Personal Observations Concerning Early Christian Writings

[Adrift]

"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.

Well I got my answer to this question. Its in his Dialogue to Trypho. Trypho stops to talk to Justin because Justin is wearing the robes of a philosopher, and Trypho likes to collect wisdom from philosophers wandering around (or something like that).

In my first post I mentioned that a good place to hear Ante-Nicene Fathers on audiobook is through Librivox. Well I'm going to have to take that back a bit. The Librivox recordings pretty much stop at Justin Martyr's 2 Apologies, and skip a few sections like The Epistle of Mathetes to Diognetus, The Martydom of Polycarp, and the Syriac versions of Ignatius' letters, and those spuriously attributed to him. So I'm on the hunt for new free audiobooks, and I'm finding some luck using archive.org's media search.

I was able to track down the Martyrdom of Justin Martyr through archive.org, and Dialogue with Trypho as well. Dialogue with Trypho is linked to an old blog called Dead White Guys starting at episode 5. Its narrated by a British husband and wife team playing different characters and its a fun way to listen to the book. This blog, last updated in 2006 coincidentally has a link to Tekton.

I'm still looking for the other Justin Martyr writings, but may just have to give in and read the one's I can't find on audiobook. I've already done that with a few of the previous books I couldn't find, but as I mentioned in my first post, its nice just listening to them while doing other things. Oh well.

[Adrift]

So I'm done reading Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho. What I couldn't find on audio, I just read on New Advent's website. A lot of his dialogue seems to be a bit repetitive, but he makes some really interesting points that I don't think I've ever considered very deeply. He goes to great lengths to prove that Jesus can be found in the Old Testament, and some of it is pretty convincing, some not so much. He argues often that one of the angels that came to Abraham before the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah was Jesus. He also hunts down a number of parallels between Joshua and Jesus because in Hebrew they have the same name. He also finds in Moses' stretched out hands during the battle with the Amalek's a foreshadow of Christ's stretched arms on the cross. Justin sees in Jacob's marriage to Leah and Rachel an interesting typology, he says "Now Leah is your people and synagogue; but Rachel is our Church." I never considered that before... I also found it interesting that the debate about the word almah in Isaiah 7:14 referring to "virgin" or "young woman" goes back as far as Martyr.

Librivox has Irenaeus' Against Heresies on audio, so I've been listening to that. The first book (or 2) was punishing. Its just endless talk about all of the ridiculous beliefs of the Gnostics. I mean, he goes into exquisite detail, and it sounds like the Gnostics had a heck of a lot of time to come up with their intricities. Just endless. Its interesting that he's able to trace some of these heretical beliefs right back to Simon Magus. I'm going to spend some extra time studying ancient gnosticism because I sort of phased in and out while listening to the first 2 books. I find some of his beliefs odd... like his belief that Jesus was in his 40s or 50s when he went to the cross, or that his ministry was something like 10 years long, and that he died under the reign of Claudius rather than Tiberius. I need to figure out where he got these unusual ideas from, since he seems to be extremely familiar with the 4 Gospels as we have them today, and church history in general.

In the meantime, I pretty much finished reading the deuterocanonical books with the exception of 2 Maccabees. Pretty interesting stuff, but I can see why it was separated from the canon by the Jews and then the Protestants.

For a great lecture series on the "The History of Christian Thought and Practice", check out this great youtube series by professor Jim Papandrea at Garrett-Evangelical Theological Seminary. It looks like its basically his whole course on the subject. I started watching it a few days ago, and I wish I found it sooner, because it works as a class room type commentary to my reading.

[One Bad Pig]

I find some of his beliefs odd... like his belief that Jesus was in his 40s or 50s when he went to the cross, or that his ministry was something like 10 years long, and that he died under the reign of Claudius rather than Tiberius. I need to figure out where he got these unusual ideas from, since he seems to be extremely familiar with the 4 Gospels as we have them today, and church history in general.

It seems to me that Irenaeus didn't think that the Incarnation would be complete unless Jesus had gone through every stage of human life, including old age - so he stretched out Jesus' ministry commensurately.

