History of Dogma, Volume 1 (of 7)
by Adolph Harnack
Previous Part     1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11     Next Part
Home - Random Browse

Literature.—The writings of the so-called Apostolic Fathers. See the edition of v. Gebhardt, Harnack, Zahn, 1876. Hilgenfeld, Nov. Test. extra Can. recept. fasc. IV. 2 edit. 1884, has collected further remains of early Christian literature. The Teaching of the twelve Apostles. Fragments of the Gospel and Apocalypse of Peter (my edition, 1893). Also the writings of Justin and other apologists, in so far as they give disclosures about the faith of the communities of his time, as well as statements in Celsus [Greek: Alethes Logos], in Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian. Even Gnostic fragments may be cautiously turned to profit. Ritschl, Entstehung der altkath. Kirche 2 Aufl. 1857. Pfleiderer, Das Urchristenthum, 1887. Renan, Origins of Christianity, vol. V. V. Engelhardt, Das Christenthum Justin's, d. M. 1878, p. 375 ff. Schenkel, Das Christusbild der Apostel, etc., 1879. Zahn, Gesch. des N.-Tlichen Kanons, 2 Bde. 1888. Behm, Das Christliche Gesetzthum der Apostolischen Vaeter (Zeitschr. f. kirchl. Wissensch. 1886). Dorner, History of the doctrine of the Person of Christ, 1845. Schultz, Die Lehre von der Gottheit Christi, 1881, p. 22 ff. Hoefling. Die Lehre der aeltesten Kirche vom Opfer, 1851. Hoefling, Das Sacrament d. Taufe, 1848. Kahnis, Die Lehre vom Abendmahl, 1851. Th. Harnack, Der Christliche Gemeindegottedienst im Apost. u. Altkath. Zeitalter, 1854. Hatch, Organisation of the Early Church, 1883. My Prolegomena to the Didache (Texte u. Unters. II. Bd. H. 1, 2). Diestel, Gesch. des A.T. in der Christi. Kirche, 1869. Sohm, Kirchenrecht, 1892, Monographs on the Apostolic Fathers: on 1 Clem.: Lipsius, Lightfoot (most accurate commentary), Wrede; on 2 Clem.: A. Harnack (Ztschr. f. K. Gesch. 1887); on Barnabas: J. Mueller; on Hermas: Zahn, Hueckstaedt, Link; on Papias: Weiffenbach, Leimbach, Zahn, Lightfoot; on Ignatius and Polycarp: Lightfoot (accurate commentary) and Zahn; on the Gospel and Apocalypse of Peter: A. Harnack: on the Kerygma of Peter: von Dobschuetz; on Acts of Thecla: Schlau.

[Footnote 162: The statements made in this chapter need special forbearance, especially as the selection from the rich and motley material—cf. only the so-called Apostolic Fathers—the emphasising of this, the throwing into the background of that element, cannot here be vindicated. It is not possible, in the compass of a brief account, to give expression to that elasticity and those oscillations of ideas and thoughts which were peculiar to the Christians of the earliest period. There was indeed, as will be shewn, a complex of tradition in many respects fixed, but this complex was still under the dominance of an enthusiastic fancy, so that what at one moment seemed fixed, in the next had disappeared. Finally, attention must be given to the fact that when we speak of the beginnings of knowledge, the members of the Christian community in their totality are no longer in question, but only individuals who of course were the leaders of the others. If we had no other writings from the times of the Apostolic Fathers than the first Epistle of Clement and the Epistle of Polycarp, it would be comparatively easy to sketch a clear history of the development connecting Paulinism with the old-Catholic Theology as represented by Irenaeus, and so to justify the traditional ideas. But besides these two Epistles which are the classic monuments of the mediating tradition, we have a great number of documents which shew us how manifold and complicated the development was. They also teach us how careful we should be in the interpretation of the post-Apostolic documents that immediately followed the Pauline Epistles, and that we must give special heed to the paragraphs and ideas in them, which distinguish them from Paulinism. Besides, it is of the greatest importance that those two Epistles originated in Rome and Asia Minor, as these are the places where we must seek the embryonic stage of old-Catholic doctrine. Numerous fine threads, in the form of fundamental ideas and particular views, pass over from the Asia Minor theology of the post-Apostolic period into the old-Catholic theology.]

[Footnote 163: The Epistle to the Hebrews (X. 25), the Epistle of Barnabas (IV. 10), the Shepherd of Hermas (Sim. IX. 26, 3), but especially the Epistles of Ignatius and still later documents, shew that up to the middle of the second Century, and even later, there were Christians who, for various reasons, stood outside the union of communities, or wished to have only a loose and temporary relation to them. The exhortation: [Greek: epi to auto sunerchomenoi sunzeteite peri tou koine sumpherontos] (see my note on Didache, XVI. 2, and cf.) for the expression the interesting State Inscription which was found at Magnesia on the Meander. Bull, Corresp. Hellen 1883, p. 506: [Greek: apagoreuo mete sunerchesthai tous artokokous kat' hetairian mete parestekotas thrasunesthai, peitharchein de pantos tois huper tou koine sumpherontos epitattomenois k.t.l.] or the exhortation: [Greek: kollasthe tois hagiois, hoti hoi kollomenoi autois hagiasthesontai] (1 Clem. 46. 2, introduced as [Greek: graphe]) runs through most of the writings of the post-Apostolic and pre-catholic period. New doctrines were imported by wandering Christians who, in many cases, may not themselves have belonged to a community, and did not respect the arrangements of those they found in existence, but sought to form conventicles. If we remember how the Greeks and Romans were wont to get themselves initiated into a mystery cult, and took part for a long time in the religious exercises, and then, when they thought they had got the good of it, for the most part or wholly to give up attending, we shall not wonder that the demand to become a permanent member of a Christian community was opposed by many. The statements of Hermas are specially instructive here.]

[Footnote 164: "Corpus sumus," says Tertullian at a time when this description had already become an anachronism, "de conscientia religionis et disciplinae unitate et spei foedere." (Apol. 39: cf. Ep. Petri ad Jacob. I.: [Greek: eis theos, eis nomos, mia elpis]). The description was applicable to the earlier period, when there was no such thing as a federation with political forms, but when the consciousness of belonging to a community and of forming a brotherhood ([Greek: adelphotes]) was all the more deeply felt: See, above all, 1 Clem ad Corinth., the Didache (9-15), Aristides, Apol 15: "and when they have become Christians, they call them (the slaves) brethren without hesitation ... for they do not call them brethren according to the flesh, but according to the spirit and in God;" cf. also the statements on brotherhood in Tertullian and Minucius Felix (also Lucian). We have in 1 Clem. I. 2, the delineation of a perfect Christian Church. The Epistles of Ignatius are specially instructive as to the independence of each individual community: 1 Clem. and Didache, as to the obligation to assist stranger communities by counsel and action, and to support the travelling brethren. As every Christian is a [Greek: paroikos] so every community is a [Greek: paroikousa ten polin] but it is under obligation to give an example to the world, and must watch that "the name be not blasphemed." The importance of the social element in the oldest Christian communities, has been very justly brought into prominence in the latest works on the subject (Renan, Heinrici, Hatch). The historian of dogma must also emphasise it, and put the fluid notions of the faith in contrast with the definite consciousness of moral tasks. See 1 Clem. 47-50; Polyc. Ep. 3; Didache 1 ff.; Ignat. ad Eph. 14, on [Greek: agape] as the main requirement Love demands that everyone "[Greek: zetei to koinopheles pasin kai me to heautou]" (1 Clem. 48. 6, with parallels; Didache 16. 3; Barn. 4. 10; Ignatius).]

