Personal Observations Concerning Early Christian Writings

[Adrift]

This sub-forum is a bit of a ghost town, and so this thread is as much for my own benefit (maybe to help retain my thoughts on the subject) as it may be to others.

I'm taking a break from my personal study on the formation of the Judaism, and decided to delve into the ECF's for a bit. This is something I've been meaning to do for a long time, and I've read a number of the early Christian writings in whole or in part in the past, but I decided I wanted to read a number of these works straight through, starting with the Ante-Nicene Fathers (those writings before Constantine's council of Nicaea in 325) and other early church writings, so that I could get a sense of how the very early church looked and thought. A lot of this information I knew beforehand, but it was sort of like in patches... Reading straight through is allowing me to paint a much broader picture.

Most of the authors I'm reading right now I'm listening through audio books. This method has its ups and downs. Ups: I get through books incredibly fast, and mostly while doing mindless activities like driving or working out. Downs: without commentary or notes I'm sure I'm missing a lot. I do read up a bit on the books and authors I'm listening to before or after listening, still.... For those that are interested, a good number of audiobooks can be found at http://librivox.org/ This website is made up of volunteers who upload their readings of books in the public domain, and the website allows you to download them for free. If you have an iPhone (and I'm sure there's a similar way to do this with Android) you can search for librivox books on iTunes. They'll come up as podcasts rather than audiobooks though.

http://www.ccel.org, and http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/ are great resources for the books online. http://www.earlychristianwritings.com also has these writings, but I find this website somewhat untrustworthy. Peter Kirby who owns and maintains the site (a previous TWeb member, and at one time atheist, then unorthodox Catholic, and then, as far as I can tell, agnostic) usually provides what seems to be only the most left leaning scholarly commentary on any book under the website's purview. And, though it doesn't look like he has much of a web presence anymore (strange considering he's a web designer) he has a number of old articles indexed at infidels.org where he claims to "write as a skeptic", so make of that what you will.

Anyways, so far I've listened to or read the writings of Clement of Rome, Polycarp (including the Martyrdom of Polycarp), Ignatius, the fragments of Papias, the Epistle of Mathetes to Diognetus, The Epistle of Barnabas, The Didache, and just got started on Justin Martyr. Off subject, I'm also listening to some Deuterocanonical books cause I've never read them all the way through. I've finished Tobit and Judith.

All of these books are very early. For the most part, they were all written in the late 1st century to the mid second. A number of the authors knew Peter, Paul, and John, and other disciples of Jesus, or heard them speak, or knew those who knew them or heard them speak. And some of them were actually appointed Bishop of certain regions by the Apostles themselves. So, as a source, they're sometimes only once or twice removed from the very early followers of Jesus.

I've talked to some folks who feel that the ECFs are very Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox in nature (and sometimes converted because of that reason). I haven't really gotten that impression at all so far. Maybe that comes along as I get further into the 2nd century, but most of the writings I've read could easily be accepted by most Protestant denominations and others. So far there's almost no mention of Mary. Nothing about her perpetual virginity, though I believe Ignatius mentions the virginity of Mary, but only in passing, and nothing that's not in line with the Gospel account. The same is true of the veneration of the saints and their relics. Almost no mention. The closest I've seen on this subject is the honor given those Christians who endured martyrdom, sometimes to the point of setting aside special days of memory or reclaiming the remains for burial in the cities they were from, but even then its made very clear that this honor should never interfere with the honor and praise that should be given Jesus only. The most pro-Catholic theme I see in these writings is a recognition of some sort of Apostolic Succession, but even this seems pretty fuzzy, and in response to issues of the day. Clement, and I think Ignatius talk about the fact that the Apostles appointed bishops and presbyters to succeed them in certain areas. So, for instance, when the Corinthian church kicked out their presbyter/bishop (for apparently no good reason), Clement goes off on them because the Apostles, not long gone, appointed the office (probably only a generation or two removed from the original appointee). But this doesn't read to me like Clement expected that succession to be perfect and never-ending. The fact that Bishops were eventually excommunicated by the church (even while Clement was alive) seems pretty strong evidence to me against the idea that there was ever really any early doctrine or understanding that the line of succession should never be broken or that apostolic authority through succession was divinely governed or even legitimate.

What's also very clear is that the early church was dealing with heavy persecution and martyrdom of key figures, and was fighting a number of heresies early on, especially docetism (which eventually merged with Gnosticism), and the Judaizers (specifically, I think, the Ebionites). Because the problem of slipping from the faith was a very real concern in the early church, the early writers come off a bit extreme in their counterarguments to whatever heresy that's prevalent under their over watch. While reading some writings I imagine a sort of seesaw with the true Apostolic teaching in the middle, and the heresies on either end, and as the writers deal with one heresy they sometimes lean further in one direction than the other. Some skeptical historians I've read, not able to see the forest for the trees, seem to assume some odd things based on the passionate counter-reactions to whatever heresy an early church writer was dealing with, and so they sometimes put forward, what seems to me, a skewed view of the period or author. N.T. Wright very briefly touches on this issue in this short video clip:
.

I found it interesting what seems to be the early Christian attitude concerning the harmonious work and unity of the Apostles. I'm so used to reading skeptics talking about giant rifts in the early church between Paul and Peter and maybe James because of the need for the Council of Jerusalem, but you don't get any sense of this from these later first (or early second) century writings at all. Also there's the very clear and real connection the orthodox church seems to have with the Apostles and original disciples of Jesus, which you just don't see with the heretical offshoots, and this directly contradicts the opinion of many skeptical historians who paint this picture of equally authoritative Christian communities fighting for primacy, and that the orthodox one just happened to win out in the end. The writings just don't paint that picture at all, especially since a number of these writers knew the Apostles (and one another) first hand or were appointed to high ranking offices by the Apostles directly (in this case, direct Apostolic succession, at least in the short run, does seem to add legitimacy to orthodoxy).

