. For thus at length He may be called the common Father of all, and the best and greatest, which His divine and heavenly nature demands. For if among men it appears praiseworthy to do good rather than to injure, to restore to life rather than to kill, to save rather than to destroy, and innocence is not undeservedly numbered among the virtue—and he who does these things is loved, esteemed, honored, and celebrated with all blessings and vows—in short, on account of his deserts and benefits is judged to be most like to God; how much more right is it that God Himself, who excels in divine and perfect virtues, and who is removed from all earthly taint, should conciliate the whole race of man by divine and heavenly benefits!



F o u r t h C e n t u r y 147

Those things are spoken speciously and in a popular manner, and they allure many to believe them, but they who entertain these sentiments approach nearer indeed to the truth, but they partly fail, not sufficiently considering the nature of the case. For if God is not angry with the impious and the unrighteous, it is clear that He does not love the pious and the righteous. Therefore the error of those is more consistent who take away at once both anger and kindness. For in opposite matters it is necessary to be moved to both sides or to neither. Thus, he who loves the good also hates the wicked, and he who does not hate the wicked does not love the good; because the loving of the good arises from the hatred of the wicked, and the hating of the wicked has its rise from the love of the good. There is no one who loves life without a hatred of death, nor who is desirous of light, but he who avoids darkness. These things are so connected by nature, that the one cannot exist without the other. If any master has in his household a good and a bad servant, it is evident that he does not hate them both, or confer upon both benefits and honors; for if he does this, he is both unjust and foolish. But he addresses the one who is good with friendly words, and honors him and sets him over his house and household, and all his affairs, but punishes the bad one with reproaches, with stripes, with nakedness, with hunger, with thirst, with fetters: so that the latter may be an example to others to keep them from sinning, and the former to conciliate them; so that fear may restrain some, and honor may excite others. He, therefore, who loves also hates, and he who hates also loves; for there are those who ought to be loved, and there are those who ought to be hated. And as he who loves confers good things on those whom he loves, so he who hates inflicts evils upon those whom he hates; which argument, because it is true, can in no way be refuted. Therefore the opinion of those is vain and false, who, when they attribute the one to God, take away the other, not less than the opinion of those who take away both. But the latter, as we have shown, in part do not err, but retain that which is the better of the two; whereas the former, led on by the accurate method of their reasoning, fall into the greatest error, because they have assumed premises which are altogether false. For they ought not to have reasoned thus: Because God is not liable to anger, therefore He is not moved by kindness; but in this manner: Because God is moved by kindness, therefore He is also liable to anger. For if it had been certain and undoubted that God is not liable to anger, then the other point would necessarily be arrived at. But since the question as to whether God is angry is more open to doubt, while it is almost perfectly plain that He is kind, it is absurd to wish to subvert that which is certain by means of an uncertainty, since it is easier to confirm uncertain things by means of those which are certain. . . .

Chapter 16 Some one will ask what this substance is. First of all, when evils befall them, men in their dejected state for the most part have recourse to God: they appease and entreat Him, believing that He is able to repel injuries from them. He has therefore

148

DO C UMENTS O F THE RISE O F C HRISTIANITY

an occasion of exercising pity; for He is not so unmerciful and a despiser of men as to refuse aid to those who are in distress. Very many, also, who are persuaded that justice is pleasing to God, both worship Him who is Lord and Parent of all, and with continual prayers and repeated vows offer gifts and sacrifices, follow up His name with praises, striving to gain His favor by just and good works. There is therefore a reason, on account of which God may and ought to favor them. For if there is nothing so befitting God as beneficence, and nothing so unsuited to His character as to be ungrateful, it is necessary that He should make some return for the services of those who are excellent, and who lead a holy life, that He may not be liable to the charge of ingratitude which is worthy of blame even in the case of a man. But, on the contrary, others are daring and wicked, who pollute all things with their lusts, harass with slaughters, practice fraud, plunder, commit perjury, neither spare relatives nor parents, neglect the laws, and even God Himself. Anger, therefore, has a befitting occasion in God. For it is not right that, when He sees such things, He should not be moved, and arise to take vengeance upon the wicked, and destroy the pestilent and guilty, so as to promote the interests of all good men. Thus even in anger itself there is also contained a showing of kindness. Therefore the arguments are found to be empty and false, either of those who, when they will not admit that God is angry, will have it that He shows kindness, because this, indeed, cannot take place without anger; or of those who think that there is no emotion of the mind in God. And because there are some affections to which God is not liable, as desire, fear, avarice, grief, and envy, they have said that He is entirely free from all affection. For He is not liable to these, because they are vicious affections, but as to those which belong to virtue—that is, anger towards the wicked, regard towards the good, pity towards the afflicted—inasmuch as they are worthy of the divine power, He has affections of His own, both just and true. And if He is not possessed of them, the life of man will be thrown into confusion, and the condition of things will come to such disturbance that the laws will be despised and overpowered, and audacity alone reign, so that no one can at length be in safety unless he who excels in strength. Thus all the earth will be laid waste, as it were, by a common robbery. But now, since the wicked expect punishment, and the good hope for favor, and the afflicted look for aid, there is place for virtues, and crimes are more rare. But it is said, often times the wicked are more prosperous, and the good more wretched, and the just are harassed with impunity by the unjust. We will hereafter consider why these things happen. In the meantime let us explain respecting anger, whether there be any in God; whether He takes no notice at all, and is unmoved at those things which are done with impiety. Source: Schaff, Philip. Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 7. A. Cleveland Coxe, ed. New York: Christian Literature Company, 1885.

Further Reading Barnes, T. D. “Appendix A: The Career of Lactantius.” In Constantine; Dynasty, Religion, and Power in the Later Roman Empire, 176–178. West Sussex, UK: Wiley Blackwell, 2007.



F o u r t h C e n t u r y 149

Cain, Andrew. “Gregory of Elvira, Lactantius, and the Reception of the De ira Dei.” Vigiliae Christianae 64, no. 2 (2010): 109–114. Digeser, Elizabeth D. The Making of a Christian Empire: Lactantius and Rome. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2000. Fisher, Arthur L. “Lactantius’ Ideas Relating Christian Truth and Christian Society.” Journal of the History of Ideas 43, no. 3 (July–September 1982): 355–377. Hallman, Joseph M. “The Emotions of God in the Theology of St. Augustine.” Recherches de théologie ancienne et médiévale 51 (1984): 5–19. Hallman, Joseph M. “The Mutability of God: Tertullian to Lactantius.” Theological Studies 42, no. 3 (September 1981): 373–393. Mackay, Christopher S. “Lactantius and the Succession to Diocletian.” Classical Philology 94, no. 2 (April 1999): 198–209. Penwill, John. “Does God Care? Lactantius v. Epicurus in the De Ira Dei.” Sophia 43, no. 1 (May 2004): 23–43. Pinckaers, Servais. “Anger and Virtue.” In Passions and Virtue, 74–88. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2015. Stevenson, J. “The Life and Literary Activity of Lactantius.” Studia Patristica I (1957): 661–677.

Document 33 LACTANTIUS, ON THE DEATHS OF THE PERSECUTORS, 1–4, 7 Lactantius, probably born in the 250s and died in the middle of the 320s CE, was, like Eusebius of Caesarea, very interested in the history of the persecution of Christians. Lactantius was a Christian convert in adulthood. It isn’t known why he converted to Christianity, but soon after (especially after he lost his position as rhetor of Latin in Nicomedia in the Diocletianic Persecution), he became a staunch defender of it. He was an author of many texts, but his most famous one is On the Deaths of the Persecutors. It was written for his friend Donatus who was persecuted multiple times under Diocletian. One of the main reasons that he was interested in this theme is also very similar to that of Eusebius—the rise of Constantine led to the stopping of the persecution. Lactantius also saw the hand of God in stopping the various persecutions that occurred before the time of Constantine. If anything, he relished the idea that the persecutors were punished by God for their behavior (which can be seen in his On the Anger of God). This is not surprising, considering the treatment Donatus received and the fact that he lost his lucrative position just because he was Christian. The text was started sometime after the official persecution ended and was finished sometime around 314 or 315 CE. He made it clear at the beginning of the book that it was written to show that the vengeance of God happened not only to those who persecuted Christians but will also occur to anyone who persecute Christians in the future. The narrative follows a similar structure—Lactantius talked about the specific persecutions and went into detail about the punishments given by God on those who persecuted. For example, Emperor Nero is discussed first. Lactantius stated that Peter performed miracles and gained many converts in Rome. Nero found out about this and killed both Peter and Paul. God then saw

150

DO C UMENTS O F THE RISE O F C HRISTIANITY

fit to have Nero disappear, and even in the time of Lactantius, no one knew where he was buried. In essence, Lactantius is stating that Nero has been wiped from memory. The same story is told about Emperor Domitian—he is killed in his palace and then the Roman Senate proceeded to attempt to erase his name and statues. Decian is killed by the barbarians and his body eaten by wild animals and so on. The last excerpt given (Chapter 7) talks about Diocletian, his former patron, and what Diocletian did to the empire.

On the Deaths of the Persecutors Chapter 1 The Lord has heard those supplications which you, my best beloved Donatus, pour forth in His presence all the day long, and the supplications of the rest of our brethren, who by a glorious confession have obtained an everlasting crown, the reward of their faith. Behold, all the adversaries are destroyed, and tranquility having been re-established throughout the Roman empire, the late oppressed Church arises again, and the temple of God, overthrown by the hands of the wicked, is built with more glory than before. For God has raised up princes to rescind the impious and sanguinary edicts of the tyrants and provide for the welfare of mankind; so that now the cloud of past times is dispelled, and peace and serenity gladden all hearts. And after the furious whirlwind and black tempest, the heavens are now become calm, and the wished-for light has shone forth; and now God, the hearer of prayer, by His divine aid has lifted His prostrate and afflicted servants from the ground, has brought to an end the united devices of the wicked, and wiped off the tears from the faces of those who mourned. They who insulted over the Divinity, lie low; they who cast down the holy temple, are fallen with more tremendous ruin; and the tormentors of just men have poured out their guilty souls amidst plagues inflicted by Heaven, and amidst deserved tortures. For God delayed to punish them, that, by great and marvelous examples, He might teach posterity that He alone is God, and that with fit vengeance He executes judgment on the proud, the impious, and the persecutors. Of the end of those men I have thought good to publish a narrative, that all who are afar off, and all who shall arise hereafter, may learn how the Almighty manifested His power and sovereign greatness in rooting out and utterly destroying the enemies of His name. And this will become evident, when I relate who were the persecutors of the Church from the time of its first constitution, and what were the punishments by which the divine Judge, in His severity, took vengeance on them.

Chapter 2 In the latter days of the Emperor Tiberius, in the consulship of Ruberius Geminus and Fufius Geminus, and on the tenth of the kalends of April, as I find it written, Jesus Christ was crucified by the Jews. After He had risen again on the third day,



F o u r t h C e n t u r y 151

He gathered together His apostles, whom fear, at the time of His being laid hold on, had put to flight; and while He sojourned with them forty days, He opened their hearts, interpreted to them the Scripture, which hitherto had been wrapped up in obscurity, ordained and fitted them for the preaching of His word and doctrine, and regulated all things concerning the institutions of the New Testament; and this having been accomplished, a cloud and whirlwind enveloped Him, and caught Him up from the sight of men unto heaven. His apostles were at that time eleven in number, to whom were added Matthias, in the room of the traitor Judas, and afterwards Paul. Then were they dispersed throughout all the earth to preach the Gospel, as the Lord their Master had commanded them; and during twenty-five years, and until the beginning of the reign of the Emperor Nero, they occupied themselves in laying the foundations of the Church in every province and city. And while Nero reigned, the Apostle Peter came to Rome, and, through the power of God committed unto him, wrought certain miracles, and, by turning many to the true religion, built up a faithful and steadfast temple unto the Lord. When Nero heard of those things, and observed that not only in Rome, but in every other place, a great multitude revolted daily from the worship of idols, and, condemning their old ways, went over to the new religion, he, an execrable and pernicious tyrant, sprung forward to raze the heavenly temple and destroy the true faith. He it was who first persecuted the servants of God; he crucified Peter, and slew Paul: nor did he escape with impunity, for God looked on the affliction of His people; and therefore the tyrant, bereaved of authority, and precipitated from the height of empire, suddenly disappeared, and even the burial-place of that noxious wild beast was nowhere to be seen. This has led some persons of extravagant imagination to suppose that, having been conveyed to a distant region, he is still reserved alive; and to him they apply the Sibylline verses concerning “The fugitive, who slew his own mother, being to come from the uttermost boundaries of the earth;” as if he who was the first should also be the last persecutor, and thus prove the forerunner of Antichrist! But we ought not to believe those who, affirming that the two prophets Enoch and Elias have been translated into some remote place that they might attend our Lord when He shall come to judgment, also fancy that Nero is to appear hereafter as the forerunner of the devil, when he shall come to lay waste the earth and overthrow mankind.

Chapter 3 After an interval of some years from the death of Nero, there arose another tyrant no less wicked (Domitian), who, although his government was exceedingly odious, for a very long time oppressed his subjects, and reigned in security, until at length he stretched forth his impious hands against the Lord. Having been instigated by evil demons to persecute the righteous people, he was then delivered into the power of his enemies and suffered due punishment. To be murdered in his own palace was not vengeance ample enough: the very memory of his name

152

DO C UMENTS O F THE RISE O F C HRISTIANITY

was erased. For although he had erected many admirable edifices, and rebuilt the Capitol, and left other distinguished marks of his magnificence, yet the senate did so persecute his name, as to leave no remains of his statues, or traces of the inscriptions put up in honor of him; and by most solemn and severe decrees it branded him, even after death, with perpetual infamy. Thus, the commands of the tyrant having been rescinded, the Church was not only restored to her former state, but she shone forth with additional splendor, and became more and more flourishing. And in the times that followed, while many well-deserving princes guided the helm of the Roman empire, the Church suffered no violent assaults from her enemies, and she extended her hands unto the east and unto the west, insomuch that now there was not any the most remote corner of the earth to which the divine religion had not penetrated, or any nation of manners so barbarous that did not, by being converted to the worship of God, become mild and gentle.

Chapter 4 This long peace, however, was afterwards interrupted. Decius appeared in the world, an accursed wild beast, to afflict the Church—and who but a bad man would persecute religion? It seems as if he had been raised to sovereign eminence, at once to rage against God, and at once to fall; for, having undertaken an expedition against the Carpi, who had then possessed themselves of Dacia and Moefia, he was suddenly surrounded by the barbarians, and slain, together with great part of his army; nor could he be honored with the rites of sepulture, but, stripped and naked, he lay to be devoured by wild beasts and birds—a fit end for the enemy of God.

Chapter 7 While Diocletian, that author of ill, and deviser of misery, was ruining all things, he could not withhold his insults, not even against God. This man, by avarice partly, and partly by timid counsels, overturned the Roman empire. For he made choice of three persons to share the government with him; and thus, the empire having been quartered, armies were multiplied, and each of the four princes strove to maintain a much more considerable military force than any sole emperor had done in times past. There began to be fewer men who paid taxes than there were who received wages; so that the means of the husbandmen being exhausted by enormous impositions, the farms were abandoned, cultivated grounds became woodland, and universal dismay prevailed. Besides, the provinces were divided into minute portions, and many presidents and a multitude of inferior officers lay heavy on each territory, and almost on each city. There were also many stewards of different degrees, and deputies of presidents. Very few civil causes came before them: but there were condemnations daily, and forfeitures frequently inflicted; taxes on numberless commodities, and those not only often repeated,



F o u r t h C e n t u r y 153

but perpetual, and, in exacting them, intolerable wrongs. Whatever was laid on for the maintenance of the soldiery might have been endured; but Diocletian, through his insatiable avarice, would never allow the sums of money in his treasury to be diminished: he was constantly heaping together extraordinary aids and free gifts, that his original hoards might remain untouched and inviolable. He also, when by various extortions he had made all things exceedingly dear, attempted by an ordinance to limit their prices. Then much blood was shed for the veriest trifles; men were afraid to expose aught to sale, and the scarcity became more excessive and grievous than ever, until, in the end, the ordinance, after having proved destructive to multitudes, was from mere necessity abrogated. To this there were added a certain endless passion for building, and on that account, endless exactions from the provinces for furnishing wages to laborers and artificers and supplying carriages and whatever else was requisite to the works which he projected. Here public halls, there a circus, here a mint, and there a workhouse for making implements of war; in one place a habitation for his empress, and in another for his daughter. Presently great part of the city was quitted, and all men removed with their wives and children, as from a town taken by enemies; and when those buildings were completed, to the destruction of whole provinces, he said, “They are not right, let them be done on another plan.” Then they were to be pulled down, or altered, to undergo perhaps a future demolition. By such folly was he continually endeavoring to equal Nicomedia with the city Rome in magnificence. I omit mentioning how many perished on account of their possessions or wealth; for such evils were exceedingly frequent, and through their frequency appeared almost lawful. But this was peculiar to him, that whenever he saw a field remarkably well cultivated, or a house of uncommon elegance, a false accusation and a capital punishment were straightway prepared against the proprietor; so that it seemed as if Diocletian could not be guilty of rapine without also shedding blood. Source: Schaff, Philip. Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 7. A. Cleveland Coxe, ed. New York: Christian Literature Company, 1885.

Further Reading Adams, J. N., and P. M. Brennan. “The Text at Lactantius, De Mortibus Persecutorum 44.2 and Some Epigraphic Evidence for Italian Recruits.” Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik Bd. 84 (1990): 183–186. Barnes, T. D. “Lactantius and Constantine.” Journal of Roman Studies 63 (1973): 29–46. Canfield, Leon H. The Early Persecutions of the Christians. New York: AMS Press, 1968. Christensen, Arne S. Lactantius the Historian: An Analysis of the De Mortibus Persecutorum. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press, 1980. Digeser, Elizabeth D. “Lactantius, Porphyry, and the Debate over Religious Toleration.” Journal of Roman Studies 88 (1998): 129–146. Digeser, Elizabeth D. A Threat to Public Piety: Christians, Platonists, and the Great Persecution. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2016. Frend, W. H. C. Martyrdom and Persecution in the Early Church. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock Publishers, 2014. First published 1965.

154

DO C UMENTS O F THE RISE O F C HRISTIANITY

Gaddis, Michael. There Is No Crime for Those Who Have Christ: Religious Violence in the Christian Roman Empire. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2005. Lane Fox, R. Pagans and Christians. New York: Knopf, 1986. Moss, Candida R. Ancient Christian Martyrdom: Diverse Practices, Theologies, and Traditions. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2012.

Document 34 EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA, CHURCH HISTORY, BOOK 10.1–3 AND 10.9 The following excerpt is the last part of Eusebius’s massive Church History. As stated previously, it was the first church history written. It was fitting that Eusebius ended his book with the rise of Emperor Constantine, the first Christian emperor. Eusebius knew the emperor and also wrote two books on him, called Life of Constantine and Oration in Praise of Constantine. These are essentially panegyrics or speeches of praise. It is no surprise that Eusebius would love Constantine—after all, he is the emperor to openly support Christianity and to make it legal for the Christians to openly practice without fear of persecution. Constantine, single-handedly, tipped the scales in favor of the Christians over those who practiced the traditional form of Roman religion. In the process, Constantine also stopped the persecution that personally affected Eusebius. It doesn’t appear that Eusebius originally planned out a tenth book as he states in the following excerpt that his friend Paulinus urged him to add one more (and also stating that completing it with ten books instead of nine would make it more perfect). He admits that the previous sections contained doom and gloom with all the persecutions that the Christians had endured and it was fitting that his History ended on a high note. For Eusebius, it was not all that surprising that the persecution had ended as he gives several scriptural quotes that, to him, indicate that it would have happened. For example, he cites Psalms 37:35–36: “I have seen the impious highly exalted and raising himself like the cedars of Lebanon and I have passed by, and behold, he was not and I have sought his place, and it could not be found.” As he states, this verse has been fulfilled during the time of Constantine. It must have been a great release for the Christians who were now free from those who kept them from worshipping their god. Eusebius was certainly overjoyed at both Constantine and his son Crispus (who, despite being glorified as “a most God-beloved prince,” was later put to death by Constantine). Eusebius refers to Emperor Licinius, who was the emperor in the East. After the persecution was over, he and Constantine got together in Milan to formally end that period, but both of them did not get along. Eusebius states that Licinius then started to persecute the Christians and ultimately Constantine and Licinius fought. In the end Constantine was the victor, and then he became the sole emperor over the entire Roman Empire. That being said, the reader should take great care in deciding whether or not to wholesale believe everything that Eusebius wrote (which is always dangerous in reading any historical document!). Many scholars have questions his integrity and his motive in



F o u r t h C e n t u r y 155

writing the Church History (see Hollerich 1990, 309). It is thought that he was so enamored with Constantine that his judgment as a scholar or historian was threatened—it is pretty clear from his writings that Constantine was his hero. Some scholars (like Hollerich, Grant, and Barnes) have sought to re-evaluate the writings of Eusebius and have come to the conclusion that too much scholarship has focused solely on his Church History and panegyrics of Constantine and not enough on all of his other writings. They have all come to similar conclusions—Eusebius was a good scholar and his reputation has been skewed because of the overemphasis on his writings about Constantine.

Chapter 10 Chapter I 1. Thanks for all things be given unto God the Omnipotent Ruler and King of the universe, and the greatest thanks to Jesus Christ the Savior and Redeemer of our souls, through whom we pray that peace may be always preserved for us firm and undisturbed by external troubles and by troubles of the mind. 2. Since in accordance with your wishes, my most holy Paulinus, we have added the tenth book of the Church History to those which have preceded, we will inscribe it to you, proclaiming you as the seal of the whole work, and we will fitly add in a perfect number the perfect panegyric upon the restoration of the churches, obeying the Divine Spirit which exhorts us in the following words: 3. “Sing unto the Lord a new song, for he has done marvelous things. His right hand and his holy arm saved him. The Lord made known his salvation, his righteousness he revealed in the presence of the nations.” 4. And in accordance with the utterance which commands us to sing the new song, let us proceed to show that, after those terrible and gloomy spectacles which we have described, we are now permitted to see and celebrate such things as many truly righteous men and martyrs of God before us desired to see upon earth and did not see, and to hear and did not hear. 5. But they, hurrying on, obtained far better things, being carried to heaven and the paradise of divine pleasure. But, acknowledging that even these things are greater than we deserve, we have been astonished at the grace manifested by the author of the great gifts, and rightly do we admire him, worshipping him with the whole power of our souls, and testifying to the truth of those recorded utterances, in which it is said, “Come and see the works of the Lord, the wonders which he has done upon the earth; he removes wars to the ends of the world, he shall break the bow and snap the spear in two, and shall burn the shields with fire.” 6. Rejoicing in these things which have been clearly fulfilled in our day, let us proceed with our account. 7. The whole race of God’s enemies was destroyed in the manner indicated, and was thus suddenly swept from the sight of men. So that again a divine utterance had its fulfillment: “I have seen the impious highly exalted and raising himself like the cedars of Lebanon and I have passed by, and behold, he was not, and I have sought his place, and it could not be found.” 8. And finally a bright and splendid day, overshadowed by no cloud, illuminated with beams of heavenly light the churches of Christ throughout the entire world. And not even those without our communion were prevented from sharing in the same blessings, or at least from coming under their influence and enjoying a part of the benefits bestowed upon us by God.

156

DO C UMENTS O F THE RISE O F C HRISTIANITY

Chapter 2 1. All men, then, were freed from the oppression of the tyrants, and being released from the former ills, one in one way and another in another acknowledged the defender of the pious to be the only true God. And we especially who placed our hopes in the Christ of God had unspeakable gladness and a certain inspired joy bloomed for all of us, when we saw every place which shortly before had been desolated by the impieties of the tyrants reviving as if from a long and deathfraught pestilence, and temples again rising from their foundations to an immense height, and receiving a splendor far greater than that of the old ones which had been destroyed. 2. But the supreme rulers also confirmed to us still more extensively the munificence of God by repeated ordinances in behalf of the Christians; and personal letters of the emperor were sent to the bishops, with honors and gifts of money. It may not be unfitting to insert these documents, translated from the Roman into the Greek tongue, at the proper place in this book, as in a sacred tablet, that they may remain as a memorial to all who shall come after us.

Chapter 3 1. After this was seen the sight which had been desired and prayed for by us all—feasts of dedication in the cities and consecrations of the newly built houses of prayer took place, bishops assembled, foreigners came together from abroad, mutual love was exhibited between people and people, the members of Christ’s body were united in complete harmony. 2. Then was fulfilled the prophetic utterance which mystically foretold what was to take place: “Bone to bone and joint to joint,” and whatever was truly announced in enigmatic expressions in the inspired passage. 3. And there was one energy of the Divine Spirit pervading all the members, and one soul in all, and the same eagerness of faith, and one hymn from all in praise of the Deity. Yes, and perfect services were conducted by the prelates, the sacred rites being solemnized, and the majestic institutions of the Church observed, here with the singing of psalms and with the reading of the words committed to us by God, and there with the performance of divine and mystic services and the mysterious symbols of the Savior’s passion were dispensed. 4. At the same time people of every age, both male and female, with all the power of the mind gave honor to God, the author of their benefits, in prayers and thanksgiving, with a joyful mind and soul. And every one of the bishops present, each to the best of his ability, delivered panegyric orations, adding luster to the assembly.

. . .

Chapter 9 1. To him, therefore, God granted, from heaven above, the deserved fruit of piety, the trophies of victory over the impious, and he cast the guilty one with all his counselors and friends prostrate at the feet of Constantine. 2. For when Licinius carried his madness to the last extreme, the emperor, the friend of God, thinking that he ought no longer to be tolerated, acting upon the basis of sound judgment, and mingling the firm principles of justice with humanity, gladly determined to come to



F o u r t h C e n t u r y 157

the protection of those who were oppressed by the tyrant, and undertook, by putting a few destroyers out of the way, to save the greater part of the human race. 3. For when he had formerly exercised humanity alone and had shown mercy to him who was not worthy of sympathy, nothing was accomplished; for Licinius did not renounce his wickedness, but rather increased his fury against the peoples that were subject to him, and there was left to the afflicted no hope of salvation, oppressed as they were by a savage beast. 4. Wherefore, the protector of the virtuous, mingling hatred for evil with love for good, went forth with his son Crispus, a most beneficent prince, and extended a saving right hand to all that were perishing. Both of them, father and son, under the protection, as it were, of God, the universal King, with the Son of God, the Savior of all, as their leader and ally, drew up their forces on all sides against the enemies of the Deity and won an easy victory—God having prospered them in the battle in all respects according to their wish. 5. Thus, suddenly, and sooner than can be told, those who yesterday and the day before breathed death and threatening were no more, and not even their names were remembered, but their inscriptions and their honors suffered the merited disgrace. And the things which Licinius with his own eyes had seen come upon the former impious tyrants he himself likewise suffered, because he did not receive instruction nor learn wisdom from the chastisements of his neighbors but followed the same path of impiety which they had walked and was justly hurled over the same precipice. Thus he lay prostrate. 6. But Constantine, the mightiest victor, adorned with every virtue of piety, together with his son Crispus, a most God-beloved prince, and in all respects like his father, recovered the East which belonged to them, and they formed one united Roman empire as of old, bringing under their peaceful sway the whole world from the rising of the sun to the opposite quarter, both north and south, even to the extremities of the declining day. 7. All fear therefore of those who had formerly afflicted them was taken away from men, and they celebrated splendid and festive days. Everything was filled with light, and those who before were downcast beheld each other with smiling faces and beaming eyes. With dances and hymns, in city and country, they glorified first of all God the universal King, because they had been thus taught, and then the pious emperor with his God-beloved children. 8. There was oblivion of past evils and forgetfulness of every deed of impiety; there was enjoyment of present benefits and expectation of those yet to come. Edicts full of clemency and laws containing tokens of benevolence and true piety were issued in every place by the victorious emperor. 9. Thus after all tyranny had been purged away, the empire which belonged to them was preserved firm and without a rival for Constantine and his sons alone. And having obliterated the godlessness of their predecessors, recognizing the benefits conferred upon them by God, they exhibited their love of virtue and their love of God, and their piety and gratitude to the Deity, by the deeds which they performed in the sight of all men. The end, with God’s help, of the Tenth Book of the Church History of Eusebius Pamphili.

Source: Wace, Henry, and Philip Schaff. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series II, Vol. I. Grand Rapids, MI: WM. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1886.

Further Reading Burgess, R. “The Dates and Editions of Eusebius’ Chronici Canones and Historia Ecclesiastica.” Journal of Theological Studies 48, no. 2 (October 1997): 471–504.

158

DO C UMENTS O F THE RISE O F C HRISTIANITY

Cranz, F. Edward. “Kingdom and Polity in Eusebius of Caesarea.” Harvard Theological Review 45, no. 1 (January 1952): 47–66. Grafton, Anthony, and Megan Williams. Christianity and the Transformation of the Book: Origen, Eusebius, and the Library of Caesarea. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2006. Hollerich, Michael J. “Religion and Politics in the Writings of Eusebius: Reassessing the First ‘Court Theologian.’ ” Church History 59, no. 3 (September 1990): 309–325. Inowlocki, Sabrina, and Claudio Zamagni, eds. Reconsidering Eusebius: Collected Papers on Literary, Historical, and Theological Issues. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill, 2001. Tabbernee, William. “Eusebius’ ‘Theology of Persecution’: As Seen in the Various Editions of His Church History.” Journal of Early Christian Studies 5, no. 3 (1997): 319–334.

Document 35 CONSTANTINE ON THE DONATISTS, TAKEN FROM EUSEBIUS, CHURCH HISTORY, 10.5.18–24 AND OPTATUS OF MILEVIUS, ON THE SCHISM OF THE DONATISTS, APPENDIX 3 AND 9 North Africa in the fourth century was a hotbed of Christian religious dissent. The century began with the Great Persecution of the Christians by Emperor Diocletian. The persecution stopped with the rise of Licinius and, in particular, Constantine. The Edict of Milan stated that Christians could now practice their religion, along with everyone else. Christianity, however, was never monolithic, meaning it never had one particular form of belief that all Christians followed. From the beginnings of Christianity, it is clear that Christians argued over theology (nowhere more clearer than in the writings of Paul). Once the Diocletian persecution ended, there were some bishops in North Africa (and in other places of the Roman Empire) who had, in order to save themselves from torture and death, cursed Christ and/or brought the Bible to be burned by the Romans. After the persecution ended, these bishops wanted back into their full bishoprics. Some lay Christians, and the bishops who did not apostatize during the persecution believed that the other bishops were no longer Christian, let alone bishops of the church. This debate, called the Donatist controversy after a priest named Donatus, erupted primarily in North Africa and remained a flashpoint until the early fifth century. The Donatists believed in a pure church, meaning that bishops could not be bishops if they cursed Christ or did something else against the beliefs of the church during the persecution. Some of these “apostatizing” bishops were taking back their old positions and continued baptizing both lay people and creating new bishops with the laying on of hands. The Donatists were horrified at this “false baptism” and creating “false” bishops. They refused to recognize them and those they elevated. This essentially created two churches in North Africa—those who allowed apostatized bishops to retake their positions with full authority and the Donatist church that refused to have anything to do with anyone who cursed Christ during the persecution. This controversy was one of the earliest issues that the new emperor Constantine had to deal with. There are several letters written by Constantine that show his effort



F o u r t h C e n t u r y 159

at trying to bring the two groups together. His letters show an exasperation with the two sides (and, in particular, the Donatists) when they stubbornly refused to go with his advice, especially after a number of church councils found against their position. After trying his best, Emperor Constantine decided to grant them toleration (in either 321 or 322 CE) when he realized that force was not going to change anything. The Donatist controversy did not end there. Later Emperor Julian recalled any exiled Donatist bishops (causing further problems for the Christian communities in North Africa), and much later, in the early 400s, they were forced back into the church on the pain of death. There are four letters of Emperor Constantine given next. The first is dated to 313 CE when Constantine tried desperately to get the two sides talking. He ordered the Donatist and Catholic sides to show up in Rome in order that both sides be heard before a council. The second one did the same thing, except this time both sides are ordered to show up for a larger council in Arles (after the Donatists refused to abide by the early 313 CE meeting). Both letters are found in the Church History, written by Eusebius of Caesarea. The third letter was sent in 314 after the council in Arles met and found the Donatists guilty. They still did not accept the findings of the church council. This letter was preserved by Optatus of Milevus. The last letter, also preserved by Optatus, was written in 321 and shows that Constantine was in effect giving up. The Donatists were extremely stubborn, and the emperor granted them toleration. Constantine had hoped that the toleration would convince some of them that the Catholic side was correct, and he hoped that time would heal the wounds created by these two groups.