[Footnote 165: 1 Clem. 59. 2. in the Church prayer; [Greek: hopos ton arithmon ton katerithmenon ton eklekton autou en holo toi kosmo diaphulaxe athrauston ho demiourgos ton hapanton dia tou egapemenou paidos autou Iesou Christou].]

[Footnote 166: See 1 Clem., 2 Clem., Ignatius (on the basis of the Pauline view; but see also Rev. II. 9).]

[Footnote 167: See Hermas (the passage is given above, p. 103, note).]

[Footnote 168: See Hermas Vis. I-III. Papias. Fragm. VI. and VII. of my edition. 2 Clem. 14: [Greek: poiountes to thelema tou patros hemon esometha ek tes ekklesias tes protes tes pneumatikes, tes pro heliou kai selenes ektismenes.... ekklesia zosa soma esti Christou legei gar he graphe epoiesen ho theos ton anthropon arsen kai thelu. to arsen estin ho Christos, to thelu he ekklesia].]

[Footnote 169: See Barn. 13 (2 Clem. 2).]

[Footnote 170: See Valentinus in Clem. Strom. VI. 6. 52. "Holy Church", perhaps also in Marcion, if his text (Zahn. Gesch. des N.T.-lichen Kanons, II. p. 502) in Gal. IV. 21, read: [Greek: hetis estin meter humon, gennosa eis hen epengeilametha hagian ekklesian].]

[Footnote 171: Barn. 3. 6.]

[Footnote 172: We are also reminded here of the "tertium genus." The nickname of the heathen corresponded to the self-consciousness of the Christians (see Aristides, Apol).]

[Footnote 173: See also the letter of Pliny the paragraphs about Christian morality, in the first third part of Justin's apology and especially the apology of Aristides c. 15. Aristides portrays Christianity by portraying Christian morality. The Christians know and believe in God the creator of heaven and of earth, the God by whom all things consist, i.e. in him from whom they have received the commandments which they have written in their hearts commandments, which they observe in faith and in the expectation of the world to come. For this reason they do not commit adultery, nor practise unchastity, nor bear false witness, nor covet that with which they are entrusted or what does not belong to them, etc. Compare how in the Apocalypse of Peter definite penalties in hell are portrayed for the several forms of immorality.]

[Footnote 174: An investigation of the Greco Jewish Christian literature of norms and moral rules commencing with the Old Testament doctrine of wisdom on the one hand and the Stoic collections on the other then passing beyond the Alexandrian and Evangelic norms up to the Didache, the Pauline tables of domestic duties, the Sibylline sayings, Phocylides, the Neopythagorean rules and to the norms of the enigmatic Sextus, is still an unfulfilled task. The moral rules of the Pharisaic Rabbis should also be included.]

[Footnote 175: Herm. Mand. I. has merely fixed the Monotheistic confession [Greek: proton panton pisteuson, hoti eis estin ho theos, ho ta panta ktisas kai katartisas k.t.l.] See Praed Petri in Clem Strom VI. 6, 48, VI. 5, 39. Aristides gives in c. 2 of his Apology the preaching of Jesus Christ but where he wishes to give a short expression of Christianity he is satisfied with saying that Christians are those who have found the one true God. See e.g. c. 15.

Christians have found the truth. They know and believe in God the creator of heaven and of earth by whom all things consist and from whom all things come who has no other god beside him and from whom they have received commandments which they have written on their hearts, commandments which they observe in faith and in expectation of the world to come. It is interesting to note how Origen Comm. in Joh. XXXII. 9 has brought the Christological Confession into approximate harmony with that of Hermas. First Mand. I. is verbally repeated and then it is said [Greek: chre de kai pisteuein, hoti kurios Iesous Christos kai pase te peri autou kata ten theoteta kai ten anthropoteta aletheia dei de kai eis to hagion pisteuein pneuma, kai hoti autexousioi ontes kolazometha men eph' hois hamartanomen timometha de eph' hois eu prattomen].]

[Footnote 176: Very instructive here is 2 Clem. ad Corinth. 20, 5 [Greek: to mono theo aorato, patri tes aletheias, to exatosteilanti hemin ton sotera kai archegon tes aphtharsias, di' ou kai ephanerosen hemin ten aletheian kai ten epouranion zoen, auto he doxa]. On the Holy Spirit see previous note.]

[Footnote 177: They were quoted as [Greek: he graphe, ta biblia], or with the formula [Greek: ho theos (kurios) legei, gegraptai]. Also Law and Prophets. Law Prophets and Psalms. See the original of the first six books of the Apostolic Constitutions.]

[Footnote 178: See the collection of passages in Patr. App. Opp. edit. Gebhardt. 1. 2 p. 133, and the formula, Diogn. 11: [Greek: apostolon genomenos mathetes ginomai didaskalos ethnon, ta paradothenta axios hupereton ginomenois aletheias mathetais]. Besides the Old Testament and the traditions about Jesus (Gospels), the Apocalyptic writings of the Jews, which were regarded as writings of the Spirit, were also drawn upon. Moreover, Christian letters and manifestoes proceeding from Apostles, prophets, or teachers, were read. The Epistles of Paul were early collected and obtained wide circulation in the first half of the second century; but they were not Holy Scripture in the specific sense, and therefore their authority was not unqualified.]

[Footnote 179: Barn. 5. 6, [Greek: hoi prophetai, apo tou kuriou echontes ten charin, eis auton epropheteusan]. Ignat. ad Magn. 8. 2. cf. also Clem. Paedag. I. 7. 59: [Greek: ho gar autos houtos paidagogos tote men "phobethese kurion ton theon elegen, hemin de agapeseis kurion ton theon sou" tarenesen. dia touto kai entelletai hemin "pausasthe apo ton ergon humon" ton palaion hamartion, "mathete kalon poiein, ekklinon apo kakou kai poieson agathon, egapesas dikaiosunen, emisesas anomian" haute mou he nea diatheke palaioi kecharagmene grammati].]

[Footnote 180: See above Sec. 5, p. 114 f.]