[Adrift]

It seems to me that Irenaeus didn't think that the Incarnation would be complete unless Jesus had gone through every stage of human life, including old age - so he stretched out Jesus' ministry commensurately.

Yeah, he mentions that, but I guess I'm just wondering if this is an original idea created as an apologetic response to the Gnostics, or something that was shared by others in the early church.

[One Bad Pig]

Yeah, he mentions that, but I guess I'm just wondering if this is an original idea created as an apologetic response to the Gnostics, or something that was shared by others in the early church.

I don't think we have enough evidence to really say, unfortunately. We can probably thank Diocletian for that.

[Adrift]

I don't think we have enough evidence to really say, unfortunately. We can probably thank Diocletian for that.

You're probably right.

[OmniSkeptical]

I think I can't view it like you do. I see a Cerinthus giving the church a divine annointed/christ, which is not Israelite practice. Cerdo criticizing the Jewish "divinities" of the old testament. Valentinus claiming humans were gods, especially Yeshua; he claimed Yeshua had three attributes of father, son and holy spirit. Polycarp tried to correct the idolatries by reintroducing the true father in christianity. But no gentile would cease calling Yeshua-- God.

After all, Hegessipus had said things like if you call him a man; the same found themselves in Josephus as forgeries.

[hedrick]

I haven't read as much early writings as the OP. I understand that full-blown Catholicism is not there or only nacent. But there's another chacteristic that I find interesting. If you compare those writers with the Synopics, there's a pretty dramatic difference in orientation. Jesus' radical ethics has turned into moralism, and the Kingdom (rule) of God as the goal has turned into going to heaven.

I've always wondered just how that change happened.

[One Bad Pig]

I haven't read as much early writings as the OP. I understand that full-blown Catholicism is not there or only nacent. But there's another chacteristic that I find interesting. If you compare those writers with the Synopics, there's a pretty dramatic difference in orientation. Jesus' radical ethics has turned into moralism, and the Kingdom (rule) of God as the goal has turned into going to heaven.

I've always wondered just how that change happened.

Maybe it's just me, but I don't recall seeing that at all. Could you provide some examples? Do you see a difference between the Synoptics and the rest of the NT? I'm just wondering why you specifically referred to them.

[Adrift]

I haven't read as much early writings as the OP. I understand that full-blown Catholicism is not there or only nacent. But there's another chacteristic that I find interesting. If you compare those writers with the Synopics, there's a pretty dramatic difference in orientation. Jesus' radical ethics has turned into moralism, and the Kingdom (rule) of God as the goal has turned into going to heaven.

I've always wondered just how that change happened.

I'd also need to see specific examples, but reasons for change may simply because the audience is radically different, and so is the focus. The synoptics are introducing Jesus and his ministry to their readers. They're for Jews and Gentiles who've never heard of Jesus or know little about him. At the time of the synoptic's writing, Christianity was still mostly viewed as an extension of Judaism. There were heretical splits at the time of the synoptic's writing, but they were fresh and underdeveloped.

The ECF writings of the 2nd century, on the other hand, were written to a Christian audience that was pretty much split from Judaism proper. Heretical teaching was getting out of control. The church was growing in leaps and bounds which forced the office of Bishop to grow from the leader of small local home-based congregations, to overseers of entire regions of congregations. Jesus' radical ethics in Jewish Israel took on a whole new dynamic as it spread throughout the Hellenized world. I think the Kingdom of God element is still probably important in the early church writings, but its tempered by the fact that Jesus' second coming had not occurred as soon as was probably expected. Also, as Christianity moved further from its source by age and distance, it seems that a lot of the Jewishness of the faith sort of dissipates a bit. Concepts like the Jewish belief of the general resurrection in the flesh do not go away entirely, but over the ages (especially by the Middle Ages) are replaced with the sort of Christian mythology that's still with a lot of people today (I probably hype it too much, but see NT Wright's Surprised by Hope for more on this).

[Rushing Jaws]

I haven't read as much early writings as the OP. I understand that full-blown Catholicism is not there or only nacent. But there's another chacteristic that I find interesting. If you compare those writers with the Synopics, there's a pretty dramatic difference in orientation. Jesus' radical ethics has turned into moralism, and the Kingdom (rule) of God as the goal has turned into going to heaven.