Eusebius, Church History, 10.5.18–20 18. “Constantine Augustus to Miltiades, bishop of Rome, and to Marcus. Since many such communications have been sent to me by Anulinus, the most illustrious proconsul of Africa, in which it is said that Caecilianus, bishop of the city of Carthage, has been accused by some of his colleagues in Africa, in many matters. And since it seems to me a very serious thing that in those provinces which Divine Providence has freely entrusted to my devotedness, and in which there is a great population, the multitude are found following the baser course, and dividing, as it were, into two parties, and the bishops are at variance—19. It has seemed good to me that Caecilianus himself, with ten of the bishops that appear to accuse him, and with ten others whom he may consider necessary for his defense, should sail to Rome, that there, in the presence of yourselves and of Retecius and Maternus and Marinus, your colleagues, whom I have commanded to hasten to Rome for this purpose, he may be heard, as you may understand to be in accordance with the most holy law. 20. But in order that you may be enabled to have most perfect knowledge of all these things, I have subjoined to my letter copies of the documents sent to me by Anulinus and have sent them to your above-mentioned colleagues. When your firmness has read these, you will consider in what way the above-mentioned case may be most accurately investigated and justly decided. For it does not escape your diligence that I have such reverence for the legitimate Catholic Church that I do not wish you to leave schism or division in any place. May the divinity of the great God preserve you, most honored sirs, for many years.”

160

DO C UMENTS O F THE RISE O F C HRISTIANITY

Eusebius, Church History, 10.5.21–24 21. “Constantine Augustus to Chrestus, bishop of Syracuse. When some began wickedly and perversely to disagree among themselves in regard to the holy worship and celestial power and Catholic doctrine, wishing to put an end to such disputes among them, I formerly gave command that certain bishops should be sent from Gaul, and that the opposing parties who were contending persistently and incessantly with each other, should be summoned from Africa and that in their presence, and in the presence of the bishop of Rome, the matter which appeared to be causing the disturbance might be examined and decided with all care. 22. But since, as it happens, some, forgetful both of their own salvation and of the reverence due to the most holy religion, do not even yet bring hostilities to an end, and are unwilling to conform to the judgment already passed, and assert that those who expressed their opinions and decisions were few, or that they had been too hasty and precipitate in giving judgment, before all the things which ought to have been accurately investigated had been examined—on account of all this it has happened that those very ones who ought to hold brotherly and harmonious relations toward each other, are shamefully, or rather abominably, divided among themselves, and give occasion for ridicule to those men whose souls are aliens to this most holy religion. Wherefore it has seemed necessary to me to provide that this dissension, which ought to have ceased after the judgment had been already given by their own voluntary agreement, should now, if possible, be brought to an end by the presence of many. 23. Since, therefore, we have commanded a number of bishops from a great many different places to assemble in the city of Arles, before the kalends of August, we have thought proper to write to you also that you should secure from the most illustrious Latronianus, corrector of Sicily, a public vehicle, and that you should take with you two others of the second rank, whom you yourself shall choose, together with three servants who may serve you on the way, and take yourself to the above-mentioned place before the appointed day; that by your firmness and by the wise unanimity and harmony of the others present, this dispute, which has disgracefully continued until the present time, in consequence of certain shameful strifes, after all has been heard which those have to say who are now at variance with one another, and whom we have likewise commanded to be present, may be settled in accordance with the proper faith, and that brotherly harmony, though it be but gradually, may be restored. 24. May the Almighty God preserve you in health for many years.”

Source: Wace, Henry, and Philip Schaff. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series II, Vol. I. Grand Rapids, MI: WM. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1886.

Optatus of Milevius, On the Schism of the Donatists, Appendix 3, Written in 314 CE Constantine the Emperor to Aelafius Already some time back, since it was brought to my knowledge that many persons in our dominion of Africa had begun to separate from one another with mad fury



F o u r t h C e n t u r y 161

and had brought purposeless accusations against each other about the keeping of the most holy Catholic Law, I thought it well, in order to settle this quarrel, that Caecilian the Bishop of Carthage, against whom especially they all often petitioned me, should go to the City of Rome, and that some of those who had deemed fit to bring certain charges against him, should appear as well. I also ordered some Bishops from the Gauls to proceed to our above-mentioned City of Rome, that, by the integrity of their lives and praiseworthy manner of living, together with seven Bishops of the same Communion, and the Bishop of the City of Rome, and their assessors might give due attention to the questions which had been raised. Now they brought to my knowledge, by the written Acts of their meeting, all that had been done in their presence, affirming also by word of mouth that their judgement was based upon equity, and declaring that not Caecilian, but those who brought charges against him, were guilty—so that, after giving their judgement, they forbade the latter to go back to Africa. Wherefore, in consequence of all this I once hoped that, in accordance with the probable issue of events, a fitting end had been made to all the seditions and contentions of every kind which had been suddenly called into being by the other party. But after I had read your letters, which you had deemed it your duty to send to Nicasius and the rest, about the crafty pretext of these men, I recognized clearly that they would not place before their eyes either considerations of their own salvation, or (what is of more importance) the reverence which is due to Almighty God, for they are persisting in a line of action which not merely leads to their shame and disgrace, but also gives an opportunity of detraction to those who are known to turn their minds away from the keeping of the most holy Catholic Law. I write thus because (and this is a thing which it is well that you should know) some have come from these men, asserting that the abovementioned Caecilian is deemed not to be worthy of the worship of our most holy religion, and in answer to my reply that they were making an empty boast (since the affair had been terminated in the City of Rome by competent men of the highest character, who were Bishops), they thought fit to answer with persistent obstinacy that the whole case had not been heard, but that these Bishops had shut themselves up somewhere and given the judgement as was most convenient to themselves. Wherefore, since I perceived that these numerous and important affairs were being stubbornly delayed by discussions, so that it appeared that no end could be made of them without both Caecilian and three of those who are making a schism against him coming to the town of Arles, for the judgement of those who are opposed to Caecilian, and are bound to accept him as Bishop, I have deemed it well to impose upon your care to provide, as soon as you receive this letter of mine, that the above-mentioned Caecilian with some of those whom he himself shall choose—and also some from the provinces of Byzacium, Tripolis, the Numidias and the Mauritanias, and each of the provinces, (and these must bring a certain number of their clergy whom they shall choose)—and also some of those who have made a schism against Caecilian (public conveyance being provided through Africa and Mauritania) shall travel thence by a short course to Spain. In the same way you shall provide in Spain each Bishop with a single right of conveyance so

162

DO C UMENTS O F THE RISE O F C HRISTIANITY

that they may all arrive at the above-mentioned place by August 1. Furthermore you will be pleased to convey to them without delay that it is their duty to provide, before they depart, for suitable discipline in their absence, in order that no sedition or contention of disputing parties may arise—a thing which would be the greatest disgrace. As to the rest, after the matter has been fully inquired into, let it be brought to an end. For when they shall all have come together, those things which are now known to be subjects of contention should with reason receive a timely conclusion and be forthwith finished and arranged. I confess to your Lordship, since I am well aware that you also are a worshipper of the most High God, that I consider it by no means right that contentions and altercations of this kind should be hidden from me, by which, perchance, God may be moved not only against the human race, but also against me myself, to whose care, by His heavenly Decree, He has entrusted the direction of all human affairs, and may in His wrath provide otherwise than before. For then shall I be able to remain truly and most fully without anxiety and may always hope for all most prosperous and excellent things from the ever-ready kindness of the most powerful God, when I shall know that all, bound together in brotherly concord, adore the most holy God with the worship of the Catholic religion, that is His due.

Optatus, Appendix 9, Probably Written in 321 Constantine Augustus to all the Bishops in Africa and to the people of the Catholic Church. You know very well that, as Faith required, so far as Prudence permitted, as much as a single-minded intention could prevail, I have endeavored by every effort of kindly government to secure that, in accordance with the prescriptions of our law, the Peace of the most holy Brotherhood whose grace the supreme God has poured into the hearts of His servants, should, through complete concord, be preserved secure. But whereas the provisions that we have made have not prevailed to subdue the obstinate violence of crime which has been implanted in the breasts of certain men--few though they be—and whereas some favor is still shown to this wickedness of theirs, so that they would not on any account suffer a place in which they were proud to have sinned to be extorted from them, we must see to it, that as all this evil affects a few, it may be, through the mercy of Almighty God, mitigated for the people. For we ought to hope for a remedy from that source to which all good desires and deeds are referred. But, until the Heavenly medicine shows itself, our designs must be moderated so far as to act with patience, and whatever in their insolence they attempt or carry out, in accordance with their habitual wantonness—all this we must endure with the strength which comes from tranquility. In no way let wrong be returned to wrong, for it is the mark of a fool to snatch at that vengeance which we ought to leave to God, especially since our faith ought to lead us to trust that whatever we may endure from the madness of men of this kind, will avail before God for the grace of martyrdom. For what is it, to overcome in this world in the Name of God, excepting to endure with an unshaken heart the untamed savagery of men who harass the people of the Law of



F o u r t h C e n t u r y 163

Peace? But, if you will give yourselves loyally to this affair, you will speedily bring it about that, by the favor of God on high, these men who are making themselves the standard-bearers of this most miserable strife, may all come to recognize, as their laws or customs fall into decay, that they ought not, through the persuasion of a few, to give themselves over to perish in everlasting death, when they might, through the grace of repentance, be made whole again, having corrected their errors, for everlasting life. Fare well to you, by your common prayer, forever, by God’s favor, dearest brethren. Source: Vassall-Phillips, Rev. O. R., ed. and trans. The Work of St. Optatus, Bishop of Milevis, against the Donatists, with Appendix. London: Longman, Greens, and Co., 1917.

Further Reading Barnes, T. D. “The Beginnings of Donatism.” Journal of Theological Studies, New Series 26, no. 1 (April 1975): 13–22. Carotenuto, Erica. “Six Constantinian Documents (Eus. ‘H.E.’ 10, 5–7).” Vigiliae Christianae 56, no. 1 (February 2002): 56–74. Decret, François. Early Christianity in North Africa. Cambridge, UK: James Clarke & Co., 2011. Dupont, Anthony. Preacher of Grace: A Critical Reappraisal of Augustines Doctrine of Grace in His Sermones and Populum on Liturgical Feasts and during the Donatist Controversy. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill, 2014. Eno, Robert B. “The Significance of the Lists of Roman Bishops in the Anti-Donatist Polemic.” Vigiliae Christianae 47, no. 2 (June 1993): 158–169. Eno, Robert B. “Some Nuances in the Ecclesiology of the Donatists.” Revue d’Etudes Augustiniennes et Patristiques 18, no. 1–2 (January 1972): 46–50. Frend, W. H. C. The Donatist Church: A Movement of Protest in Roman North Africa. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1952. Patout Burns, J. Christianity in Roman Africa: The Development of Its Practices and Beliefs. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2014. Tilley, Maureen A. “Dilatory Donatists or Procrastinating Catholics: The Trial at the Conference of Carthage.” Church History: Studies in Christianity and Culture 60, no. 1 (1991): 7–19.

Document 36 EMPEROR JULIAN, AGAINST THE GALILEANS Julian became emperor in 361 and ruled for a very short period—until 363 CE. Despite this short reign, he made a big splash in the history of early Christianity. Julian was a nephew to Emperor Constantine. Julian’s father was the half-brother of Constantine. It was expected that Julian would follow in his father’s footsteps. However, Emperor Constantine died in 337. Constantine had three sons: Constantius II, Constans, and

164

DO C UMENTS O F THE RISE O F C HRISTIANITY

Constantine II. The empire that Constantine ruled was divided into three so that each son would be an emperor in their own area. At the death of their father, the three sons decided to kill many male relatives so that none of them could make a claim on the throne. Those killed included the father of Julian. Julian and his half-brother Gallus were very young, and it was decided to spare their lives. Julian was then essentially put into seclusion and was not allowed to have any part in court life. He was, however, educated, as befitted someone related to the emperors. He was given the best teachers and was taught in the Roman way, which included learning Latin and Greek, and was taught the usual topics of philosophy. He was also brought up Christian. His main Christian tutor was Eusebius, the bishop of Nicomedia. Eusebius of Nicomedia was an Arian, as opposed to those who followed the Catholic version of Christianity. There is no doubt that Eusebius tutored him on Arianism as the correct form and outwardly he was a practicing Christian. In 355 CE Constantius II, then the sole ruler of the empire, needed some help dealing with both the Persians in the East and the barbarian incursions in the West. Julian was taken out of his seclusion, made a Caesar, and given military command in the West, despite his young age and having absolutely no military experience at all. It was thought that Constantius II was hoping to get a double benefit out of this—putting Julian in the West would help with the incursions, and as a bonus, there was a good chance that he would be killed. However, Julian turned out to be a fantastic tactician on the battlefield. He was able to drive back the invaders and in the process was loved by his troops. In 360 CE, Constantius II, fighting with the Persians, decided to call Julian and his experienced military from Gaul and to put them in the East, to fight the Persians. Neither Julian nor his army wanted to go, and as in the days before Emperor Constantine, the troops decided to raise Julian to be emperor. Roman tradition allowed this, but it had not been practiced since the time that Constantine was raised up by Britain’s troops. Constantius II, of course, was not happy with this (to say the least!). In 361 he took part of his army from the east and started to take them west to do battle with this upstart cousin. Julian prepared his troops to fight, but Constantius II died before he could reach him. Soon after taking over as emperor, Julian tried to roll back the advances that the Christians had in the empire. Later Christians called him Julian the Apostate, which means someone who renounced their faith. While rolling things back for the Christians, he tried to bring back a revival of the Roman religious rites. Since the time of Constantine, the “pagans,” or those who practiced Roman religion, were slowly being closed out of their religion. Temples were closed or taken over by Christians; temples could also be stripped of their wealth and used by Christians in their own churches and, probably worst of all, blood sacrifice was forbidden. In effect you could still practice Roman religion, but it was made very difficult. Julian reversed all of this and tried to make it difficult for Christians. For example, he tried to make it illegal for teachers who were Christian to teach. This obviously upset the Christians, but it also upset those who practiced Roman religion. They said that the religion of a teacher should have no impact on what is being taught. Julian was also a prolific writer, and he used his skills taught to him growing up to write against the Christians. One text, titled Against the Galileans, was particularly vociferous in its attack on them. Julian called the Christians “Galileans,” the Jewish people “Hebrews,” and the Greeks “Hellenes.” The following excerpt is part of Book 1. We don’t have the original text—it survives in the works of others who were writing against



F o u r t h C e n t u r y 165

Julian. This part is from the work of Cyril of Alexandria, from his Against Julian. It is also important to note that not all of this text survives. Missing parts are indicated by the use of [. . .].

Against the Galileans It is, I think, expedient to set forth to all mankind the reasons by which I was convinced that the fabrication of the Galileans is a fiction of men composed by wickedness. Though it has in it nothing divine, by making full use of that part of the soul which loves fable and is childish and foolish, it has induced men to believe that the monstrous tale is truth. Now since I intend to treat of all their first dogmas, as they call them, I wish to say in the first place that if my readers desire to try to refute me they must proceed as if they were in a court of law and not drag in irrelevant matter, or, as the saying is, bring counter-charges until they have defended their own views. For thus it will be better and clearer if, when they wish to censure any views of mine, they undertake that as a separate task, but when they are defending themselves against my censure, they bring no counter-charges. It is worthwhile to recall in a few words from where and how we first arrived at a conception of God; next to compare what is said about the divine among the Hellenes and Hebrews; and finally to enquire of those who are neither Hellenes nor Jews, but belong to the sect of the Galileans, why they preferred the belief of the Jews to ours; and what, further, can be the reason why they do not even adhere to the Jewish beliefs but have abandoned them also and followed a way of their own. For they have not accepted a single admirable or important doctrine of those that are held either by us Hellenes or by the Hebrews who derived them from Moses; but from both religions they have gathered what has been engrafted like powers of evil, as it were, on these nations—atheism from the Jewish levity, and a sordid and slovenly way of living from our indolence and vulgarity; and they desire that this should be called the noblest worship of the gods. Now that the human race possesses its knowledge of God by nature and not from teaching is proved to us first of all by the universal yearning for the divine that is in all men, whether private persons or communities, whether considered as individuals or as races. For all of us, without being taught, have attained to a belief in some sort of divinity, though it is not easy for all men to know the precise truth about it, nor is it possible for those who do know it to tell it to all men [. . .] Surely, besides this conception which is common to all men, there is also another. I mean that we are all by nature so closely dependent on the heavens and the gods that are visible therein, that even if any man conceives of another god besides these, he in every case assigns to him the heavens as his dwelling-place; not that he thereby separates him from the earth, but he so to speak establishes the King of the All in the heavens as in the most honorable place of all, and conceives of him as overseeing from there the affairs of this world. What need have I to summon Hellenes and Hebrews as witnesses of this? There exists no man who does not stretch out his hands towards the heavens when he

166

DO C UMENTS O F THE RISE O F C HRISTIANITY

prays; and whether he swears by one god or several, if he has any notion at all of the divine, he turns towards heaven. And it was very natural that men should feel thus. For since they observed that in what concerns the heavenly bodies there is no increase or diminution or mutability, and that they do not suffer any unregulated influence, but their movement is harmonious and their arrangement in concert; and that the illuminations of the moon are regulated, and that the risings and settings of the sun are regularly defined, and always at regularly defined seasons, they naturally conceived that the heaven is a god and the throne of a god. For a being of that sort, since it is not subject to increase by addition, or to diminution by subtraction, and is stationed beyond all change due to alteration and mutability, is free from decay and generation, and inasmuch as it is immortal by nature and indestructible, it is pure from every sort of stain. Eternal and ever in movement, as we see, it travels in a circuit about the great Creator, whether it be impelled by a nobler and more divine soul that dwells therein, just as, I mean, our bodies are by the soul in us, or having received its motion from God Himself, it wheels in its boundless circuit, in an unceasing and eternal career. Now it is true that the Hellenes invented their myths about the gods, incredible and monstrous stories. For they said that Kronos swallowed his children and then vomited them forth and they even told of lawless unions, how Zeus had intercourse with his mother, and after having a child by her, married his own daughter, or rather did not even marry her, but simply had intercourse with her and then handed her over to another. Then too there is the legend that Dionysus was torn asunder and his limbs joined together again. This is the sort of thing described in the myths of the Hellenes. Compare with them the Jewish doctrine, how the garden was planted by God and Adam was fashioned by Him, and next, for Adam, woman came to be. For God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone. Let us make him a help mate like him.” Yet so far was she from helping him at all that she deceived him, and was in part the cause of his and her own fall from their life of ease in the garden. This is wholly fabulous. For is it probable that God did not know that the being he was creating as a helpmate would prove to be not so much a blessing as a misfortune to him who received her? Again, what sort of language are we to say that the serpent used when he talked with Eve? Was it the language of human beings? And in what do such legends as these differ from the myths that were invented by the Hellenes? Moreover, is it not excessively strange that God should deny to the human beings whom he had fashioned the power to distinguish between good and evil? What could be more foolish than a being unable to distinguish good from bad? For it is evident that he would not avoid the latter, I mean things evil, nor would he strive after the former, I mean things good. And, in short, God refused to let man taste of wisdom, than which there could be nothing of more value for man. For that the power to distinguish between good and less good is the property of wisdom is evident surely even to the witless, so that the serpent was a benefactor rather than a destroyer of the human race. Furthermore, their God must be called envious. For when he saw that man had attained to a share of wisdom, that he might not, God said, taste of the tree of life, he cast him out



F o u r t h C e n t u r y 167

of the garden, saying in so many words, “Behold, Adam has become as one of us, because he knows good from bad; and now let him not put forth his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat and thus live forever.” Accordingly, unless every one of these legends is a myth that involves some secret interpretation, as I indeed believe, they are filled with many blasphemous sayings about God. For in the first place to be ignorant that she who was created as a helpmate would be the cause of the fall; secondly to refuse the knowledge of good and bad, which knowledge alone seems to give coherence to the mind of man; and lastly to be jealous lest man should take of the tree of life and from mortal become immortal—this is too resentful and envious. Next consider the views that are correctly held by the Jews and also those that our fathers handed down to us from the beginning. Our account has in it the immediate creator of this universe, as the following shows [. . .] Moses indeed has said nothing whatsoever about the gods who are superior to this creator. Indeed, he has not even ventured to say anything about the nature of the angels—but he has asserted in many ways and often that they serve God. But whether they were generated or un-generated, or whether they were generated by one god and appointed to serve another, or in some other way, he has nowhere said definitely. But he describes fully in what manner the heavens and the earth and all that therein is were set in order. In part, he says, God ordered them to be, such as light and the firmament, and in part, he says, God made them, such as the heavens and the earth, the sun and moon, and that all things which already existed but were hidden away for the time being, he separated, such as water, I mean, and dry land. But apart from these he did not venture to say a word about the generation or the making of the Spirit, but only this, “And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.” But whether that spirit was ungenerated or had been generated he does not make at all clear. Now, if you please, we will compare the utterance of Plato. Observe then what he says about the creator and what words he makes him speak at the time of the generation of the universe, in order that we may compare Plato’s account of that generation with that of Moses. For in this way it will appear who was the nobler and who was more worthy of intercourse with God—Plato who paid homage to images, or he of whom the Scripture says that God spoke with him mouth to mouth. “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was invisible and without form, and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light; and there was light. And God saw the light that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day. And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters. And God called the firmament Heaven. And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear; and it was so. And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass for fodder, and the fruit tree yielding fruit. And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven that they may be for a light upon the earth. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to rule over the day and over the night.”

168

DO C UMENTS O F THE RISE O F C HRISTIANITY

In all this, you observe, Moses does not say that the deep was created by God, or the darkness or the waters. And yet, after saying concerning light that God ordered it to be, and it was, surely he ought to have gone on to speak of night also, and the deep and the waters. But of them he says not a word to imply that they were not already existing at all, though he often mentions them. Furthermore, he does not mention the birth or creation of the angels or in what manner they were brought into being, but deals only with the heavenly and earthly bodies. It follows that, according to Moses, God is the creator of nothing that is incorporeal, but is only the disposer of matter that already existed. For the words, “And the earth was invisible and without form” can only mean that he regards the wet and dry substance as the original matter and that he introduces God as the disposer of this matter. Source: Cyril of Alexandria. Contra Julianum. Wilmer Cave Wright, trans. New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1923, 319–433.

Further Reading Aiken, David W. “Philosophy, Archaeology and the Bible: Is Emperor Julian’s Contra Galilaeos a Plausible Critique of Christianity?” Journal of Late Antique Religion and Culture 11 (December 15, 2017): 1–37. Baker-Brian, Nicholas J., and Shaun Tougher, eds. Emperor and Author: The Writings of Julian “the Apostate.” Swansea: The Classical Press of Wales, 2012. Bowersock, G. W. Julian the Apostate. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1978. Cribiore, Raffaella. Libanius the Sophist: In Rhetoric, Reality, and Religion in the Fourth Century. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2013. Elm, Susanna. “Pagan Challenge, Christian Response: Emperor Julian and Gregory of Nazianzus as Paradigms of Interreligious Discourse.” In Faithful Narratives: Historians, Religion, and the Challenge of Objectivity, edited by Andrea Sterk and Nina Caputo, 15–31. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2014. Elm, Susanna. Sons of Hellenism, Fathers of the Church: Emperor Julian, Gregory of Nazianzus, and the Vision of Rome. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2012. Head, Constance. The Emperor Julian. Boston: Twayne Publishers, 1976. Limberis, Vasiliki. “ ‘Religion’ as the Cipher for Identity: The Cases of Emperor Julian, Libanius, and Gregory Nazianzus.” Harvard Theological Review 93, no. 4 (October 2000): 373–400.

Document 37 AMBROSE, LETTER 22 Martyrs, or those who died for their faith, were held up as examples to Christians who were about to be tortured and potentially killed. All of the martyr stories claim that these Christians did not deny Christ at the time of torture, even though this would have saved their bodies. Instead, they refused to submit to the Roman authorities and were then tortured and in many cases killed. Eusebius of Caesarea recounts some of the horrific



F o u r t h C e n t u r y 169

tortures these people went through—breaking of bones, pouring molted lead over heads, bodies crucified. But the persecution of Christians stopped with the rise of Constantine, the first Christian emperor. The question was then: What is to be done with the martyr stories and their bodies? Ambrose, the Catholic bishop of Milan, Italy, gives a great example of the continuation of the use of the martyrs, long after persecution ended—they are still examples, but now their dead bodies or body parts (or even parts of their clothing) were holy and could perform miracles. Ambrose wrote this letter to his sister Marcellina in 386 (Chin 2010, 552). He told her about the miraculous discovery of the bodies of two martyrs and then went on to attack the Arians. Some scholars have questioned the accuracy and certainly the motivation of this letter. The bodies of martyrs named Gervasius and Protasius were found just as Ambrose was in the middle of a large battle with these Arians. The Arians were granted toleration and also were demanding the use of some basilicas that belonged to Ambrose (see Lenox-Conyngham 1982). Evidence was needed for the importance of consecrating a new church, and Ambrose did not want to do it before the bodies of some martyrs were found—and then they were found. The letter also discussed his encounters with the Arians or those who believed that Christ came after God. The Arian controversy started in Egypt in the early 300s and was still a major part of theological debate in the late 300s. Ambrose took over the bishopric in Milan from an Arian bishop who had died. There were plenty of Arians in Milan still, and more importantly, Justina, the mother of Emperor Valentinian II, the real power behind the throne of her young son, was an Arian Christian. Ambrose and Justina would fight constantly over the rights of the Arians to practice their version of Christianity and keep their churches from being taken over by the Catholics. Ambrose took a swipe at them here by stating that the Arians did not believe in the martyrs. According to their hagiography (the writing of the saints), Gervasius and Protasius were twin brothers and lived during the time of Emperor Nero in the first century. Both refused to sacrifice to the Roman gods. Gervasius was whipped to death with a leaden whip and Protasius was beheaded. They were buried in a stone coffin, and their hagiography ends with the account of their bodies being discovered during the time of Ambrose. This discovery was a fortuitous chance in that the bodies of these martyrs were found just as a new church was about to be consecrated. As he tells his sister, but martyrs can scare the devil himself and, as a bonus, can heal the sick. Ambrose names one of those who has been healed as proof to the Arians (and those reading the letter) that the bodies and clothing of the martyrs have healing powers. He named Severus the butcher who went blind but then touched the hem of the martyr clothing and was then miraculously healed (section 17). The denial by the Arians was “more hateful” than the Jews in the New Testament who doubted the miracles—at least, according to Ambrose, the Jews asked for proof while the Arians just deny that a miracle took place (section 18). Even the demons and devils knew the power of the martyrs, but yet the Arians did not. It is clear that Ambrose used this occasion to show (at least to him) that the Arians were the real enemies of the Catholicism. Ambrose wrote that the martyrs will be reburied in the church, under the altar. Ambrose originally wanted this place of burial for himself but offered the bodies a special place on the right side and he would take the left.