All of the writings are fascinating. Clement quotes heavily from the Old Testament, and also seems to quote 2nd Peter and Titus which are usually considered late books. He believes in the legend of the Phoenix, which I read about years ago, but forgot about, and I thought was pretty funny. One of the things that I thought was interesting was that he mentions that some Christians had sold themselves into slavery willingly in order to give to the needy.
Ignatius is amazing. He seems extremely intelligent, and he quotes heavily from the NT epistles including almost all of Paul, and books like 1 Peter, James, the Gospel of John and some Matthew. Polycarp also seems to rely heavily on the NT we know today. The fragments of Papias are unfortunately short, and, well, fragmentary. Mostly coming from quotes of his work from later authors. One of the more interesting passages from Papias that I was already familiar with, but had forgotten the details about, are his descriptions of the gospels of Matthew and Mark as cited by Eusebius.

but now, to the extracts already made, we shall add, as being a matter of primary importance, a tradition regarding Mark who wrote the Gospel, which he [Papias] has given in the following words]: And the presbyter said this. Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord’s sayings. Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them. For of one thing he took especial care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements. [This is what is related by Papias regarding Mark; but with regard to Matthew he has made the following statements]: Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could. [The same person uses proofs from the First Epistle of John, and from the Epistle of Peter in like manner. And he also gives another story of a woman who was accused of many sins before the Lord, which is to be found in the Gospel according to the Hebrews.

There's so much amazing information stuffed into this paragraph, but two of the really striking details is the very early attestation by the presbyter (John the Apostle I believe) of, not only the gospel letters by name, but to possibly the Pericope Adulterae, and I also find the description of Mark's gospel as not being "in exact order" fascinating, which I think is a great refutation to those who try to compare the synoptic gospels and complain about the fact that the series of events in them seem to contradict one another.

The Didache and the Epistle of Barnabas (not to be confused with the so-called "Gospel" of Barnabas), are an insightful look into the teachings of early Christian communities. There's a strong resistance in these books (and some of other author's I've mentioned) to what they considered Jewish "superstitions" (e.g. dietary laws, temple sacrifices, calendar observances, etc.), and this no doubt had to do with the Judaizing influence/heresy in the early Christian church. Especially in the Epistle of Barnabas, it almost (and probably does) cross into the realm of what we would consider today antisemitism. Its not nearly as bad as a Marcion type rejection of all things Hebrew though. The EoB quotes heavily from the OT, but interprets it mostly as typology. The Didache, and the Epistle of Barnabas directly quote the same source (maybe one from the other), and I hear the same is true of the Shepherd of Hermas, which I haven't read yet, but I'm getting to. These were apparently very popular books in the early Christian communities for teaching how new converts should act, and how one ought to prepare for baptism. There's not a whole lot that's too surprising here for modern Christians, but some things caught my eye. First of all, both the Didache and the EoB talk about the Two Ways, the way of life (or light) and the way of death (or darkness). The way of life includes things we'd expect from the NT, but adds things I didn't expect like very strong condemnation of abortion and the killing of newborns, which I'm assuming wasn't an issue that Christianity really had to deal with much until it started spreading heavily among the non-Jewish populace. There's also a condemnation of pederasty which was prevalent in the ancient world (and which modern writers like Allen Ginsberg and William Burroughs felt should have been acceptable in the modern gay and lesbian movement). The Didache also adds rules of Christian conduct that I thought was a bit interesting. These included specific days for fasting (alternate days from the Jewish days of fasting), and reciting the Lord's prayer three times a day, which I thought was really interesting, because I feel that the Lord's prayer is more a format for the way Jesus wants us to pray rather than an actual prayer to be prayed (for concern that it becomes religious rote that people end up doing mindlessly which is exactly the reason he taught the way to pray). And that the early Christian readers of the Didache were told to pray this prayer three times a day reminds me a bit of ritual Jewish or Islamic prayer (though I suppose my Lutheran grandparents prayed the Lord's Prayer before each meal... so, there's that). There was another prayer that the Didache mentions the early church was expected to remember, but I forgot it already.

One of the surprising things I found while reading the Epistle of Barnabas, Justin Martyr and Papias is their views on millennialism. I mean, I already knew that a form of premillennialism, or chiliasm was popular in the early church, but still, its interesting that, so far, I haven't seen any other eschatological view at this very early point (...course, I've barely scratched the surface I suppose). A repeated view that I thought was interesting is that shared between EoB and Martyr in taking the Psalms/2 Peter idea that a thousand years is but a day to the Lord, and extrapolating that into a view about the millennial reign of Christ. EoB goes further and sees the whole creation narrative as an allusion to 8 millennial ages. The 7 days are broken up into 6 thousand years from creation, followed by a future 1 thousand years of rest through the rule by Christ after the resurrection, and an 8th eternal day that signifies the new heaven and earth. I think this theory was again picked up by a later Bishop, but can't remember the details. Anyways, what's interesting to me is not so much the theory specifically (which I don't really buy), but the fact that we see the early church sometimes had some less than literal views on the creation narrative, and that, contrary to the opinion of some skeptics, the early church apparently did not universally believe that Christ's second coming was imminent. The fact that the EoB was early and widespread among Christians (it dates to circa 70-132 AD) is important in that regard I think.

Anyways, I realize that none of these writings are canonical, and so not necessarily applicable to the modern Christian, still if one desires to know and understand the early church, and to understand how the early church enacted doctrine early on via the disciples of Christ, its good stuff to know, and I'm glad I'm finally making the effort to read them through. If anyone's still with me after all this, congrats. I know a lot of it is rambling, and probably incoherent in places. I suppose I'm using this thread as a place mat for my thoughts, or a diary of sorts. But I'd love to discuss some of the topics I've brought up with others if you're into it.