I've always wondered just how that change happened.

## One possibility: the loss of the apocalyptic mind. Possible evidence for this is the change in understanding of apocalyptic, from a revelation of events shortly to come to pass, to a revelation of the unseen world. It's the difference between Apocalyptic in the NT, and the Apocalypse of Peter. Ther is similar "machinery", but a vast difference in subject-matter.

If the Church *is* the Kingdom of God, as an empirical society within history, but is still not beyond the reach of sin, there is a problem. Which is compounded enormously, if the Second Coming does not occur.

My favourite Fathers: Arnobius and Lactantius.

[Adrift]

So just about done reading Shepherd of Hermas. This is the first early Christian work I've read that I found completely bewildering as far as early Christian theology is concerned. Some believe the Hermas referred to here is one that Paul mentions in one of his letters. The Shepherd seems to be an allusion to Christ or an angel. It was apparently widely read in the early church and Irenaeus, and Origen seem to regard it almost as scripture. Tertullian and the Muratorian fragment have a less positive view of the book. Tertullian seems to have a semi-favorable view of the book at first, but later (after becoming a Montanist) finds that book favors adulterers (I don't see where he's getting that, but anyways...), and he states that it has been judged by all of the councils of the churches to be both apocryphal and false.The Muratorian fragment writes of it, "But Hermas wrote the Shepherd very recently, in our times, in the city of Rome, while bishop Pius, his brother, was occupying the [episcopal] chair of the church of the city of Rome. And therefore it ought indeed to be read; but it cannot be read publicly to the people in church either among the Prophets, whose number is complete, or among the Apostles, for it is after [their] time."

The New Advent website has a pretty decent write up on it.

What gets me about this book is that it just comes off really phony. It feels like its imitating Jesus' parables in the Gospels but does so badly. The parables are long drawn out things that eventually lose their focus and strength the longer they get. There's a heavy emphasis on works and doing penance for repentance and salvation. There are some very confused ideas about who the Holy Spirit is, and about Jesus' pre-incarnate nature as well as his identity with the Holy Spirit (in other words, not very Trinitarian in nature).

In his visions, the author of the book is constantly insulted by his heavenly guides for being simple minded, senseless, and foolish for simply asking clarification on the meaning of the visions and parables. This point is interesting to me, because it ties in with something professor Jim Papandrea at Garrett-Evangelical Theological Seminary said in his video series on the early church writings. He makes the point that early extra-Biblical Christian writings often have a harsh edge to them in their expressions and language that would be completely out of place today, but was somewhat acceptable in the larger Roman world of the time. This sort of contradicts the recent apologetic claim made by some around here that, because the early church writers occasionally used insulting language in their theology and apologetics, its acceptable for us to use the same sort of language in apologetics and evangelism today. That's simply not the case though. It was purely a matter of the historical social (and authorial) context which allowed for its acceptance, and would be totally unacceptable today.

Anyways, interesting stuff.

[One Bad Pig]

So just about done reading Shepherd of Hermas. This is the first early Christian work I've read that I found completely bewildering as far as early Christian theology is concerned. Some believe the Hermas referred to here is one that Paul mentions in one of his letters. The Shepherd seems to be an allusion to Christ or an angel. It was apparently widely read in the early church and Irenaeus, and Origen seem to regard it almost as scripture. Tertullian and the Muratorian fragment have a less positive view of the book. Tertullian seems to have a semi-favorable view of the book at first, but later (after becoming a Montanist) finds that book favors adulterers (I don't see where he's getting that, but anyways...), and he states that it has been judged by all of the councils of the churches to be both apocryphal and false.The Muratorian fragment writes of it, "But Hermas wrote the Shepherd very recently, in our times, in the city of Rome, while bishop Pius, his brother, was occupying the [episcopal] chair of the church of the city of Rome. And therefore it ought indeed to be read; but it cannot be read publicly to the people in church either among the Prophets, whose number is complete, or among the Apostles, for it is after [their] time."

The New Advent website has a pretty decent write up on it.