170

DO C UMENTS O F THE RISE O F C HRISTIANITY

Letter 22 To the lady, his sister, dearer to him than his eyes and life, Ambrose Bishop. 1. As I do not wish anything which takes place here in your absence to escape the knowledge of your holiness, you must know that we have found some bodies of holy martyrs. For after I had dedicated the basilica, many, as it were, with one mouth began to address me, and said: Consecrate this as you did the Roman basilica. And I answered: “Certainly I will if I find any relics of martyrs.” And at once a kind of prophetic ardor seemed to enter my heart. 2. Why should I use many words? God favored us, for even the clergy were afraid who were bidden to clear away the earth from the spot before the chancel screen of SS. Felix and Nabor. I found the fitting signs, and on bringing in some on whom hands were to be laid, the power of the holy martyrs became so manifest, that even whilst I was still silent, one was seized and thrown prostrate at the holy burial-place. We found two men of marvelous stature, such as those of ancient days. All the bones were perfect, and there was much blood. During the whole of those two days there was an enormous concourse of people. Briefly we arranged the whole in order, and as evening was now coming on transferred them to the basilica of Fausta, where watch was kept during the night, and some received the laying on of hands. On the following day we translated the relics to the basilica called Ambrosian. During the translation a blind man was healed. I addressed the people then as follows: 3. When I considered the immense and unprecedented numbers of you who are here gathered together, and the gifts of divine grace which have shone forth in the holy martyrs, I must confess that I felt myself unequal to this task, and that I could not express in words what we can scarcely conceive in our minds or take in with our eyes. But when the course of holy Scripture began to be read, the Holy Spirit Who spoke in the prophets granted me to utter something worthy of so great a gathering, of your expectations, and of the merits of the holy martyrs. 4. “The heavens,” it is said, “declare the glory of God.” When this Psalm is read, it occurs to one that not so much the material elements as the heavenly merits seem to offer praise worthy of God. And by the chance of this day’s lessons it is made clear what “heavens” declare the glory of God. Look at the holy relics at my right hand and at my left, see men of heavenly conversation, behold the trophies of a heavenly mind. These are the heavens which declare the glory of God, these are His handiwork which the firmament proclaims. For not worldly enticements, but the grace of the divine working, raised them to the firmament of the most sacred Passion, and long before by the testimony of their character and virtues bore witness of them, that they continued steadfast against the dangers of this world. 5. Paul was a heaven, when he said: “Our conversation is in heaven.” James and John were heavens, and then were called “sons of thunder”; and John, being as it were a heaven, saw the Word with God. The Lord Jesus Himself was a heaven of perpetual light, when He was declaring the glory of God, that glory which no man had seen before. And therefore He said: “No man has seen God at any time, except the only-begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father. He has declared Him.” If you seek for the handiwork of God, listen to Job when he says: “The Spirit of God Who made me.” And so strengthened against the temptations of the devil, he kept his footsteps constantly without offence. But let us



F o u r t h C e n t u r y 171

go on to what follows. 6. “Day,” it is said, “unto day utters speech.” Behold the true days, where no darkness of night intervenes. Behold the days full of life and eternal brightness, which uttered the word of God, not in speech which passes away, but in their inmost heart, by constancy in confession, and perseverance in their witness. 7. Another Psalm which was read says: “Who is like unto the Lord our God, Who dwelleth on high, and regards lowly things in heaven and in the earth?” The Lord regarded indeed lowly things when He revealed to His Church the relics of the holy martyrs lying hidden under the unnoted turf, whose souls were in heaven, their bodies in the earth: “raising the poor out of the dust, and lifting the needy from the mire,” and you see how He has “set them with the princes of His people.” Whom are we to esteem as the princes of the people but the holy martyrs? Amongst whose number Protasius and Gervasius long unknown are now enrolled, who have caused the Church of Milan, barren of martyrs hitherto, now as the mother of many children, to rejoice in the distinctions and instances of her own sufferings. 8. Nor let this seem at variance with the true faith: “Day unto day utters the word;” soul unto soul, life unto life, resurrection unto resurrection; “and night unto night shows knowledge;” that is, flesh unto flesh, they, that is, whose passion has shown to all the true knowledge of the faith. Good are these nights, bright nights, not without stars: “For as star differs from star in brightness, so too is the resurrection of the dead.” 9. For not without reason do many call this the resurrection of the martyrs. I do not say whether they have risen for themselves, for us certainly the martyrs have risen. You know—and you have yourselves seen—that many are cleansed from evil spirits, that very many also, having touched with their hands the robe of the saints, are freed from those ailments which oppressed them; you see that the miracles of old time are renewed, when through the coming of the Lord Jesus grace was more largely shed forth upon the earth, and that many bodies are healed as it were by the shadow of the holy bodies. How many napkins are passed about! How many garments, laid upon the holy relics and endowed with healing power, are claimed! All are glad to touch even the outside thread, and whosoever touches will be made whole. 10. Thanks be to You, Lord Jesus, that at this time You have stirred up for us the spirits of the holy martyrs, when Your Church needs greater protection. Let all know what sort of champions I desire, who are able to defend, but desire not to attack. These have I gained for you, O holy people, such as may help all and injure none. Such defenders do I desire, such are the soldiers I have, that is, not soldiers of this world, but soldiers of Christ. I fear no ill-will on account of them, the more powerful their patronage is the greater safety is there in it. And I wish for their protection for those very persons who grudge them to me. Let them come, then, and see my attendants. I do not deny that I am surrounded by such arms: “Some trust in chariots, and some in horses, but we will boast in the Name of the Lord our God.” 11. The course of divine Scripture relates that Elisha, when surrounded by the army of the Syrians, told his servant, who was afraid, not to fear; “for,” said he, “they that be for us are more than those against us;” and in order to prove this, he prayed that the eyes of Gehazi might be opened, and when they were opened, he saw that numberless hosts of angels were present. And we, though we cannot see them, yet feel their presence. Our eyes were shut, so long as the bodies of the saints lay hidden. The Lord opened our eyes, and we saw the aids wherewith we have been often protected. We used not to see them, but yet we had them. And so, as though the

172

DO C UMENTS O F THE RISE O F C HRISTIANITY

Lord had said to us when trembling, “See what great martyrs I have given you,” so we with opened eyes behold the glory of the Lord, which is passed in the passion of the martyrs, and present in their working. We have escaped, brethren, no slight lead of shame; we had patrons and did not know it. We have found this one thing, in which we seem to excel those who have gone before us. That knowledge of the martyrs, which they lost, we have regained. 12. The glorious relics are taken out of an ignoble burying-place, the trophies are displayed under heaven. The tomb is wet with blood. The marks of the bloody triumph are present, the relics are found undisturbed in their order, the head separated from the body. Old men now repeat that they once heard the names of these martyrs and read their titles. The city which had carried off the martyrs of other places had lost her own. Though this be the gift of God, yet I cannot deny the favor which the Lord Jesus has granted to the time of my priesthood, and since I myself am not worthy to be a martyr, I have obtained these martyrs for you. 13. Let these triumphant victims be brought to the place where Christ is the victim. But He is upon the altar, Who suffered for all; they are beneath the altar, who were redeemed by His Passion. I had destined this place for myself, for it is fitting that the priest should rest there where he has been wont to offer, but I yield the right hand portion to the sacred victims—that place was due to the martyrs. Let us, then, deposit the sacred relics, and lay them up in a worthy resting-place, and let us celebrate the whole day with faithful devotion. 14. The people called out and demanded that the deposition of the martyrs should be postponed until the Lord’s day, but at length it was agreed that it should take place the following day. On the following day again I preached to the people on this sort. 15. Yesterday I handled the verse, “Day unto day utters speech,” as my ability enabled me; today holy Scripture seems to me not only to have prophesied in former times, but even at the present. For when I behold your holy celebration continued day and night, the oracles of the prophet’s song have declared that these days, yesterday and to-day, are the days of which it is most opportunely said: “Day unto day utters speech;” and these the nights of which it is most fittingly said that “Night unto night shows knowledge.” For what else but the Word of God have you during these two days uttered with inmost affection, and have proved yourselves to have the knowledge of the faith. 16. And they who usually do so have a grudge against this solemnity of Yours, and since because of their envious disposition they cannot endure this solemnity, they hate the cause of it and go so far in their madness as to deny the merits of the martyrs, whose deeds even the evil spirits confess. But this is not to be wondered at since such is the faithlessness of unbelievers that the confession of the devil is often more easy to endure. For the devil said: “Jesus, Son of the living God, why have You come to torment us before the time?” And the Jews hearing this, even themselves denied Him to be the Son of God. And at this time you have heard the devils crying out, and confessing to the martyrs that they cannot bear their sufferings, and saying, “Why have you come to torment us so severely?” And the Arians say: “These are not martyrs and they cannot torment the devil, nor deliver any one,” while the torments of the devils are proved by their own words, and the benefits of the martyrs are declared by the restoring of the healed, and the proof of those that are loosed. 17. They deny that the blind man received sight, but he denies not that he is healed. He says: I who could not see now see. He says: I ceased to be blind, and proves it by



F o u r t h C e n t u r y 173

the fact. They deny the benefit, who are unable to deny the fact. The man is known: so long as he was well he was employed in the public service—his name is Severus, a butcher by trade. He had given up his occupation when this hindrance befell him. He calls for evidence those persons by whose kindness he was supported; he adduces those as able to affirm the truth of his visitation whom he had as witnesses of his blindness. He declares that when he touched the hem of the robe of the martyrs, wherewith the sacred relics were covered, his sight was restored. 18. Is not this like that which we read in the Gospel? For we praise the power of the same Author in each case, nor does it be a work or a gift, since He confers a gift in His works, and works in His gift. For that which He gave to others to be done, this His Name effects in the work of others. So we read in the Gospel that the Jews, when they saw the gift of healing in the blind man, called for the testimony of his parents, and asked: “How does your son see?” when he said: “Whereas I was blind, now I see.” And in this case the man says, “I was blind and now I see.” Ask others if you do not believe me; ask strangers if you think his parents are in collusion with me. The obstinacy of these men is more hateful than that of the Jews, for the latter, when they doubted, at least asked his parents; the others enquire in secret and deny in public, incredulous not as to the work, but as to its Author. 19. But I ask what it is that they do not believe: is it whether any one can be aided by the martyrs? This is the same thing as not to believe Christ, for He Himself said: “You shall do greater things than these.” How? By those martyrs whose merits have been long efficacious, whose bodies were long since found? Here I ask, do they bear a grudge against me, or against the holy martyrs? If against me, are any miracles wrought by me? By my means or in my name? Why, then, grudge me what is not mine? If it be against the martyrs (for if they bear no grudge against me, it can only be against them), they show that the martyrs were of another faith than that which they believe. For otherwise they would not have any feeling against their works, did they not judge that they have not the faith which was in them, that faith established by the tradition of our forefathers, which the devils themselves cannot deny, but the Arians do. 21. We have today heard those on whom hands were laid say that no one can be saved unless he believe in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit; that he is dead and buried who denies the Holy Spirit, and Does not believe the almighty power of the Trinity. The devil confesses this, but the Arians refuse to do so. The devil says: Let him who denies the Godhead of the Holy Spirit be so tormented as himself was tormented by the martyrs. 22. I do not accept the devil’s testimony but his confession. The devil spoke unwillingly, being compelled and tormented. That which wickedness suppresses, torture extracts. The devil yields to blows, and the Arians have not yet learned to yield. How great have been their sufferings, and yet, like Pharaoh, they are hardened by their calamities! The devil said, as we find it written: “I know You Who You are, You are the Son of the living God.” And the Jews said: “We do not know from where He is.” The evil spirits said today, yesterday, and during the night, We know that you are martyrs. And the Arians say, We know not, we will not understand, we will not believe. The evil spirits say to the martyrs, You are coming to destroy us. The Arians say, The torments of the devils are not real but fictitious and made-up tales. I have heard of many things being made up, but no one has ever been able to feign that he was an evil spirit. What is the meaning of the torment we

174

DO C UMENTS O F THE RISE O F C HRISTIANITY

see in those on whom hands are laid? What room is there here for fraud? What suspicion of pretense? 23. But I will not make use of the voice of evil spirits in support of the martyrs. Their holy sufferings are proved by the benefits they confer. These have persons to judge of them, namely, those who are cleansed, and witnesses, namely, those who are set free. That voice is better than that of devils, which the soundness of those utters who came infirm; better is the voice which blood sends forth, for blood has a loud voice reaching from earth to heaven. You have read how God said: “Your brother’s blood cries out to Me.” This blood cries by its color, the blood cries by the voice of its effects, the blood cries by the triumph of its passion. We have acceded to your request, and have postponed till today the deposition of the relics which was to have taken place yesterday.

Source: Wace, Henry, and Philip Schaff. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series I, Vol. IX. Grand Rapids, MI: WM. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1886.

Further Reading Chin, Catherine M. “The Bishop’s ‘Two Bodies: Ambrose and the Basilicas of Milan.’ ” Church History 79, no. 3 (September 2010): 531–555. De Voragine, Jacobus. The Golden Legend: The Readings on the Saints. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2012. Drake, H. A. “Intolerance, Religious Violence, and Political Legitimacy in Late Antiquity.” Journal of the American Academy of Religion 79, no. 1 (March 2011): 193–235. Kalleres, Dayna S. City of Demons: Violence, Ritual, and Christian Power in Late Antiquity. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2014. Lenox-Conyngham, Andrew. “The Topography of the Basilica Conflict of A.D. 385/6 in Milan.” Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte, Bd. 31, H. 3 (3rd Quarter 1982): 353–363. MacKie, Gillian. “Symbolism and Purpose in an Early Christian Martyr Chapel: The Case of San Vittore in Ciel d’Oro, Milan.” Gesta 34, no. 2 (1995): 91–101. Maier, Harry O. “Private Space as the Social Context of Arianism in Ambrose’s Milan.” Journal of Theological Studies, New Series 45, no. 1 (April 1994): 72–93. McLynn, Neil B. Ambrose of Milan: Church and Court in a Christian Capital. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2014. Williams, Daniel H. Ambrose of Milan and the End of the Nicene-Arian Conflicts. New York: Oxford University Press, 1995.

Document 38 AUGUSTINE, AGAINST FORTUNATUS THE MANICHAEAN, BOOK 2.19–22 Augustine, a former Manichaean hearer, switched his brand of Christianity from Manichaeism to Catholicism in 387 when he was introduced to the sermons and was baptized by Ambrose, the bishop of Milan. Augustine then had to prove that he was not a



F o u r t h C e n t u r y 175

Manichaean, and he did this in a number of writings. Augustine became a Catholic priest in 391 in the North African town of Hippo. In 392 he had the opportunity to debate a Manichaean named Fortunatus. Debates in the Late Antique world, especially between a favored form of Christianity and what might be considered heretical, were not just a simple discussion or argument about who was right. The stakes were very high—winner take all, meaning the winner of the debate would stay in the city where the debate took place and the loser would have to leave. This would mean that the losing type of Christianity would also be the losing side, and it would usually mean a drastic downturn in the number of converts to the losing side. We know a little about Fortunatus from a work of Augustine’s titled The Retractions. The title does not mean that Augustine “retracted” anything—the book was designed to catalog Augustine’s work, by his own hand, and to offer explanations or give clarity on the books he had written. Retractions 15 is about this debate that took place on August 28 and 29, 392 CE. Augustine stated that Fortunatus was a priest of Manichaeism and had lived in Hippo for a while. He had converted a number of people to the Manichaean form of Christianity. The debate itself took place in the city baths— a normal place for things like this to occur. There were stenographers present, and they copied down the entire debate. What we have today isn’t necessarily the wordfor-word statements by each person. Augustine states that he boiled down the debate to form this book. The main topic of the second day (and part of the first day) was on the origin of evil. This was a common topic for early Christians to discuss. Some people believed that in there was no evil and all that existed was good. Evil, or the idea of evil, was just a separation from the good—or a lesser degree of good. People were given free will to act as they wished, doing either good or bad, but this was their choice. This made sure that God could not be blamed for evil actions of people. Others, like Fortunatus and the Manichaeans (and other Christian groups), believed that evil was something totally separated from God and actually existed. The main reason for this belief was that it made sure, once again, that God was not responsible for anything evil in the world. Augustine and the Catholics could not accept a separate evil because to those like Augustine, it could not be explained. For example, Fortunatus and the Manichaeans believed in the Land of Darkness where all sorts of dark creatures existed. Here and in other writings Augustine points out that these evil creatures had bodies, and these bodies had symmetry and life and so on—all the characteristics of living things. For Augustine, this could not be the definition of a separate evil because good things, like symmetry and life, existed in this Land of Darkness. Augustine also took issue with the Manichaean idea of evil in that all bad things that people did were because the evil nature (separate from God) took over and made people do these things. In short, there was no free will in Fortunatus’s Manichaeism. The end of the debate did not go well for Fortunatus. He could not fully explain what evil was, at least to Augustine’s satisfaction. He became frustrated when he could not answer, and he told Augustine that he would have to talk to his superiors and get back to Augustine with an answer. As stated in The Retractions, Fortunatus did not convert to Catholicism but left Hippo and did not return.

176

DO C UMENTS O F THE RISE O F C HRISTIANITY

Augustine, Against Fortunatus the Manichaean, Disputation of the Second Day The next day, a notary having again been summoned, the discussion was conducted as follows: Fortunatus said: I say that God Almighty brings forth from Himself nothing evil, and that the things that are His remain incorrupt, having sprung and being born from an inviolable source; but other contrary things which have their being in this world, do not flow from God nor have appeared in this world with God as their author; that is to say, they do not derive their origin from God. These things therefore we have received in the belief that evil things are foreign to God. 20. Augustine said: And our faith is this, that God is not the progenitor of evil things, neither has He made any evil nature. But since both of us agree that God is incorruptible and incontaminable, it is the part of the prudent and faithful to consider, which faith is purer and worthier of the majesty of God; that in which it is asserted that either the power of God, or some part of God, or the Word of God, can be changed, violated, corrupted, fettered; or that in which it is said that Almighty God and His entire nature and substance can never be corrupted in any part, but that evils have their being by the voluntary sin of the soul, to which God gave free will. Which free will if God had not given, there could be no just penal judgment, nor merit of righteous conduct, nor divine instruction to repent of sins, nor the forgiveness of sins itself which God has bestowed upon us through our Lord Jesus Christ. Because he who sins not voluntarily, sins not at all. This I suppose to be open and perspicuous to all. Wherefore it ought not to trouble us if according to our deserts we suffer some inconveniences in the things God has made. For as He is good, that He should constitute all things; so He is just, that He may not spare sins, which sins, as I have said, unless free will were in us, would not be sins. For if any one, so to speak, should be bound by someone in his other members, and with his hand something false should be written without his own will, I ask whether if this were laid open before a judge, he could condemn this one for the crime of falsehood. Wherefore, if it is manifest that there is no sin where there is not free exercise of will, I wish to hear what evil the soul which you call either part, or power, or word, or something else, of God, has done, that it should be punished by God, or repent of sin, or merit forgiveness, since it has in no way sinned?   Fortunatus said: I proposed concerning substances, that God is to be regarded as creator only of good things, but as the avenger of evil things, for the reason that evil things are not of Him. Therefore for good reason I think this, and that God avenges evil things because they are not of Himself. But if they were from Him, either He would give them license to sin, as you say that God has given free will, He would be already found a participator in my fault, because He would be the author of my fault; or ignorant what I should be, he left me whom he did not constitute worthy of Himself. This therefore is proposed by me, and what I ask now is, whether God instituted evil or not? and whether He Himself instituted the end of evils. For it appears from these things, and the evangelical faith teaches,



F o u r t h C e n t u r y 177

that the things which we have said were made by God Himself as God the Creator, as having been created and begotten by Him, are to be esteemed incorruptible. These things I also proposed which belong to our belief, and which can be confirmed by you in that profession of ours, without prejudice to the authority of the Christian faith. And because I can in no way show that I rightly believe, unless I should confirm that belief by the authority of the Scriptures, this is therefore what I have insinuated, what I have said. Either if evil things have appeared in the world with God as their author, deign to say so yourself; or if it is right to believe that evil things are not of God, this also the contemplation of those present ought to honor and receive. I have spoken about substances, not about sin that dwells in us. For if what we think to make faults had no origin, we should not be compelled to come to sin or to fault. For because we sinned unwillingly and are compelled by a substance contrary and hostile to ourselves, therefore we follow the knowledge of things. By which knowledge the soul admonished and restored to pristine memory, recognizes the source from which it derives its existence, in what evil it dwells, by what good works emending again that in which unwillingly it sinned, it may be able through the emendation of its faults, for the sake of good works, to secure for itself the merit of reconciliation with God, our Savior being the author of it, who teaches us also to practice good things and to flee from evil. For you ask us to believe that not by some contrary nature, but by his own choice, man either serves righteousness or becomes involved in sins; since, no contrary race existing, if the soul, to which as you say God has given free will, having been constituted in the body, dwells alone, it would be without sin, nor would it become involved in sins. 21. Augustine said: I say it is not sin, if it be not committed by one’s own will; hence also there is reward, because of our own will we do right. Or if he who sins unwillingly deserves punishment, he who unwillingly does well ought to deserve reward. But who doubts that reward is only bestowed upon him who does something of good will? From which we know that punishment also is inflicted upon him who does something of ill will. But since you recall me to primordial natures and substances, my faith is that God Almighty—which must especially be attended to and fixed in the mind—that God Almighty has made good things. But the things made by Him cannot be such as is He who made them. For it is unjust and foolish to believe that works are equal to the workman, things made to the maker. Wherefore if it is reverential to believe that God made all good things, than which nevertheless He is by far more excellent and by far more pre-eminent; the origin and head of evil is sin, as the apostle said: “Covetousness is the root of all evils; which some following after have made shipwreck of the faith, and have pierced themselves through with many sorrows.” For if you seek the root of all evils, you have the apostle saying that covetousness is the root of all evils. But the root of a root I cannot seek. Or if there is another evil, whose root covetousness is not, covetousness will not be the root of all evils. But if it is true that covetousness is the root of all evils, in vain do we seek some other kind of evil. But as regards that contrary nature of yours which you introduce, since I have responded to your objections, I ask that you deign to tell me whether it is wholly evil, whether there can be no sin apart from it, whether by this alone punishment is deserved, not by the soul by which no sin has been committed. But if you say that this contrary nature alone deserves punishment, and not the soul, I ask to

178

DO C UMENTS O F THE RISE O F C HRISTIANITY

which is repentance, which is commanded, vouchsafed. If the soul is commanded to repent, sin is from the soul, and the soul has sinned voluntarily. For if the soul is compelled to do evil, that which it does is not evil. Is it not foolish and most absurd to say that the race of darkness has sinned and that I repent of the sins. Is it not most absurd to say that the race of darkness has sinned and that forgiveness of sins is vouchsafed to me, who according to your faith may well say: What have I done? What have I committed? I was with You, I was in a state of integrity, I was contaminated with no pollution. You sent me hither, You suffered necessity, You protected Your domains when great pollution and desolation threatened them. Since therefore You know the necessity by which I have been here oppressed, by reason of which I could not breathe, which I could not resist; why do You accuse me as if sinning? or why do you promise forgiveness of sins? Reply to this without evasion, if you please, as I have replied to you.   Fortunatus said: We say this, that the soul is compelled by contrary nature to transgress, for which transgression you maintain there is no root save the evil that dwells in us, for it is certain that apart from our bodies evil things dwell in the whole world. For not those things alone that we have in our bodies, dwell in the whole world, and are known by their names as good; an evil root also inheres. For your dignity said that this covetousness that dwells in our bodies is the root of evils; since therefore there is no desire of evil out of our bodies, from that source contrary nature dwells in the whole world. For the apostle designated that, namely covetousness, as the root of evils, not one evil which you have called the root of all evils. But not in one manner is covetousness, which you have said is the root of all evils, understood, as if of that which dwells in our bodies alone; for it is certain that this evil which dwells in us descends from an evil author and that this root as you call it is a small portion of evil, so that it is not the root itself, but is a small portion of evil, of that evil which dwells everywhere. Which root and tree our Lord called evil, as never bearing good fruit, which his Father did not plant, and which is deservedly rooted up and cast into the fire. For as you say, that sin ought to be imputed to the contrary nature, that nature belongs to evil, and that this is sin of the soul, if after the warning of our Savior and his wholesome instruction, the soul shall have segregated itself from its contrary and hostile race, adorning itself also with purer things; that otherwise it cannot be restored to its own substance. For it is said: “If I had not come and spoken to them, they had not had sin. But now that I have come and spoken, and they have refused to believe me, they shall have no excuse for their sin.” Whence it is perfectly plain, that repentance has been given after the Savior’s advent, and after this knowledge of things, by which the soul can, as if washed in a divine fountain from the filth and vices as well of the whole world as of the bodies in which the same soul dwells, be restored to the kingdom of God whence it has gone forth. For it is said by the apostle, that “the mind of the flesh is hostile to God; is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.” Therefore it is evident from these things that the good soul seems to sin not voluntarily, but by the doing of that which is not subject to the law of God. For it likewise follows that “the flesh lusts against the spirit and the spirit against the flesh; so that you may not do the things that you will.” Again: “I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind and leading me captive in the law of sin and of death. Therefore I am a miserable man.



F o u r t h C e n t u r y 179

Who shall deliver me from the body of this death, unless it be the grace of God through our Lord Jesus Christ,” “through whom the world has been crucified to me and I to the world?”

Source: Wace, Henry, and Philip Schaff. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series I, Vol. IV. Grand Rapids, MI: WM. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1886.

Further Reading Asmussen, J. P., ed. and trans. Manichaean Literature: Representative Texts Chiefly from Middle Persian and Parthian Writings. Persian Heritage Series 22, E. Yar-Shater (ed.). Delmar, NY: Scholars’ Facsimiles & Reprints, 1994. Bammel, C. P. “Pauline Exegesis, Manichaeism and Philosophy in the Early Augustine.” In Christian Faith and Greek Philosophy in Late Antiquity: Essays in Tribute to Christopher Stead, edited by L. R. Wickham and C. P. Bammel, 1–25. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill, 1993. Brown, P. Augustine of Hippo: A Biography. 2nd Edition. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2000. Burns, J. P. “Augustine on the Origin and Progress of Evil.” Journal of Religious Ethics 16, no. 1 (Spring 1988): 9–27. Kaatz, K. W. “What Did Augustine Really Know about Manichaean Cosmogony?” In Il Manicheismo. Nuove Prospettive della Richerca (Quinto Congresso Internazionale di Studi sul Manicheismo, Napoli, 2–8 Settembre, 2001), edited by A. van Tongerloo and L. Cirillo.. Manichaean Studies 5. Turnhout, Belgium: Brepols, 2005. Lee, K.-L. E. Augustine, Manichaeism, and the Good. New York: Peter Lang, 1999. Lim, R. “Manichaeans and Public Disputation in Late Antiquity.” Recherches Augustiniennes 26 (1992): 233–272. Maher, J. P. “St. Augustine and Manichean Cosmogony.” Augustinian Studies 10 (1979): 91–104. Russell, F. H. “ ‘Only Something Good Can Be Evil’: The Genesis of Augustine’s Secular Ambivalence.” Theological Studies 51 (1990): 698–716. Stroumsa, S., and G. G. Stroumsa. “Aspects of Anti-Manichaean Polemics in Late Antiquity and Under Early Islam.” Harvard Theological Review 81, no. 1 (1988): 37–58.

Document 39 AUGUSTINE, CONFESSIONS, CHAPTER 1.1–3 AND 5.3.3–6 Augustine was a Manichaean Christian for at least nine years before he switched to the Catholic version of Christianity. He tells us that he switched to the Manichaeism because he believed they knew everything about God and the world—and he believed them. While he never rose to the office of an elect (a bishop in the Manichaean version of Christianity), he was certainly an active auditor or a layperson. He was known by many Catholics when he was a Manichaean, and his zeal for spreading their faith haunted him until his

180

DO C UMENTS O F THE RISE O F C HRISTIANITY

death in 430 CE. Augustine was educated in the art of rhetoric or the skills needed to convince people of something. He used that skill on many people he was trying to convert to Manichaeism. Later, many Catholics refused to believe that he was a true Catholic and instead believed that he was a Manichaean infiltrator. He even had quite a bit of trouble convincing the Catholic hierarchy that he could be trusted when they were debating whether to elevate him to a bishopric. In the end he convinced them, and these issues led him to a massive writing campaign against the Manichaeans. It was almost a necessity for him to prove that he was not a Manichaean, and nearly all of his writings, from the time he converted to Catholicism until the beginning of the 400s, can be considered anti-Manichaean. This is certainly the case for his most famous book, the Confessions. There are two sections of the Confessions given in the following excerpt. The first is the very beginning of this book. Augustine opens this work with a statement that sets the framework for the rest of the confessions: God is great, God is to be praised, and great is His power and wisdom. The whole Confessions stems from this first sentence. The other thing to note about this book is its anti-Manichaean tone. This can be seen from the very beginning where Augustine spends quite a bit of time talking about the fact that God cannot be measured in any way and that God is present everywhere, at all times. He had written a book titled Against the Fundamental Epistle just before starting the Confessions (as far as we know—the chronology of Augustine’s writings is often difficult to determine). In it Augustine goes into great depth about how God cannot be measured. He does this by attacking the Manichaean description of the Land of Light (where God resides) and the Land of Darkness (where evil resides). His Against the Fundamental Epistle is used as a manual to teach the Manichaeans that their beliefs are incorrect and that his are correct. So it is no surprise that he opens up his Confessions with the idea that God cannot be measured and contains all things instead of being contained by anything. The second excerpt is taken from the fifth chapter of the Confessions. Here he describes meeting Faustus, a Manichaean bishop. Augustine had heard of Faustus when he was an auditor and was able to meet with him when he was twenty-nine years old. Faustus had the reputation of being one of the smartest Manichaeans due to his education. However, Augustine was not impressed. Augustine describes how the Manichaeans knew how to calculate solar eclipses and the phases of the moon and to use them to their own advantage. Augustine states that the Manichaeans did not or could not acknowledge that the movements of the sun and moon are because God created them. The Manichaeans (according to Augustine) glorified themselves with this knowledge but did not glorify the creator of these objects. What also upset Augustine was that Mani, the founder of Manichaeism, never mentioned the calculations themselves but instead told people just to believe the parts that the sun and moon played in Manichaeism—without thinking about how the sun and moon move in regular orbits. In fact, Mani was even wrong about that but still insisted that people believe what he wrote. In the end Augustine left Manichaeism because it was just the opposite of what he believed earlier—that Manichaeism was a religion of reason. Instead it was a belief based on stories that had no relation to the knowable world.



F o u r t h C e n t u r y 181

Confessions, Chapter 1.1–3 1. Great are You, O Lord, and greatly to be praised; great is Your power, and of Your wisdom there is no end. And man, being a part of Your creation, desires to praise You, man, who bears about with him his mortality, the witness of his sin, even the witness that You “resist the proud”—yet man, this part of Your creation, desires to praise You. You move us to delight in praising You; for You have formed us for Yourself, and our hearts are restless till they find rest in You. Lord, teach me to know and understand which of these should be first, to call on You, or to praise You; and likewise to know You, or to call upon You. But who is there that calls upon You without knowing You? For he that knows You not may call upon You as other than You are. Or perhaps we call on You that we may know You. “But how shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? or how shall they believe without a preacher?” And those who seek the Lord shall praise Him, for those who seek shall find Him, and those who find Him shall praise Him. Let me seek You, Lord, in calling on You, and call on You in believing in You; for You have been preached to us. O Lord, my faith calls on You—that faith which You have imparted to me, which You have breathed into me through the incarnation of Your Son, through the ministry of Your preacher. 2. And how shall I call upon my God—my God and my Lord? For when I call on Him I ask Him to come into me. And what place is there in me into which my God can come—into which God can come, even He who made heaven and earth? Is there anything in me, O Lord my God, that can contain You? Do indeed the very heaven and the earth, which You have made, and in which You have made me, contain You? Or, as nothing could exist without You, does whatever exists contain You? Why, then, do I ask You to come into me, since I indeed exist, and could not exist if You were not in me? Because I am not yet in hell, although You are even there; for “if I go down into hell You are there.” I could not therefore exist, could not exist at all, O my God, unless You were in me. Or should I not rather say, that I could not exist unless I were in You from whom are all things, by whom are all things, in whom are all things? Even so, Lord; even so. Where do I call You to, since You are in me, or from where can You come into me? For where outside heaven and earth can I go that from there my God may come into me who has said, I fill heaven and earth”? 3. Since, then, You fill heaven and earth, do they contain You? Or, as they do not contain You, do You fill them, and yet there remains something over? And where do You pour forth that which remains of You when the heaven and earth are filled? Or, indeed, is there no need that You who contain all things should be contained of any, since those things which You fill containing them? For the vessels which You fill do not sustain You, since should they even be broken You will not be poured forth. And when You are poured forth on us, You are not cast down, but we are uplifted; nor are You dissipated, but we are drawn together. But, as You fill all things, do You fill them with Your whole self, or, as even all things cannot altogether contain You, do they contain a part, and do all at once contain the same part? Or has each its own proper part—the greater more, the smaller less? Is, then, one part of You greater, another less? Or is it that You are wholly everywhere while nothing altogether contains You?

182

DO C UMENTS O F THE RISE O F C HRISTIANITY

Confessions, 5.3.3–6 3. Let me lay bare before my God that twenty-ninth year of my age there had at this time come to Carthage a certain bishop of the Manichaeans, by name Faustus, a great snare of the devil, and in any were entangled by him through the allurement of his smooth speech; the which, although I did commend him, but could I separate from the truth of those things which I was eager to learn. Nor did I esteem the small dish of oratory so much as the science, which this, their so praised Faustus, placed before me to feed upon. Fame, indeed, had before spoken of him to me, as most skilled in all becoming learning, and pre-eminently skilled in the liberal sciences. And as I had read and retained in memory many injunctions of the philosophers, I used to compare some teachings of theirs with those long fables of the Manichaeans and the former things which they declared, who could only prevail so far as to estimate this lower world, while its lord they could by no means find out, seemed to me the more probable. For You are great, O Lord, and have respect to the lowly, but the proud You know far off. Nor do You draw near but to the contrite heart, nor are You found by the proud—not even could they number by cunning skill the stars and the sand, and measure the starry regions, and trace the courses of the planets. 4. For with their understanding and the capacity which You have bestowed upon them they search out these things; and much have they found out, and foretold many years before—the eclipses of those luminaries, the sun and moon, on what day, at what hour, and from how many particular points they were likely to come. Nor did their calculation fail them, and it came to pass even as they foretold. And they wrote down the rules found out, which are read at this day; and from these others foretell in what year and in what month of the year, and on what day of the month, and at what hour of the day, and at what quarter of its light, either moon or sun is to be eclipsed, and thus it shall be even as it is foretold. And men who are ignorant of these things marvel and are amazed, and they that know them exalt and are exalted. And by an impious pride, departing from You, and forsaking Your light, they foretell a failure of the sun’s light which is likely to occur so long before, but see not their own, which is now present. For they do not religiously seek from where they have the ability from where they seek out these things. And finding that You have made them, they do not give themselves up to You, so that You may preserve what You have made. Nor do they sacrifice themselves to You, even such as they have made themselves to be. Nor do they slay their own pride, as fowls of the air, nor their own curiosities, by which (like the fishes of the sea) they wander over the unknown paths of the abyss, nor their own extravagance, as the “beasts of the field,” that You, Lord, “a consuming fire,” may burn up their lifeless cares and renew them immortally. 5. But the way, Your Word, by whom You made these things which they number, and themselves who number, and the sense by which they perceive what they number, and the judgment out of which they number: they did not know, and that of Your wisdom there is no number. But the Only-begotten has been “made to us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification,” and has been numbered among us, and paid tribute to Caesar. This way, by which they might descend to Him from themselves, they did not know; nor that through Him they might ascend unto Him. This way they knew not, and they think themselves exalted with the stars and shining, and



F o u r t h C e n t u r y 183

look—they fell upon the earth, and “their foolish heart was darkened.” They say many true things concerning the creature, but Truth, the Creator of the creature, they do not seek with devotion, and hence they do not find Him. Or if they find Him, knowing that He is God, they glorify Him not as God. Neither are they thankful, but become vain in their imaginations and say that they themselves are wise, attributing to themselves what is Yours. And by this, with most perverse blindness, they desire to credit to You what is their own, forging lies against You who are the Truth, and changing the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man, and to birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things—changing Your truth into a lie, and worshipping and serving the creature more than the Creator. 6. Many truths, however, concerning the creature did I retain from these men, and the cause appeared to me from calculations, the succession of seasons, and the visible manifestations of the stars. I compared them with the sayings of Manichaeus, who in his frenzy has written most extensively on these subjects, but discovered not any account either of the solstices, or the equinoxes, the eclipses of the luminaries, or anything of the kind I had learned in the books of secular philosophy. But therein I was ordered to believe, and yet it did not corresponded with those rules acknowledged by calculation and my own sight—but was far different.