[Footnote 181: See my edition of the Didache. Prolegg. p. 32 ff.; Rothe, "De disciplina arcani origine," 1841.]

[Footnote 182: The earliest example is 1 Cor. XI. 1 f. It is different in 1 Tim. III. 16, where already the question is about [Greek: to tes eusebeias mysterion]. See Patr. App. Opp. 1. 2. p. 134.]

[Footnote 183: Father, son, and spirit: Paul; Matt XXVIII. 19; 1 Clem. ad. Cor. 58. 2 (see 2. 1. f.; 42. 3; 46. 6); Didache 7; Ignat. Eph. 9. 1; Magn. 13. 1. 2.; Philad. inscr.; Mart. Polyc. 14. 1. 2; Ascens. Isai. 8 18:9. 27:10. 4:11. 32ff;, Justin passim; Montan. ap. Didym. de trinit. 411; Excerpta ex Theodot. 80; Pseudo Clem. de virg. 1 13. Yet the omission of the Holy Spirit is frequent, as in Paul, or the Holy Spirit is identified with the Spirit of Christ. The latter takes place even with such writers as are familiar with the baptismal formula. Ignat. ad Magn. 15; [Greek: kektemenoi adiakriton pneuma, hos estin Iesous Christos.].]

[Footnote 184: The formulae run: "God who has spoken through the Prophets," or the "Prophetic Spirit," etc.]

[Footnote 185: That should be assumed as certain in the case of the Egyptian Church, yet Caspari thinks he can shew that already Clement of Alexandria presupposes a symbol.]

[Footnote 186: Also in the communities of Asia Minor (Smyrna); for a combination of Polyc. Ep. c. 2 with c. 7, proves that in Smyrna the [Greek: paradotheis logos] must have been something like the Roman Symbol, see Lightfoot on the passage; it cannot be proved that it was identical with it. See, further, how in the case of Polycarp the moral element is joined on to the dogmatic. This reminds us of the Didache and has its parallel even in the first homily of Aphraates.]

[Footnote 187: See Caspari, Quellen z. Gesch. des Taufsymbols, III. p. 3 ff. and Patr. App. Opp. 1. 2. p 115-142. The old Roman Symbol reads: [Greek: Pisteuo eis theon patera pantokratora, kai eis Christon Iesoun (ton) huion autou ton monogene], (on this word see Westcott's Excursus in his commentary on 1st John) [Greek: ton kurion hemon ton gennethenta ek pneumatos hagiou kai Marias tes parthenou, ton epi Pontiou Pilatou staurothenta kai taphenta; te trite hemerai anastanta ek nekron, anabanta eis tous ouranous, kathemenon en dexia tou patros, hothen erchetai krinai zontas kai nekrous. kai eis pneuma hagion, hagian ekklesian, aphesin hamartion sarkos anastasin, amen]. To estimate this very important article aright we must note the following: (1) It is not a formula of doctrine, but of confession. (2) It has a liturgical form which is shewn in the rhythm and in the disconnected succession of its several members, and is free from everything of the nature of polemic. (3) It tapers off into the three blessings, Holy Church, forgiveness of sin, resurrection of the body, and in this as well as in the fact that there is no mention of [Greek: gnosis (aletheia) kai zoe aionos], is revealed an early Christian untheological attitude. (4) It is worthy of note, on the other hand, that the birth from the Virgin occupies the first place, and all reference to the baptism of Jesus, also to the Davidic Sonship, is wanting. (5) It is further worthy of note, that there is no express mention of the death of Jesus, and that the Ascension already forms a special member (that is also found elsewhere, Ascens. Isaiah, c. 3. 13. ed. Dillmann. p. 13. Murator. Fragment, etc.). Finally, we should consider the want of the earthly Kingdom of Christ and the mission of the twelve Apostles, as well as, on the other hand, the purely religious attitude, no notice being taken of the new law. Zahn (Das Apostol. Symbolum, 1893) assumes, "That in all essential respects the identical baptismal confession which Justin learned in Ephesus about 130, and Marcion confessed in Rome about 145, originated at latest somewhere about 120." In some "unpretending notes" (p. 37 ff.) he traces this confession back to a baptismal confession of the Pauline period ("it had already assumed a more or less stereotyped form in the earlier Apostolic period"), which, however, was somewhat revised, so far as it contained, for example, "of the house of David", with reference to Christ. "The original formula, reminding us of the Jewish soil of Christianity, was thus remodelled, perhaps about 70-120, with retention of the fundamental features, so that it might appear to answer better to the need of candidates for baptism, proceeding more and more from the Gentiles.... This changed formula soon spread on all sides. It lies at the basis of all the later baptismal confessions of the Church, even of the East. The first article was slightly changed in Rome about 200-220." While up till then, in Rome as everywhere else, it had read [Greek: pisteuo eis hena theon pantokratora], it was now changed in [Greek: pisteuo eis theon patera pantokratora]. This hypothesis, with regard to the early history of the Roman Symbol, presupposes that the history of the formation of the baptismal confession in the Church, in east and west, was originally a uniform one. This cannot be proved; besides, it is refuted by the facts of the following period. It presupposes secondly, that there was a strictly formulated baptismal confession outside Rome before the middle of the second century, which likewise cannot be proved; (the converse rather is probable, that the fixed formulation proceeded from Rome.) Moreover, Zahn himself retracts everything again by the expression "more or less stereotyped form;" for what is of decisive interest here is the question, when and where the fixed sacred form was produced. Zahn here has set up the radical thesis that it can only have taken place in Rome between 200 and 220. But neither his negative nor his positive proof for a change of the Symbol in Rome at so late a period is sufficient. No sure conclusion as to the Symbol can be drawn from the wavering regulae fidei of Irenaeus and Tertullian which contain the "unum"; further, the "unum" is not found in the western provincial Symbols, which, however, are in part earlier than the year 200. The Romish correction must therefore have been subsequently taken over in the provinces (Africa?). Finally, the formula [Greek: theon patera pantokratora] beside the more frequent [Greek: theon pantokratora] is attested by Irenaeus, I. 10. 1, a decisive passage. With our present means we cannot attain to any direct knowledge of Symbol formation before the Romish Symbol. But the following hypotheses, which I am not able to establish here, appear to me to correspond to the facts of the case and to be fruitful: (1) There were, even in the earliest period, separate Kerygmata about God and Christ: see the Apostolic writings, Hermas, Ignatius, etc. (2) The Kerygma about God was the confession of the one God of creation, the almighty God. (3) The Kerygma about Christ had essentially the same historical contents everywhere, but was expressed in diverse forms: (a) in the form of the fulfilment of prophecy, (b) in the form [Greek: kata sarka, kata pneuma], (c) in the form of the first and second advent, (d) in the form, [Greek: katabas-anabas]; these forms were also partly combined. (4) The designations "Christ", "Son of God" and "Lord"; further, the birth from the Holy Spirit, or [Greek: kata pneuma], the sufferings (the practice of exorcism contributed also to the fixing and naturalising of the formula "crucified under Pontius Pilate"), the death, the resurrection, the coming again to judgment, formed the stereotyped content of the Kerygma about Jesus. The mention of the Davidic Sonship, of the Virgin Mary, of the baptism by John, of the third day, of the descent into Hades, of the demonstratio verae carnis post resurrectionem, of the ascension into heaven and the sending out of the disciples, were additional articles which appeared here and there. The [Greek: sarka labon], and the like, were very early developed out of the forms (b) and (d). All this was already in existence at the transition of the first century to the second. (5) The proper contribution of the Roman community consisted in this, that it inserted the Kerygma about God and that about Jesus into the baptismal formula, widened the clause referring to the Holy Spirit, into one embracing Holy Church, forgiveness of sin, resurrection of the body, excluded theological theories in other respects, undertook a reduction all round, and accurately defined everything up to the last world. (6) The western regulae fidei do not fall back exclusively on the old Roman Symbol, but also on the earlier freer Kerygmata about God and about Jesus which were common to the east and west; not otherwise can the regulae fidei of Irenaeus and Tertullian, for example, be explained. But the symbol became more and more the support of the regula. (7) The eastern confessions (baptismal symbols) do not fall back directly on the Roman Symbol, but were probably on the model of this symbol, made up from the provincial Kerygmata, rich in contents and growing ever richer, hardly, however, before the third century. (8) It cannot be proved, and it is not probable, that the Roman Symbol was in existence before Hermas, that is, about 135.]