[Adrift]

My first post on this topic was over-long. I probably won't be posting blocks like that again, but only as stuff pops into my mind. I meant to mention the early understanding of the trinity. With the exception of maybe Clement (can't remember off the top of my head), little is said directly concerning Jesus as God. Most often terminology like Son of God or Servant of God or just Lord is used. The concept of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is in use though.

Epistle to the Magnesians by Ignatius

Study, therefore, to be established in the doctrines of the Lord and the apostles, that so all things, whatsoever ye do, may prosper both in the flesh and spirit; in faith and love; in the Son, and in the Father, and in the Spirit; in the beginning and in the end; with your most admirable bishop, and the well-compacted spiritual crown of your presbytery, and the deacons who are according to God. Be ye subject to the bishop, and to one another, as Jesus Christ to the Father, according to the flesh, and the apostles to Christ, and to the Father, and to the Spirit; that so there may be a union both fleshly and spiritual.

© source where applicable

Didache

...baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if you have not living water, baptize into other water; and if you can not in cold, in warm. But if you have not either, pour out water thrice upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit.

© source where applicable

Justin Martyr, I understand, has a much more developed understanding of the Trinity, but I haven't read that far ahead yet.

First Apology by Justin Martyr

We will prove that we worship him reasonably; for we have learned that he is the Son of the true God himself, that he holds a second place, and the Spirit of prophecy a third. For this they accuse us of madness, saying that we attribute to a crucified man a place second to the unchangeable and eternal God, the Creator of all things; but they are ignorant of the mystery which lies therein.

© source where applicable

Hmm. there was something else I was going to mention, but I've forgotten what it was. It'll come to me.

[Adrift]

Ah, I remember a few other things that caught my attention. I wanted to talk about prophecy, atheism and demons.

The Didache talks about Apostles and Prophets as if they are still currently in the church. Scholars date the Didache all over the place. Some, like John Arthur Thomas Robinson dated it to approx. 40-60 A.D., while others like Adolf von Harnack dated it as late as 131-160 A.D. The commonly held date range seems to be about 65-80 A.D. or at least before 100 A.D.. Assuming that Paul and Peter were martyred in approx. 67, and that John lived til approx. 100 A.D, that provides plenty of room for there to have been both known Apostles and prophets at the time of its writing. So the Didache seems to lend itself to an earlier writing than a later one, but if it is later, then perhaps these ministries continued to exist (in some fashion) outside of the traditionally accepted apostolic age. I, for one, currently hold that the five-fold or "gift" ministries are still viable today, so am open to various date ranges. Ignatius, too, hints that he understood at least some things, if not prophetically, at least in a spiritually sensitive manner. Irenaeus, Tertullian, and of course, the later heretically condemned group, the Montanists (which Tertullian accepted) also spoke positively about the gift of prophecy in post-apostolic times.

The word "athios", from which we derive "atheist" is used often by the early writers. Its meaning is clearly "those who deny belief in god/s". Its not a psychological state of simply lacking belief, but rather belief that God, or certain gods do not exist, and is attributed to both Christians who deny the belief of the Roman pantheon as well as pagans who deny the belief in the Judeo-Christian God.

Justin Martyr puts forward a theory that I've long held that the pagan gods and the working of magic is demonic in origin.

I just got done listening to Justin Martyr's 1st Apology (I'm currently relistening to it because I felt I missed a lot my first go round). In the 1st Apology Martyr brings up the second mention I remember hearing so far about Jesus being born of a virgin, but still nothing about it being perpetual. He also mentions that Jesus, the Word of God, became a man.

[Adrift]

New thoughts. Finished Justin Martyr's 1st Apology again, and half way through the 2nd Apology. Martyr is an amazing thinker, but he has some thoughts I find unusual. For instance, he theorizes that the demons, rather than being fallen angels, are instead the Nephilim. He also believes that Jesus, as the Word of God, is God (which is great), but theorizes that Jesus alone, and not the Father was the one who spoke to Moses through the burning bush, and also that he speaks to Moses as an angel here. Now, the idea that Jesus is sometimes identified with the angel of the Lord in the OT isn't that out there, but it just sounds a bit weird how he puts it, and the rejection of God the Father in the bush, but Jesus alone is interesting to me. I'm assuming this idea is formulated based on the "I Am that I Am" saying, and Jesus' claim to be the "I Am". It seems to me that most Christians believe that Jesus' claim to be the "I Am" points to a triune understanding of the Godhead that Justin may not have fully developed or understood.

Anyways, really interesting stuff. He's definitely one of my favorite writers so far, and I find his boldness and conviction very inspiring.

[lilpixieofterror]

I don't know if you've heard this or not, but newadvent has the complete works of a ton of church fathers, including the suriving works of Justin Martyr if you're interested they are found here.

[Chrawnus]

New thoughts. Finished Justin Martyr's 1st Apology again, and half way through the 2nd Apology. Martyr is an amazing thinker, but he has some thoughts I find unusual. For instance, he theorizes that the demons, rather than being fallen angels, are instead the Nephilim. He also believes that Jesus, as the Word of God, is God (which is great), but theorizes that Jesus alone, and not the Father was the one who spoke to Moses through the burning bush, and also that he speaks to Moses as an angel here. Now, the idea that Jesus is sometimes identified with the angel of the Lord in the OT isn't that out there, but it just sounds a bit weird how he puts it, and the rejection of God the Father in the bush, but Jesus alone is interesting to me. I'm assuming this idea is formulated based on the "I Am that I Am" saying, and Jesus' claim to be the "I Am". It seems to me that most Christians believe that Jesus' claim to be the "I Am" points to a triune understanding of the Godhead that Justin may not have fully developed or understood.