Source: Wace, Henry, and Philip Schaff. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series I, Vol. I. Grand Rapids, MI: WM. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1886.

Further Reading Bammel, C. P. “Pauline Exegesis, Manichaeism and Philosophy in the Early Augustine.” In Christian Faith and Greek Philosophy in Late Antiquity: Essays in Tribute to Christopher Stead, edited by L. R. Wickham and C. P. Bammel, 1–25. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill, 1993. BeDuhn, J. D. The Manichaean Body in Discipline and Ritual. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2000. Bennett, B. “Iuxta Unum Latus Erat Terra Tenebrarum: The Division of Primordial Space in Anti-Manichaean Writers’ Descriptions of the Manichaean Cosmogony.” In The Light and the Darkness: Studies in Manichaeism and Its World, edited by P. Mirecki and J. BeDuhn, 68–78. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill, 2001. Brown, Peter. “The Diffusion of Manichaeism in the Roman Empire.” In Religion and Society in the Age of St. Augustine, 94–118. London: Harper & Row, 1972. Originally published in Journal of Roman Studies 59 (1969): 92–103. Coyle, J. K. “What Did Augustine Know about Manichaeism When He Wrote His Two Treatises De Moribus?” In Augustine and Manichaeism in the Latin West, Proceedings of the Fribourg-Utrecht Symposium of the International Association of Manichaean Studies (IAMS), edited by J. Van Oort, O. Wermelinger, and G. Wurst, 43–56. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill, 2001. Ferrari, L. C. “Augustine’s ‘Nine Years’ as a Manichee.” Augustiniana 25 (1975): 210–216. Kotzé, Annemaré. “Augustine’s Confessions: The Social and Literary Context.” Acta Classica 49 (2006): 145–166. Lieu, S. N. C. Manichaeism in the Later Roman Empire and Medieval China: A Historical Survey. Rev. 2nd ed. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1992.

184

DO C UMENTS O F THE RISE O F C HRISTIANITY

Suchocki, Marjorie. “The Symbolic Structure of Augustine’s ‘Confessions.’ ” Journal of the American Academy of Religion 50, no. 3 (September 1982): 365–378. Van Oort, J. Mani, Manichaeism and Augustine: The Rediscovery of Manichaeism and Its Influence on Western Christianity. Tbilisi: Academy of Sciences of Georgia, 1996.

Document 40 AUGUSTINE, LETTER 28 TO JEROME Augustine, a priest living in North Africa, and Jerome, a priest living in Bethlehem, seem at first to have little in common except being priests. The distance between them was far, but the Romans had a very good transportation system, and it (usually) was no trouble to get a letter from one person to another. However, this was not the case for this particular one, sent from Augustine in either 394 or 395. It actually didn’t get to Jerome until nine years later. In the meantime, Augustine, waiting for a reply, was not happy that Jerome did not respond—he didn’t know that the letter was not sent. The beginning of the letter stated that Augustine knew of the work of Jerome. Jerome, a biblical scholar who was famous during his lifetime, had written quite a bit—commentaries, translations, and histories. Alypius, a long-time friend of Augustine had met Jerome in Bethlehem and he probably also sent some texts he had written with Alypius. Augustine reminded Jerome of this meeting and told Jerome that Alypius related Jerome’s scholarly work to him. It is unfortunate that Augustine does not specifically state what these writings were. One possibility is that Alypius told Augustine of Jerome’s insistence at translating the Old Testament into Latin directly from the Hebrew, as opposed to from the Greek. The Septuagint, or the Writing of the Seventy, was the Greek Old Testament. Most people around the Mediterranean (including Jewish groups) used the Greek Septuagint instead of the Hebrew original. It was thought that seventy-two scholars translated the Old Testament from Hebrew directly into Greek. They did this separately, but in the end all seventy-two manuscripts were exactly the same. After the formal introduction of his letter, Augustine immediately told Jerome that he shouldn’t be devoting his skills to translating the canonical scriptures from Hebrew into Latin. He told Jerome that it is hard to believe that the original translators of the Septuagint had missed anything that Jerome would find in the Hebrew manuscripts. You can just imagine the surprise and indignation that Jerome must have felt receiving this letter out of the blue (of course, nine years later). In 403 (in Letter 71) Augustine had written again and still wished that Jerome would just translate the Old Testament from Greek, mostly because some congregations did not like the fact that some of his translations were different to what they had grown up hearing. The substance of the letter, however, was about Jerome’s method of commentary. It was standard for people to make comments on biblical (and other) texts in order to aid in the reader’s understanding. Augustine told Jerome he had read his Commentary on Galatians. It is this reading that will begin a long feud between the two of them. Galatians 2:11–14 is argument between Paul and Peter over the issue of food. Paul told the Galatians that although Peter originally decided to eat with the Gentiles, for some reason



F o u r t h C e n t u r y 185

Peter changed his mind and was now avoiding them. Paul wrote that this affected the other Jews, who then stopped their dealings with the Gentiles as well. In his Commentary on Galatians, Jerome believed that the two men were play-acting for their audience, implying that they were not really in conflict with each other. It was unthinkable to Jerome that the two pillars of the church would be arguing with each other, especially in public. Therefore, they must be pretending. But for Augustine, this type of exegesis (explanation from the texts) had serious ramifications. He told Jerome that if the two were lying to the public, then it could lead other groups of people who could then point to any passage in the Bible they disagreed with and then state that it was a lie. Augustine was justifiably concerned that if Jerome, who was widely read throughout the Mediterranean, believed that there were lies in the New Testament, then others would start to believe it, and it would also become the norm. Augustine had some experience with this already since, as he was dealing with Jerome, he was right in the middle of large battles with the Manichaeans and their different interpretations of the scripture. They believed that parts of the New Testament had been corrupted. The Manichaeans are implied here in his letter. But for Augustine, any heretical group could follow this exegetical pathway. After expressing his concerns, Augustine told Jerome that he should go back and examine Galatians 2 more closely. But, Augustine wrote, he will leave the matter up to Jerome. He then told Jerome that he was sending some of his own writings for Jerome’s comments. After writing his letter, Augustine then gave it to Profuturus, who was supposed to take it with him to Bethlehem. Unfortunately, Profuturus never went to Bethlehem and didn’t tell Augustine that the letter was not sent. Augustine waited for a response that, of course, never came. That did not endear him and probably added to the tension that Augustine was feeling.

Letter 28, Augustine to Jerome To Jerome, His Most Beloved Lord, and Brother and Fellow-Presbyter, Worthy of Being Honored and Embraced with the Sincerest Affectionate Devotion, Augustine Sends Greeting.

Chapter 1.1 Never was the face of any one more familiar to another, than the peaceful, happy, and truly noble diligence of your studies in the Lord are known to me. For although I long greatly to be acquainted with you, I feel that already my knowledge of you is deficient in respect of nothing but a very small part of you—namely, your personal appearance, and even as to this, I cannot deny that since my most blessed brother Alypius (now invested with the office of bishop, of which he was then truly worthy) has seen you, and has on his return been seen by me. It has been almost completely imprinted on my mind by his report of you—I may say that before his return, when he saw you there, I was seeing you myself with his eyes. For anyone who knows us may say of him and me, that in body only, and not in mind, we

186

DO C UMENTS O F THE RISE O F C HRISTIANITY

are two, so great is the union of heart, so firm the intimate friendship subsisting between us. In merit, however, we are not alike, for his is far above mine. Seeing, therefore, that you love me, both of old through the communion of spirit by which we are knit to each other, and more recently through what you know of me from the mouth of my friend, I feel that it is not presumptuous in me (as it would be in one wholly unknown to you) to recommend to your brotherly esteem the brother Profuturus, in whom we trust that the happy omen of his name (Good-speed) may be fulfilled through our efforts furthered after this by your aid—although, perhaps it may be presumptuous on this ground, that he is so great a man, that it would be much more fitting that I should be commended to you by him, than he by me. I ought perhaps to write no more, if I were willing to content myself with the style of a formal letter of introduction; but my mind overflows into conference with you, concerning the studies with which we are occupied in Christ Jesus our Lord, who is pleased to furnish us largely through your love with many benefits, and some helps by the way, in the path which He has pointed out to His followers.

Chapter 2.2 We therefore, and with us all that are devoted to study in the African churches, beg you not to refuse to devote care and labor to the translation of the books of those who have written in the Greek language the most able commentaries on our Scriptures. You may thus put us also in possession of these men, and especially of that one whose name you seem to have singular pleasure in sounding forth in your writings (i.e., Origen). But I beg you not to devote your labor to the work of translating into Latin the sacred canonical books, unless you follow the method in which you have translated Job, meaning, with the addition of notes, to let it be seen plainly what differences there are between this version of yours and that of the Septuagint, whose authority is worthy of highest esteem. For my own part, I cannot sufficiently express my wonder that anything should at this date be found in the Hebrew manuscripts which escaped so many translators perfectly acquainted with the language. I say nothing of the Septuagint regarding whose harmony in mind and spirit, surpassing that which is found in even one man, I dare not in any way pronounce a decided opinion, except that in my judgment, beyond question, very high authority must in this work of translation be conceded to them. I am more perplexed by those translators who, though enjoying the advantage of laboring after the Septuagint had completed their work, and although well acquainted, as it is reported, with the force of Hebrew words, phrases, and with Hebrew syntax, have not only failed to agree among themselves, but have left many things which, even after so long a time, still remain to be discovered and brought to light. Now these things were either obscure or plain. If they were obscure, it is believed that you are as likely to have been mistaken as the others. If they were plain, it is not believed that they [those who translated the Septuagint] could possibly have been mistaken. Having stated the grounds of my perplexity, I appeal to your kindness to give me an answer regarding this matter.



F o u r t h C e n t u r y 187

Chapter 3.3 I have been reading also some writings, ascribed to you, on the Epistles of the Apostle Paul. In reading your exposition of the Epistle to the Galatians, that passage came to my hand in which the Apostle Peter is called back from a course of dangerous disguise. To find there the defense of falsehood undertaken, whether by you, a man of such weight, or by any author (if it is the writing of another), causes me, I must confess, great sorrow, until at least those things which decide my opinion in the matter are refuted, if indeed they admit of refutation. For it seems to me that most disastrous consequences must follow upon our believing that anything false is found in the sacred books—that is to say, that the men by whom the Scripture has been given to us, and committed to writing, did put down in these books anything false. It is one question whether it may be at any time the duty of a good man to deceive; but it is another question whether it can have been the duty of a writer of Holy Scripture to deceive: nay, it is not another question—it is no question at all. For if you once admit into such a high sanctuary of authority one false statement as made in the way of duty, there will not be left a single sentence of those books which, if appearing to any one difficult in practice or hard to believe, may not by the same fatal rule be explained away, as a statement in which, intentionally, and under a sense of duty, the author declared what was not true. 4. For if the Apostle Paul did not speak the truth when, finding fault with the Apostle Peter, he said: “If you, being a Jew, lives after the manner of Gentiles and not as do the Jews, why do you compel the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?” If, indeed, Peter seemed to him to be doing what was right, and if, notwithstanding, he, in order to soothe troublesome opponents, both said and wrote that Peter did what was wrong—if we say thus, what then shall be our answer when perverse men such as he himself prophetically described arise, forbidding marriage, if they defend themselves by saying that, in all which the same apostle wrote in confirmation of the lawfulness of marriage, he was, on account of men who, through love for their wives, might become troublesome opponents, declaring what was false—saying these things, indeed, not because he believed them, but because their opposition might thus be averted? It is unnecessary to quote many parallel examples. For even things which pertain to the praises of God might be represented as piously intended falsehoods, written in order that love for Him might be enkindled in men who were slow of heart and thus nowhere in the sacred books shall the authority of pure truth stand sure. Do we not observe the great care with which the same apostle commends the truth to us, when he says: “And if Christ is not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain: yes, and we are found false witnesses of God because we have testified of God that He raised up Christ; whom He raised not up, if so be that the dead not rise.” If anyone said to him, “Why are you so shocked by this falsehood, when the thing which you have said, even if it were false, tends very greatly to the glory of God?” would he not, abhorring the madness of such a man, with every word and sign which could express his feelings, open clearly the secret depths of his own heart, protesting that to speak well of a falsehood uttered on behalf of God, was a crime not less, perhaps even greater, than to

188

DO C UMENTS O F THE RISE O F C HRISTIANITY

speak ill of the truth concerning Him? We must therefore be careful to secure, in order to our knowledge of the divine Scriptures, the guidance only of such a man as is imbued with a high reverence for the sacred books, and a profound persuasion of their truth, preventing him from flattering himself in any part of them with the hypothesis of a statement being made not because it was true, but because it was expedient, and making him rather pass by what he does not understand, than to set up his own feelings above that truth. For, truly, when he pronounces anything to be untrue, he demands that he be believed in preference and endeavors to shake our confidence in the authority of the divine Scriptures. 5. For my part, I would devote all the strength which the Lord grants me to show that every one of those texts which are quoted in defense of the expediency of falsehood ought to be otherwise understood, in order that everywhere the sure truth of these passages themselves may be consistently maintained. For as statements adduced in evidence must not be false, neither should they favor falsehood. This, however, I leave to your own judgment. For if you apply more thorough attention to the passage, perhaps you will see it much more readily than I have done. To this more careful study that piety will move you, by which you discern that the authority of the divine Scriptures becomes unsettled (so that everyone may believe what he wishes, and reject what he does not wish) if this be once admitted, that the men by whom these things have been delivered unto us, could in their writings state some things which were not true, from considerations of duty—unless, perchance, you propose to furnish us with certain rules by which we may know when a falsehood might or might not become a duty. If this can be done, I beg you to set forth these rules with reasonings which may be neither equivocal nor precarious; and I beseech you by our Lord, in whom Truth was incarnate, not to consider me burdensome or presumptuous in making this request. For a mistake of mine which is in the interest of truth cannot deserve great blame, if indeed it deserves blame at all, when it is possible for you to use truth in the interest of falsehood without doing wrong.

Chapter 4.6 Of many other things I would wish to discourse with your most ingenuous heart and to take counsel with you concerning Christian studies, but this desire could not be satisfied within the limits of any letter. I may do this more fully by means of the brother bearing this letter, whom I rejoice in sending to share and profit by your sweet and useful conversation. Nevertheless, although I do not reckon myself superior in any respect to him, even he may take less from you than I would desire, and he will excuse my saying so, for I confess myself to have more room for receiving from you than he has. I see his mind to be already more fully stored, in which unquestionably he excels me. Therefore, when he returns, as I trust he may happily do by God’s blessing, and when I become a sharer in all with which his heart has been richly furnished by you, there will still be a consciousness of void unsatisfied in me, and a longing for personal fellowship with you. Hence of the two I shall be the poorer, and he the richer, then as now. This brother carries with him some of my writings, which if you condescend to read, I implore you



F o u r t h C e n t u r y 189

to review them with candid and brotherly strictness. For the words of Scripture, “The righteous shall correct me in compassion, and reprove me; but the oil of the sinner shall not anoint my head,” I understand to mean that he is the truer friend who by his censure heals me, than the one who by flattery anoints my head. I find the greatest difficulty in exercising a right judgment when I read over what I have written, being either too cautious or too rash. For I sometimes see my own faults, but I prefer to hear them reproved by those who are better able to judge than I am, in case after I have, perhaps justly, charged myself with error, I begin again to flatter myself, and think that my censure has arisen from an undue mistrust of my own judgment. Source: Wace, Henry, and Philip Schaff. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series I, Vol. I. Grand Rapids, MI: WM. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1886.

Further Reading Hasselhoff, Görge K. “Revising the Vulgate: Jerome and His Jewish Interlocutors.” Zeitschrift für Religions- und Geistesgeschichte 64, no. 3 (2012): 209–221. Jamieson, Kathleen. “Jerome, Augustine and the Stesichoran Palinode.” Rhetorica: A Journal of the History of Rhetoric 5, no. 4 (Autumn 1987): 353–367. Kelly, J. N. D. Jerome: His Life, Writings, and Controversies. London: Duckworth, 1975. Plumer, E. Augustine’s Commentary on Galatians: Introduction, Text, Translation and Notes. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003. Sparks, H. F. D. “Jerome as Biblical Scholar.” In Cambridge History of the Bible, edited by P. R. Ackroyd and C. F. Evans, Vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970. White, C. The Correspondence (394–419) between Jerome and Augustine of Hippo. Studies in Bible and Early Christianity, Vol. 23. Lewiston, NY: E. Mellon Press, 1990. Willis, G. G. “Patristic Biblical Citations: The Importance of a Good Critical Text, Illustrated from St. Augustine.” Studia Patristica 7, no. 1 (1966): 576–579.

Document 41 JEROME, THE PERPETUAL VIRGINITY OF BLESSED MARY, AGAINST HELVIDIUS 1; 20–24 Jerome wrote a small pamphlet titled The Perpetual Virginity of Blessed Mary sometime in 383. Jerome, considered an early church father, was famous in his day for being an expert on Christianity. He was known (sometimes notoriously) from Rome to North Africa (by Augustine) and in the place where he finally settled, Bethlehem, where he started a monastery. He wrote this in response to someone named Helvidius. Not much is known about him except that he lived in Rome about the same time as Jerome. As can be seen from the beginning, Jerome did not hold his intellect very highly. He stated in the first chapter: I was requested by certain of the brethren not long ago to reply to a pamphlet written by one Helvidius. I have deferred doing so, not because it is a difficult matter to

190

DO C UMENTS O F THE RISE O F C HRISTIANITY

maintain the truth and refute an ignorant boor who has scarce known the first glimmer of learning, but because I was afraid my reply might make him appear worth defeating. There was the further consideration that a turbulent fellow, the only individual in the world who thinks himself both priest and layman, one who, as has been said, thinks that eloquence consists in loquacity and considers speaking ill of anyone to be the witness of a good conscience, would begin to blaspheme worse than ever if opportunity of discussion were afforded him. He would stand as it were on a pedestal and would publish his views far and wide. There was reason also to fear that when truth failed him he would assail his opponents with the weapon of abuse. But all these motives for silence, though just, have more justly ceased to influence me, because of the scandal caused to the brethren who were disgusted at his ravings. The axe of the Gospel must therefore be now laid to the root of the barren tree, and both it and its fruitless foliage cast into the fire, so that Helvidius who has never learnt to speak, may at length learn to hold his tongue.

Jerome (who died in 420 CE) certainly had no issues with controversy or with holding back what he really thought. He was an easily irritated figure, arguing with all who dared to state sometime different than what he believed. However, there is no arguing with his intellect. He wrote numerous books, commentaries, and letters throughout his adult life. While the question of whether Mary, the mother of Jesus, was a virgin is questioned today by some, it was also a question that early Christians had to deal with. The second century was the beginning of a long discussion on what it meant for Mary to be a virgin and whether she was still a virgin after giving birth to Christ. Her virginity created a whole new category for Christian women—they could leave their parents and forgo getting married and having children and live as virgins, mimicking at least part of the role of Mary in Christianity. Did Mary have, with Joseph, more children after giving birth to Jesus? Was she really and truly married to Joseph? These were common questions that some Christians had to think about, including Jerome. By his own account, he was dragged into this when Helvidius claimed that Mary had more children after Jesus and that marriage was more important than being a virgin. Jerome had always thought that virginity was one step above being married—but he was very careful not to downplay marriage (like many other Christians, both before and after him). The following excerpt is the last part of the treatise. In the beginning he wrote what he believed: that Mary was a virgin before the birth of Christ, was a virgin after the birth of Christ, and had no other children because she did not have sex with Joseph at all, ever. Any mention of other children of Mary was a misunderstanding—clearly, according to Jerome, these people were cousins or some other relation but not children. Jerome argued in the last part that not only was Mary a virgin but that Mary and Joseph also were never actually married and that Joseph himself was a virgin (because he did not have sex with Mary). Finally, he argued that virginity was better than marriage.

The Perpetual Virginity of Blessed Mary, Against Helvidius 20. I now direct the attack against the passage in which, wishing to show your cleverness, you institute a comparison between virginity and marriage. I could not forbear



F o u r t h C e n t u r y 191

smiling, and I thought of the proverb, did you ever see a camel dance? “Are virgins better,” you ask, “than Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, who were married men? Are not infants daily fashioned by the hands of God in the wombs of their mothers? And if so, are we bound to blush at the thought of Mary having a husband after she was delivered? If they find any disgrace in this, they ought not consistently even to believe that God was born of the Virgin by natural delivery. For according to them there is more dishonor in a virgin giving birth to God by the organs of generation, than in a virgin being joined to her own husband after she has been delivered.” Add, if you like, Helvidius, the other humiliations of nature, the womb for nine months growing larger, the sickness, the delivery, the blood, the swaddling-clothes. Picture to yourself the infant in the enveloping membranes. Introduce into your picture the hard manger, the wailing of the infant, the circumcision on the eighth day, the time of purification, so that he may be proved to be unclean. We do not blush, we are not put to silence. The greater the humiliations He endured for me, the more I owe Him. And when you have given every detail, you will be able to produce nothing more shameful than the cross, which we confess, in which we believe, and by which we triumph over our enemies. 21. But as we do not deny what is written, so we do reject what is not written. We believe that God was born of the Virgin, because we read it. That Mary was married after she brought forth, we do not believe, because we do not read it. Nor do we say this to condemn marriage, for virginity itself is the fruit of marriage; but because when we are dealing with saints we must not judge rashly. If we adopt possibility as the standard of judgment, we might maintain that Joseph had several wives because Abraham had, and so had Jacob, and that the Lord’s brethren were the issue of those wives, an invention which some hold with a rashness which springs from audacity not from piety. You say that Mary did not continue a virgin: I claim still more, that Joseph himself on account of Mary was a virgin, so that from a virgin wedlock a virgin son was born. For if as a holy man he does not come under the imputation of fornication, and it is nowhere written that he had another wife, but was the guardian of Mary whom he was supposed to have to wife rather than her husband, the conclusion is that he who was thought worthy to be called father of the Lord, remained a virgin. 22. And now that I am about to institute a comparison between virginity and marriage, I beseech my readers not to suppose that in praising virginity I have in the least disparaged marriage, and separated the saints of the Old Testament from those of the New, that is to say, those who had wives and those who altogether refrained from the embraces of women: I rather think that in accordance with the difference in time and circumstance one rule applied to the former, another to us upon whom the ends of the world have come. So long as that law remained, “Be fruitful, and multiply and replenish the earth”; and “Cursed is the barren woman that does not bear seed in Israel,” they all married and were given in marriage, left father and mother, and became one flesh. But once in tones of thunder the words were heard, “The time is shortened, that henceforth those that have wives may be as though they had none”: cleaving to the Lord, we are made one spirit with Him. And why? Because “He that is unmarried is careful for the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord: but he that is married is careful for the things of the world, how he may please his wife. And there is a difference also between the wife and the virgin. She that is unmarried is careful for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married is careful for the things of the world, how she may please her husband.”

192

DO C UMENTS O F THE RISE O F C HRISTIANITY

Why do you cavil? Why do you resist? The vessel of election says this; he tells us that there is a difference between the wife and the virgin. Observe what the happiness of that state must be in which even the distinction of sex is lost. The virgin is no longer called a woman. “She that is unmarried is careful for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit.” A virgin is defined as she that is holy in body and in spirit, for it is no good to have virgin flesh if a woman be married in mind. “But she that is married is careful for the things of the world, how she may please her husband.” Do you think there is no difference between one who spends her time in prayer and fasting, and one who must, at her husband’s approach, make up her countenance, walk with mincing gait, and feign a show of endearment? The virgin’s aim is to appear less comely; she will wrong herself so as to hide her natural attractions. The married woman has the paint laid on before her mirror, and, to the insult of her Maker, strives to acquire something more than her natural beauty. Then come the prattling of infants, the noisy household, children watching for her word and waiting for her kiss, the reckoning up of expenses, the preparation to meet the outlay. On one side you will see a company of cooks, girded for the onslaught and attacking the meat: there you may hear the hum of a multitude of weavers. Meanwhile a message is delivered that the husband and his friends have arrived. The wife, like a swallow, flies all over the house. “She has to see to everything. Is the sofa smooth? Is the pavement swept? Are the flowers in the cups? Is dinner ready?” Tell me, pray, where amid all this is there room for the thought of God? Are these happy homes? Where there is the beating of drums, the noise and clatter of pipe and lute, the clanging of cymbals, can any fear of God be found? The parasite is snubbed and feels proud of the honor. Enter next the half-naked victims of the passions, a mark for every lustful eye. The unhappy wife must either take pleasure in them, and perish, or be displeased, and provoke her husband. Hence arises discord, the seed-plot of divorce. Or suppose you find me a house where these things are unknown, which is a rara avis indeed! yet even there the very management of the household, the education of the children, the wants of the husband, the correction of the servants, cannot fail to call away the mind from the thought of God. “It had ceased to be with Sarah after the manner of women”: so the Scripture says, and afterwards Abraham received the command, “In all that Sarah says to you, listen to her voice.” She who is not subject to the anxiety and pain of child-bearing and having passed the change of life has ceased to perform the functions of a woman, is freed from the curse of God: nor is her desire to her husband, but on the contrary her husband becomes subject to her, and the voice of the Lord commands him, “In all that Sarah says to you, listen to her voice.” Thus they begin to have time for prayer. For so long as the debt of marriage is paid, earnest prayer is neglected. 23. I do not deny that holy women are found both among widows and those who have husbands; but they are such as have ceased to be wives, or such as, even in the close bond of marriage, imitate virgin chastity. The Apostle, Christ speaking in him, briefly bore witness to this when he said, “She that is unmarried is careful for the things of the Lord, how she may please the Lord: but she that is married is careful for the things of the world, how she may please her husband.” He leaves us the free exercise of our reason in the matter. He lays no necessity upon anyone nor leads anyone into a snare: he only persuades to that which is proper when he wishes all men to be as himself. He had not, it is true, a commandment from the Lord



F o u r t h C e n t u r y 193

respecting virginity, for that grace surpasses the unassisted power of man, and it would have worn an air of immodesty to force men to fly in the face of nature, and to say in other words, I want you to be what the angels are. It is this angelic purity which secures to virginity its highest reward, and the Apostle might have seemed to despise a course of life which involves no guilt. Nevertheless in the immediate context he adds, “But I give my judgment, as one that has obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful. I think therefore that this is good by reason of the present distress, namely, that it is good for a man to be as he is.” What is meant by present distress? “Woe unto them that are with child and to them that give suck in those days!” The reason why the wood grows up is that it may be cut down. The field is sown that it may be reaped. The world is already full, and the population is too large for the soil. Every day we are being cut down by war, snatched away by disease, swallowed up by shipwreck, although we go to law with one another about the fences of our property. It is only one addition to the general rule which is made by those who follow the Lamb, and who have not defiled their garments, for they have continued in their virgin state. Notice the meaning of defiling. I shall not venture to explain it, for fear Helvidius may be abusive. I agree with you, when you say, that some virgins are nothing but tavern women; I say still more, that even adulteresses may be found among them, and, you will no doubt be still more surprised to hear, that some of the clergy are inn-keepers and some monks unchaste. Who does not at once understand that a tavern woman cannot be a virgin, nor an adulterer a monk, nor a clergyman a tavern-keeper? Are we to blame virginity if its counterfeit is at fault? For my part, to pass over other persons and come to the virgin, I maintain that she who is engaged in huckstering, though for anything I know she may be a virgin in body, is no longer one in spirit. 24. I have become rhetorical, and have disported myself a little like a platform orator. You compelled me, Helvidius, for, brightly as the Gospel shines at the present day, you will have it that equal glory attaches to virginity and to the marriage state. And because I think that, finding the truth too strong for you, you will turn to disparaging my life and abusing my character (it is the way of weak women to talk tittletattle in corners when they have been put down by their masters), I shall anticipate you. I assure you that I shall regard your railing as a high distinction, since the same lips that assail me have disparaged Mary, and I, a servant of the Lord, am favored with the same barking eloquence as His mother.

Source: Wace, Henry, and Philip Schaff. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series II, Vol. VI. Grand Rapids, MI: WM. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1886.

Further Reading Adkin, N. “Ambrose and Jerome: The Opening Shot.” Mnemosyne, Fourth Series 46, fasc. 3 (August 1993): 364–376. Booth, Stefan. “The Chronology of Jerome’s Early Years.” Phoenix 35 (1981): 237–259. Castelli, Elizabeth. “Virginity and Its Meaning for Women’s Sexuality in Early Christianity.” Journal of Feminist Studies in Religion 2, no. 1 (Spring 1986): 61–88. Driver, Steven D. “The Development of Jerome’s Views on the Ascetic Life.” Recherches de Théologie Ancienne et Médiévale 62 (December–January 1995): 44–70.

194

DO C UMENTS O F THE RISE O F C HRISTIANITY

Harrison, Verna E. F. “Gender, Generation, and Virginity in Cappadocian Theology.” Journal of Theological Studies, New Series 47, no. 1 (April 1996): 38–68. Hunter, David G. “The Virgin, the Bride, and the Church: Reading Psalm 45 in Ambrose, Jerome, and Augustine.” Church History 69, no. 2 (June 2000): 281–303. Pelikan, Jaroslav. Mary through the Centuries: Her Place in the History of Culture. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2002. Rebenich, Stefan. Jerome. London: Routledge, 2002. Wiesen, David S. St. Jerome as a Satirist: A Study in Christian Latin Thought and Letters. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1964.