[Footnote 188: See the fragment in Euseb. H. E. III. 39, from the work of Papias.]

[Footnote 189: [Greek: Didache kurion dia ton ib' apostolon] (Did. inscr.) is the most accurate expression (similarly 2 Pet. III. 2). Instead of this might be said simply [Greek: ho kurios] (Hegesipp.). Hegesippus (Euseb. H. E. IV. 22. 3; See also Steph. Gob.) comprehends the ultimate authorities under the formula: [Greek: hos ho nomos kerussei kai hoi prophetai kai ho kurios], just as even Pseudo Clem de Virg. I. 2: "Sicut ex lege ac prophetis et a domino nostro Jesu Christo didicimus." Polycarp (6.3) says: [Greek: kathos autos eneteilato kai hoi euangelisamenoi hemas apostoloi kai hoi prophetai hoi prokeruxantes ten eleusin tou kuriou hemon]. In the second Epistle of Clement (14. 2) we read: [Greek: ta biblia] (O.T.) [Greek: kai hoi apostoloi, to euangelion] may also stand for [Greek: ho kurios]; (Ignat., Didache. 2 Clem. etc.). The Gospel, so far as it is described, is quoted as [Greek: ta apomnemoneumata t. apostolon] (Justin, Tatian), or on the other hand, as [Greek: hai kuriakai graphai], (Dionys. Cor. in Euseb. H. E. IV. 23. 12: at a later period in Tertull. and Clem. Alex.). The words of the Lord, in the same way as the words of God, are called simply [Greek: ta logia (kuriaka)]. The declaration of Serapion at the beginning of the third century (Euseb., H. E. VI. 12. 3): [Greek: hemeis kai Petron kai tous allous apostolous apodechometha hos Christon], is an innovation in so far as it puts the words of the Apostles fixed in writing and as distinct from the words of the Lord, on a level with the latter. That is, while differentiating the one from the other, Serapion ascribes to the words of the apostles and those of the Lord equal authority. But the development which led to this position, had already begun in the first century. At a very early period there were read in the communities, beside the Old Testament, Gospels, that is collections of words of the Lord, which at the same time contained the main facts of the history of Jesus. Such notes were a necessity (Luke 1.4; [Greek: hina epignos peri hon katechethes logon ten asphaleian]), and though still indefinite and in many ways unlike, they formed the germ for the genesis of the New Testament. (See Weiss, Lehrb. d. Einleit in d. N. T. p. 21 ff.). Further there were read Epistles and Manifestoes by apostles, prophets and teachers, but, above all, Epistles of Paul. The Gospels at first stood in no connection with these Epistles, however high they might be prized. But there did exist a connection between the Gospels and the [Greek: ap' arches autoptais kai huperetais tou logou], so far as these mediated the tradition of the Evangelic material, and on their testimony rests the Kerygma of the Church about the Lord as the Teacher, the crucified and risen One. Here lies the germ for the genesis of a canon which will comprehend the Lord and the Apostles, and will also draw in the Pauline Epistles. Finally, Apocalypses were read as Holy Scriptures.]

[Footnote 190: Read, apart from all others, the canonical Gospels, the remains of the so-called Apocryphal Gospels, and perhaps the Shepherd of Hermas: see also the statements of Papias.]

[Footnote 191: That Peter was in Antioch follows from Gal. II.; that he laboured in Corinth, perhaps before the composition of the first epistle to the Corinthians, is not so improbable as is usually maintained (1 Cor.; Dionys. of Corinth); that he was at Rome even is very credible. The sojourn of John in Asia Minor cannot, I think, be contested.]

[Footnote 192: See how in the three early "writings of Peter" (Gospel, Apocalypse, Kerygma) the twelve are embraced in a perfect unity. Peter is the head and spokesman for them all.]

[Footnote 193: See Papias and the Reliq. Presbyter, ap. Iren., collecta in Patr. Opp. I. 2, p. 105: see also Zahn, Forschungen. III., p. 156 f.]