Anyways, really interesting stuff. He's definitely one of my favorite writers so far, and I find his boldness and conviction very inspiring.

Well, if you read the relevant passage...

Exodus 3:1-2 NASB

Now Moses was pasturing the flock of Jethro his father-in-law, the priest of Midian; and he led the flock to the west side of the wilderness and came to Horeb, the mountain of God.
The angel of the LORD appeared to him in a blazing fire from the midst of a bush; and he looked, and behold, the bush was burning with fire, yet the bush was not consumed.

...You'll notice that the text doesn't say that God appeared to Moses in "a blazing fire from the midst of a bush", but that the Angel of the LORD did (though the text explicitly calls whomever Moses is speaking to God, if one reads further). Couple that with the belief that the Angel of the LORD is the pre-incarnate Christ, with this passage from the New Testament applied to every instance of God appearing to someone...

John 1:18 NASB

No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him*.

*or as the ESV puts it "...he has made him known."

...and you'd probably end up concluding something similar to what Justin Martyr did.

[Adrift]

Well, if you read the relevant passage...

Exodus 3:1-2 NASB

Now Moses was pasturing the flock of Jethro his father-in-law, the priest of Midian; and he led the flock to the west side of the wilderness and came to Horeb, the mountain of God.
The angel of the LORD appeared to him in a blazing fire from the midst of a bush; and he looked, and behold, the bush was burning with fire, yet the bush was not consumed.

...You'll notice that the text doesn't say that God appeared to Moses in "a blazing fire from the midst of a bush", but that the Angel of the LORD did (though the text explicitly calls whomever Moses is speaking to God, if one reads further). Couple that with the belief that the Angel of the LORD is the pre-incarnate Christ, with this passage from the New Testament applied to every instance of God appearing to someone...

John 1:18 NASB

No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him*.

*or as the ESV puts it "...he has made him known."

...and you'd probably end up concluding something similar to what Justin Martyr did.

Good points. I suppose what sort of piqued my interest was that I got the feeling that, for Martyr, Jesus was less triune member of the Godhead in this incident, and maybe had more in common with (or was playing the role of) angels in general. But, it seems to me he treads pretty carefully on this subject since the concept of the trinity is still pretty mysterious at this point in church history.

[Cerebrum123]

New thoughts. Finished Justin Martyr's 1st Apology again, and half way through the 2nd Apology. Martyr is an amazing thinker, but he has some thoughts I find unusual. For instance, he theorizes that the demons, rather than being fallen angels, are instead the Nephilim. He also believes that Jesus, as the Word of God, is God (which is great), but theorizes that Jesus alone, and not the Father was the one who spoke to Moses through the burning bush, and also that he speaks to Moses as an angel here. Now, the idea that Jesus is sometimes identified with the angel of the Lord in the OT isn't that out there, but it just sounds a bit weird how he puts it, and the rejection of God the Father in the bush, but Jesus alone is interesting to me. I'm assuming this idea is formulated based on the "I Am that I Am" saying, and Jesus' claim to be the "I Am". It seems to me that most Christians believe that Jesus' claim to be the "I Am" points to a triune understanding of the Godhead that Justin may not have fully developed or understood.

Anyways, really interesting stuff. He's definitely one of my favorite writers so far, and I find his boldness and conviction very inspiring.

As for the Nephilim thing, he very well could be right. Now, the way I look at it is, the Nephilim are descendants of fallen angels, and due to this they were unusually tall(hence them being called giants). However, calling them giants, may not refer specifically to height, but other characteristics, such as them being warriors who were greatly honored. Now, when you get into the NT, you get this.

2 Peter 2:3-5
New International Version (NIV)
3 In their greed these teachers will exploit you with fabricated stories. Their condemnation has long been hanging over them, and their destruction has not been sleeping.

4 For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell,[a] putting them in chains of darkness[b] to be held for judgment; 5 if he did not spare the ancient world when he brought the flood on its ungodly people, but protected Noah, a preacher of righteousness, and seven others;

Note how these angels are in "hell" (Tartarus in other translations, which is where the Titans of Greek mythology were bound after Zeus and the other gods defeated them), and how this is then connected with the Flood. This could mean that the angels who were ancestors to the Nephilim are now in chains, so that can't do what they did before the Flood. Some people think that because of the corrupted nature of the Nephilim, when their bodies perished in the Flood, their souls became what we call demons, and that they need a host in order to really do anything. This would seem to be different than what Satan, who is most likely a fallen angel, and what the demons themselves must do. Of course much of this is speculation, but I personally don't find it hard to believe. I would be interested in hearing your thoughts about this subject, perhaps we could start a different thread, discussing the Nephilim(and beliefs about what they might be)?

[One Bad Pig]

This sub-forum is a bit of a ghost town, and so this thread is as much for my own benefit (maybe to help retain my thoughts on the subject) as it may be to others.

I'm taking a break from my personal study on the formation of the Judaism, and decided to delve into the ECF's for a bit. This is something I've been meaning to do for a long time, and I've read a number of the early Christian writings in whole or in part in the past, but I decided I wanted to read a number of these works straight through, starting with the Ante-Nicene Fathers (those writings before Constantine's council of Nicaea in 325) and other early church writings, so that I could get a sense of how the very early church looked and thought. A lot of this information I knew beforehand, but it was sort of like in patches... Reading straight through is allowing me to paint a much broader picture.

I'm crawling my way through book 8 of the ANF series (in print, but it's the one on CCEL).