Document 42 THE SYNODICAL LETTER, SECOND ECUMENICAL COUNCIL, 381 CE In the year 381, the Second Ecumenical Council took place in the city of Constantinople. It was called for by Emperor Theodosius. The first one took place in Nicea, under the auspices of Emperor Constantine, in 325. It was the Council of Nicea that set the tone for all future so-called ecumenical councils. It was there that the assembly of bishops agreed on a statement of faith, anathematized what they referred to as heresies, and then created a list of laws or canons for clergy to follow. The same structure took place at Constantinople nearly sixty years later. It was here they affirmed that the statement of faith created by those at Nicea held firm. They created a list of heresies that were plaguing the church at this time (the Arians were still on that list) and like Nicea, created a list of canons. These councils were called “ecumenical” because all bishops were invited to attend. In reality, the Council of Nicea in 325 was filled with bishops from the eastern side of the empire and very few western bishops. This was even more the case for this second council as about 150 eastern bishops were in attendance, and it appears that western bishops were not even told about it. It was considered to be “ecumenical” later. The letter was an attempt to fill in the western bishops of what took place in the east, in hopes that they could all agree on its findings. It was also sent in reply to a request by the western bishops for the eastern bishops to join them in a council at Rome. This letter is a response. It was also sent because the bishops in Rome were also meeting, and the eastern bishops wanted to make sure they were all in agreement over theology. As many of them knew, this was the problem with the First Ecumenical Council—news traveled slowly back west, and when the council notes arrived, many western bishops were confused, not only about the matters debated but also about the very language that was used in the statement of faith (the use of homoousius to describe the nature of God and Christ). This letter is very important in that the council notes of the Second Ecumenical Council do not exist. The Creed, or Statement of Faith, was not known except that it was mentioned by the Council of Chalcedon, held in 451 and is considered to be the Fourth Ecumenical council. We do know that Emperor Theodosius, who called the meeting together, approved the council and its notes in July 381. The following contains the entire Synodical Letter.



F o u r t h C e n t u r y 195

The Synodical Letter, Second Ecumenical Council To the right honorable lords our right reverend brethren and colleagues, Damasus, Ambrosius, Britton, Valerianus, Ascholius, Anemius, Basilius and the rest of the holy bishops assembled in the great city of Rome, the holy synod of the orthodox bishops assembled at the great city of Constantinople sends greeting in the Lord. To recount all the sufferings inflicted on us by the power of the Arians, and to attempt to give information to your reverences, as though you were not already well acquainted with them, might seem superfluous. For we do not suppose your piety to hold what is befalling us as of such secondary importance as that you stand in any need of information on matters which cannot but evoke your sympathy. Nor indeed were the storms which beset us such as to escape notice from their insignificance. Our persecutions are but of yesterday. The sound of them still rings in the ears alike of those who suffered them and of those whose love made the sufferers’ pain their own. It was but a day or two ago, so to speak, that some released from chains in foreign lands returned to their own churches through manifold afflictions; of others who had died in exile the relics were brought home; others again, even after their return from exile, found the passion of the heretics still at the boiling heat, and, slain by them with stones as was the blessed Stephen, met with a sadder fate in their own than in a stranger’s land. Others, worn away with various cruelties, still bear in their bodies the scars of their wounds and the marks of Christ. Who could tell the tale of fines, of disfranchisements, of individual confiscations, of intrigues, of outrages, of prisons? In truth all kinds of tribulation were wrought out beyond number in us, perhaps because we were paying the penalty of sins, perhaps because the merciful God was trying us by means of the multitude of our sufferings. For these all thanks to God, who by means of such afflictions trained his servants and, according to the multitude of his mercies, brought us again to refreshment. We indeed needed long leisure, time, and toil to restore the church once more, that so, like physicians healing the body after long sickness and expelling its disease by gradual treatment, we might bring her back to her ancient health of true religion. It is true that on the whole we seem to have been delivered from the violence of our persecutions and to be just now recovering the churches which have for a long time been the prey of the heretics. But wolves are troublesome to us who, though they have been driven from the fold, yet harry the flock up and down the glades, daring to hold rival assemblies, stirring seditious among the people, and shrinking from nothing which can do damage to the churches. So, as we have already said, we must labor all the longer. Since, however, you showed your brotherly love to us by inviting us (as though we were your own members) by the letters of our most religious emperor to the synod which you are gathering by divine permission at Rome, to the end that since we alone were then condemned to suffer persecution, you should not now, when our emperors are at one with us as to true religion, reign apart from us, but that we, to use the Apostle’s phrase, should reign with you, our prayer was, if it were possible, all in company to leave our churches, and rather

196

DO C UMENTS O F THE RISE O F C HRISTIANITY

gratify our longing to see you than consult their needs. For who will give us wings as of a dove, and we will fly and be at rest? But this course seemed likely to leave the churches who were just recovering quite undefended, and the undertaking was to most of us impossible, for, in accordance with the letters sent a year ago from your holiness after the synod at Aquileia to the most pious emperor Theodosius, we had journeyed to Constantinople, equipped only for travelling so far as Constantinople, and bringing the consent of the bishops remaining in the provinces of this synod alone. We had been in no expectation of any longer journey nor had heard a word about it, before our arrival at Constantinople. In addition to all this, and on account of the narrow limits of the appointed time which allowed of no preparation for a longer journey, nor of communicating with the bishops of our communion in the provinces and of obtaining their consent, the journey to Rome was for the majority impossible. We have therefore adopted the next best course open to us under the circumstances, both for the better administration of the church, and for manifesting our love towards you, by strongly urging our most venerated, and honored colleagues and brother bishops Cyriacus, Eusebius and Priscianus, to consent to travel to you. Through them we wish to make it plain that our disposition is all for peace with unity for its sole object, and that we are full of zeal for the right faith. For we, whether we suffered persecutions, or afflictions, or the threats of emperors, or the cruelties of princes, or any other trial at the hands of heretics, have undergone all for the sake of the evangelic faith, ratified by the three hundred and eighteen fathers at Nicaea in Bithynia. This is the faith which ought to be sufficient for you, for us, for all who wrest not the word of the true faith; for it is the ancient faith; it is the faith of our baptism; it is the faith that teaches us to believe in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. According to this faith there is one Godhead, Power and Substance of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost; the dignity being equal, and the majesty being equal in three perfect hypostases, i.e. three perfect persons. Thus there is no room for the heresy of Sabellius by the confusion of the hypostases, i.e. the destruction of the personalities; thus the blasphemy of the Eunomians, of the Arians, and of the Pneumatomachi is nullified, which divides the substance, the nature, and the godhead, and super-induces on the uncreated consubstantial and co-eternal Trinity a nature posterior, created and of a different substance. We moreover preserve unperverted the doctrine of the incarnation of the Lord, holding the tradition that the dispensation of the flesh is neither soulless nor mindless nor imperfect; and knowing full well that God’s Word was perfect before the ages, and became perfect man in the last days for our salvation. Let this suffice for a summary of the doctrine which is fearlessly and frankly preached by us, and concerning which you will be able to be still further satisfied if you will deign to read the tome of the synod of Antioch, and also that tome issued last year by the Ecumenical Council held at Constantinople, in which we have set forth our confession of the faith at greater length, and have appended an anathema against the heresies which innovators have recently inscribed. Now as to the particular administration of individual churches, an ancient custom, as you know, has



F o u r t h C e n t u r y 197

obtained, confirmed by the enactment of the holy fathers of Nicaea, that in every province, the bishops of the province, and, with their consent, the neighboring bishops with them, should perform ordinations as expediency may require. In conforming with these customs note that other churches have been administered by us and the priests of the most famous churches publicly appointed. Accordingly over the new made (if the expression be allowable) church at Constantinople, which, as through from a lion’s mouth, we have lately snatched by God’s mercy from the blasphemy of the heretics, we have ordained bishop the right reverend and most religious Nectarius, in the presence of the Ecumenical Council, with common consent, before the most religious emperor Theodosius, and with the assent of all the clergy and of the whole city. And over the most ancient and truly apostolic church in Syria, where first the noble name of Christians was given them, the bishops of the province and of the eastern diocese have met together and canonically ordained bishop the right reverend and most religious Flavianus, with the consent of all the church, who as though with one voice joined in expressing their respect for him. This rightful ordination also received the sanction of the General Council. Of the church at Jerusalem, mother of all the churches, we make known that the right reverend and most religious Cyril is bishop, who was some time ago canonically ordained by the bishops of the province and has in several places fought a good fight against the Arians. We beseech your reverence to rejoice at what has thus been rightly and canonically settled by us, by the intervention of spiritual love and by the influence of the fear of the Lord, compelling the feelings of men, and making the edification of churches of more importance than individual grace or favor. Thus since among us there is agreement in the faith and Christian charity has been established, we shall cease to use the phrase condemned by the apostles, I am of Paul and I of Apollos and I of Cephas, and all appearing as Christ’s, who in us is not divided, by God’s grace we will keep the body of the church complete, and will boldly stand at the judgment seat of the Lord. Source: Wace, Henry, and Philip Schaff. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series II, Vol. XIV. Grand Rapids, MI: WM. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1886.

Further Reading Chadwick, H. “The Origin of the Title ‘Oecumenical Council.’ ” Journal of Theological Studies, New Series 23, no. 1 (April 1972): 132–135. Conway, J. D. Times of Decision: Story of the Councils. Notre Dame, IN: Fides Publishers Association, 1962. Czerwien´, Jerzy. “The Second Ecumenical Council: An Attempt at the Reconstruction of the Proceedings.” Folia Historica Cracoviensia 13 (2007): 33–44. Fairweather, E. R. The Voice of the Church: The Ecumenical Council. Greenwich, CT: Seabury Press, 1962. Guitton, Jean. Great Heresies and Church Councils. New York: Harper & Row, 1965. Hughes, Philip. The Church in Crisis: A History of the Twenty Great Councils. London: Burns & Oates, 1961.

198

DO C UMENTS O F THE RISE O F C HRISTIANITY

MacMullen, Ramsay. Voting about God in Early Church Councils. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2006. Price, Richard. Chalcedon in Context: Church Councils 400–700. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2009. Stevenson, James, ed. Creeds, Councils, and Controversies: Documents Illustrative of the History of the Church A.D. 337–461. New York: Seabury Press, 1966.

Chapter 5

Fifth Century Introduction The Roman Empire in the west began to fail, starting in the middle of the 300s. Wars with Persia and, more importantly, wars with the barbarian tribes in the north were starting to take their toll. By the early 400s, it was clear that the western part was in serious trouble. The Romans abandoned Britain sometime in the 420s in an effort to stop the invasions. By the 430s a group called the Vandals had invaded North Africa, and Augustine, on his deathbed, probably missed the fall of his territory to them. However, the church had to soldier on, and church historians continued to keep track of what was happening and adding to previous accounts. For example, Socrates Scholasticus, Theodoret, and Sozomen all wrote their own church histories in the early fifth century. They wanted to add to what Eusebius of Caesarea wrote in the late 200s or early 300s or to write about totally different topics when they thought Eusebius left something out. The texts found in the following excerpt are mostly their histories of Arianism, which started in the early 300s. As mentioned in the preface, the texts are given in chronological order and not in order of topic, so that is why you will find texts on the early history of Arianism here, in the section on the fifth century. It is important to remember that these historians had access to more and more texts, and the story of Arianism changed with the new discoveries in the fifth century. The first half of the fifth century also saw two ecumenical church councils. Both were called to deal with issues that were arising in the church. One text given in the following excerpt is part of the canons (or laws) from the Council of Chalcedon. These mostly deal with the behavior of the clergy. The pope (or head bishop) of Rome during this period was Leo, or later called Leo the Great. He wrote a number of letters on various topics. As earlier mentioned, the Vandals had invaded North Africa. One effect was that Manichaeans fled to Italy and made their way into the cities. Leo found out about them and wrote about the dangers of their theology and how to get rid of them. Leo also tried to standardize important dates in the Christian calendar such as when baptism should be performed. Like other bishops, he also had to deal with the emperor, sometimes directly, and sometimes trying to convince members of his family, like his sister Pulcheria, to bend the ear of the emperor for him. It was an interesting time in the history of the church.

Document 43 SOCRATES SCHOLASTICUS, CHURCH HISTORY, 1.1; 1.5–6 Socrates was a church historian in the same vein as Eusebius of Caesarea. He wanted to tell the history of Christianity from the time of Eusebius until his own time, the early

200

DO C UMENTS O F THE RISE O F C HRISTIANITY

decades of the 400s. He probably died in 439 CE. Unlike Eusebius, Socrates was not a part of the ecclesiastical hierarchy of the Catholic Church. He lived in Constantinople and was trained as a lawyer. It is clear from the beginning of this book, titled Church History, that he wanted to correct and add to the account of church history given by Eusebius. He was particularly concerned that Eusebius did not treat the Arian controversy in a complete way that Socrates would have preferred. His Church History is interesting for a number of reasons. We know that he made several revisions. For example, he left out primary texts in his first attempt (see Rohrbacher 2002, 111). Primary texts (texts written in the time period of study) are the main source of information for historians. Originally he did not want to use them, but like Eusebius, the inclusion of primary source material adds weight and authority to the history. It can be thought of as the proof from which the other arguments are made. It is also interesting in that he made corrections to his first copy when he discovered that there were more primary texts that could lead to a fuller treatment of a particular topic. This was certainly the case with the additional material discovered about Athanasius, an Egyptian priest then bishop of Alexandria who fought the Arian movement throughout his entire time with the church (Rohrbacher 2002, 111). The following excerpts are taken from Chapter 1. The first is the Introduction to the book. In it he tells his readers that Eusebius was concerned with impressing Emperor Constantine rather than describing “an accurate statement of facts.” This was (and still is) a common complaint against Eusebius. Socrates tells his readers that he will try to just describe what is going on, based on what he has read and what other people have told him. We know that Socrates was heavily reliant on the writings of other church historians, but this doesn’t take away from the importance of this work. The second part is also from Chapter 1, section 5 and parts of section 6 (the end of section 6 is not included). Most of section 6 is a copy of the letter that Bishop Alexander of Alexandria sent out to stop the spread of Arianism. The bishop was particularly concerned with the work that Bishop Eusebius of Nicomedia was doing on behalf of Arius and those who agreed with him. Bishop Alexander makes a full attack against the Arians using many scriptural quotes. This was a common practice with these Christian controversies—both sides could back up their beliefs using the New Testament. And sometimes they could use the same verse to get opposite meanings. The whole letter is included in the following excerpt. The last part included is some commentary by Socrates. He claims that, despite the letter written by Alexander, the controversy just became worse. He even states that Christians became the object of ridicule in the theaters.

Book 1, Chapter 1 Eusebius, surnamed Pamphilus, writing the History of the Church in ten books, closed it with that period of the emperor Constantine, when the persecution which Diocletian had begun against the Christians came to an end. Also in writing the life of Constantine, this same author has but slightly treated of matters regarding Arius, being more intent on the rhetorical finish of his composition and the praises of the emperor, than on an accurate statement of facts. Now, as we propose to write



F i f t h C e n t u r y 201

the details of what has taken place in the churches since his time to our own day, we begin with the narration of the particulars which he has left out, and we shall not be solicitous to display a parade of words, but to lay before the reader what we have been able to collect from documents, and what we have heard from those who were familiar with the facts as they told them. And since it has an important bearing on the matter in hand, it will be proper to enter into a brief account of Constantine’s conversion to Christianity, making a beginning with this event.

Book 1, Chapter 5 After Peter, bishop of Alexandria, had suffered martyrdom under Diocletian, Achillas was installed in the episcopal office, whom Alexander succeeded, during the period of peace above referred to. He, in the fearless exercise of his functions for the instruction and government of the Church, attempted one day in the presence of the presbytery and the rest of his clergy, to explain, with perhaps too philosophical minuteness, that great theological mystery—the Unity of the Holy Trinity. A certain one of the presbyters under his jurisdiction, whose name was Arius, possessed of no inconsiderable logical acumen, imagining that the bishop was subtly teaching the same view of this subject as Sabellius the Libyan, from love of controversy took the opposite opinion to that of the Libyan, and as he thought vigorously responded to what was said by the bishop. ‘If,’ said he, ‘the Father begat the Son, he that was begotten had a beginning of existence: and from this it is evident, that there was a time when the Son was not. It therefore necessarily follows, that he had his substance from nothing.’

Chapter 6 Having drawn this inference from his novel train of reasoning, he excited many to a consideration of the question; and thus from a little spark a large fire was kindled: for the evil which began in the Church at Alexandria, ran throughout all Egypt, Libya, and the upper Thebes, and at length diffused itself over the rest of the provinces and cities. Many others also adopted the opinion of Arius, but Eusebius in particular was a zealous defender of it: not he of Cæsarea, but the one who had before been bishop of the church at Berytus, and was then somehow in possession of the bishopric of Nicomedia in Bithynia. When Alexander became conscious of these things, both from his own observation and from report, being exasperated to the highest degree, he convened a council of many prelates and excommunicated Arius and the abettors of his heresy. At the same time he wrote as follows to the bishops constituted in the several cities: To our beloved and most honored fellow-Ministers of the Catholic Church everywhere, Alexander sends greeting in the Lord. Inasmuch as the Catholic Church is one body,

202

DO C UMENTS O F THE RISE O F C HRISTIANITY

and we are commanded in the holy Scriptures to maintain the bond of unity and peace, it becomes us to write, and mutually acquaint one another with the condition of things among each of us, in order that if one member suffers or rejoices, we may either sympathize with each other, or rejoice together. Know therefore that there have recently arisen in our diocese lawless and anti-Christian men, teaching apostasy such as one may justly consider and denominate the forerunner of Antichrist. I wished indeed to consign this disorder to silence, that if possible the evil might be confined to the apostates alone, and not go forth into other districts and contaminate the ears of some of the simple. But since Eusebius, now in Nicomedia, thinks that the affairs of the Church are under his control because, forsooth, he deserted his charge at Berytus and assumed authority over the Church at Nicomedia with impunity, and has put himself at the head of these apostates, daring even to send commendatory letters in all directions concerning them, if by any means he might inveigle some of the ignorant into this most impious and antiChristian heresy, I felt imperatively called on to be silent no longer, knowing what is written in the law, but to inform you of all of these things, that you might understand both who the apostates are, and also the contemptible character of their heresy, and pay no attention to anything that Eusebius should write to you. For now wishing to renew his former malevolence, which seemed to have been buried in oblivion by time, he affects to write in their behalf; while the fact itself plainly shows that he does this for the promotion of his own purposes. These then are those who have become apostates: Arius, Achillas, Aithales, and Carpones, another Arius, Sarmates, Euzoïus, Lucius, Julian, Menas, Helladis, and Gaius; with these also must be reckoned Secundus and Theonas, who once were called bishops.

The dogmas they have invented and assert, contrary to the Scriptures, are these: That God was not always the Father, but that there was a period when he was not the Father; that the Word of God was not from eternity, but was made out of nothing; for that the ever-existing God—the ‘I AM’—the eternal One—made him who did not previously exist, out of nothing; wherefore there was a time when he did not exist, inasmuch as the Son is a creature and a work. That he is neither like the Father as it regards his essence, nor is by nature either the Father’s true Word, or true Wisdom, but indeed one of his works and creatures, being erroneously called Word and Wisdom, since he was himself made of God’s own Word and the Wisdom which is in God, whereby God both made all things and him also. Wherefore he is as to his nature mutable and susceptible of change, as all other rational creatures are: hence the Word is alien to and other than the essence of God; and the Father is inexplicable by the Son, and invisible to him, for neither does the Word perfectly and accurately know the Father, neither can he distinctly see him. The Son knows not the nature of his own essence: for he was made on our account, in order that God might create us by him, as by an instrument; nor would he ever have existed, unless God had wished to create us. Some one accordingly asked them whether the Word of God could be changed, as the devil has been? and they feared not to say, Yes, he could; for being begotten, he is susceptible of change. We then, with the bishops of Egypt and Libya, being assembled together to the number of nearly a hundred, have anathematized Arius for his shameless avowal of these heresies, together with all such as have countenanced them. Yet the partisans of Eusebius have received them; endeavoring to blend falsehood with truth,



F i f t h C e n t u r y 203

and that which is impious with what is sacred. But they shall not prevail, for the truth must triumph; and light has no fellowship with darkness, nor has Christ any concord with Belial. Who ever heard such blasphemies? or what man of any piety is there now hearing them that is not horror-struck, and stops his ears, lest the filth of these expressions should pollute his sense of hearing? Who that hears John saying, ‘In the beginning was the Word,’ does not condemn those that say, ‘There was a period when the Word was not’? or who, hearing in the Gospel of the only-begotten Son, and that ‘all things were made by him,’ will not abhor those that pronounce the Son to be one of the things made? How can he be one of the things which were made by himself? Or how can he be the only-begotten, if he is reckoned among created things? And how could he have had his existence from nonentities, since the Father has said, ‘My heart has overflowed with a good matter’ and ‘I begat you out of my bosom before the dawn’? Or how is he unlike the Father’s essence, who is his ‘perfect image,’ and the ‘brightness of his glory’ and says: ‘He that has seen me, has seen the Father’? Again how, if the Son is the Word and Wisdom of God, was there a period when he did not exist? for that is equivalent to their saying that God was once destitute both of Word and Wisdom. How can he be mutable and susceptible of change, who says of himself, ‘I am in the Father, and the Father in me’ and ‘I and the Father are one’ and again by the Prophet, ‘Behold me because I am, and have not changed’? But if any one may also apply the expression to the Father himself, yet would it now be even more fitly said of the Word; because he was not changed by having become man, but as the Apostle says, ‘Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, to-day, and forever.’ But what could persuade them to say that he was made on our account, when Paul has expressly declared that ‘all things are for him, and by him’? One need not wonder indeed at their blasphemous assertion that the Son does not perfectly know the Father, for having once determined to fight against Christ, they reject even the words of the Lord himself, when he says, ‘As the Father knows me, even so I know the Father.’ If therefore the Father but partially knows the Son, it is manifest that the Son also knows the Father but in part. But if it would be improper to affirm this, and it be admitted that the Father perfectly knows the Son, it is evident that as the Father knows his own Word, so also does the Word know his own Father, whose Word he is. And we, by stating these things, and unfolding the divine Scriptures, have often confuted them: but again as chameleons they were changed, striving to apply to themselves that which is written, ‘When the ungodly has reached the depths of iniquity, he becomes contemptuous.’ Many heresies have arisen before these, which exceeding all bounds in daring, have lapsed into complete infatuation: but these persons, by attempting in all their discourses to subvert the Divinity of The Word, as having made a nearer approach to Antichrist, have comparatively lessened the odium of former ones. Wherefore they have been publicly repudiated by the Church, and anathematized. We are indeed grieved on account of the perdition of these persons, and especially so because, after having been previously instructed in the doctrines of the Church, they have now apostatized from them. Nevertheless we are not greatly surprised at this, for Hymenaeus and Philetus fell

204

DO C UMENTS O F THE RISE O F C HRISTIANITY

in like manner; and before them Judas, who had been a follower of the Savior but afterwards deserted him and became his betrayer. Nor were we without forewarning respecting these very persons: for the Lord himself said: ‘Take heed that no man deceive you: for many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ: and shall many deceive many’; and ‘the time is at hand; Do not, therefore, go after them.’ And Paul, having learned these things from the Savior, wrote, ‘That in the latter times some should apostatize from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits, and doctrines of devils,’ who pervert the truth. Seeing then that our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ has himself enjoined this, and has also by the apostle given us intimation respecting such men, we having ourselves heard their impiety have in consequence anathematized them, as we before said, and declared them to be alienated from the Catholic Church and faith. Moreover we have intimated this to your piety, beloved and most honored fellow-ministers, in order that ye might neither receive any of them, if they should presume to come to you, nor be induced to put confidence in Eusebius, or any other who may write to you about them. For it is incumbent on us who are Christians to turn away from all those who speak or entertain a thought against Christ, as from those who are resisting God, and are destroyers of the souls of men: ‘neither does it become us even to salute such men,’ as the blessed John has prohibited, ‘lest we should at any time be made partakers of their sins.’ Greet the brethren which are with you; those who are with me salute you. Upon Alexander’s thus addressing the bishops in every city, the evil only became worse, inasmuch as those to whom he made this communication were thereby excited to contention. And some indeed fully concurred in and subscribed to the sentiments expressed in this letter, while others did the reverse. But Eusebius, bishop of Nicomedia, was beyond all others moved to controversy, inasmuch as Alexander in his letter had made a personal and censorious allusion to him. Now at this juncture Eusebius possessed great influence, because the emperor resided at Nicomedia. For in fact Diocletian had a short time previously built a palace there. On this account therefore many of the bishops paid their court to Eusebius. And he repeatedly wrote both to Alexander, that he might set aside the discussion which had been excited, and again receive Arius and his adherents into communion; and also to the bishops in each city, that they might not concur in the proceedings of Alexander. By these means confusion everywhere prevailed: for one saw not only the prelates of the churches engaged in disputing, but the people also divided, some siding with one party, and some with the other. To so disgraceful an extent was this affair carried, that Christianity became a subject of popular ridicule, even in the very theatres. Those who were at Alexandria sharply disputed about the highest points of doctrine, and sent deputations to the bishops of the several dioceses; while those who were of the opposite faction created a similar disturbance. Source: Wace, Henry, and Philip Schaff. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series II, Vol. II. Grand Rapids, MI: WM. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1886.



F i f t h C e n t u r y 205

Further Reading Allen, Pauline. “Some Aspects of Hellenism in the Early Greek Church Historians.” Traditio 43 (1987): 372–374. Chestnut, G. The First Church Historians: Eusebius, Socrates, Sozomen, Theodoret and Evagrius. Paris: Beauchesne, 1966. Holdsworth, Christopher, and T. P. Wiseman, eds. The Inheritance of Historiography, 350–900. Liverpool, UK: Liverpool University Press, 1986. Krivushin, I. “Socrates Scholasticus’ Church History: Themes, Ideas, Heroes.” Byzantinische Forschungen 23, no. 2 (1996): 102–104. Lim, Richard. “Religious Disputation and Social Disorder in Late Antiquity.” Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte, Bd. 44, H. 2 (2nd Quarter 1995): 204–231. Quiroga Puertas, Alberto J. “The Literary Connoisseur. Socrates Scholasticus on Rhetoric, Literature and Religious Orthodoxy.” Vigiliae Christianae 69, no. 2 (2015): 109–122. Rohrbacher, David. The Historians of Late Antiquity. New York: Routledge Press, 2002. Urbainczyk, T. Socrates of Constantinople: Historian of Church and State. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1997.

Document 44 THEODORET OF CYRRHUS, CHURCH HISTORY, PROLOGUE AND 1.1 Theodoret lived from about 393 to 457 CE. He was a bishop from 423 until his death, in Cyrrhus (or Cyrus), close to Antioch. Like Christianity today, in the 300s CE, there were multiple different versions, sometimes vying to be the most “original.” One of the biggest controversies was between two groups called the Arians and the Nicenes, or Catholics. The differences between these groups might seem subtle to those looking at it from the outside, the nature of Christ was the battleground between them. Was Christ God? If so, what was his relationship to God the Father? If Christ is God, does this make for two gods? Who came first, God or Christ, and does this question even matter? If Christ is God and the Father and Son are equal, was God crucified when Jesus the Son was crucified? For some like Arius, Eusebius of Caesarea, and Eusebius of Nicomedia (referred to as Arians), Jesus came second and was not absolutely equal to God. But he was God. They formed their beliefs from looking at the Bible itself, which talks about how Jesus was the Son and God was the Father. Who comes first in this relationship? To the Arians, the answer was God and thus Jesus must come later. However, to the Nicenes (or those who followed the Nicene Creed and would later be called Catholic), Jesus, God, and the Holy Spirit were always and forever equivalent. None of them came first—they just always were. The Nicenes also could use the exact same Bible to use as evidence for their own version of Christianity. The fight between these two groups started innocently enough. Arius, a priest in Egypt, had been teaching that God came first and Jesus came second. His bishop had heard of this and was furious that Arius was teaching people something different to his own belief. Arius was called in but refused to change his mind. Eventually his bishop (Alexander of

206

DO C UMENTS O F THE RISE O F C HRISTIANITY

Alexandria) called for a local synod, or meeting of the bishops, and excommunicated Arius from the church. This meant that Arius could never be saved and go to heaven at his death. Arius did not take this lightly, and what was a local controversy spread throughout the eastern side of Christianity (it did affect the West but not as much). Arius began a letter-writing campaign and tried to gather up as many high-level bishops to his side. He also left Egypt and traveled around Asia Minor, gathering more supporters. Alexander of Alexandria also wrote to other bishops, and the rift grew so wide that it came to the attention of the first Christian emperor, Constantine. Constantine seemed horrified that such a small theological difference (at least according to him) should have led to such a big fight within Christianity. He wanted both sides to shut up and continue serving the people in peace. This did not work, and in 325 Constantine called together all bishops (in reality almost all of those who attended were from the eastern side of the Roman Empire) to settle this once and for all. In the end the Nicene side “won,” at least in that their version of Christianity was accepted by the majority of bishops. Arius and eventually Eusebius of Nicomedia were sent into exile. This certainly did not stop the infighting. The Arian controversy continued for most of the 300s. Theodoret wrote his Church History, probably sometime between 441 and 449 CE, and he started it off with mentioning Eusebius of Caesarea who wrote what many consider to be the first church history. It was so popular and had such a large impact that many Christian historians after him did not write new histories but just added to it. Theodoret himself was involved in a number of controversies in his own time, but this selection will focus on his history of Arianism in the 300s. It is telling that the very first chapter of his Church History begins with a history of the rise of Constantine, the first Christian emperor, and then he moves straight into describing the Arian controversy. He states that it was the devil who was behind the spreading of Arianism.

Theodoret, Church History, Prologue and Book 1.1 Prologue When artists paint on panels and on walls the events of ancient history, they alike delight the eye, and keep bright for many a year the memory of the past. Historians substitute books for panels, bright description for pigments, and thus render the memory of past events both stronger and more permanent, for the painter’s art is ruined by time. For this reason I too shall attempt to record in writing events in ecclesiastical history hitherto omitted, deeming it indeed not right to look on without an effort while oblivion robs noble deeds and useful stories of their due fame. For this cause too I have been frequently urged by friends to undertake this work. But when I compare my own powers with the magnitude of the undertaking, I shrink from attempting it. Trusting, however, in the bounty of the Giver of all good, I enter upon a task beyond my own strength. Eusebius of Palestine has written a history of the Church from the time of the holy Apostles to the reign of Constantine, the prince beloved of God. I shall begin my history from the period at which his terminates.



F i f t h C e n t u r y 207

Book 1 Chapter 1 After the overthrow of the wicked and impious tyrants, Maxentius, Maximinus, and Licinius, the surge which those destroyers, like hurricanes, had roused was hushed to sleep. The whirlwinds were checked and the Church from that time onward began to enjoy a settled calm. This was established for her by Constantine, a prince deserving of all praise whose calling, like that of the divine Apostle, was not of men, nor by man, but from heaven. He enacted laws prohibiting sacrifices to idols and commanding churches to be erected. He appointed Christians to be governors of the provinces, ordering honor to be shown to the priests, and threatening with death those who dared to insult them. By some the churches which had been destroyed were rebuilt; others erected new ones still more spacious and magnificent. Hence, for us, all was joy and gladness while our enemies were overwhelmed with gloom and despair. The temples of the idols were closed while frequent assemblies were held and festivals celebrated in the churches. But the devil, full of all envy and wickedness, the destroyer of mankind, unable to bear the sight of the Church sailing on with favorable winds, stirred up plans of evil counsel, eager to sink the vessel steered by the Creator and Lord of the Universe. When he began to perceive that the error of the Greeks had been made manifest, that the various tricks of the demons had been detected, and that the greater number of men worshipped the Creator, instead of adoring, as before this time, the creature, he did not dare to declare open war against our God and Saviour; but having found some who, though dignified with the name of Christians, were yet slaves to ambition and vainglory, he made them fit instruments for the execution of his designs. And by their means drew others back into their old error, not indeed by the former method of setting up the worship of the creature, but by bringing it about that the Creator and Maker of all should be reduced to a level with the creature. I shall now proceed to relate where and by what means he sowed these tares. Alexandria is an immense and populous city, charged with the leadership not only of Egypt but also of the adjacent countries, the Thebaid and Libya. After Peter, the victorious champion of the faith, had, during the sway of the aforesaid impious tyrants, obtained the crown of martyrdom, the Church in Alexandria was ruled for a short time by Achillas. He was succeeded by Alexander, who proved himself a noble defender of the doctrines of the gospel. At that time, Arius, who had been enrolled in the list of the presbytery, and entrusted with the exposition of the Holy Scriptures, fell prey to the assaults of jealousy when he saw that the helm of the high priesthood was committed to Alexander. Stung by this passion, he sought opportunities for dispute and contention and although he perceived that Alexander’s irreproachable conduct forbid his bringing any charges against him, envy would not allow him to rest. In him the enemy of the truth found an instrument whereby to stir and agitate the angry waters of the Church and persuaded him to oppose the apostolical doctrine of Alexander. While the Patriarch, in obedience to the Holy Scriptures, taught that the Son is of equal dignity with the Father and of the same substance with God who begat Him. Arius, in direct opposition to the truth, affirmed that the Son of God is merely a creature or created being, adding

208

DO C UMENTS O F THE RISE O F C HRISTIANITY

the famous dictum, “There once was a time when He was not” with other opinions which may be learned from his own writings. He taught these false doctrines perseveringly, not only in the church, but also in general meetings and assemblies. And he even went from house to house, endeavoring to make men the slaves of his error. Alexander, who was strongly attached to the doctrines of the Apostles, at first tried by exhortations and counsels to convince him of his error, but when he saw him playing the madman and making public declaration of his impiety, he deposed him from the order of the presbytery, for he heard the law of God loudly declaring, “If your right eye offends you, pluck it out, and cast it away from you.” Source: Wace, Henry, and Philip Schaff. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series II, Vol. III. Grand Rapids, MI: WM. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1886.