[Footnote 194: The Gentile-Christian conception of the significance of the twelve—a fact to be specially noted—was all but unanimous (see above Chap. II.): the only one who broke through it was Marcion. The writers of Asia Minor, Rome and Egypt coincide in this point. Beside the Acts of the Apostles, which is specially instructive, see 1 Clem. 42; Barn 5. 9, 8. 3: Didache inscr.; Hermas, Vis. III. 5, 11; Sim. IX. 15, 16, 17, 25; Petrusev-Petrusapok. Praed. Petr. ap. Clem. Strom. VI. 6, 48; Ignat. ad Trall. 3; ad Rom 4; ad Philad. 5; Papias; Polyc., Aristides; Justin passim; inferences from the great work of Irenaeus, the works of Tertull. and Clem. Alex; the Valentinians. The inference that follows from the eschatological hope, that the Gospel has already been preached to the world, and the growing need of having a tradition mediated by eye-witnesses co-operated here, and out of the twelve who were in great part obscure, but who had once been authoritative in Jerusalem and Palestine, and highly esteemed in the Christian Diaspora from the beginning, though unknown, created a court of appeal, which presented itself as not only taking a second rank after the Lord himself, but as the medium through which alone the words of the Lord became the possession of Christendom, as he neither preached to the nations nor left writings. The importance of the twelve in the main body of the Church may at any rate be measured by the facts, that the personal activity of Jesus was confined to Palestine, that he left behind him neither a confession nor a doctrine, and that in this respect the tradition tolerated no more corrections. Attempts which were made in this direction, the fiction of a semi-Gentile origin of Christ, the denial of the Davidic Sonship, the invention of a correspondence between Jesus and Abgarus, meetings of Jesus with Greeks, and much else, belong only in part to the earliest period, and remained as really inoperative as they were uncertain (according to Clem. Alex., Jesus himself is the Apostle to the Jews; the twelve are the Apostles to the Gentiles in Euseb. H. E. VI. 141). The notion about the twelve Apostles evangelising the world in accordance with the commission of Jesus, is consequently to be considered as the means by which the Gentile Christians got rid of the inconvenient fact of the merely local activity of Jesus (compare how Justin expresses himself about the Apostles: their going out into all the world is to him one of the main articles predicted in the Old Testament, Apol. 1. 39; compare also the Apology of Aristides, c. 2, and the passage of similar tenor in the Ascension of Isaiah, where the "adventus XII. discipulorum" is regarded as one of the fundamental facts of salvation, c. 3. 13, ed. Dillmann, p 13, and a passage such as Iren. fragm. XXIX. in Harvey II., p. 494, where the parable about the grain of mustard seed is applied to the [Greek: logos epouranios] and the twelve Apostles; the Apostles are the branches [Greek: hup' hon kladon skepasthentes hoi pantes hos ornea hupo kalian sunelthonta metelabon tes ex auton proerchomenes edodimou kai epouraniou trophes] Hippol. de Antichr. 61. Orig. c. Cels. III. 28). This means, as it was empty of contents, was very soon to prove the most convenient instrument for establishing ever new historical connections, and legitimising the status quo in the communities. Finally, the whole catholic idea of tradition was rooted in that statement which was already, at the close of the first century, formulated by Clement of Rome (c. 42): [Greek: hoi apostoloi hemin euengelisthesan apo tou kuriou Iesou Christou, Iesous ho christos apo tou theou exepemphthe. ho christos oun apo tou theou, kai hoi apostoloi apo tou Christou; egenonto oun amphotera eutaktos ek thelematos theou, k.t.l.] Here, as in all similar statements which elevate the Apostles into the history of revelation, the unanimity of all the Apostles is always presupposed, so that the statement of Clem. Alex. (Strom VII., 17, 108: [Greek: mia he panton gegone ton apostolon hosper didaskalia houtos de kai he paradosis], see Tertull., de praescr. 32: "Apostoli non diversa inter se docuerent," Iren. alii), contains no innovation, but gives expression to an old idea: That the twelve unitedly proclaimed one and the same message, that they proclaimed it to the world, that they were chosen to this vocation by Christ, that the communities possess the witness of the Apostles as their rule of conduct (Excerp. ex Theod. 25 [Greek: hosper hupo ton zodion he genesis dioikeitai houtos hupo ton apostolon he anagennesis]) are authoritative theses which can be traced back as far as we have any remains of Gentile-Chnstian literature. It was thereby presupposed that the unanimous kerygma of the twelve Apostles which the communities possess as [Greek: kanon tes paradoseos] (1 Clem. 7), was public and accessible to all. Yet the idea does not seem to have been everywhere kept at a distance that besides the kerygma a still deeper knowledge was transmitted by the Apostles or by certain Apostles to particular Christians who were specially gifted. Of course we have no direct evidence of this, but the connection in which certain Gnostic unions stood at the beginning with the communities developing themselves to Catholicism and inferences from utterances of later writers (Clem. Alex. Tertull.), make it probable that this conception was present in the communities here and there even in the age of the so-called Apostolic Fathers. It may be definitely said that the peculiar idea of tradition ([Greek: theos—christos—hoi dodeka apostoloi—ekklesiai]) in the Gentile Churches is very old but that it was still limited in its significance at the beginning and was threatened (1) by a wider conception of the idea 'Apostle' (besides, the fact is important that Asia Minor and Rome were the very places where a stricter idea of Apostle made its appearance. See my Edition of the Didache, p. 117), (2) by free prophets and teachers moved by the Spirit, who introduced new conceptions and rules and whose word was regarded as the word of God, (3) by the assumption not always definitely rejected, that besides the public tradition of the kerygma there was a secret tradition. That Paul as a rule was not included in this high estimate of the Apostles is shewn by this fact among others, that the earlier Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles are much less occupied with his person than with the rest of the Apostles. The features of the old legends which make the Apostles in their deeds, their fate, nay even in appearance as far as possible, equal to the person of Jesus himself deserve special consideration (see, for example the descent of the Apostles into hell in Herm. Sim. IX. 16), for it is just here that the fact above established that the activity of the Apostles was to make up for the want of the activity of Jesus himself among the nations stands clearly out (See Acta Johannis ed. Zahn p 246 [Greek: ho eklexamenos hemas eis apostolen ethnon ho ekpempsas hemas eis ten oikoumenen theos ho deixas heauton dia ton apostolon] also the remarkable declaration of Origen about the Chronicle of Phlegon [Hadrian], that what holds good of Christ, is in that Chronicle transferred to Peter; finally we may recall to mind the visions in which an Apostle suddenly appears as Christ). Between the judgment of value [Greek: hemeis tous apostolous apodechometha hos Christon] and those creations of fancy in which the Apostles appear as gods and demigods there is certainly a great interval but it can be proved that there are stages lying between these extreme points. It is therefore permissible to call to mind here the oldest Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles although they may have originated almost completely in Gnostic circles (see also the Pistis Sophia which brings a metaphysical theory to the establishment of the authority of the Apostles, p. 11, 14; see Texte u Unters VII. 2 p. 61 ff.). Gnosticism here as frequently elsewhere is related to common Christianity as excess progressing to the invention of a myth with a tendency to a historical theorem determined by the effort to maintain one's own position; cf. the article from the kerygma of Peter in Clem. Strom. VI. 6, 48 [Greek: Exelexamen humas dodeka mathetas, k.t.l.] the introduction to the basal writing of the first 6 books of the Apostolic Constitutions and the introduction to the Egyptian ritual, [Greek: kata keleusin tou kuriou humon k.t.l.] Besides it must be admitted that the origin of the idea of tradition and its connection with the twelve is obscure; what is historically reliable here has still to be investigated, even the work of Seufert (Der Urspr. u. d. Bedeutung des Apostolats in der christl Kirche der ersten zwei Jahrhunderte, 1887) has not cleared up the dark points. We will perhaps get more light by following the important hint given by Weizsaecker (Apost. Age p. 13 ff.) that Peter was the first witness of the resurrection, and was called such in the kerygma of the communities (see 1 Cor. XV., 5 Luke XXIV. 34). The twelve Apostles are also further called [Greek: hoi peri ton Petron] (Mrc. fin. in L Ign. ad Smyrn. 3, cf. Luke VIII. 45, Acts II. 14, Gal. I. 18 f., 1 Cor. XV. 5), and it is a correct historical reminiscence when Chrysostom says (Hom. in Joh. 88), [Greek: ho Petros ekeritos en ton apostolon kai stoma ton matheton kai koruphe tou chorou.] Now as Peter was really in personal relation with important Gentile-Christian communities, that which held good of him, the recognized head and spokesman of the twelve, was perhaps transferred to these. One has finally to remember that besides the appeal to the twelve there was in the Gentile Churches an appeal to Peter and Paul (but not for the evangelic kerygma) which has a certain historical justification, cf. Gal. II. 8, 1 Cor. I. 12 f., IX. 5, 1 Clem. Ign. ad Rom. 4 and the numerous later passages. Paul in claiming equality with Peter, though Peter was the head and mouth of the twelve and had himself been active in mission work, has perhaps contributed most towards spreading the authority of the twelve. It is notable how rarely we find any special appeal to John in the tradition of the main body of the Church. For the middle of the 2nd century the authority of the twelve Apostles may be expressed in the following statements: (1) They were missionaries for the world, (2) They ruled the Church and established Church Offices, (3) They guaranteed the true doctrine (a) by the tradition going back to them, (b) by writings, (4) They are the ideals of Christian life, (5) They are also directly mediators of salvation—though this point is uncertain.]