I've talked to some folks who feel that the ECFs are very Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox in nature (and sometimes converted because of that reason). I haven't really gotten that impression at all so far. Maybe that comes along as I get further into the 2nd century, but most of the writings I've read could easily be accepted by most Protestant denominations and others. So far there's almost no mention of Mary. Nothing about her perpetual virginity, though I believe Ignatius mentions the virginity of Mary, but only in passing, and nothing that's not in line with the Gospel account. The same is true of the veneration of the saints and their relics. Almost no mention. The closest I've seen on this subject is the honor given those Christians who endured martyrdom, sometimes to the point of setting aside special days of memory or reclaiming the remains for burial in the cities they were from, but even then its made very clear that this honor should never interfere with the honor and praise that should be given Jesus only.

In Orthodoxy, it is also understood that veneration of the saints should never interfere with the honor and praise that should be given to God.

The most pro-Catholic theme I see in these writings is a recognition of some sort of Apostolic Succession, but even this seems pretty fuzzy, and in response to issues of the day. Clement, and I think Ignatius talk about the fact that the Apostles appointed bishops and presbyters to succeed them in certain areas. So, for instance, when the Corinthian church kicked out their presbyter/bishop (for apparently no good reason), Clement goes off on them because the Apostles, not long gone, appointed the office (probably only a generation or two removed from the original appointee). But this doesn't read to me like Clement expected that succession to be perfect and never-ending. The fact that Bishops were eventually excommunicated by the church (even while Clement was alive) seems pretty strong evidence to me against the idea that there was ever really any early doctrine or understanding that the line of succession should never be broken or that apostolic authority through succession was divinely governed or even legitimate.

I think you have a slight misconception of apostolic succession. It is not in an unbroken succession of, say, the bishop of Rome, but that whoever is ordained bishop is ordained by bishops who were ordained by bishops . . . who were ordained by the apostles, all of whom were in communion.

The Didache, and the Epistle of Barnabas directly quote the same source (maybe one from the other), and I hear the same is true of the Shepherd of Hermas, which I haven't read yet, but I'm getting to.

No, not the Shepherd of Hermas. The material is included in one book of the Traditions of the Twelve Apostles, however.

The Didache also adds rules of Christian conduct that I thought was a bit interesting. These included specific days for fasting (alternate days from the Jewish days of fasting), and reciting the Lord's prayer three times a day, which I thought was really interesting, because I feel that the Lord's prayer is more a format for the way Jesus wants us to pray rather than an actual prayer to be prayed (for concern that it becomes religious rote that people end up doing mindlessly which is exactly the reason he taught the way to pray). And that the early Christian readers of the Didache were told to pray this prayer three times a day reminds me a bit of ritual Jewish or Islamic prayer (though I suppose my Lutheran grandparents prayed the Lord's Prayer before each meal... so, there's that).

Concern about rote repetition is quite modern, and based on misapplication of Matthew 6:7 IMO. Pagans are condemned for repeating prayers in hopes that they're more likely to be heard, and I don't think anyone does that with the Lord's Prayer. Christianity and Judaism spring from a common root (first century temple worship), and Islam is a heretical offshoot of Christianity, so it's not all that surprising that you would find similarities in praxis. Praying the Lord's Prayer frequently helps keep it in mind. If "forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us" were kept in our thoughts continually, there'd be a lot more forgiveness and less holding of grudges.

One of the surprising things I found while reading the Epistle of Barnabas, Justin Martyr and Papias is their views on millennialism. I mean, I already knew that a form of premillennialism, or chiliasm was popular in the early church, but still, its interesting that, so far, I haven't seen any other eschatological view at this very early point (...course, I've barely scratched the surface I suppose). A repeated view that I thought was interesting is that shared between EoB and Martyr in taking the Psalms/2 Peter idea that a thousand years is but a day to the Lord, and extrapolating that into a view about the millennial reign of Christ. EoB goes further and sees the whole creation narrative as an allusion to 8 millennial ages. The 7 days are broken up into 6 thousand years from creation, followed by a future 1 thousand years of rest through the rule by Christ after the resurrection, and an 8th eternal day that signifies the new heaven and earth. I think this theory was again picked up by a later Bishop, but can't remember the details. Anyways, what's interesting to me is not so much the theory specifically (which I don't really buy), but the fact that we see the early church sometimes had some less than literal views on the creation narrative, and that, contrary to the opinion of some skeptics, the early church apparently did not universally believe that Christ's second coming was imminent. The fact that the EoB was early and widespread among Christians (it dates to circa 70-132 AD) is important in that regard I think.

I think that, as John infers late in his gospel, there was a fairly widespread assumption that Jesus would return to establish His kingdom on earth within the lifetime of the apostles (or at least John); when that did not happen, people began to speculate on other timetables (notwithstanding Jesus' admonition that no one would know) for Christ's return. I think that the Christianization of the Roman Empire under Constantine is an important part of why chiliasm fell firmly out of favor. People interpreted that as the establishment of Christ's kingdom on earth, and that obviously happened much less than 1,000 years after Christ.

Anyways, I realize that none of these writings are canonical, and so not necessarily applicable to the modern Christian, still if one desires to know and understand the early church, and to understand how the early church enacted doctrine early on via the disciples of Christ, its good stuff to know, and I'm glad I'm finally making the effort to read them through. If anyone's still with me after all this, congrats. I know a lot of it is rambling, and probably incoherent in places. I suppose I'm using this thread as a place mat for my thoughts, or a diary of sorts. But I'd love to discuss some of the topics I've brought up with others if you're into it.

[Adrift]

As for the Nephilim thing, he very well could be right. Now, the way I look at it is, the Nephilim are descendants of fallen angels, and due to this they were unusually tall(hence them being called giants). However, calling them giants, may not refer specifically to height, but other characteristics, such as them being warriors who were greatly honored. Now, when you get into the NT, you get this.