Further Reading Chesnut, Glenn F. “The Date of Composition of Theodoret’s Church history.” Vigiliae Christianae 35, no. 3 (September 1981): 245–252. Chesnut, Glenn F. The First Christian Histories: Eusebius, Socrates, Sozomen, Theodoret and Evagrius. 2nd Revised and Enlarged Edition. Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1986. Fairbairn, Donald. “The Puzzle of Theodoret’s Christology: A Modest Suggestion.” Journal of Theological Studies, New Series 58, no. 1 (April 2007): 100–133. Schor, Adam M. “Theodoret on the ‘School of Antioch:’ A Network Approach.” Journal of Early Christian Studies 15, no. 4 (Winter 2007): 517–562. Schor, Adam M. Theodoret’s People: Social Networks and Religious Conflict in Late Roman Syria. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2011. Vranic, Vasilije. Constancy and Development in the Christology of Theodoret of Cyrrhus: Constancy and Development in the Christology of Theodoret of Cyrrhus. Leiden: Brill, 2015.

Document 45 THEODORET, CHURCH HISTORY, BOOK 1.5 THE LETTER OF EUSEBIUS, BISHOP OF NICOMEDIA, TO PAULINUS, BISHOP OF TYRE It is clear from the letters of Arius, especially those to Eusebius of Nicomedia, that many bishops shared the same theological ideas as Arius—the most popular being that the Son came second after the Father. Eusebius was bishop in Nicomedia, the city where the Emperor Licinius resided, and as such was in a distinctive role to have a massive say on what theological ideas would be orthodox (correct) or not. Arius wrote to Eusebius to appeal for help against his own bishop, Alexander of Alexandria, and this set off a chain reaction of letters and arguments that stretched across the Roman Empire for most of the 300s and into the 400s CE. However, Eusebius of Nicomedia wasn’t always in this position. He grew up in Palestine and became a bishop of Berytus, or modern-day Beirut. Tradition held that bishops would remain in their own area and not be translated to



F i f t h C e n t u r y 209

other dioceses without permission. However, Eusebius, in 318 CE, skipped this tradition and went from being a bishop in Berytus to a bishop in Nicomedia. This was not without controversy as we know some other Christian bishops rejected his episcopacy. However, he was accepted as the legitimate bishop by many, including Arius. After receiving the letter from Arius, Eusebius of Nicomedia then went on a letter-writing campaign. Unfortunately, we don’t have many of these letters, but we know he sent them. Letter writing was the standard form of communication (and really the only form of long-distance communication) in the ancient world. The campaign was successful in that it linked all of the bishops and priests who shared their theology with Arius, and it also formed a separation and caused conflicts with those who disagreed. Eusebius of Nicomedia led a very interesting life during his role as bishop. He worked tirelessly to make sure his form of theology was the only accepted one. His zeal and the fact that he was a bishop led him to be a major player in the famous Council of Nicea. Eusebius of Nicomedia accepted the creed that came out of this council but refused to accept the anathemas put on Arius and his followers—after all, it was Eusebius who helped spread Arianism. His refusal led to this exile about three months after the council ended. He was sent to Gaul, while his office of bishop in Nicomedia was filled with a replacement, and he spent three years away. One of his most memorable acts as bishop of Nicomedia was that he baptized the first Christian emperor, Constantine. Many early Christian historians either refused to mention this or didn’t know about it, but Constantine, feeling ill when he was traveling close to Nicomedia, asked to be baptized. After the death of Constantine, his son Constantius II became emperor over this region. He just happened to be an Arian Christian, and this made life much easier for Eusebius and those like him. He was able to help place Arian bishops in dioceses when spots opened or helped remove Nicene bishops from their post with Arian replacements. He was also selected by Constantius to be the Christian tutor of Julian, the future emperor. Eusebius of Nicomedia also had a massive impact on later church history in that he was introduced to a “barbarian” named Ulfila in 337. It appears that Eusebius taught him to the tenets of Arian Christianity. Ulfila became a bishop sometime in the 330s and then went back to his own territories in the north and taught some of the “barbarians” who lived in this area this form of Christianity (Sivan 1996, 381–383). Arian Christianity spread through the barbarian tribes and when they arrived at the doorstep of the West in the middle or late 300s, some of them were already Christian but Arian Christian. Eusebius also was elevated one more time in his ecclesiastical career when, in 338 CE, he became the bishop of Constantinople, or the New Rome as it was called. He died in 341 or 342, and he spent a good deal of this time spreading Arianism. After his death there was a push to remove these Arian bishops and replace them with Nicene bishops. This, for the most part, was successful. The following letter was sent from Eusebius to Paulinus, the bishop of Tyre. It is preserved in Theodoret’s Church History. Eusebius was upset that Paulinus seemed to be standing on the sidelines on the discussion, and this seemed like a defeat of this form of theology, at least to Eusebius. Eusebius also mentioned another Eusebius—this time the famous church historian, Eusebius of Caesarea. As can be seen in his comments after the text of the letter, the spreading of Arianism from bishop to bishop led to lots of arguments that even went down the parishioners.

210

DO C UMENTS O F THE RISE O F C HRISTIANITY

Theoderet Book 1, Chapter 5 The Letter of Eusebius, Bishop of Nicomedia, to Paulinus, Bishop of Tyre To my lord Paulinus, Eusebius sends greeting in the Lord. The zeal of my lord Eusebius in the cause of the truth, and likewise your silence concerning it, have not failed to reach our ears. Accordingly, if, on the one hand, we rejoiced on account of the zeal of my lord Eusebius then on the other we are grieved at you because even the silence of such a man appears like a defeat of our cause. Hence, as it is the duty of a wise man to not be of a different opinion from others and to be silent concerning the truth. I urge you: stir up, within yourself the spirit of wisdom, to write, and at length begin what may be profitable to yourself and to others, especially if you consent to write in accordance with Scripture and tread in the tracks of its words and will. We have never heard that there are two unbegotten beings, nor that one has been divided into two, nor have we learned or believed that it has ever undergone any change of a corporeal nature. But we affirm that the unbegotten is one and one also that which exists in truth by Him, yet was not made out of His substance, and does not at all participate in the nature or substance of the unbegotten, entirely distinct in nature and in power, and made after perfect likeness both of character and power to the maker. We believe that the mode of His beginning not only cannot be expressed by words but even in thought, and is incomprehensible not only to man, but also to all beings superior to man. These opinions we advance not as having derived them from our own imagination, but as having deduced them from Scripture, from where we learn that the Son was created, established, and begotten in the same substance and in the same immutable and inexpressible nature as the Maker; and so the Lord says, “God created me in the beginning of His way; I was set up from everlasting; before the hills was I brought forth.” If He had been from Him or of Him, as a portion of Him, or by an emanation of His substance, it could not be said that He was created or established, and of this, you, my lord, are certainly not ignorant. For that which is of the unbegotten could not be said to have been created or founded, either by Him or by another, since it is unbegotten from the beginning. But if the fact of His being called the begotten gives any ground for the belief that, having come into being of the Father’s substance, He also has from the Father likeness of nature, we reply that it is not of Him alone that the Scriptures have spoken as begotten, but that they also thus speak of those who are entirely dissimilar to Him by nature. For of men it is said, “I have begotten and brought up sons, and they have rebelled against me” and in another place, “You have forsaken God who begat you” and again it is said, “Who begat the drops of dew?” This expression does not imply that the dew partakes of the nature of God, but simply that all things were formed according to His will. There is, indeed, nothing which is of His substance, yet everything which exists has been called into being by His will.



F i f t h C e n t u r y 211

He is God and all things were made in His likeness, and in the future likeness of His Word, being created of His free will. All things were made by His means by God. All things are of God. When you have received my letter, and have revised it according to the knowledge and grace given you by God, I beg you will write as soon as possible to my lord Alexander. I feel confident that if you would write to him, you would succeed in bringing him over to your opinion. Salute all the brethren in the Lord. May you, my lord, be preserved by the grace of God, and be led to pray for us. [Theodoret writes] It is thus that they wrote to each other, in order to furnish one another with weapons against the truth. And so when the blasphemous doctrine had been disseminated in the churches of Egypt and of the East, disputes and contentions arose in every city and in every village, concerning theological dogmas. The common people looked on, and became judges of what was said on either side, and some applauded one party, and some the other. These were, indeed, scenes fit for the tragic stage, over which tears might have been shed. For it was not, as in bygone days, when the church was attacked by strangers and by enemies, but now natives of the same country, who dwelt under one roof, and sat down at one table, fought against each other not with spears, but with their tongues. And what was still more sad, they who thus took up arms against one another were members of one another, and belonged to one body. Source: Wace, Henry, and Philip Schaff. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series II, Vol. III. Grand Rapids, MI: WM. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1886.

Further Reading Edwards, Mark. “Alexander of Alexandria and the ‘Homoousion.’ ” Vigiliae Christianae 66, no. 5 (2012): 482–502. Fowden, Garth. “The Last Days of Constantine: Oppositional Versions and Their Influence.” Journal of Roman Studies 84 (1994): 146–170. Gregg, Robert C., and Dennis E. Groh. Early Arianism—A View of Salvation. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1981. Haas, Christopher. “The Arians of Alexandria.” Vigiliae Christianae 47, no. 3 (September 1993): 234–245. Mathisen, Ralph W. “Barbarian Bishops and the Churches ‘in Barbaricis Gentibus’ during Late Antiquity.” Speculum 72, no. 3 (July 1997): 664–697. Rubenstein, Richard E. When Jesus Became God: The Struggle to Define Christianity during the Last Days of Rome. New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 1999. Sivan, Hagith. “Ulfila’s Own Conversion.” Harvard Theological Review 89, no. 4 (October 1996): 373–386. Skarsaune, Oskar. “A Neglected Detail in the Creed of Nicaea (325).” Vigiliae Christianae 41, no. 1 (March 1987): 34–54. Williams, Rowan. Arius: Heresy and Tradition. 2nd Edition. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmanns 2002.

212

DO C UMENTS O F THE RISE O F C HRISTIANITY

Document 46 HELENA, THE MOTHER OF CONSTANTINE, IN EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA, LIFE OF CONSTANTINE, 3.30–32 AND SOZOMEN, CHURCH HISTORY, 2.1 Sozomen, like Socrates Scholasticus and Eusebius of Caesarea before him, wrote a Church History. He was born in Gaza around 380 and wrote his Church History when he lived in Constantinople and died sometime around 448 or 449 CE (Rohrbacher 2002, 118–120). His goal was similar to that of Eusebius—to write a clear history of the church. It appears that he wanted to write a new history to replace Eusebius but decided against that. His history starts during the reign of Constantine and ends abruptly during the time of Theodosius II. His Church History, Book 2, Chapter 1 contains the story of Helena and finds some holy spots in Jerusalem. Not much is known about Helena. Being the mother of the emperor and the empress, she had quite a bit of political power on her own. As far as we know, she was Christian before Constantine and may have been raised a Christian. After Constantine became emperor, she was free to do what she wanted to do, which was to go to Jerusalem and Bethlehem to experience the land where Jesus lived. She did this in 326 CE. The account told by Sozomen stated that Helena was in the Holy Land at the time that Constantine ordered churches to be built after the Council of Nicea had finished. Helena was there when the true cross was found, and Sozomen relates two miracles that occurred. When digging up a pagan temple to Aphrodite, three crosses were discovered and it wasn’t clear which one was the true cross. There was a woman who was on her deathbed, and Helena and the local bishop, Macarius (to whom Constantine had written a letter, given in the following excerpt) visited her. They put each cross on this woman, and the last one cured her, revealing that the piece of cross was the one that belonged to Jesus. Sozomen also stated that there were other miracles such as bringing back a dead person to life. Helena then sent part of this wood and the nails that were used to crucify Jesus back to Constantine. As Sozomen wrote at the end of this section, he got some of this information from word of mouth and also from reading about it. Eusebius of Caesarea also wrote about a similar story of the discovery of the tomb of Jesus and the place where he was crucified, in his Life of Constantine, 3.25–46. In that account Constantine ordered the soil removed and the temple to Venus and had it all hauled a long way away from the site. Constantine then ordered the eastern governors to take the money he was sending and build a church at the site of the sepulcher of Jesus. However, the part that Helena played in the finding of the cross itself is absent. Sozomen may have received some of this story from the writings of Ambrose, the bishop of Milan. In the funeral speech for Emperor Theodosius (given in 395 CE), Ambrose talks about the story of Helena going to the Holy Land and finding the true cross herself. It isn’t clear if Ambrose was the first one to talk about Helena’s part in this story (see Georgiou 2013, 600). However, some of the earlier stories about the discovery of the true cross, the nails, and the sign from Pilate do not contain the story of Helena. Her story seemed to be generated in the western part of the Roman Empire and not the eastern half (Georgiou 2013, 603).



F i f t h C e n t u r y 213

The following excerpts are taken from Eusebius’s Church History and, in particular, the letter that Constantine sent to Bishop Macarius of Jerusalem. The second is Sozomen’s story about Helena.

Eusebius of Caesarea, Life of Constantine, 3.30–32 Chapter 30 Victor Constantius, Maximus Augustus, to Macarius Such is our Savior’s grace, that no power of language seems adequate to describe the wondrous circumstance to which I am about to refer. For, that the monument of his most holy Passion, so long ago buried beneath the ground, should have remained unknown for so long a series of years, until its reappearance to his servants now set free through the removal of him who was the common enemy of all, is a fact which truly surpasses all admiration. For if all who are accounted wise throughout the world were to unite in their endeavors to say somewhat worthy of this event, they would be unable to attain their object in the smallest degree. Indeed, the nature of this miracle as far transcends the capacity of human reason as heavenly things are superior to human affairs. For this cause it is ever my first, and indeed my only object, that, as the authority of the truth is evincing itself daily by fresh wonders, so our souls may all become more zealous, with all sobriety and earnest unanimity, for the honor of the Divine law. I desire, therefore, especially, that you should be persuaded of that which I suppose is evident to all beside, namely, that I have no greater care than how I may best adorn with a splendid structure that sacred spot, which, under Divine direction, I have disencumbered as it were of the heavy weight of foul idol worship—a spot which has been accounted holy from the beginning in God’s judgment, but which now appears holier still, since it has brought to light a clear assurance of our Savior’s passion.

Chapter 31 It will be well, therefore, for your sagacity to make such arrangements and provision of all things needful for the work, that not only the church itself as a whole may surpass all others whatsoever in beauty, but that the details of the building may be of such a kind that the fairest structures in any city of the empire may be excelled by this. And with respect to the erection and decoration of the walls, this is to inform you that our friend Dracilianus, the deputy of the Praetorian Praefects, and the governor of the province, have received a charge from us. For our pious directions to them are to the effect that artificers and laborers, and whatever they shall understand from your sagacity to be needful for the advancement of the

214

DO C UMENTS O F THE RISE O F C HRISTIANITY

work, shall forthwith be furnished by their care. And as to the columns and marbles, whatever you shall judge, after actual inspection of the plan, to be especially precious and serviceable, be diligent to send information to us in writing, in order that whatever quantity or sort of materials we shall esteem from your letter to be needful, may be procured from every quarter, as required, for it is fitting that the most marvelous place in the world should be worthily decorated.

Chapter 32 With respect to the ceiling of the church, I wish to know from you whether in your judgment it should be panel-ceiled or finished with any other kind of workmanship. If the panel ceiling be adopted, it may also be ornamented with gold. For the rest, your Holiness will give information as early as possible to the before-mentioned magistrates how many laborers and artificers, and what expenditure of money is required. You will also be careful to send us a report without delay, not only respecting the marbles and columns, but the paneled ceiling also, should this appear to you to be the most beautiful form. God preserve you, beloved brother! Source: Wace, Henry, and Philip Schaff. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series II, Vol. I. Grand Rapids, MI: WM. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1886.

Sozomen, Church History, 2.1 When the business at Nicaea had been transacted as above related, the priests returned home. The emperor rejoiced exceedingly at the restoration of unity of opinion in the Catholic Church, and desirous of expressing in behalf of himself, his children, and the empire, the gratitude towards God which the unanimity of the bishops inspired, he directed that a house of prayer should be erected to God at Jerusalem near the place called Calvary. At the same time his mother Helena went to the city for the purpose of offering up prayer and of visiting the sacred places. Her zeal for Christianity made her anxious to find the wood which had formed the adorable cross. But it was no easy matter to discover either this relic or the Lord’s sepulcher, for the Pagans, who in former times had persecuted the Church, and who, at the first promulgation of Christianity, had had recourse to every artifice to exterminate it, had concealed that spot under much heaped-up earth, and elevated what before was quite depressed, as it looks now, and to more effectually conceal them, had enclosed the entire place of the resurrection and Mount Calvary within a wall. They had, moreover, ornamented the whole locality and paved it with stone. They also erected a temple to Aphrodite and set up a little image so that those who went there to worship Christ would appear to bow the knee to Aphrodite, and that



F i f t h C e n t u r y 215

thus the true cause of offering worship in that place would, in course of time, be forgotten. And as Christians would not dare fearlessly to frequent the place or to point it out to others, the temple and statue would come to be regarded as exclusively appertaining to the Pagans. At length, however, the place was discovered and the fraud about it so zealously maintained was detected. Some say that the facts were first disclosed by a Hebrew who dwelt in the East, and who derived his information from some documents which had come to him by paternal inheritance, but it seems more accordant with truth to suppose that God revealed the fact by means of signs and dreams, for I do not think that human information is requisite when God thinks it best to make manifest the same. When by command of the emperor the place was excavated deeply, the cave where our Lord arose from the dead was discovered, and at no great distance, three crosses were found and another separate piece of wood, on which were inscribed in white letters in Hebrew, in Greek, and in Latin, the following words: “Jesus of Nazareth, the king of the Jews.” These words, as the sacred book of the gospels relates, were placed by command of Pilate, governor of Judaea, over the head of Christ. There yet, however, remained a difficulty in distinguishing the Divine cross from the others, for the inscription had been wrenched from it and thrown aside, and the cross itself had been cast aside with the others, without any distinction when the bodies of the crucified were taken down. For according to history, the soldiers found Jesus dead upon the cross, and they took him down, and gave him up to be buried; while, in order to accelerate the death of the two thieves, who were crucified on either hand, they broke their legs, and then took down the crosses, and flung them out of the way. It was no concern of theirs to deposit the crosses in their first order for it was growing late and as the men were dead, they did not think it worthwhile to remain to attend to the crosses. A more Divine information than could be furnished by man was therefore necessary in order to distinguish the Divine cross from the others, and this revelation was given in the following manner: There was a certain lady of rank in Jerusalem who was afflicted with a most grievous and incurable disease. Macarius, bishop of Jerusalem, accompanied by the mother of the emperor and her attendants, went to her bedside. After engaging in prayer, Macarius signified by signs to the spectators that the Divine cross would be the one which, on being brought in contact with the invalid, should remove the disease. He approached her in turn with each of the crosses, but when two of the crosses were laid on her, it seemed but folly and mockery to her for she was at the gates of death. When, however, the third cross was in like manner brought to her, she suddenly opened her eyes, regained her strength, and immediately sprang from her bed, well. It is said that a dead person was, in the same way, restored to life. The venerated wood having been thus identified, the greater portion of it was deposited in a silver case, in which it is still preserved in Jerusalem. But the empress sent part of it to her son Constantine, together with the nails by which the body of Christ had been fastened. Of these, it is related, the emperor had a head-piece

216

DO C UMENTS O F THE RISE O F C HRISTIANITY

and bit made for his horse, according to the prophecy of Zechariah, who referred to this period when he said, “that which shall be upon the bit of the horse shall be holy to the Lord Almighty.” These things, indeed, were formerly known to the sacred prophets, and predicted by them, and at length, when it seemed to God that they should be manifested, were confirmed by wonderful works. Nor does this appear so marvelous when it is remembered that, even among the Pagans, it was confessed that the Sibyl had predicted that thus it should be: “Oh most blessed tree, on which our Lord was hung.” Our most zealous adversaries cannot deny the truth of this fact, and it is hence evident that a pre-manifestation was made of the wood of the cross, and of the adoration it received. The above incidents we have related precisely as they were delivered to us by men of great accuracy, by whom the information was derived by succession from father to son; and others have recorded the same events in writing for the benefit of posterity. Source: Wace, Henry, and Philip Schaff. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series II, Vol. II. Grand Rapids, MI: WM. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1886.

Further Reading Armstrong, Gregory T. “Constantine’s Churches.” Gesta 6 (January 1967): 1–9. Borgehammar, Stephan. How the Holy Cross Was Found: From Event to Medieval Legend. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International, 1991. Brubaker, Leslie. “Memories of Helena: Patterns in Imperial Female Matronage in the Fourth and Fifth Centuries.” In Women, Men and Eunuchs, edited by Liz James, 52–75. London: Routledge, 1997. Drijvers, Jan W. “Helena Augusta, the Cross and the Myth: Some New Reflections.” Jahrbuch zu Kultur und Geschichte des ersten Jahrtausends n. Chr., Millennium 8 (2011): 147–150. Drijvers, Jan W. Helena Augusta: The Mother of Constantine the Great and the Legend of Her Finding the True Cross. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1992. Georgiou, Andriani. “Helena: The Subversive Persona of an Ideal Christian Empress in Early Byzantium.” Journal of Early Christian Studies 21, no. 4 (2013): 597–624. Hunt, Edward. Holy Land Pilgrimage in the Later Roman Empire, a.d. 312–460. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1982. Rohrbacher, David. The Historians of Late Antiquity. New York: Routledge Press, 2002. Urbainczyk, Theresa. “Observations on the Differences between the Church Histories of Socrates and Sozomen.” Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte, Bd. 46, H. 3 (3rd Quarter, 1997): 355–373.

Document 47 CANONS OF CHALCEDON, 1–2, 4, 7–8, 10, 15–16, 18, 23, 28 The Council of Chalcedon took place in 451 and is considered to be the Fourth Ecumenical Council, even though it was attended by mostly eastern bishops. It was called, like the previous councils, to really deal with Christology or the study of Christ. This time, unlike



F i f t h C e n t u r y 217

the Council of Nicea, which was about whether Christ was the exact same nature or like the nature of God, the council was about who exactly Christ was—was he a man and God at the same time? Did he have a godly nature and a humanly nature, and if both, did he have them at the same time or were they separated, based on where he was (on the earth or in heaven)? As can be seen, the argument about Christ was evolving, and as usual, there were serious discussions and dissensions about who was correct and who was not. Like the previous councils, nearly all the canons created at the Council of Nicea revolved around controlling the behavior of the clergy. The first canon verified that this council accepted the findings of the council held in Nicea in 325 and accepted the previous canons from the councils that preceded it. The church was still having difficulties with people trying to buy their way into the clergy, and this was dealt with in Canon 2. This had a long history, going all the way back to Simon in the New Testament who wanted to buy the “power” the disciples had (this is where we get the word “simony” from). Being clergy certainly had its benefits—money was tax free, and there was both social and political power in having the office. Buying the office also meant that the person who bought it was not a genuine Christian, and this could (and did) lead to problems. Canon 2 is interesting too in that if someone who is clergy is found guilty, they are removed from their office, but if someone who is a monk or a layman and is found guilty, he is to be anathematized (or cursed). Monks and monasteries had been part of Christianity for over two centuries by the time of this council, but they still had the ability to cause problems for their local bishops, primarily because the monk could be seen as someone with a special spiritual power, and this power could be used against the bishop or used to influence those in political power. Canon 4 and 8 tried to limit this and limit where monasteries could be built. Canon 4 also stated that slaves should not become monks unless their masters approve. Monks and clergy could not be enrolled in the military (Canon 7), while Canon 10 prevented (in most cases) clergy from going from their home diocese where they were baptized into another, more powerful area. Some of the canons also mentioned women. Canon 15 stated that women who were made deaconesses could not marry later, and Canon 16 stated that any virgin who dedicated her life to Christ who then gets married would be excommunicated. There were a number of canons related to clergy who were going behind the back of their bishop to cause trouble in their churches or to go to Constantinople to cause trouble, even after they were (Canon 18 and 23). The last canon given here is Canon 28. This stated that the church that resided in the capital and where the emperor lived should be the most important church—and in this case, the city was Constantinople. The clergy in Rome, especially Leo, did not like this canon at all and fought against it.

Canon 1 We have judged it right that the canons of the Holy Fathers made in every synod even until now, should remain in force.

Canon 2 If any Bishop should ordain for money, and put to sale a grace which cannot be sold, and for money ordain a bishop, or chorepiscopus, or presbyters, or deacons,

218

DO C UMENTS O F THE RISE O F C HRISTIANITY

or any other of those who are counted among the clergy, or if through lust of gain he should nominate for money a steward, or advocate, or prosmonarius [it isn’t clear what this office is], or any one whatever who is on the roll of the Church, let him who is convicted of this forfeit his own rank and let him who is ordained profit nothing by the purchased ordination or promotion but let him be removed from the dignity or charge he has obtained for money. And if anyone should be found negotiating such shameful and unlawful transactions, let him also, if he is a clergyman, be deposed from his rank, and if he is a layman or monk, let him be anathematized.

Canon 4 Let those who truly and sincerely lead the monastic life be counted worthy of becoming honor, but, forasmuch as certain persons using the pretext of monasticism bring confusion both upon the churches and into political affairs by going about promiscuously in the cities, and at the same time seeking to establish Monasteries for themselves—it is decreed that no one anywhere build or found a monastery or oratory contrary to the will of the bishop of the city and that the monks in every city and district shall be subject to the bishop and embrace a quiet course of life and give themselves only to fasting and prayer, remaining permanently in the places in which they were set apart. They shall meddle neither in ecclesiastical nor in secular affairs, nor leave their own monasteries to take part in such—unless, indeed, they should at any time through urgent necessity be appointed thereto by the bishop of the city. And no slave shall be received into any monastery to become a monk against the will of his master. And if any one shall transgress this our judgment, we have decreed that he shall be excommunicated, that the name of God be not blasphemed. But the bishop of the city must make the needful provision for the monasteries.

Canon 7 We have decreed that those who have once been enrolled among the clergy, or have been made monks, shall accept neither a military charge nor any secular dignity. And if they shall presume to do so and not repent in such wise as to turn again to that which they had first chosen for the love of God, they shall be anathematized.

Canon 8 Let the clergy of the poor-houses, monasteries, and martyries remain under the authority of the bishops in every city according to the tradition of the holy Fathers and let no one arrogantly cast off the rule of his own bishop. And if any shall contravene this canon in any way whatever and will not be subject to their own bishop, if they be clergy, let them be subjected to canonical censure, and if they be monks or laymen, let them be excommunicated.



F i f t h C e n t u r y 219

Canon 10 It shall not be lawful for a clergyman to be at the same time enrolled in the churches of two cities, that is, in the church in which he was at first ordained, and in another to which, because it is greater, he has removed from lust of empty honor. And those who do so shall be returned to their own church in which they were originally ordained and there only shall they minister. But if anyone has heretofore been removed from one church to another, he shall not meddle with the affairs of his former church, nor with the martyries, almshouses, and hostels belonging to it. And if, after the decree of this great and ecumenical Synod, any shall dare to do any of these things now forbidden, the synod decrees that he shall be degraded from his rank.

Canon 15 A woman shall not receive the laying on of hands as a deaconess under forty years of age, and then only after searching examination. And if, after she has had hands laid on her and has continued for a time to minister, she shall despise the grace of God and give herself in marriage, she shall be anathematized and the man united to her.

Canon 16 It is not lawful for a virgin who has dedicated herself to the Lord God, nor for monks, to marry; and if they are found to have done this, let them be excommunicated. But we decree that in every place the bishop shall have the power of indulgence towards them.

Canon 18 The crime of conspiracy or banding together is utterly prohibited even by the secular law, and much more ought it to be forbidden in the Church of God. Therefore, if any, whether clergymen or monks, should be detected in conspiring or banding together, or hatching plots against their bishops or fellow-clergy, they shall by all means be deposed from their own rank.

Canon 23 It has come to the hearing of the holy Synod that certain clergymen and monks, having no authority from their own bishop, and sometimes, indeed, while under sentence of excommunication by him, travel to the imperial Constantinople and

220

DO C UMENTS O F THE RISE O F C HRISTIANITY

remain there for a long time, raising disturbances and troubling the ecclesiastical state, and turning men’s houses upside down. Therefore the holy Synod has determined that such persons be first notified by the Advocate of the most holy Church of Constantinople to depart from the imperial city, and if they shall shamelessly continue in the same practices, that they shall be expelled by the same Advocate even against their will, and return to their own places.

Canon 28 Following in all things the decisions of the holy Fathers, and acknowledging the canon, which has been just read, of the One Hundred and Fifty Bishops belovedof-God (who assembled in the imperial city of Constantinople, which is New Rome, in the time of the Emperor Theodosius of happy memory), we also do enact and decree the same things concerning the privileges of the most holy Church of Constantinople, which is New Rome. For the Fathers rightly granted privileges to the throne of old Rome because it was the royal city. And the One Hundred and Fifty most religious Bishops, actuated by the same consideration, gave equal privileges to the most holy throne of New Rome, justly judging that the city which is honored with the Sovereignty and the Senate, and enjoys equal privileges with the old imperial Rome, should in ecclesiastical matters also be magnified as she is, and rank next after her so that, in the Pontic, the Asian, and the Thracian dioceses, the metropolitans only and such bishops also of the Dioceses aforesaid as are among the barbarians, should be ordained by the aforesaid most holy throne of the most holy Church of Constantinople; every metropolitan of the aforesaid dioceses, together with the bishops of his province, ordaining his own provincial bishops, as has been declared by the divine canons; but that, as has been above said, the metropolitans of the aforesaid Dioceses should be ordained by the archbishop of Constantinople, after the proper elections have been held according to custom and have been reported to him. Source: Wace, Henry, and Philip Schaff. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series II, Vol. XIV. Grand Rapids, MI: WM. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1886.