[Footnote 195: See Didache c. 1-10, with parallel passages.]

[Footnote 196: Cf., for example, the first epistle of Clement to the Corinthians with the Shepherd of Hermas. Both documents originated in Rome.]

[Footnote 197: Compare how dogmatic and ethical elements are inseparably united in the Shepherd, in first and second Clement, as well as in Polycarp and Justin.]

[Footnote 198: Note the hymnal parts of the Revelation of John, the great prayer with which the first epistle of Clement closes, the "carmen dicere Christo quasi deo," reported by Pliny, the eucharist prayer in the [Greek: Didache], the hymn 1 Tim. III. 16, the fragments from the prayers which Justin quotes, and compare with these the declaration of the anonymous writer in Euseb. H. E. V. 28. 5, that the belief of the earliest Christians in the Deity of Christ might be proved from the old Christian hymns and odes. In the epistles of Ignatius the theology frequently consists of an aimless stringing together of articles manifestly originating in hymns and the cultus.]

[Footnote 199: The prophet and teacher express what the Spirit of God suggests to them. Their word is therefore God's word, and their writings, in so far as they apply to the whole of Christendom, are inspired, holy writings. Further, not only does Acts XV. 22 f. exhibit the formula [Greek: edoxen toi pneumati toi hagioi kai hemin] (see similar passages in the Acts), but the Roman writings also appeal to the Holy Spirit (1 Clem. 63. 2): likewise Barnabas, Ignatius, etc. Even in the controversy about the baptism of heretics a Bishop gave his vote with the formula: "secundum motum animi mei et spiritus sancti" (Cypr. Opp. ed. Hartel, I. p. 457).]

[Footnote 200: The so-called Chiliasm—the designation is unsuitable and misleading—is found wherever the Gospel is not yet Hellenised (see, for example, Barn. 4. 15; Hermas; 2 Clem.; Papias [Euseb. III. 39]; [Greek: Didache], 10. 16; Apoc. Petri; Justin. Dial. 32, 51, 80, 82, 110, 139; Cerinthus), and must be regarded as a main element of the Christian preaching (see my article "Millenium" in the Encycl. Brit.) In it lay not the least of the power of Christianity in the first century, and the means whereby it entered the Jewish propaganda in the Empire and surpassed it. The hopes springing out of Judaism were at first but little modified, that is, only so far as the substitution of the Christian communities for the nation of Israel made modification necessary. In all else even the details of the Jewish hopes of the future were retained, and the extra-canonical Jewish Apocalypses (Esra, Enoch, Baruch, Moses, etc.) were diligently read alongside of Daniel. Their contents were in part joined on to sayings of Jesus and they served as models for similar productions (here therefore an enduring connection with the Jewish religion is very plain). In the Christian hopes of the future as in the Jewish eschatology may be distinguished essential and accidental fixed and fluid elements. To the former belong: (1) the notion of a final fearful conflict with the powers of the world which is just about to break out [Greek: to teleion skandalon engiken], (2) belief in the speedy return of Christ, (3) the conviction that after conquering the secular power (this was variously conceived as God's Ministers as that which restrains—2 Thess. II. 6, as a pure kingdom of Satan see the various estimates in Justin, Melito, Irenaeus and Hippolytus) Christ will establish a glorious kingdom on the earth and will raise the saints to share in that kingdom, and (4) that he will finally judge all men. To the fluid elements belong the notions of the Antichrist or of the secular power culminating in the Antichrist as well as notions about the place, the extent, and the duration of Christ's glorious kingdom. But it is worthy of special note that Justin regarded the belief that Christ will set up his kingdom in Jerusalem, and that it will endure for 1000 years, as a necessary element of orthodoxy, though he confesses he knew Christians who did not share this belief, while they did not like the pseudo Christians reject also the resurrection of the body (the promise of Montanus that Christ's kingdom would be let down at Pepuza and Tymion is a thing by itself and answers to the other promises and pretensions of Montanus). The resurrection of the body is expressed in the Roman Symbol while very notably the hope of Christ's earthly kingdom is not there mentioned (see above p. 157). The great inheritance which the Gentile Christian communities received from Judaism is the eschatological hopes along with the Monotheism assured by revelation and belief in providence. The law as a national law was abolished. The Old Testament became a new book in the hands of the Gentile Christians. On the contrary the eschatological hopes in all their details and with all the deep shadows which they threw on the state and public life were at first received and maintained themselves in wide circles pretty much unchanged and only succumbed in some of their details—just as in Judaism—to the changes which resulted from the constant change of the political situation. But these hopes were also destined in great measure to pass away after the settlement of Christianity on Graeco-Roman soil. We may set aside the fact that they did not occupy the foreground in Paul, for we do not know whether this was of importance for the period that followed. But that Christ would set up the kingdom in Jerusalem, and that it would be an earthly kingdom with sensuous enjoyments—these and other notions contend on the one hand with the vigorous antijudaism of the communities, and on the other with the moralistic spiritualism, in the pure carrying out of which the Gentile Christians in the East at least increasingly recognised the essence of Christianity. Only the vigorous world renouncing enthusiasm which did not permit the rise of moralistic spiritualism and mysticism, and the longing for a time of joy and dominion that was born of it, protected for a long time a series of ideas which corresponded to the spiritual disposition of the great multitude of converts only at times of special oppression. Moreover the Christians in opposition to Judaism were, as a rule, instructed to obey magistrates whose establishment directly contradicted the judgment of the state contained in the Apocalypses. In such a conflict however that judgment necessarily conquers at last which makes as little change as possible in the existing forms of life. A history of the gradual attenuation and subsidence of eschatologlcal hopes in the II.-IV. centuries can only be written in fragments. They have rarely—at best by fits and starts—marked out the course. On the contrary if I may say so they only gave the smoke, for the course was pointed out by the abiding elements of the Gospel, trust in God and the Lord Christ, the resolution to a holy life, and a firm bond of brotherhood. The quiet gradual change, in which the eschatologlcal hopes passed away fell into the background or lost important parts, was on the other hand a result of deep reaching changes in the faith and life of Christendom. Chiliasm as a power was broken up by speculative mysticism and on that account very much later in the West than in the East. But speculative mysticism has its centre in christology. In the earliest period this as a theory belonged more to the defence of religion than to religion itself. Ignatius alone was able to reflect on that transference of power from Christ which Paul had experienced. The disguises in which the apocalyptic eschatologlcal prophecies were set forth belonged in part to the form of this literature (in so far as one could easily be given the lie if he became too plain or in so far as the prophet really saw the future only in large outline) partly it had to be chosen in order not to give political offence. See Hippol. comm. in Daniel (Georgiades, p. 49, 51. [Greek: noein opheilomen ta kata kairon sumbainonta kai eidotas siopan]), but above all Constantine orat. ad s. coetum 19, on some verses of Virgil which are interpreted in a Christian sense but that none of the rulers in the capital might be able to accuse their author of violating the laws of the state with his poetry or of destroying the traditional ideas of the procedure about the gods he concealed the truth under a veil. That holds good also of the Apocalyptists and the poets of the Christian Sibylline sayings.]