2 Peter 2:3-5
New International Version (NIV)
3 In their greed these teachers will exploit you with fabricated stories. Their condemnation has long been hanging over them, and their destruction has not been sleeping.

4 For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell,[a] putting them in chains of darkness[b] to be held for judgment; 5 if he did not spare the ancient world when he brought the flood on its ungodly people, but protected Noah, a preacher of righteousness, and seven others;

Note how these angels are in "hell" (Tartarus in other translations, which is where the Titans of Greek mythology were bound after Zeus and the other gods defeated them), and how this is then connected with the Flood. This could mean that the angels who were ancestors to the Nephilim are now in chains, so that can't do what they did before the Flood. Some people think that because of the corrupted nature of the Nephilim, when their bodies perished in the Flood, their souls became what we call demons, and that they need a host in order to really do anything. This would seem to be different than what Satan, who is most likely a fallen angel, and what the demons themselves must do. Of course much of this is speculation, but I personally don't find it hard to believe. I would be interested in hearing your thoughts about this subject, perhaps we could start a different thread, discussing the Nephilim(and beliefs about what they might be)?

A lot of 2 Peter (and I believe... Jude, and possibly a passage in 1 Peter) have 1 Enoch in mind, which of course deals with the nature of angels and Nephilim. I have a lot of issues with this though. First of all, The earliest parts of the book of Enoch were written far too late to have originated from its namesake and its probably for this reason that the book was considered apocryphal by both Jews and then Christians. I think that its possible that the canonical books quote from Enoch only those concepts that contain germs of truth (in the same way the canonical books sometimes quote secular sources), but I don't know...

Jesus makes clear that the angels in heaven do not marry or are given in marriage, so the idea that angels even have the ability or desire to procreate seems bizarre (unless the rules on procreation within marriage is restricted to mankind only, and not the angels, which would also be strange). Also passages like Hebrews 1:14 tells us that angels are spirit. The orthodox view on angels (as far as I know) is that, though angels have the ability to manifest themselves in human form, only mankind posses bodies. If we assume that angels in their human manifestations can procreate, does this downplay the miraculous and spiritual nature of Jesus' incarnation through the virgin Mary? Can any ol' spiritual being cause women to be impregnated? Kind of a frightening notion. There's also a kind after its kind issue here too I think.

Scholars break down the context of the Nephilim passage in a number of ways. Here's some of the more popular interpretations from OT scholar Victor Hamilton,

The Book of Genesis: Chapters 1-17 by Victor P. Hamilton, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1990

Enter the problematic sons of God (Heb. bene-ha’elohim). (Lit.. “men of name.”)...The chief suggestions are as follows.

(1) The sons of God are angels. Many of the ancient versions so understood it, as witnessed by LXX angeloi tou theou. The major support for this interpretation is that elsewhere in the OT the expression “sons of God” does indeed refer to heavenly beings. Examples come from both prose (Job 1:6; 2:1) and poetry (Job 38:7, where “sons of God” parallels “morning stars”; Ps. 29:1; 82:6; 89:7 [Eng. 6]; cf. also Dan. 3:25, “a son of the gods"). Heb. bene-ha’elohim is the same linguistically as Ugar. bn il, “the sons of El.” In Canaanite mythology bn il are major gods who form part of the pantheon of which El is the head. By contrast, “the sons of God” in OT thought are angels who are members of the Lord’s court and who expedite his bidding. They have no divine pedigree.

...

(2) The sons of God are dynastic rulers, an early royal aristocracy. The daughters of men, whom they took as wives, constituted the royal harems of these despots. The sin, then, is polygamy, along the lines of Lamech, who also “took wives” (4:19). A variation of this interpretation combines it with the first one, so that the sons of God are both divine beings and antediluvian rulers, much as Gilgamesh of Akkadian literature is both a historical figure (king of Uruk) and one about whom legendary features accrued (one-third human, two-thirds divine).

Kline especially makes much of the fact that in the Keret epic from Ugarit King Keret is called bn il. This is a significant part of the titulary of the pagan ideology of divine kingship. Kline also appeals to verses in the OT where those who administer justice are called ‘eIohim (Exod. 21:6; 22:7, 8, 27 [Eng. 8, 9, 28]); and a son of David is called the son of God (2 Sam. 7:14 par. 1 Chr. 17:13; perhaps Ps. 82:6).

The major advantages of this view are that it removes Gen. 6:1-4 from any mythological or nonhistorical understanding; it allows the unit to serve as an appropriate introduction to the Flood story; and it attempts to be faithful to the immediately preceding context about Cainites and Sethites. The major weakness is that while both within the OT and in other ancient Near Eastern texts individual kings were called God’s son, there is no evidence that groups of kings were so styled.

(3) The sons of God are the godly Sethites and the daughters of humankind are the ungodly Cainites. The sin, then, is a forbidden union, a yoking of what God intended to keep apart, the intermarriage of believer with unbeliever. This approach is quite close to the previous one. But the objection aimed at the previous identification applies here too. Nowhere in the OT are Sethites identified as the sons of God. Again, this proposal forces on the word ’adam in vv. 1 and 2 two different meanings. ln v. 1 ’adam would have to be “mankind” and in v. 2 ’adam would be a specific group of men (“daughters of men,” i.e., “daughters of Cainites”).

In response we observe that while sons of God is indeed an enigmatic phrase, and appears here for the first time in the OT, notes about godliness abound in the context (4:26; 5:24, 29). Furthermore, the OT does not lack instances of a shift from a generic to a specific use of a word in one context. Thus, ’adam as “mankind" in v. 1 and as “Cainites” in v. 2 is not impossible.