Further Reading Allen, Pauline. Crisis Management in Late Antiquity (410–590 CE): A Survey of the Evidence from Episcopal Letters. Leiden: Brill, 2013. Amirav, Hagil. Authority and Performance: Sociological Perspectives on the Council of Chalcedon (AD 451). Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Company KG, 2015. Chadwick, H. “The Exile and Death of Flavian of Constantinople: A Prologue to the Council of Chalcedon.” Journal of Theological Studies 6, no. 1 (April 1955): 17–34. Clayton, Paul B., Jr. The Christology of Theodoret of Cyrus: Antiochene Christology from the Council of Ephesus (431) to the Council of Chalcedon (451). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007.



F i f t h C e n t u r y 221

Price, Richard, and Mary Whitby, eds. Chalcedon in Context: Church Councils 400 to 700. Liverpool, UK: Liverpool University Press, 2009. Schor, Adam M. Theodoret’s People: Social Networks and Religious Conflict in Late Roman Syria. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2011. Sellers, R. V. The Council of Chalcedon: A Historical and Doctrinal Survey. London: SPCK, 1961. Watts, Edward J. Riot in Alexandria: Tradition and Group Dynamics in Late Antique Pagan and Christian Communities. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2010.

Document 48 LEO THE GREAT, LETTER 4 Leo, sometimes called Leo the Great, was the pope from 440 to 461. Little is known about his personal life, both before and during his bishopric. This period was an interesting one in the church. The West was breaking apart under the “barbarian” incursions. As a result of this, Leo found himself not only acting as a priest for the church but was also asked by the emperor to personally meet with the infamous Attila, king of the Huns, to intercede and stop the invasions or at least lessen their impact. Leo worked tirelessly to keep the West together as it also meant that the church could stay together. He was an active writer (which was almost a requirement of the bishop of Rome) and was insistent that all listen to him. He did, however, have some issues with the eastern bishops. Leo, being interested in enforcing orthodoxy, was naturally an opponent to all who differed from him. Like bishops and priests in the fourth century who had to fight against the Manichaeans, those in the fifth were dealing with the aftermath of the influx of Manichaeans after the fall of North Africa to the Vandals. Many naturally went to Rome as their own areas were flooded by these “barbarians.” Leo knew their history and took an active role in persecuting them in Rome. Leo also dealt with new “heresies” as the Arian controversies began to die down a bit. One outcome of this controversy was again on the nature of Christ—did He Himself have two full natures, man and God, or just one nature (dealt with in another section of this book)? The following excerpt, written by Pope Leo, lists a number of rules that the bishops had to follow. It was written on October 10, 443. As he stated in the Introduction, a peaceful church is a good church. When things go wrong, the structure of the church falls apart. This list is helpful for determining some of the issues the church was going through in the middle of the 400s. For example, it appears that slaves were being ordained and Leo did not like this. He claimed that their character was not good for being a priest, and, worst of all, the slaves were being taken from their masters unlawfully. Slavery was clearly still an issue in the Roman Empire as it was breaking up in the West. Slaves were still a part of the economy, and one way, at least from their point of view, to escape being a slave was to become a priest. Leo wanted to stop this. The second rule is that widows and men who have married more than once are not to become priests, and if they are priests, they should be removed. The letter ends by stating that those who do not follow the rules will be deposed and excommunicated.

222

DO C UMENTS O F THE RISE O F C HRISTIANITY

Leo the Great, Letter 4 To the Bishops appointed in Campania, Picenum, Etruria, and all the Provinces. Leo, bishop of the city of Rome, to all the bishops appointed in Campania, Picenum, Etruria, and all the provinces, greeting in the Lord. 1. As the peaceful settlement of the churches causes us satisfaction, so are we saddened with no slight sorrow whenever we learn that anything has been taken for granted or done contrary to the ordinances of the canons and the discipline of the Church: and if we do not repress such things with the vigilance we ought, we cannot excuse ourselves to Him who intended us to be watchmen, for permitting the pure body of the Church, which we ought to keep clean from every stain, to be defiled by contact with wicked schemers, since the framework of the members loses its harmony by such dissimulation. 2. Slaves and serfs are not to be ordained. Men are admitted commonly to the Sacred Order who are not qualified by any dignity of birth or character: even some who have failed to obtain their liberty from their masters are raised to the rank of the priesthood, as if sorry slaves were fit for that honor; and it is believed that a man can be approved of God who has not yet been able to approve himself to his master. And so the cause for complaint is twofold in this matter, because both the sacred ministry is polluted by such poor partners in it, and the rights of masters are infringed so far as unlawful possession is rashly taken of them. From these men, therefore, beloved brethren, let all the priests of your province keep aloof; and not only from them, but from others also, we wish you to keep, who are under the bond of origin or other condition of service, unless perchance the request or consent be intimated of those who claim some authority over them. For he who is to be enrolled on the divine service ought to be exempt from others, that he be not drawn away from the Lord’s camp in which his name is entered, by any other bonds of duty. 3. A man who has married twice or a widow is not eligible as a priest. Again, when each man’s respectability of birth and conduct has been established, what sort of person should be associated with the ministry of the Sacred Altar we have learnt both from the teaching of the Apostle and the Divine precepts and the regulations of the canons, from which we find very many of the brethren have turned aside and quite gone out of the way. For it is well known that the husbands of widows have attained to the priesthood: certain, too, who have had several wives, and have led a life given up to all licentiousness, have had all facilities put in their way, and been admitted to the Sacred Order, contrary to that utterance of the blessed Apostle, in which he proclaims and says to such, “the husband of one wife,” and contrary to that precept of the ancient law which says by way of caution: “Let the priest take a virgin to wife, not a widow, not a divorced woman.” All such persons, therefore, who have been admitted we order to be put out of their offices in the church and from the title of priest by the authority of the Apostolic See: for they will have no claim to that for which they were not eligible, on account of the obstacle in question: and we specially claim for ourselves the duty of settling this, that if any of these irregularities have been committed, they may be corrected and may not be allowed to occur again, and that no excuse may arise from ignorance: although it has never been allowed a priest to be ignorant of what has been laid down by the rules of the canons. These writings, therefore, we have addressed to your provinces by the hand



F i f t h C e n t u r y 223

of Innocent, Legitimus and Segetius, our brothers and fellow-bishops: that the evil shoots which are known to have sprung up may be torn out by the roots, and no tares may spoil the Lord’s harvest. For thus all that is genuine will bear much fruit, if that which has been wanting to kill the growing crop be carefully cleared away. 4. Usurious practices forbidden for clergy and for laity. This point, too, we have thought must not be passed over, that certain possessed with the love of base gain lay out their money at interest and wish to enrich themselves as usurers. For we are grieved that this is practiced not only by those who belong to the clergy, but also by laymen who desire to be called Christians. And we decree that those who have been convicted be punished sharply, that all occasion of sinning be removed. 5. A cleric may not make money in another’s name any more than in his own. The following warning, also, we have thought fit to give, that no cleric should attempt to make money in another’s name any more than in his own: for it is unbecoming to shield one’s crime under another man’s gains. Nay, we ought to look at and aim at only that usury whereby what we bestow in mercy here we may recover from the Lord, who will restore a thousand-fold what will last forever. 6. Any bishop who refuses consent to these rules must be deposed. This admonition of ours, therefore, proclaims that if any of our brethren endeavor to contravene these rules and dare to do what is forbidden by them, he may know that he is liable to deposition from his office, and that he will not be a sharer in our communion who refuses to be a sharer of our discipline. But lest there be anything which may possibly be thought to be omitted by us, we bid you, beloved, to keep all the decretal rules of Innocent of blessed memory, and also of all our predecessors, which have been promulgated about the orders of the Church and the discipline of the canons, and to keep them in such wise that if any have transgressed them he may know at once that all indulgence is denied him.

Dated 10th of October, in the consulship of the illustrious Maximus (a second time) and Paterius (a.d. 443). Source: Wace, Henry, and Philip Schaff. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series II, Vol. XII. Grand Rapids, MI: WM. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1886.

Further Reading Barclift, Philip L. “Predestination and Divine Foreknowledge in the Sermons of Pope Leo the Great.” Church History 62, no. 1 (1993): 5–21. Barclift, Philip L. “The Shifting Tones of Pope Leo the Great’s Christological Vocabulary.” Church History 66, no. 2 (1997): 221–239. Green, Bernard. The Soteriology of Leo the Great. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008. Jalland, T. The Life and Times of St. Leo the Great. London: SPCK, 1941. James, N. W. “Leo the Great and Prosper of Aquitaine: A Fifth-Century Pope and His Advisor.” Journal of Theological Studies 44, no. 2 (1993): 554–584. Neil, Bronwen. Leo the Great. New York: Routledge, 2009. Salzman, Michele R. “Leo’s Liturgical Topography: Contestations for Space in Fifth-Century Rome.” Journal of Roman Studies 103 (2013): 208–232. Wessel. Susan. Leo the Great and the Spiritual Rebuilding of a Universal Rome. Leiden: Brill, 2008.

224

DO C UMENTS O F THE RISE O F C HRISTIANITY

Document 49 LEO THE GREAT, LETTER 16 Baptism is one of the most important rituals in Christianity. It brings the candidate into the fold of the church, thereby becoming a full member. This is true now and was certainly true in the ancient church. The following letter is one that Leo sent to the bishops of Sicily (dated October 21, 447). He heard from someone that the bishops there were baptizing people during parts of the year that, at least according to Leo, were not acceptable and not in alignment with the rest of the churches. One such day was Epiphany, which is when some Christians celebrate the official recognition of Jesus as God. For some, this was after Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and God said (Matt. 3:17), “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.” Others celebrate it when the three wise men traveled to see the baby Jesus (as does Leo the Great, as in the next excerpt). Still others see it at Pentecost, when the Holy Spirit came down, as described in Acts. For Leo, the bishops in Sicily were doing more baptisms at Epiphany than they were on Easter (the day of Resurrection), and this was why he was writing. For him, baptism should primarily be done on Easter and at Pentecost and not at Epiphany, mostly because Leo believed that baptism, as a sacrament, was extremely important and should be reserved for special days. It should not be done routinely. However, it made it clear that baptisms could still be done in emergencies like invasion, imminent death, persecution, or shipwreck (Chapter 6). The letter is also important in that it shows that Leo believed his office, as the bishop of Rome, entitled him to be the most important bishop in Christianity. At the end of the letter, he demands that three bishops from Sicily appear in Rome on September 29 every year for a council where all of the canons of the church will be reviewed. It is in this way he can control the bishops that he believed were under him in ecclesiastical power. As Ullmann stated, Leo’s tone is “the tone of him who governs” (1960, 25), and it is Leo who stressed, over and over again, the primacy of the bishop of Rome over everyone else, both east and west. The Western part of Christianity stopped using Epiphany as the central baptism day (Kantorowicz 1956, 207), and Leo played a major role in this.

Letter 16 To the Bishops of Sicily Leo the bishop to all the bishops throughout Sicily greeting in the Lord 1. By God’s precepts and the Apostle’s admonitions we are incited to keep a careful watch over the state of all the churches and, if anywhere is found that needs rebuke, to recall men with speedy care either from the stupidity of ignorance or from forwardness and presumption. For inasmuch as we are warned by the Lord’s own command whereby the blessed Apostle Peter had the three-times repeated mystical injunction pressed upon him, that he who loves Christ should feed Christ’s sheep,



F i f t h C e n t u r y 225

we are compelled by reverence for that see which, by the abundance of the Divine Grace we hold, to shun the danger of sloth as much as possible: lest the confession of the chief Apostle whereby he testified that he loved God be not found in us: because if he (through us) carelessly feed the flock so often commended to him, he is proved not to love the chief Shepherd. 2. Accordingly when it reached my ears on reliable testimony (and I already felt a brother’s affectionate anxiety about your acts, beloved) that in what is one of the chief sacraments of the Church you depart from the practice of the Apostles’ constitution by administering the sacrament of baptism to greater numbers on the feast of the Epiphany than at Easter, I was surprised that you or your predecessors could have introduced so unreasonable an innovation as to confound the mysteries of the two festivals and believe there was no difference between the day on which Christ was worshipped by the wise men and that on which He rose again from the dead. You could never have fallen into this fault if you had taken the whole of your observances from the source from where you derive your consecration to the episcopate, and if the see of the blessed Apostle Peter, which is the mother of your priestly dignity, were the recognized teacher of church-method. We could indeed have endured your departure from its rules with less equanimity if you had received any previous rebuke by way of warning from us. But now as we do not despair of correcting you, we must show gentleness. And although an excuse which affects ignorance is scarce tolerable in priests, yet we prefer to moderate our needful rebuke and to instruct you plainly in the true method of the Church. 3. The restoration of mankind has indeed ever remained immutably fore-ordained in God’s eternal counsel: but the series of events which had to be accomplished in time through Jesus Christ our Lord was begun at the Incarnation of the Word. Hence there is one time when at the angel’s announcement the blessed Virgin Mary believed she was to be with child through the Holy Ghost and conceived; another, when without loss of her virgin purity the Boy was born and shown to the shepherds by the exulting joy of the heavenly attendants; another, when the Babe was circumcised; another, when the victim required by the Law is offered for him; another, when the three wise men attracted by the brightness of the new star arrive at Bethlehem from the East and worship the Infant with the mystic offering of Gifts. And again the days are not the same on which by the divinely appointed passage into Egypt He was withdrawn from wicked Herod, and on which He was recalled from Egypt into Galilee on His pursuer’s death. Among these varieties of circumstance must be included His growth of body: the Lord increases, as the evangelist bears witness, with the progress of age and grace: at the time of the Passover He comes to the temple at Jerusalem with His parents, and when He was absent from the returning company, He is found sitting with the elders and disputing among the wondering masters and rendering an account of His remaining behind: “why is it,” He says, “that you sought Me? did you not know that I must be in that which is My Father’s,” signifying that He was the Son of Him whose temple He was in. Once more, when in later years He was to be declared more openly and sought out the baptism of His forerunner John, was there any doubt of His being God remaining when after the baptism of the Lord Jesus the Holy Spirit in form of a dove descended and rested upon Him, and the Father’s voice was heard from the skies, “You are My beloved Son: in You I am well pleased?” All these things we have alluded to with as much brevity as possible for this reason, that you may know, beloved, that though

226

DO C UMENTS O F THE RISE O F C HRISTIANITY

all the days of Christ’s life were hallowed by many mighty works of His, and though in all His actions mysterious sacraments shone forth, yet at one time intimations of events were given by signs, and at one time fulfilment realized: and that all the Savior’s works that are recorded are not suitable to the time of baptism. For if we were to commemorate with indiscriminate honor these things also which we know to have been done by the Lord after His baptism by the blessed John, His whole lifetime would have to be observed in a continuous succession of festivals, because all His acts were full of miracles. But because the Spirit of wisdom and knowledge so instructed the Apostles and teachers of the whole Church as to allow nothing disordered or confused to exist in our Christian observances, we must discern the relative importance of the various solemnities and observe a reasonable distinction in all the institutions of our fathers and rulers: for we cannot otherwise “be one flock and one shepherd,” except as the Apostle teaches us, “that we all speak the same Thing and that we be perfected in the same mind and in the same judgment.” 4. Although, therefore, both these things which are connected with Christ’s humiliation and those which are connected with His exaltation meet in one and the same Person, and all that is in Him of Divine power and human weakness brings about the accomplishment of our restoration: yet it is appropriate that the power of baptism should change the old into the new creature on the death-day of the Crucified and the Resurrection-day of the Dead so that Christ’s death and His resurrection may operate in the re-born, as the blessed Apostle says: “Are you ignorant that all we who were baptized in Christ Jesus, were baptized in His death? We were buried with Him through baptism into death; that as Christ rose from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have become united with the likeness of His death, we shall be also (with the likeness) of His resurrection,” and the rest which the Teacher of the Gentiles discusses further in recommending the sacrament of baptism so that it might be seen from the spirit of this doctrine that that is the day, and that the time chosen for regenerating the sons of men and adopting them among the sons of God, on which by a mystical symbolism and form, what is done in the limbs coincides with what was done in the Head Himself, for in the baptismal office death ensues through the slaying of sin, and threefold immersion imitates the lying in the tomb three days, and the raising out of the water is like Him that rose again from the tomb. The very nature, therefore of the act teaches us that that is the recognized day for the general reception of the grace, on which the power of the gift and the character of the action originated. And this is strongly corroborated by the consideration that the Lord Jesus Christ Himself, after He rose from the dead, handed on both the form and power of baptizing to His disciples, in whose person all the chiefs of the churches received their instructions with these words, “Go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.” On which of course He might have instructed them even before His passion had He not especially wished it to be understood that the grace of regeneration began with His resurrection. It must be added, indeed, that the solemn season of Pentecost, hallowed by the coming of the Holy Ghost is also allowed, being as it were, the sequel and completion of the Paschal feast. And while other festivals are held on other days of the week, this festival (of Pentecost) always occurs on that day, which is marked by the Lord’s Resurrection— holding out, so to say, the hand of assisting grace and inviting those who have been cut off from the Easter feast by disabling sickness or length of journey or difficulties



F i f t h C e n t u r y 227

of sailing, to gain the purpose that they long for through the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the Only-begotten of God Himself wished no difference to be felt between Himself and the Holy Spirit in the Faith of believers and in the efficacy of His works because there is no diversity in their nature, as He says, “I will ask the Father and He shall give you another Comforter that He may be with you forever, even the Spirit of Truth;” and again “But the Comforter which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in My name, He shall teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you;” and again “When He, the Spirit of Truth, has come, He shall guide you into all the Truth.” And thus, since Christ is the Truth and the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth and the name of “Comforter” appropriate to both, the two festivals are not dissimilar, where the sacrament is the same. 5. And that we do not contend for this on our own conviction but retain it on Apostolic authority, we prove by a sufficiently apt example, following the blessed Apostle Peter, who, on the very day on which the promised coming of the Holy Ghost filled up the number of those that believed, dedicated to God in the baptismal font three thousand of the people who had been converted by his preaching. The Holy Scripture, which contains the Acts of Apostles, teaches this in its faithful narrative, saying, “Now when they heard this they were pricked in the heart, and said to Peter and to the rest of the Apostles, what shall we do, brethren? But Peter said unto them, Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, unto the remission of your sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For to you is the promise, and to your children and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call unto Him. With many other words also he testified and exhorted them saying, Save yourselves from this crooked generation. They then that received his word were baptized, and there were added in that day about three thousand.” 6. Wherefore, as it is quite clear that these two seasons of which we have been speaking are the rightful ones for baptizing the chosen in Church, we admonish you, beloved, not to add other days to this observance. Because, although there are other festivals also to which much reverence is due in God’s honor, yet we must rationally guard this principal and greatest sacrament as a deep mystery and not part of the ordinary routine: not, however, prohibiting the license to help those who are in danger by administering baptism to them at any time. For while we put off the vows of those who are not pressed by ill health and live in peaceful security to those two closely connected and cognate festivals, we do not at any time refuse this which is the only safeguard of true salvation to any one in peril of death, in the crisis of a siege, in the distress of persecution, in the terror of shipwreck. 7. But if anyone thinks the feast of the Epiphany, which in proper degree is certainly to be held in due honor, claims the privilege of baptism because, according to some the Lord came to St. John’s baptism on the same day, let him know that the grace of that baptism and the reason of it were quite different and is not on an equal footing with the power by which they are re-born of the Holy Ghost, of whom it is said, “which were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.” For the Lord who needed no remission of sin and sought not the remedy of being born again, desired to be baptized just as He desired to be circumcised, and to have a victim offered for His purification: that He, who had been “made of a woman,” as the Apostle says, might become also “under the law” which He had

228

DO C UMENTS O F THE RISE O F C HRISTIANITY

come, “not to destroy but to fulfil,” and by fulfilling to end, as the blessed Apostle proclaims, saying: “but Christ is the end of the law unto righteousness to everyone that believes.” But the sacrament of baptism He founded in His own person because “in all things having the pre-eminence,” He taught that He Himself was the Beginning. And He ratified the power of re-birth on that occasion, when from His side flowed out the blood of ransom and the water of baptism. As, therefore, the Old Testament was the witness to the new, and “the law was given by Moses: but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ” as the diverse sacrifices prefigured the one Victim and the slaughter of many lambs was ended by the offering up of Him, of whom it is said, “Behold the Lamb of God; behold Him that takes away the sin of the world.” So too John, not Christ, but Christ’s forerunner, not the bridegroom, but the friend of the bridegroom, was so faithful in seeking, “not His own, but the things which are Jesus Christ’s,” as to profess himself unworthy to undo the shoes of His feet, seeing that He Himself indeed baptized “in water unto repentance,” but He who with twofold power should both restore life and destroy sins, was about to “baptize in the Holy Ghost and fire.” As then, beloved brethren, all these distinct proofs come before you, whereby to the removal of all doubt you recognize that in baptizing the elect who, according to the Apostolic rule have to be purged by exorcisms, sanctified by fastings and instructed by frequent sermons, two seasons only are to be observed—Easter and Whitsuntide. We charge you, brother, to make no further departure from the Apostolic institutions. Because hereafter no one who thinks the Apostolic rules can be set at defiance will go unpunished. 8. Wherefore we require this first and foremost for the keeping of perfect harmony, that, according to the wholesome rule of the holy Fathers that there should be two meetings of bishops every year, three of you should appear without fail each time, on the 29th of September, to join in the council of the brethren: for thus, by the aid of God’s grace, we shall the easier guard against the rise of offences and errors in Christ’s Church and this council must always meet and deliberate in the presence of the blessed Apostle Peter, that all his constitutions and canonical decrees may remain inviolate with all the Lord’s priests. These matters, upon which we thought it necessary to instruct you by the inspiration of the Lord, we wish brought to your knowledge by our brothers and fellow-bishops, Bacillus and Paschasinus. May we learn by their report that the institutions of the Apostolic See are reverently observed by you.

Dated 21 Oct., in the consulship of the illustrious Alipius and Ardaburis (447). Source: Wace, Henry, and Philip Schaff. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series II, Vol. XIV. Grand Rapids, MI: WM. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1886.

Further Reading DeMaris, Richard E. “Backing Away from Baptism: Early Christian Ambivalence about Its Ritual.” Journal of Ritual Studies 27, no. 1, Special Issue, The Denial of Ritual and Its Return (2013): 11–19. Ferguson, Everett. Baptism in the Early Church: History, Theology, and Liturgy in the First Five Centuries. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2009.



F i f t h C e n t u r y 229

Gibbs, Jeffrey A. “Israel Standing with Israel: The Baptism of Jesus in Matthew’s Gospel (Matt 3:13–17).” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 64, no. 3 (July 2002): 511–526. Hamman, A.-G. Baptism: Ancient Liturgies and Patristic Texts. Staten Island, NY: Alba House, 1967. Kantorowicz, Ernst H. “The Baptism of the Apostles.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 9/10 (1956): 203–251. Miller, Leo F. “The Formula of Baptism in the Early Church.” Catholic Historical Review 10, no. 4 (January 1925): 515–535 (old, but still useful). Uhalde, Kevin. “Pope Leo I on Power and Failure.” Catholic Historical Review 95, no. 4 (October 2009): 671–688. Ullmann, Walter. “Leo I and the Theme of Papal Primacy.” Journal of Theological Studies, New Series 11, no. 1 (April 1960): 25–51.

Document 50 LEO THE GREAT, LETTER TO AUGUSTA PULCHERIA, LETTER 31 Leo the Great wrote many letters to many people, including the emperor Theodosius II. Usually these letters were about ecclesiastical affairs. Leo also wrote to Pulcheria (399– 453), the older sister of Emperor Theodosius II and daughter of the previous emperor, Arcadius, and his Augusta, Eudoxia. Pulcheria, her brother, and their other siblings were orphaned at a young age and were given a full education in both Greek and Latin (Holum 1982, 81). She was very active in her family affairs and took control of them early on and became known as the emperor’s guardian (Holum 1982, 91). Pulcheria was a devout Christian; she also oversaw the religious training of Theodosius II and at the age of 14 (413 CE) took a vow of virginity and convinced her sisters to do the same. The next year her brother declared her Augusta, which was the female equivalent of the emperor. Pulcheria is also known in part because of her devotion to Mary, the mother of Jesus. She promoted the term theotokos or God-Bearer for Mary. She had a number of churches built in Mary’s honor and used the virginity of Mary to showcase her own devotion to virginity. Mary’s virginity was a contested topic during the time of Pulcheria. One bishop named Nestorius actively complained against the use of the term theotokos for Mary. Pulcheria was active in both civil and religious matters, and Nestorius objected to anyone not a bishop enforcing Christian beliefs. It is probable that Nestorius was against Mary being the God-Bearer also for political reasons—to remove or at least reduce the power of Pulcheria in imperial politics and ecclesiastical measures (Chew 2006, 208 and 217–220). Nestorius claimed Mary could not be the bearer of God because she gave birth to the human Jesus—not the godly Jesus. It appears that Nestorius picked on the wrong woman as Pulcheria helped to organize the Council of Ephesus (the Third Ecumenical Council) in 431 CE, and it is here that Nestorius is condemned and then sent into exile by Emperor Theodosius II, Pulcheria’s brother. Later, Theodosius II married Eudocia (or Eudokia) in 421 CE, and it is at this point that tension started between the brother and sister.

230

DO C UMENTS O F THE RISE O F C HRISTIANITY

Eudokia tried to get Pulcheria ordained as a deaconess, which would have put her under the direct control of the church, but when she found out about this, she went into voluntary exile. Eudokia herself was exiled by the emperor in 443 CE, and she never returned to Constantinople to live with her husband. Theodosius II died in 450 CE, and Pulcheria returned from exile to rule on her own for about a month until she married a man named Marcian and was again Augusta. The following letter, from Leo the Great to Pulcheria, was written on June 13, 449. Leo had recognized the power Pulcheria had over her brother and recognized the fact that Pulcheria also agreed with Leo on ecclesiastical matters, especially on theotokos and on the two natures of Christ (fully human and fully divine). Leo wrote letters to Pulcheria in hopes of getting her support and to get her to influence her brother the emperor. In it Leo reminds Pulcheria that she is in her position of power because of God. At the time he wrote his letter, another controversy over the nature of Christ had broken out. Eutyches, a presbyter, believed that Jesus had only one nature—that of God and that anything human was incorporated into the godly nature. Leo and Pulcheria believed that Christ had two full natures—that of God and that of a human. For them, Christ had to be fully a human in order that salvation takes place. Leo pointed out to Pulcheria the various places in the New Testament that admit to him having a fully humanly nature. He also wrote to excuse himself from the Council at Ephesus that Theodosius II had called for. Leo told Pulcheria that there wasn’t enough time between getting the invitation and then preparing and getting there. Leo was also worried about leaving Rome and being overthrown from his position when he was away but he asked her to defend the true faith against Eutyches. This did not happen at the council in 449, which was later titled the Robber Council. Then in 451, after the death of Theodosius II, Pulcheria and Marcian convened the Fourth Ecumenical Council at Chalcedon, and it was here that the position of Eutyches was condemned and he was sent into exile.

Letter 31, Leo to Pulcheria Augusta 1. How much protection the Lord has extended to His Church through your clemency, we have often tested by many signs. And whatever stand the strenuousness of the priesthood has made in our times against the assailers of the catholic Truth, has redounded chiefly to your glory: seeing that, as you have learnt from the teaching of the Holy Spirit, you submit your authority in all things to Him, by whose favor and under whose protection you reign. Wherefore, because I have ascertained from my brother and fellow-bishop Flavian’s report, that a certain dispute has been raised through the agency of Eutyches in the church of Constantinople against the integrity of the Christian faith (and the text of the synod’s minutes has shown me the exact nature of the whole matter), it is worthy of your great name that the error which in my opinion proceeds rather from ignorance than ingenuity, should be dispelled before, with the pertinacity of wrong-headedness, it gains any strength from the support of the unwise. Because even ignorance sometimes falls into serious mistakes, and very frequently the simple-minded rush through unwariness into the devil’s pit: and it is thus, I believe, that the spirit of falsehood has crept over Eutyches: so that, whilst he imagines himself to appreciate the majesty of the Son of



F i f t h C e n t u r y 231

God more devoutly, by denying in Him the real presence of our nature, he came to the conclusion that the whole of that Word which “became flesh” was of one and the same essence. And greatly as Nestorius fell away from the Truth, in asserting that Christ was only born man of His mother, this man also departs no less far from the catholic path, who does not believe that our substance was brought forth from the same Virgin: wishing it of course to be understood as belonging to His Godhead only; so that that which took the form of a slave, and was like us and of the same form, was a kind of image, not the reality of our nature. 2. It is of no avail to say that our Lord, the Son of the blessed Virgin Mary, was true and perfect man, if He is not believed to be Man of that stock which is attributed to Him in the Gospel. For Matthew says, “The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham:” and follows the order of His human origin, so as to bring the lines of His ancestry down to Joseph to whom the Lord’s mother was espoused. Whereas Luke going backwards step by step traces His succession to the first of the human race himself, to show that the first Adam and the last Adam were of the same nature. No doubt the Almighty Son of God could have appeared for the purpose of teaching, and justifying men in exactly the same way that He appeared both to patriarchs and prophets in the semblance of flesh; for instance, when He engaged in a struggle, and entered into conversation (with Jacob), or when He refused not hospitable entertainment, and even partook of the food set before Him. But these appearances were indications of that Man whose reality it was announced by mystic predictions would be assumed from the stock of preceding patriarchs. And the fulfilment of the mystery of our atonement, which was ordained from all eternity, was not assisted by any figures because the Holy Spirit had not yet come upon the Virgin, and the power of the Most High had not over-shadowed her: so that “Wisdom building herself a house” within her undefiled body, “the Word became flesh;” and the form of God and the form of a slave coming together into one person, the Creator of times was born in time; and He Himself through whom all things were made, was brought forth in the midst of all things. For if the New Man had not been made in the likeness of sinful flesh, and taken on Him our old nature, and being consubstantial with the Father, had deigned to be consubstantial with His mother also, and being alone free from sin, had united our nature to Him the whole human race would be held in bondage beneath the Devil’s yoke, and we should not be able to make use of the Conqueror’s victory, if it had been won outside our nature. 3. But from Christ’s marvelous sharing of the two natures, the mystery of regeneration shone upon us that through the self-same spirit, through whom Christ was conceived and born, we too, who were born through the desire of the flesh, might be born again from a spiritual source: and consequently, the Evangelist speaks of believers as those “who were born not of bloods, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.” And of this unutterable grace no one is a partaker, nor can be reckoned among the adopted sons of God, who excludes from his faith that which is the chief means of our salvation. Wherefore, I am much vexed and saddened that this man, who seemed before so laudably disposed towards humility, dares to make these empty and stupid attacks on the one Faith of ourselves and of our fathers. When he saw that his ignorant notion offended the ears of Catholics, he ought to have withdrawn from his opinion, and not to have so disturbed the Church’s rulers, as to deserve a sentence of condemnation: which, of course, no one

232

DO C UMENTS O F THE RISE O F C HRISTIANITY

will be able to remit, if he is determined to abide by his notion. For the moderation of the Apostolic See uses its leniency in such a way as to deal severely with the stubborn, while desiring to offer pardon to those who accept correction. Seeing then that I possess great confidence in your lofty faith and piety, I entreat your illustrious clemency, that, as the preaching of the catholic Faith has always been aided by your holy zeal, so now, also, you will maintain its free action. Perchance the Lord allowed it to be thus assailed for this reason that we might discover what sort of persons lurked within the Church. And clearly, we must not neglect to look after such, lest we be afflicted with their actual loss. 4. The question at issue is a very grave one. But the most august and Christian Emperor, being anxious that the disturbances may be set at rest with all speed, has appointed too short and early a date for the council of bishops, which he wishes held at Ephesus, in fixing the first of August for the meeting: for from the fifth of May, on which we received His Majesty’s letter, most of the time remaining has to be spent in making complete arrangements for the journey of such priests as are competent to represent me. For as to the necessity of my attending the council also, which his piety suggested, even if there were any precedent for the request, it could by no means be managed now: for the very uncertain state of things at present would not permit my absence from the people of this great city: and the minds of the riotously-disposed might be driven to desperate deeds, if they were to think that I took occasion of ecclesiastical business to desert my country and the Apostolic See. As then you recognize that it concerns the public weal that with your merciful indulgence I should not deny myself to the affectionate prayers of my people, consider that in these my brethren, whom I have sent in my stead, I also am present with the rest who appear: to them I have clearly and fully explained what is to be maintained in view of the satisfactory exposition of the case which has been given me by the detailed report, and by the defendant’s own statement to me. For the question is not about some small portion of our Faith on which no very distinct declaration has been made: but the foolish opposition that is raised ventures to impugn that which our Lord desired no one of either sex in the Church to be ignorant of. For the short but complete confession of the catholic creed which contains the twelve sentences of the twelve apostles is so well furnished with the heavenly panoply, that all the opinions of heretics can receive their death-blow from that one weapon. And if Eutyches had been content to receive that creed in its entirety with a pure and simple heart, he would at no point go astray from the decrees of the most sacred council of Nicaea, and he would understand that the holy Fathers laid this down, to the end that no mental or rhetorical ingenuity should lift itself up against the Apostolic Faith which is absolutely one. Deign then, with your accustomed piety to do your best endeavor, that this blasphemous and foolish attack upon the one and only sacrament of man’s salvation may be driven from all men’s minds. And if the man himself, who has fallen into this temptation, recover his senses, so as to condemn his own error by a written recantation, let him not be denied communion with his order. Your clemency is to know that I have written in the same strain to the holy bishop Flavian also: that loving-kindness be not lost sight of, if the error be dispelled.