[Footnote 201: The hope of the resurrection of the body (1 Clem. 26. 3 [Greek: anasteseis ten sarka mou tauten], Herm. Sim. V. 7. 2 [Greek: blepe metote anabe epi ten kardian sou ten sarka sou tauten phtharten einai]. Barn. 5. 6 f., 21. 1, 2 Clem. 9. 1 [Greek: kai me legeto tis humon oti haute he sarx ou krinetai oude anistatai]. Polyc. Ep. 7. 2, Justin Dial. 80, etc.) finds its place originally in the hope of a share in the glorious kingdom of Christ. It therefore disappears or is modified wherever that hope itself falls into the background. But it finally asserted itself through out and became of independent importance in a new structure of eschatologlcal expectations in which it attained the significance of becoming the specific conviction of Christian faith. With the hope of the resurrection of the body was originally connected the hope of a happy life in easy blessedness under green trees in magnificent fields with joyous feeding flocks and flying angels clothed in white. One must read the Revelation of Peter the Shepherd or the Acts of Perpetua and Felicitas in order to see how entirely the fancy of many Christians and not merely of those who were uncultured dwelt in a fairyland in which they caught sight now of the Ancient of days and now of the Youthful Shepherd Christ. The most fearful delineations of the torments of Hell formed the reverse side to this. We now know through the Apocalypse of Peter, how old these delineations are.]

[Footnote 202: The perfect knowledge of the truth and eternal life are connected in the closest way (see p. 144, note 1) because the Father of truth is also Prince of life (see Diognet. 12: [Greek: oude gar zoe aneu gnoseos oude gnosis asphales aneu zoes alethous dio plesion ekateron pephyteutai], see also what follows). The classification is a Hellenic one, which has certainly penetrated also into Palestinian Jewish theology. It may be reckoned among the great intuitions, which in the fulness of the times, united the religious and reflective minds of all nations. The Pauline formula, "Where there is forgiveness of sin, there also is life and salvation", had for centuries no distinct history. But the formula, "Where there is truth, perfect knowledge, there also is eternal life", has had the richest history in Christendom from the beginning. Quite apart from John, it is older than the theology of the Apologists (see, for example, the Supper prayer in the Didache, 9. 10, where there is no mention of the forgiveness of sin, but thanks are given, [Greek: huper tes gnoseos kai pisteos kai athanasias hes egnorisen hemin ho theos dia Iesou], or [Greek: huper tes zoes kai gnoseos], and 1 Clem. 36. 2: [Greek: dia touto ethelesen ho despotes tes athanatou gnoseos hemas geusasthai]). It is capable of a very manifold content, and has never made its way in the Church without reservations, but so far as it has we may speak of a hellenising of Christianity. This is shewn most clearly in the fact that the [Greek: athanasia], identical with [Greek: aphtharsia] and [Greek: zoe aionios], as is proved by their being often interchanged, gradually supplanted the [Greek: basileia tou theou] ([Greek: christou]) and thrust it out of the sphere of religious intuition and hope into that of religious speech. It should also be noted, at the same time, that in the hope of eternal life which is bestowed with the knowledge of the truth, the resurrection of the body is by no means with certainty included. It is rather added to it (see above) from another series of ideas. Conversely, the words [Greek: zoen aionion] were first added to the words [Greek: sarkos anastasin] in the western Symbols at a comparatively late period, while in the prayers they are certainly very old.]

[Footnote 203: Even the assumption of such a remission is fundamentally in contradiction with moralism; but that solitary remission of sin was not called in question, was rather regarded as distinctive of the new religion, and was established by an appeal to the omnipotence and special goodness of God, which appears just in the calling of sinners. In this calling, grace as grace is exhausted (Barn. 5. 9; 2 Clem. 2. 4-7). But this grace itself seems to be annulled, inasmuch as the sins committed before baptism were regarded as having been committed in a state of ignorance (Tertull. de bapt. I.: delicta pristinae caecitatis), on account of which it seemed worthy of God to forgive them, that is, to accept the repentance which followed on the ground of the new knowledge. So considered, everything, in point of fact, amounts to the gracious gift of knowledge, and the memory of the saying, "Jesus receiveth sinners", is completely obscured. But the tradition of this saying and many like it, and above all, the religious instinct, where it was more powerfully stirred, did not permit a consistent development of that moralistic conception. See for this, Hermas, Sim. V. 7. 3: [Greek: peri ton proteron agnoematon toi theoi monoi dunaton iasin dounai; autou gar esti pasa exousia]. Praed. Petri ap. Clem. Strom. VI. 6. 48: [Greek: hosa en agnoia tis humon epoiesen me eidos saphos ton theon, ean epignous metanoesei, panta autoi aphethesetai ta hamartemata]. Aristides, Apol. 17: "The Christians offer prayers (for the unconverted Greeks) that they may be converted from their error. But when one of them is converted he is ashamed before the Christians of the works which he has done. And he confesses to God, saying: 'I have done these things in ignorance.' And he cleanses his heart, and his sins are forgiven him, because he had done them in ignorance, in the earlier period when he mocked and jeered at the true knowledge of the Christians." Exactly the same in Tertull. de pudic. so. init. The statement of this same writer (1. c. fin), "Cessatio delicti radix est veniae, ut venia sit paenitentiae fructus", is a pregnant expression of the conviction of the earliest Gentile Christians.]