© source where applicable

Justin Martyr was probably only familiar with the LXX version of the OT. If that's so, its very likely that he got the idea that the sons of God were angels from that.

[Cerebrum123]

A lot of 2 Peter (and I believe... Jude, and possibly a passage in 1 Peter) have 1 Enoch in mind, which of course deals with the nature of angels and Nephilim. I have a lot of issues with this though. First of all, The earliest parts of the book of Enoch were written far too late to have originated from its namesake and its probably for this reason that the book was considered apocryphal by both Jews and then Christians. I think that its possible that the canonical books quote from Enoch only those concepts that contain germs of truth (in the same way the canonical books sometimes quote secular sources), but I don't know...

Jesus makes clear that the angels in heaven do not marry or are given in marriage, so the idea that angels even have the ability or desire to procreate seems bizarre (unless the rules on procreation within marriage is restricted to mankind only, and not the angels, which would also be strange). Also passages like Hebrews 1:14 tells us that angels are spirit. The orthodox view on angels (as far as I know) is that, though angels have the ability to manifest themselves in human form, only mankind posses bodies. If we assume that angels in their human manifestations can procreate, does this downplay the miraculous and spiritual nature of Jesus' incarnation through the virgin Mary? Can any ol' spiritual being cause women to be impregnated? Kind of a frightening notion.

Scholars break down the context of the Nephilim passage in a number of ways. Here's some of the more popular interpretations from OT scholar Victor Hamilton,

The Book of Genesis: Chapters 1-17 by Victor P. Hamilton, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1990

Enter the problematic sons of God (Heb. bene-ha’elohim). (Lit.. “men of name.”)...The chief suggestions are as follows.

(1) The sons of God are angels. Many of the ancient versions so understood it, as witnessed by LXX angeloi tou theou. The major support for this interpretation is that elsewhere in the OT the expression “sons of God” does indeed refer to heavenly beings. Examples come from both prose (Job
1:6; 2:1) and poetry (Job 38:7, where “sons of God” parallels “morning stars”; Ps. 29:1; 82:6; 89:7 [Eng. 6]; cf. also Dan. 3:25, “a son of the gods"). Heb. bene-ha’elohim is the same linguistically as Ugar. bn il, “the sons of El.” In Canaanite mythology bn il are major gods who form part of the pantheon of which El is the head. By contrast, “the sons of God” in OT thought are angels who are members of the Lord’s court and who expedite his bidding. They have no divine pedigree.

...

(2) The sons of God are dynastic rulers, an early royal aristocracy. The daughters of men, whom they took as wives, constituted the royal harems of these despots. The sin, then, is polygamy, along the lines of Lamech, who also “took wives” (4:19). A variation of this interpretation combines it with the first one, so that the sons of God are both divine beings and antediluvian rulers, much as Gilgamesh of Akkadian literature is both a historical figure (king of Uruk) and one about whom legendary features accrued (one-third human, two-thirds divine).

Kline especially makes much of the fact that in the Keret epic from Ugarit King Keret is called bn il. This is a significant part of the titulary of the pagan ideology of divine kingship. Kline also appeals to verses in the OT where those who administer justice are called ‘eIohim (Exod. 21:6; 22:7, 8, 27 [Eng. 8, 9, 28]); and a son of David is called the son of God (2 Sam. 7:14 par. 1 Chr. 17:13; perhaps Ps. 82:6).

The major advantages of this view are that it removes Gen. 6:1-4 from any mythological or nonhistorical understanding; it allows the unit to serve as an appropriate introduction to the Flood story; and it attempts to be faithful to the immediately preceding context about Cainites and Sethites.
The major weakness is that while both within the OT and in other ancient Near Eastern texts individual kings were called God’s son, there is no evidence that groups of kings were so styled.

(3) The sons of God are the godly Sethites and the daughters of humankind are the ungodly Cainites. The sin, then, is a forbidden union, a yoking of what God intended to keep apart, the intermarriage of believer with unbeliever. This approach is quite close to the previous one. But the objection aimed at the previous identification applies here too. Nowhere in the OT are Sethites identified as the sons of God. Again, this proposal forces on the word ’adam in vv. 1 and 2 two different meanings. ln v. 1 ’adam would have to be “mankind” and in v. 2 ’adam would be a specific group of men (“daughters of men,” i.e., “daughters of Cainites”).

In response we observe that while sons of God is indeed an enigmatic phrase, and appears here for the first time in the OT, notes about godliness abound in the context (4:26; 5:24, 29). Furthermore, the OT does not lack instances of a shift from a generic to a specific use of a word in one context. Thus, ’adam as “mankind" in v. 1 and as “Cainites” in v. 2 is not impossible.

© source where applicable

Justin Martyr was probably only familiar with the LXX version of the OT. If that's so, its very likely that he got the idea that the sons of God were angels from that.

There is also the possibility that they took over human bodies, and had their fun that way. There is a lot of speculation on this one, but I still don't see how they could possibly be ordinary humans given the context of the passage. Something very odd seems to be going on at this point in time. Also, considering that these are fallen angels, and they are said to have transgressed their limits, it certainly leaves open a great deal of possibilities. If they were just ordinary humans, then it seems that the wording would have indicated that a bit more clearly. Also, IMO the idea that the Sethites were any more Godly than the Cainites seems to be just more conjecture, and seems to be different than what the text indicates. The second proposal seems more likely IMO, but I still think that the first one fits best, given the context of the rest of the Bible, but again that is just my opinion.

[Adrift]

I'm crawling my way through book 8 of the ANF series (in print, but it's the one on CCEL).

Ah. I've got company then!

In Orthodoxy, it is also understood that veneration of the saints should never interfere with the honor and praise that should be given to God.