What gets me about this book is that it just comes off really phony. It feels like its imitating Jesus' parables in the Gospels but does so badly. The parables are long drawn out things that eventually lose their focus and strength the longer they get. There's a heavy emphasis on works and doing penance for repentance and salvation. There are some very confused ideas about who the Holy Spirit is, and about Jesus' pre-incarnate nature as well as his identity with the Holy Spirit (in other words, not very Trinitarian in nature).

I'll have to go back and re-read this, because I recall coming away from it with a more favorable opinion that you. And the Muratorian canon is hardly "less positive" - it excludes the work from scripture because of when it was written, not its content.

[Chrawnus]

In his visions, the author of the book is constantly insulted by his heavenly guides for being simple minded, senseless, and foolish for simply asking clarification on the meaning of the visions and parables. This point is interesting to me, because it ties in with something professor Jim Papandrea at Garrett-Evangelical Theological Seminary said in his video series on the early church writings. He makes the point that early extra-Biblical Christian writings often have a harsh edge to them in their expressions and language that would be completely out of place today, but was somewhat acceptable in the larger Roman world of the time. This sort of contradicts the recent apologetic claim made by some around here that, because the early church writers occasionally used insulting language in their theology and apologetics, its acceptable for us to use the same sort of language in apologetics and evangelism today. That's simply not the case though. It was purely a matter of the historical social (and authorial) context which allowed for its acceptance, and would be totally unacceptable today.

Regarding the bolded part: It would be nice if you could differentiate clearly between where Papandrea claims ends and where your conclusions from said claims begin.

Furthermore, even if one were to grant that it was the historical social (and authorial) context that allowed for the sort of insulting language we find among the writings of the early Christian Church (including the NT), and that it would be inappropriate for us, because we live in an entirely different culture, isn't that implicitly admitting that using insulting language is something that is appropriate/inappropriate depending on the culture in question, and that you therefore do no more wrong when you use insulting language than when you, for example, burp loudly at a dinner, pick your nose, or point your finger at people? I mean, they can surely be seen as inappropriate, but I find it hard to believe that they would be wrong in the purely ethical sense.

[Adrift]

I'll have to go back and re-read this, because I recall coming away from it with a more favorable opinion that you. And the Muratorian canon is hardly "less positive" - it excludes the work from scripture because of when it was written, not its content.

By less positive I mean that it doesn't identify it as scripture or on the same level as canonical scripture.

Here are some passages I found really strange,

The Shepherd of Hermas (Book II), Commandment 5, Chapter 2: Now, of folly is begotten bitterness, and of bitterness anger, and of anger frenzy. This frenzy, the product of so many evils, ends in great and incurable sin. For when all these spirits dwell in one vessel in which the Holy Spirit also dwells, the vessel cannot contain them, but overflows. The tender Spirit, then, not being accustomed to dwell with the wicked spirit, nor with hardness, withdraws from such a man, and seeks to dwell with meekness and peacefulness. Then, when he withdraws from the man in whom he dwelt, the man is emptied of the righteous Spirit; and being henceforward filled with evil spirits, he is in a state of anarchy in every action, being dragged here and there by the evil spirits, and there is a complete darkness in his mind as to everything good. This, then, is what happens to all the angry.

The Shepherd of Hermas (Book II), Similitude 5, Chapter 5

I said to you a little ago, he answered, that you were cunning and obstinate in asking explanations of the parables; but since you are so persistent, I shall unfold to you the meaning of the similitudes of the field, and of all the others that follow, that you may make them known to every one. Hear now, he said, and understand them. The field is this world; and the Lord of the field is He who created, and perfected, and strengthened all things; [and the son is the Holy Spirit; ] and the slave is the Son of God; and the vines are this people, whom He Himself planted; and the stakes are the holy angels of the Lord, who keep His people together; and the weeds that were plucked out of the vineyard are the iniquities of God's servants; and the dishes which He sent Him from His table are the commandments which He gave His people through His Son; and the friends and fellow-councillors are the holy angels who were first created; and the Master's absence from home is the time that remains until His appearing. I said to him, Sir, all these are great, and marvellous, and glorious things. Could I, therefore, I continued, understand them? No, nor could any other man, even if exceedingly wise. Moreover, I added, explain to me what I am about to ask you. Say what you wish, he replied. Why, sir, I asked, is the Son of God in the parable in the form of a slave?