Dated 13 June in the consulship of the illustrious Asturius and Protogenes (449). Source: Wace, Henry, and Philip Schaff. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series II, Vol. XIV. Grand Rapids, MI: WM. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1886.



F i f t h C e n t u r y 233

Further Reading Chadwick, H. “The Exile and Death of Flavian of Constantinople: A Prologue to the Council of Chalcedon.” Journal of Theological Studies, New Series 6, no. 1 (April 1955): 17–34. Chew, Kathryn. “Virgins and Eunuchs: Pulcheria, Politics and the Death of Emperor Theodosius II.” Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte 55, no. 2 (2006): 207–227. Evans, James A. The Empress Theodora: Partner of Justinian. Austin: University of Texas Press, 2002. Herrin, Judith. “The Imperial Feminine in Byzantium.” Past & Present, no. 169 (November 2000): 3–35. Holum, Kenneth G. “Pulcheria’s Crusade A.D. 421–22 and the Ideology of Imperial Victory.” Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 18, no. 2 (2004): 153–172. Holum, Kenneth G. Theodosian Empresses: Women and Imperial Dominion in Late Antiquity. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1982. Limberis, Vasiliki. Divine Heiress: The Virgin Mary and the Creation of Christian Constantinople. London: Routledge, 1994. Millar, Fergus. A Greek Roman Empire: Power and Belief under Theodosius II (408–450). Berkeley: University of California Press: 2006.

Document 51 LEO THE GREAT’S LETTERS ON THE MANICHAEANS, LETTER 7 Leo wrote this on October 15, 449. By this time, the Vandals, a group of people from north Europe, had invaded through central Europe, down through Spain, and had captured North Africa from the Romans. They did not want to be part of Roman culture and destroyed and pillaged as they went—hence the term “vandalism” in English. Of course, Romans attempted to flee North Africa with this invasion, and many of them went to Italy where it was assumed it would be safe. Included in that group were Manichaean Christians. The Manichaeans first made their appearance in Africa in the middle of the 200s when they went to Egypt and further west from Persia into the Roman Empire. Emperor Diocletian issued an edict against them in 302 CE. It is unclear how much this affected the Manichaeans as there seemed to be thriving pockets of them throughout Egypt. Some Manichaeans also made their way to Roman North Africa (far northwest) where Augustine, in the last decades of the 300s, was introduced to them. Augustine believed that they had the true form of Christianity, and he converted to this form of Christianity despite his mother being a Catholic Christian. Later, Augustine converted to Catholic Christianity when he was in Milan, Italy, attending the sermons of Ambrose, the bishop of Milan. After this, Augustine attacked his Manichaean Christian friends in many of his writings throughout his lifetime. Augustine died in 430, in the same year (or possibly 429) that the Vandals invaded North Africa, signaling yet another breakdown of the Roman West. Leo became the bishop of Rome in 440 CE and was dealing with the breakdown of the Roman Empire and with the influx of Roman refugees from various parts of the western empire. Some of these were Manichaeans, and Leo felt the need to warn the Italian bishops of their presence, which he called a

234

DO C UMENTS O F THE RISE O F C HRISTIANITY

“plague.” In his letter Leo stated that he had caught some of these Manichaeans, and in what sounds amazingly like Roman persecution against the Christians during the Great Persecution under Diocletian, Leo stated that some of these Manichaeans were convinced to curse Mani in a very public way and to obtain a written statement saying the same. Those who refused to do this were sent into exile, which really meant they were ejected from Rome and told not to come back. Leo himself sat in a trial against a Manichaean bishop and sent out the court proceedings to others so they could read, for themselves, about the Manichaean form of Christianity. He exhorted those bishops to seek out the Manichaeans who fled Rome and to keep them from their flocks and, in what foreshadowed the call of the First Crusade, the bishops received a “due-reward” from God at the time of judgment. A few years later (in 449), Leo wrote a similar letter (although with quite a bit more detail) to the bishops and the people living in Constantinople about the Manichaean threat (Letter 49).

Letter 7 To the Bishops throughout Italy. Leo to all the bishops set over the provinces of Italy greeting. 1. Many Manichaeans have been discovered in Rome. We call you to a share in our anxiety, that with the diligence of shepherds you may take more careful heed to your flocks entrusted to you that no craft of the devil’s be permitted, lest that plague, which by the revealing mercy of the Lord is driven off from our flocks through our care, should spread among your churches before you are forewarned, and are still ignorant of what is happening, and should find means of stealthily burrowing into your midst, and thus what we are checking in the City should take hidden root among you and grow up. Our search has discovered in the City a great many followers and teachers of the Manichaean impiety, our watchfulness has proclaimed them, and our authority and censure has checked them: those whom we could reform we have corrected and driven to condemn Manichaeus with his preachings and teachings by public confession in church, and by the subscription of their own hand, and thus we have lifted those who have acknowledged their fault from the pit of their iniquity by granting them room for repentance. A good many, however, who had so deeply involved themselves that no remedy could assist them, have been subjected to the laws in accordance with the constitutions of our Christian princes, and lest they should pollute the holy flock by their contagion, have been banished into perpetual exile by public judges. And all the profane and disgraceful things which are found as well in their writings as in their secret traditions, we have disclosed and clearly proved to the eyes of the Christian laity that the people might know what to shrink from or avoid, so that he that was called their bishop was himself tried by us, and betrayed the criminal views which he held in his mystic religion, as the record of our proceedings can show you. For this, too, we have sent you for instruction: and after reading them you will be in a position to understand all the discoveries we have made. 2. The bishops of Italy must not allow those Manichaeans who have quitted the city to escape or lie concealed. And because we know that a good many of those who are involved here in too close an accusation for them to clear themselves have escaped,



F i f t h C e n t u r y 235

we have sent this letter to you, beloved, by our acolyte so that your holiness, dear brothers, may be informed of this, and see fit to act with diligence and caution, lest the men of the Manichaean error be able to find opportunity of hurting your people and of teaching their impious doctrines. For we cannot otherwise rule those entrusted to us unless we pursue with the zeal of faith in the Lord those who are destroyers and destroyed: and with what severity we can bring to bear, cut them off from intercourse with sound minds, lest this pestilence spread much wider. Wherefore I exhort you, beloved, I beseech and warn you to use such watchful diligence as you ought and can employ in tracking them out, lest they find opportunity of concealment anywhere. For as he will have a due recompense of reward from God, who carries out what conduces to the health of the people committed to him so before the Lord’s judgment-seat no one will be able to excuse himself from a charge of carelessness who has not been willing to guard his people against the propagators of an impious misbelief.

Dated 30 January, in the consulship of the illustrious Theodosius Augustus (18th time) and Albinus (444 C.E.). Source: Wace, Henry, and Philip Schaff. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series II, Vol. XIV. Grand Rapids, MI: WM. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1886.

Further Reading Brown, Peter. “The Diffusion of Manichaeism in the Roman Empire.” Journal of Roman Studies 59, no. 1/2 (1969): 92–103. Frend, W. H. C. “Manichaeism in the Struggle between Saint Augustine and Petilian of Constantine.” Augustinus Magister (Paris, 1954): 859–866. Lieu, S. N. C. Manichaeism in the Later Roman Empire and Medieval China: A Historic Survey. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1985. Maier, Harry O. “ ‘Manichee!’: Leo the Great and the Orthodox Panopticon.” Journal of Early Christian Studies 4, no. 4 (1996): 441–460. Maier, Harry O. “Religious Dissent, Heresy and Households in Late Antiquity.” Vigiliae Christianae 49 (1995): 49–63. Schipper, Hendrik G., and Johannes van Oort, eds. St. Leo the Great, Sermons and Letters against the Manichaeans: Selected Fragments. Introduction, Texts and Translation, Excursus, Appendices, and Indices. Corpus Fontium Manichaeorum, Series Latina, I. Turhout: Brill, 2000. Stroumsa, Sarah, and Gedaliahu G. Stroumsa. “Aspects of Anti-Manichaean Polemics in Late Antiquity and under Early Islam.” Harvard Theological Review 81, no. 1 (January 1988): 37–58. van Oort, Johannes. “Augustine’s Manichaean Dilemma in Context.” Vigiliae Christianae 65, no. 5 (2011): 543–567.

This page intentionally left blank

Bibliography

Barnes, T. D. Constantine and Eusebius. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1981. Bettensen, H., ed. Documents of the Christian Church. 2nd ed. London: 1963. Brakke, David. Demons and the Making of the Monk: Spiritual Combat in Early Christianity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2006. Brakke, David. The Gnostics: Myth, Ritual, and Diversity in Early Christianity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2010. Brown, Peter. The World of Late Antiquity: AD 150–750. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1971. Brown, Peter. Society and the Holy in Late Antiquity. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1982. Brown, Peter. Power and Persuasion in Late Antiquity: Towards a Christian Empire. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1992. Brown, Peter. Through the Eye of a Needle: Wealth, the Fall of Rome, and the Making of Christianity in the West, 350–550 AD. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2012. Cameron, A. The Later Roman Empire, AD 284–430. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1993. Chadwick, H. Priscillian of Avila: The Occult and the Charismatic in the Early Church. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1976. Chadwick, H. The Penguin History of the Church. Rev. ed. London: Penguin, 1993. Chadwick, H. Early Christian Thought and the Classical Tradition: Studies in Justin, Clement, and Origen. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2002.Clark, Elizabeth A. Reading Renunciation: Asceticism and Scripture in Early Christianity. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1999. Cox Miller, Barbara, ed. Women in Early Christianity—Translations from Greek Texts. Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 2012. Cross, F. L., and E. A. Livingstone, eds. Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church. 3rd ed., reprinted with corrections. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997. Darling Young, Robin. In Procession before the World: Martyrdom as Public Liturgy in Early Christianity. Milwaukee, WI: Marquette University Press, 2001. Decret, François. Early Christianity in North Africa. Cambridge: James Clarke & Co, 2014. De Vries, Johannes. Textual History and the Reception of Scripture in Early Christianity. Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 2013. Dunderberg, Ismo. Beyond Gnosticism: Myth, Lifestyle, and Society in the School of Valentinus. New York: Columbia University Press, 2008. Ehrman, B. D., and A. S. Jacobs, eds. Christianity in Late Antiquity, 300–450 C.E.: A Reader. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004. Ferngren, Gary B. Medicine and Health Care in Early Christianity. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2009. Fox, Robin L. Pagans and Christians. San Francisco: Harper San Francisco, 1986. Freeman, Charles. A New History of Early Christianity. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2009.

238

Bibliography

Frend, W. H. C. The Early Church. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986. Frend, W. H. C. The Archaeology of Early Christianity: A History. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1998. Gager, J. The Origins of Anti-Semitism: Attitudes toward Judaism in Pagan and Christian Antiquity. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985. Gathercole, Simon J. The Gospel of Judas: Rewriting Early Christianity. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. Grabar, André. Early Christian Art: From the Rise of Christianity to the Death of Theodosius. New York: Odyssey Press, 1969. Halliday, W. R. The Pagan Background of Early Christianity. New York: Cooper Square Publishers, 1970. Jaffé, Dan. Studies in Rabbinic Judaism and Early Christianity: Text and Context. Boston: Brill, 2010. Jones, A. H. M. Constantine and the Conversion of Europe. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1994 reprint. Kaatz, Kevin W. Early Controversies and the Growth of Christianity. Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger, 2012. Kaatz, Kevin W. Voices of Early Christianity: Documents from the Origins of Christianity. Santa Barbara, CA: Greenwood Press, 2013. Karlsen Seim, Turid. Metamorphoses: Resurrection, Body, and Transformative Practices in Early Christianity. New York: W. de Gruyter, 2009. Kimber Buell, Denise. Why This New Race: Ethnic Reasoning in Early Christianity. New York: Columbia University Press, 2005. Pagels, Elaine. Adam, Eve, and the Serpent. New York: Vintage Books, 1989. Pagels, Elaine. The Gnostic Gospels. London: Phoenix, 2006. Pelikan, Jaroslav. Christianity and Classical Culture: The Metamorphosis of Natural Theology in the Christian Encounter with Hellenism. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1993. Penniman, John D. Raised on Christian Milk: Food and the Formation of the Soul in Early Christianity. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2017. Vinzent, Markus. Christ’s Resurrection in Early Christianity and the Making of the New Testament. Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2011. Wallace, Richard, and Wynne Williams. The Three Worlds of Paul of Tarsus. New York: Routledge, 1998. Wilken, R. L. Christianity as the Romans Saw Them. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1986. Williams, R. Arius: Heresy and Tradition. Rev. ed. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 2002.

Index

Adam, 37, 166, 167, 231 Against Celsus (Origen), 1.38–41, 85–89 Against Fortunatus the Manichaean, Book 2.19–22 (Augustine), 174–179 Against the Galileans (Emperor Julian), 163–168 Against the Manichaeans (Alexander of Lycopolis), 117–121 Alexander, bishop of Alexandria, xvi, xxiii clash with Arius, xxiii, 124, 133, 134, 207, 208 letter to, 135 letters to other bishops, 206 trying to stop Arianism, 200, 201, 204, 210 Alexander of Lycopolis, xvi, xxii, 117, 118 Ambrose, bishop of Milan, xvii, xxv, 124, 169 Arian controversy, xxv, 169 Augustine and, xxvi, 174, 233 Helena and, 212 Letter 22, 168, 170 Marcellina, sister of, 169 anathema, xxiv, xxv, 141, 142 Arians and, 202, 203, 204, 209 Monks and Laymen, 217, 218 Origen and, 110 Synodical Letter and, 194, 197 Women deacons and, 219 anti-Jewish texts from the New Testament, New Revised Standard Version, 10–14 Aphrodite, 214, 215 apostolic succession, 72, 97, 124 Arian Controversy, xxiii, 124, 133, 164, 199 spread of, 200, 209 Arius, xvi, xxiii, 123, 200, 201, 205 anathematized, 202, 209

an apostate, 202 Eusebius of Nicomedia and, xxiii, 124, 208 excommunicated, 206 Exile of, xxv Letters of, 133–137 Refusing the Nicene Creed, xxiv Athanasius, xvi, 124, 132, 135, 200 Arianism and, 138 On the Synods (Athanasius), 133, 135 Augustine, xvii, xxvxxvi, 118, 124, 200, 233 Against Fortunatus the Manichaean (Augustine), 174 Ambrose and, xxvi Confessions (Augustine), 179 Jerome and, xxvi, 189 Letter 28 (Augustine to Jerome), 184 Manichaeism and, xxiii, xxvi Retractions (Augustine), 175 Rhetor of Milan, xxvi, 123 Auxentius, bishop of Milan, xxv baptism, 89, 142, 196, 199, 224, 225, 226 baptismal font, 227 dove and, 88 false, 158 of Jesus, 87 Jesus and, 228 Pharisees and Sadducees, 11 barbarians, 114, 115, 116, 129, 220 Christians joining the, 116 death of Emperor Decius and, 150, 152 Rome and, 221 Ulfila teaching the, 209 Barnabas, 33, 39 Epistle of, xv, 38 Bethlehem, 67, 184, 185, 189

240

INDE X

Helena and, 212 monastery for men and women, xvii, 123 Bishop, office of, preface, xxi, 34, 123 Apostles and, 75 Britain, 138, 164 Roman abandonment of, 199 Caecilianus (Caecilian), bishop of Carthage, 159 Caesarea, 39, 110, 114 Carthage, 57, 77, 95, 102 Manichaeans and, 182 Tertullian and, 54 Catholic Church, 32, 137, 160, 162, 200 alienation from, 204 restoration of unity, 214 Celsus, xvi, xxii, 86 On True Doctrine (or Discourse) (Celsus), 90 Church History, 1.1; 1.5–6 (Socrates), 199–205 Church History, 10.5.18–24 and Optatus of Milevius, On the Schism of the Donatists, Appendix 3 and 9, 159–163 Church History, Book 10.1–3 and 10.9 (Eusebius of Caesarea), 154–158 Church History, Prologue and 1.1 (Theodoret of Cyrrhus), 205–208 Clement, bishop of Rome, xv, 33, 34 Clement of Alexandria, 43 On the Salvation of the Rich Man (Clement of Alexandria), Chapters 1–5, 68, 69–71 Stromata (Clement of Alexandria), 43 Clement of Rome, the First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, 1–9, 33–38 Confessions, Chapter 1.1–3 and 5.3.3–6 (Augustine), 179–184 Confessors, xxi, 94, 95, 124 Constantine on the Donatists, taken from Eusebius, Church History, 10.5.18–24 and Optatus of Milevius, On the Schism of the Donatists, Appendix 3 and 9, 158–163 Council of Chalcedon, xvii, 194, 199, 230 Canons of, 217

Council of Ephesus, xvii, 229, 230 Council of Nicea, xvi, xxiv, 194, 212 Alexander and Alexandria and, 134 canons of, 217 Eusebius of Caesarea and, 124 Eusebius of Nicomedia and, 209 nature of Christ, 217 Cross of Jesus, 7, 8, 191, 216 Gospel of Peter and, 80 Helena and, 212, 215 Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, xvi, 94–96 Letter 26: To the Lapsed (Cyprian), 97–98 Letter 35: To the Clergy, Concerning the Care of the Poor and Strangers (Cyprian), 94–95 Letter 36: To the Clergy, Bidding Them Show Every Kindness to Confessors in Prison (Cyprian), 95–96 Letter 53: To Cornelius, Concerning Granting Peace to the Lapsed (Cyprian), 99–101 The Life and Passion of Cyprian (by Pontius the Deacon), 102–106 persecution and, xxi, 85 Cyril of Alexandria, 165 Dead Sea Scrolls, 2 The Thanksgiving Psalms, 2 debates in Late Antiquity, xxvi, 123, 175 devil, 13, 47, 63, 169, 202, 207 Arians and, 173, 206 Jesus tempted by, 63 Nero as the forerunner to, 151 Docetists, xxii Donatus, xxiv, 143 Founder of Donatism, 158 Easter, 224, 225, 228 Ecclesiastical History, 3.17–20 on Domitian and Roman History by Cassius Dio, 67.14, 1–3, 27–31 Ecclesiastical History, Book 1.5 The Letter of Eusebius, Bishop of Nicomedia, to Paulinus, Bishop of Tyre, 208–211 Edict of Milan, xvi, 128, 158 Egypt, preface, xix, xxiv, 123, 200 Arianism and, 169, 206 Gospel of Peter and, 80

INDE X 241

Great Persecution and, 85 Israelites and, 23, 24 Manichaeans in, 117, 233 Pharaoh and, 36 Emperor Caracalla, xix Emperor Constantine, xvi, 128, 143, 154 Arianism and, xxv, 123, 133, 134, 206 baptism of, 209 Council of Nicea and, xxiv, 194 Emperor Julian and, 164 Helena, his mother, 212 Letter from Arius to Constantine (Sozomen), 136 made Christianity legal, xxiii stopping persecution, 149 To Aelafius, 161 To all the Bishops in Africa, 162 To Chrestus, 160 To Miltiades (Constantine), 159 Emperor Constantius I, xvi, xxiii Emperor Constantius II, 138, 163, 164 Emperor Decius, xvi, xxi, 87, 114, 152 Emperor Diocletian, xvi, xxii Lactantius and, 149 persecution of Christians, xxii, 124, 128 persecution of Manichaeans, 85, 117, 223 Emperor Domitian, xx, 1, 19, 27 death of, 158 persecution of Christians, 28, 29, 30, 151 Emperor Galerius, 124 Caesar Galerius, xxii, xxiii Emperor Julian, xvii, 159 Against the Galileans, 163 death of his family, 164 Eusebius of Nicomedia, tutor of, 164, 209 Emperor Licinius, xvi, 128, 143, 154 persecution of Christians, 156, 157, 207 stopping persecution, 158 Emperor Licinius and, 143 Origen and, 85, 102 persecution of the Christians, 97, 158, 201 Emperor Nero, 1, 15, 19, 28 Gervasius and Protasius and, 169 Lactantius and, 149, 150, 151 Life of Nero (Suetonius), 14 Emperor Theodosius, 194, 196, 197, 220 funeral speech for, 212 Emperor Theodosius II, 212, 229, 230

Emperor Tiberius, 150 Emperor Valentinian II, xxv, 169 Emperor Vespasian, xv, 19, 27 General Vespasian, 19 Epicurus, 145 Epiphany, 224, 225, 227 Epistle of Barnabas, 1–4, 38–43 Essenes, 1, 2 Eudocia (or Eudokia), 229, 230 Eusebius of Caesarea, xvi, 72, 199, 205 Chronicle (Eusebius), 124 Church History (Eusebius), xxvi, 28, 44, 124–127, 128–132, 154, 158 Life of Constantine (Eusebius), xxii, 124, 154, 200, 212, 213–214 persecution and, 85, 123, 149, 168 rejection of the Gospel According to Peter, 79 Eusebius of Nicomedia, xxiii, xxv helping Arius, xxiv, 124, 134, 200, 209 letters of, 208, 210 refusing the anathemas of the Nicene Creed, 209 spread of Arianism, 202, 205, 209 tutor of Emperor Julian, 164 Eutyches, 230, 232 Euzoius, 136, 202 evil, 30, 40, 45, 91, 157 in Manichaeism, 175, 176 excommunication, 124, 133, 219 Faustus the Manichaean, 180, 182 Fortunatus the Manichaean, 124, 174, 175, 176 Gnosticism, xxi, 34, 72 Gospel According to Peter, 79–83 great persecution, xxvi, 85, 123, 158, 234 Gregory of Nyssa, 60, 110 Gregory the Wonderworker, xxvi Canonical Letter (Gregory the Wonderworker), 114 Oration and Panegyric Addressed to Origen (Gregory the Wonderworker), 109 hagiography, 169 Helena, mother of Emperor Constantine, xxvi, 212, 213, 214

242

INDE X

Hellenes (the Greeks), 164, 165, 166 heretic, 29, 72, 74, 99, 114, 185, 197, 222 Arianism and, 138, 140 Manichaeism and, 175 Herod, xv, 8, 25, 29 Hilary of Poitiers, 137 Against Arianism, 137, 138 On the Councils (Hilary), 138 Holy Spirit, xxiii, 35, 39, 54, 116 homoiousian, 138 homoousian, 138 Irenaeus, xvi, xxi, 28, 44 Against Heresies, 72–74 resurrection of the body and, 90 James the Apostle, xx Jerome, xxvi, xxv, 190 Augustine and, 123, 184, 185 The Perpetual Virginity of Blessed Mary, Against Helvidius (Jerome), 189 Jerusalem, xix, xx, 8, 19, 25, 39, 81, 197, 216 birthplace of Julius Africanus, 107 Helena and, 212 Jesus, xiv, xx, 1, 2, 64 and the apostles, xix, xxi attacked by Celsus, xxii birth of, xv, 24 crucifixion of, 1, 5 the Lord’s Prayer and, 59 morals and, 68 Paul and, xx Peter and, 79 resurrection of, xix, 80, 89, 90, 91, 214, 226 Josephus, Jewish Wars, 5.11.1–2, 4, 19, 20–23 Josephus, Jewish Wars, 5.5.4–6: A Description of the Temple Holy of Holies, 23–27 Judaism anti-Jewish texts in the New Testament, 10–14 clash with the Romans, 19 Justin Martyr and, 49

origin of Christianity, xix, xx, 1, 10 three versions and, 2 Julius Africanus, 106, 107 spurious writing of, 106 Justin Martyr, xvi, xxi, 90 Apologies (Justin Martyr), 48 Dialogue with Trypho (Justin Martyr), 48–53 Justina, mother of Emperor Valentinian II, xxv, 124, 169 Lactantius, xvi, xxiii, 123 A Treatise on the Anger of God (Lactantius), 143 On the Deaths of the Persecutors (Lactantius), 149 Land of Darkness, 175, 180 Land of Light, 180 Leo the Great, 199 Letter 4 (Leo the Great), 221–223 Letter 7 (Leo the Great), 233–235 Letter 16 (Leo the Great), 224–229 Manichaeism and, xxvi To Augusta Pulcheria (Leo the Great), 229–233 Letter 22 (Ambrose), 168–174 Letter 28 to Jerome (Augustine), 184–189 Mani, the founder of Manichaeism, xvi, 118, 119, 135, 234 King Shapur and, xxii Manichaeans, xxii, xxvi, 117 Augustine and, xxvi, 124, 174, 179, 180, 185 Leo the Great and, 199, 221, 223 persecution of, xxii, 85 Martyrs, xxi, xxv, 54, 62, 77, 94–96, 107, 128, 132, 174 Ambrose and, 123, 168, 169, 170 Cyprian and, 97 Mary, mother of Jesus, xvii, 8, 66, 67, 86 Helena and, 212 in Jerome’s The Perpetual Virginity of Blessed Mary, xvii, 189 Martyrs and, 169 miracles, xix, 25, 51, 87, 111, 173, 226 performed by Peter, 149, 151 Mary Magdalen, 7, 8, 82

INDE X 243

Monica, mother of Augustine, xxvi Moses, 24, 36, 42, 60, 127, 168, 228 teachings of, 126 Muratorian Canon, 44 Nestorius, 229, 231 New Testament, xiv, xv, xxi, 32, 185 anti-Jewish texts in, xx, 10 best manuscript of, 40 four Gospels in, 64 Second Temple in, 25 North Africa, xxiv, xxvi, 86, 158, 159 Manichaeans and, 221 persecution in, 96, 102, 158 Vandals and, xxvi, 199, 233 On the Anger of God, 1, 4–5, 16 (Lactantius), 143–149 On the Councils, 1–10 and 91–92 (Hilary of Poitiers), 137–143 On the Deaths of the Persecutors, 1–4, 7(Lactantius), 149–154 Optatus of Milevus, 159 Origen, xvi, xxi, xxii, 86, 110 Against Celsus II (On the Resurrection of the Body), 5.14, 18–19, 23, 85, 89–93 Gregory the Wonderworker and, 109, 114 Shepherd of Hermas and, 43 orthodox, 114, 134, 195, 208, 221 pagans, preface, 114, 164, 212, 214 Pamphilius, teacher of Eusebius of Caesarea, 128 Passion of St. Symphorosa and Her Seven Sons, 106–109 Passion of the Scillitan Martyrs, 76–79 Passover, 225 Paul the apostle, xv, xx, 10, 11, 25, 77 also known as Saul, xx Barnabas and, 38, 39 death of, 34 Hermas and, 43 travels of (introduction), xiv, xx Pentecost, 224 The Perpetual Virginity of Blessed Mary against Helvidius, 1; 20–24 (Jerome), 189–194 Persia, xvii, 164

Emperor Valerian and, 102 Manichaeans and, xxii, 85, 116, 118, 119, 233 Rome and, 199 Second Temple and, 24 Peter the Apostle, xvi, 33, 34, 36, 69 Rome and, 74, 98 Pharisees, xx, 1, 2, 6 death of Jesus and, 81 piety, 110, 112, 119, 127, 140, 157, 203, 215 Pilate, xv, 6, 7, 8, 12 Gospel of Peter and, 80 Plato, 52, 88, 119, 144, 167 Platonists, 50, 51 prophets of Christianity, xxi, 11, 72 Pulcheria, 199, 229, 230 Qumran, xv, 2 Sadducees, 1, 2, 11, 19 salvation, xxii, 37, 41, 52, 61, 74, 99, 138, 196 Irenaeus and, 72 On the Salvation of the Rich Man (Clement of Alexandria), 68 selections of Letters from Arius Theodoret, Church History, Book 1 Chapter 4 Athanasius, On the Synods, 16 and Sozomen, Church History, 2.27, 133–137 Shapur I, xxii Manichaeism and, 117, 118 Shepherd of Hermas, xvi, 32, 43–48 simony, 217 slaves, 6, 217, 222 Socrates Scholasticus, xvii, xxvii, 133, 212 Church History (Socrates Scholasticus), 199 some accounts of the crucifixion of Jesus from the New Testament (Mark and Luke), 5–10 Sozomen, xvii, xxvii, 134, 200 Church Histories (Sozomen), 136, 212, 214 Sozomen, Church Histories 2.27 Letter from Arius to Constantine, 136–137 Stephen the Apostle, xx, 195

244

INDE X

Suetonius, The Lives of the Twelve Caesars, Life of Nero, 34–37, 14–19 Symmachus, senator of Rome, xxvi Synodical Letter, Second Ecumenical Council, 194–198 Tacitus, 1, 2, 5, 14 Tatian, 34, 64–67 Diatessaron (Tatian), 65–67 teachers, wandering, xxi Temple, First and Second, xvi, xix, 1 Tertullian Against Marcion (Tertullian), 68 On Modesty (Tertullian), 44

On Prayer (Tertullian), xvi, 59–64 To the Martyrs (Tertullian), xvi, 54–59 Thanksgiving Psalms, Dead Sea Scrolls, 2–5 Theodoret, xvii, xxvii, 133, 200 Church History (Theodoret), 205, 206 theology, xxi, 34, 86, 158, 194 of Arius, 134, 209 of Hilary, 137 of Justin Martyr, 49 of Paul, 77 theotokos (God-Bearer), 229, 230 Vandals, xxvii, 199, 221, 233

About the Author

Kevin W. Kaatz is an assistant professor of ancient history at California State University, East Bay Campus. He specializes in Roman history/digital humanities, and in particular, early Christianity and its interactions with Roman culture and interactions among different Christian groups. His publications include Hegemonius, Acta Archelai (The Acts of Archelaus) with M. Vermes and S. N. C. Lieu, editors (2001), Early Controversies and the Growth of Christianity (Praeger, 2012), Voices of Early Christianity: Documents from the Origins of Christianity, editor (Greenwood Press, 2013), The Rise of Christianity: History, Documents, and Key Questions (ABCCLIO, 2015), and he co-wrote (with Linda Ivey) Citizen Internees: A Second Look at Citizenship and Japanese American Internment Camps (Praeger, 2017). Citizen Internees was given the award of “Top Academic Title” and “Top 20 Community College Resources” for 2017.