Yes, sorry, that was sort of a rash comment. I realize that most of those in both the RC and OC will point out that honor and praise is always due God above that of Mary and the saints, though it may not always seem that way to those on the outside.

I think you have a slight misconception of apostolic succession. It is not in an unbroken succession of, say, the bishop of Rome, but that whoever is ordained bishop is ordained by bishops who were ordained by bishops . . . who were ordained by the apostles, all of whom were in communion.

Hmm. Ok. You may be right about misconceptions. Something I took away from Clement's admonition of the Corinthian church is something that bugs me about some Protestant denominations, which is that some denominations hand over the power to the congregation (or a number of unqualified "elders") the ability to vote out their pastor. I think this can be detrimental to the health of a local church. The pastor is there to lead the congregation in right doctrine, reproof, correction, worship, etc. All it takes to get punted is offence at correction and reproof, and that's kinda scary. It seems to me, the power to discipline or remove a pastor from his congregation should be in the hands of those in higher authority than him. Meh.. Just my 2 cents.

No, not the Shepherd of Hermas. The material is included in one book of the Traditions of the Twelve Apostles, however.

Ah. Ok. Thanks.

Concern about rote repetition is quite modern, and based on misapplication of Matthew 6:7 IMO. Pagans are condemned for repeating prayers in hopes that they're more likely to be heard, and I don't think anyone does that with the Lord's Prayer. Christianity and Judaism spring from a common root (first century temple worship), and Islam is a heretical offshoot of Christianity, so it's not all that surprising that you would find similarities in praxis. Praying the Lord's Prayer frequently helps keep it in mind. If "forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us" were kept in our thoughts continually, there'd be a lot more forgiveness and less holding of grudges.

Hmm. Can't say I'm completely convinced, but okay. I think a good compromise may be following the format of the Lord's prayer without necessarily feeling the need to religiously pray it word for word. Start off by praising the father, pray for his will to be done in your life and the lives of those you may be praying for, pray for those things you have need for, ask for forgiveness and forgive others, pray for help overcoming evil. I have no beef with those who feel they need to pray the Lord's prayer word for word everyday, but I think its important to think on the words they're praying. I can tell you from first hand experience that while growing up, my dad's parents and my aunts and cousins were very much rote repeating. Nothing like seeing people go into a mindless zombie state before a meal to quietly and quickly get through it before they stuff their faces. Your comments on Judaism and Islam I agree on.

I think that, as John infers late in his gospel, there was a fairly widespread assumption that Jesus would return to establish His kingdom on earth within the lifetime of the apostles (or at least John); when that did not happen, people began to speculate on other timetables (notwithstanding Jesus' admonition that no one would know) for Christ's return. I think that the Christianization of the Roman Empire under Constantine is an important part of why chiliasm fell firmly out of favor. People interpreted that as the establishment of Christ's kingdom on earth, and that obviously happened much less than 1,000 years after Christ.

Yeah, good points. And I hadn't considered the church's reaction to Constantine. I'll have to think on that. Thanks.

[Adrift]

There is also the possibility that they took over human bodies, and had their fun that way. There is a lot of speculation on this one, but I still don't see how they could possibly be ordinary humans given the context of the passage. Something very odd seems to be going on at this point in time. Also, considering that these are fallen angels, and they are said to have transgressed their limits, it certainly leaves open a great deal of possibilities. If they were just ordinary humans, then it seems that the wording would have indicated that a bit more clearly. Also, IMO the idea that the Sethites were any more Godly than the Cainites seems to be just more conjecture, and seems to be different than what the text indicates. The second proposal seems more likely IMO, but I still think that the first one fits best, given the context of the rest of the Bible, but again that is just my opinion.

I think your idea of possession could work well with the second theory, but I still find the idea of a half man/half angel hybrid theologically unsound. Anyways, yeah, its secondary stuff, and ultimately I just don't know one way or the other.

[Adrift]

I don't know if you've heard this or not, but newadvent has the complete works of a ton of church fathers, including the suriving works of Justin Martyr if you're interested they are found here.

Yep, I mentioned them in my really really long OP. Thanks for bringing them back up again though. I like that they put large books all on the same page without having to scroll through chapters like CCEL does. I use both though.

[Adrift]

Finished listening to Justin's Second Apology today. I was reading the Wikipedia article on Justin, and a couple of things of note caught my attention in that article.

First is this, "He then adopted the dress of a philosopher himself and traveled about teaching." This, I know, is a very naive question, but does "dress" here mean there was a style of actual fashion for philosophers, or are they referring to how Justin "addressed" himself? The sentence is made with no direct citation.

Also this,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justin_Martyr

Justin was confident that his teaching is that of the Church at large. He knows of a division among the orthodox only on the question of the millennium and on the attitude toward the milder Jewish Christianity, which he personally is willing to tolerate as long as its professors in their turn do not interfere with the liberty of the Gentile converts; his millenarianism seems to have no connection with Judaism, but he believes firmly in a millennium, and generally in the Christian eschatology.

© source where applicable

Again, no citation of sources (even though I occasionally edit Wikipedia myself, I always introduce sources where I can, but finding good source citations seems to be the exception rather than the rule with most articles )

How exactly does one come to the conclusion that Justin is speaking confidently about the church at large. I agree this seems to be the way he talks, but this seems like a sort of generalization about his writings rather than something he's directly stated. And I know that Justin talks about the millennium (as previously discussed in this thread), but where does he talk about the division among orthodoxy on the subject? Admittedly, I may have just missed that bit while listening to the 2 Apologies. I've yet to read anything beyond the Apologies in depth, so maybe its mentioned in another work. Also, where does Wiki get the idea that Justin was willing to tolerate Jewish Christianity? I'm pretty certain that's not mentioned in the Apologies either, so it must be in the Dialogue to Trypho or something.