Chapter 6

Hear, he answered: the Son of God is not in the form of a slave, but in great power and might. How so, sir? I said; I do not understand. Because, he answered, God planted the vineyard, that is to say, He created the people, and gave them to His Son; and the Son appointed His angels over them to keep them; and He Himself purged away their sins, having suffered many trials and undergone many labours, for no one is able to dig without labour and toil. He Himself, then, having purged away the sins of the people, showed them the paths of life by giving them the law which He received from His Father. [You see, he said, that He is the Lord of the people, having received all authority from His Father. ] And why the Lord took His Son as councillor, and the glorious angels, regarding the heirship of the slave, listen. The holy, pre-existent Spirit, that created every creature, God made to dwell in flesh, which He chose. This flesh, accordingly, in which the Holy Spirit dwelt, was nobly subject to that Spirit, walking religiously and chastely, in no respect defiling the Spirit; and accordingly, after living excellently and purely, and after labouring and co-operating with the Spirit, and having in everything acted vigorously and courageously along with the Holy Spirit, He assumed it as a partner with it. For this conduct of the flesh pleased Him, because it was not defiled on the earth while having the Holy Spirit. He took, therefore, as fellow-councillors His Son and the glorious angels, in order that this flesh, which had been subject to the body without a fault, might have some place of tabernacle, and that it might not appear that the reward [of its servitude had been lost ], for the flesh that has been found without spot or defilement, in which the Holy Spirit dwelt, [will receive a reward ]. You have now the explanation of this parable also."

The Shepherd of Hermas (Book II), Similitude 9, Chapter 1

After I had written down the commandments and similitudes of the Shepherd, the angel of repentance, he came to me and said, I wish to explain to you what the Holy Spirit that spoke with you in the form of the Church showed you, for that Spirit is the Son of God.

An interesting blog post I read quotes a translation of Similitude 5 by Johannes Quasten (Roman Catholic theologian and scholar of patristics),

Patrology, vol. I: The Beginnings of Patristic Literature, from the Apostle’s Creed to Irenaeus, Johannes Quasten (Westminster: Christian Classics, 1983) 99-100

The pre-existent Holy Spirit which created all things did God make to dwell in a body of flesh chosen by himself. This flesh, in which dwelt the Holy Spirit, served the Spirit well in all purity and all sanctity without ever inflicting the least stain upon it. After the flesh had thus conducted itself so well and chastely, after it had assisted the Spirit and worked in all things with it, always showing itself to be strong and courageous, God admitted it to share with the Holy Spirit; for the conduct of this flesh pleased him, because it was not defiled while it was bearing the Holy Spirit on earth. He therefore consulted His Son and His glorious angels, in order that this flesh, which had served the Spirit without any cause for reproach, might obtain a place of habitation, and might not lose the reward of its services. There is a reward for all flesh which through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit shall be found without stain.

© source where applicable

Quasten comments: According to this passage the Trinity of Hermas seems to consist of God the Father, of a second divine person, the Holy Spirit, whom he identifies with the Son of God and finally the Saviour, who was elevated to be their companion as the reward of his merits. In other words Hermas regards the Saviour as the adopted son of God as far as his human nature is concerned.

The blog post I saw this quote points out, "Yet, not so fast! In Hermas’ Parable 2:5:6-7, the master (God) consults his son on whether or not he should exalt the righteous servant to be the son’s co-heir. In Hermas’ Parable 5:5:2, the servant is identified as the Son of God. So I guess God has two sons: the Holy Spirit who dwelt in Jesus’ flesh, and Jesus the human being."

From what I can tell the idea that Hermas paints a picture of either Adoptionism or a strange form of Nestorianism seems to be widely agreed. I didn't read much about Hermas before coming to similar conclusions myself. And of course, its views on penance seem really off to me scripturally as well (though they're probably better received by the RCC and EO).