[Footnote 204: This idea appears with special prominence in the Epistle of Barnabas (see 6. 11. 14); the new formation ([Greek: anaplassein]) results through the forgiveness of sin. In the moralistic view the forgiveness of sin is the result of the renewal that is spontaneously brought about on the ground of knowledge shewing itself in penitent feeling.]

[Footnote 205: Barn. 2. 6, and my notes on the passage.]

[Footnote 206: James I. 25.]

[Footnote 207: Hermas. Sim. VIII. 3. 2; Justin Dial. II. 43; Praed. Petri in Clem., Strom. I. 29. 182; II. 15. 68.]

[Footnote 208: Didache, c. 1., and my notes on the passage (Prolegg. p. 45 f.).]

[Footnote 209: The concepts, [Greek: epangelia, gnosis, nomos], form the Triad on which the later catholic conception of Christianity is based, though it can be proved to have been in existence at an earlier period. That [Greek: pistis] must everywhere take the lead was undoubted, though we must not think of the Pauline idea of [Greek: pistis]. When the Apostolic Fathers reflect upon faith, which, however, happens only incidentally, they mean a holding for true of a sum of holy traditions, and obedience to them, along with the hope that their consoling contents will yet be fully revealed. But Ignatius speaks like a Christian who knows what he possesses in faith in Christ, that is, in confidence in him. In Barn. 1, Polyc. Ep. 2, we find "faith, hope, love"; in Ignatius, "faith and love." Tertullian, in an excellent exposition, has shewn how far patience is a temper corresponding to Christian faith (see besides the Epistle of James).]

[Footnote 210: See Lipsius De Clementis R. ep. ad. Cor. priore disquis. 1855. It would be in point of method inadmissible to conclude from the fact that in 1 Clem. Pauline formulae are relatively most faithfully produced, that Gentile Christianity generally understood Pauline theology at first, but gradually lost this understanding in the course of two generations.]

[Footnote 211: Formally: [Greek: teresate ten sarka agnen kai ten sphragida aspilon] (2 Clem. 8. 6).]

[Footnote 212: Hermas (Mand. IV. 3) and Justin presuppose it. Hermas of course sought and found a way of meeting the results of that idea which were threatening the Church with decimation; but he did not question the idea itself. Because Christendom is a community of saints which has in its midst the sure salvation, all its members—this is the necessary inference—must lead a sinless life.]

[Footnote 213: The formula, "righteousness by faith alone", was really repressed in the second century; but it could not be entirely destroyed: see my Essay, "Gesch. d. Seligkeit allein durch den Glauben in der alten K." Ztsch. f. Theol. u Kirche. I. pp. 82-105.]

[Footnote 214: The only thorough discussion of the use of the Old Testament by an Apostolic Father, and of its authority, that we possess, is Wrede's "Untersuchungen zum 1 Clemensbrief" (1891). Excellent preliminary investigations, which, however, are not everywhere quite reliable, may be found in Hatch's Essays in Biblical Greek, 1889. Hatch has taken up again the hypothesis of earlier scholars, that there were very probably in the first and second centuries systematised extracts from the Old Testament (see p. 203-214). The hypothesis is not yet quite established (see Wrede, above work, p. 65), but yet it is hardly to be rejected. The Jewish catechetical and missionary instruction in the Diaspora needed such collections, and their existence seem to be proved by the Christian Apologies and the Sybilline books.]

[Footnote 215: It is an extremely important fact that the words of the Lord were quoted and applied in their literal sense (that is chiefly for the statement of Christian morality) by Ecclesiastical authors, almost without exception, up to and inclusive of Justin. It was different with the theologians of the age, that is the Gnostics, and the Fathers from Irenaeus.]

[Footnote 216: Justin was not the first to do so, for it had already been done by the so-called Barnabas (see especially c. 13) and others. On the proofs from prophecy see my Texte und Unters. Bd. I. 3. pp. 56-74. The passage in the Praed. Petri (Clem. Strom. VI. 15. 128) is very complete: [Greek: Hemis anaptixantes tas biblous tas eichomen ton propheton, ha men dia parabolon ha de dia ainigmaton, ha de authentikos kai autolexei ton Christon Iesoun onomazonton, euromen kai ten parousian autou kai ton thanaton kai ton stauron kai tas loipas kolaseis pasas, hosas epoiesan auto hoi Ioudaioi, kai ten egersin kai ten eis ouranous analepsin pro tou Hiersoluma krithenai, kathos egegrapto tauta panta ha edei auton pathein kai met' auton ha estai; tauta oun epignontes episteusamen to theo dia ton gegrammennon eis auton.] With the help of the Old Testament the teachers dated back the Christian religion to the beginning of the human race, and joined the preparations for the founding of the Christian community with the creation of the world. The Apologists were not the first to do so, for Barnabas and Hermas, and before these, Paul, the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, and others had already done the same. This was undoubtedly to the cultured classes one of the most impressive articles in the missionary preaching. The Christian religion in this way got a hold which the others—with the exception of the Jewish—lacked. But for that very reason, we must guard against turning it into a formula, that the Gentile Christians had comprehended the Old Testament essentially through the scheme of prediction and fulfilment. The Old Testament is certainly the book of predictions, but for that very reason the complete revelation of God which needs no additions and excludes subsequent changes. The historical fulfilment only proves to the world the truth of those revelations. Even the scheme of shadow and reality is yet entirely out of sight. In such circumstances the question necessarily arises, as to what independent meaning and significance Christ's appearance could have, apart from that confirmation of the Old Testament. But, apart from the Gnostics, a surprisingly long time passed before this question was raised, that is to say, it was not raised till the time of Irenaeus.]

[Footnote 217: See [Greek: Didache], 8.]

[Footnote 218: See the Revelation of John II. 9; III. 9; but see also the "Jews" in the Gospels of John and of Peter. The latter exonerates Pilate almost completely, and makes the Jews and Herod responsible for the crucifixion.]

[Footnote 219: See Barn. 9. 4. In the second epistle of Clement the Jews are called: [Greek: hoi dokiountes echein theon], cf. Praed. Petri in Clem., Strom. VI. 5. 41: [Greek: mede kata Ioudaious sebesthe, kai gar ekeinoi monoi oiomenoi ton theon gignoskein ouk epistantai, latreuontes angelois kai archangelois, meni kai selene, kai ean me selene phanei, sabbaton ouk agousi to legomenon proton, oude neomenian agousin, oude azuma, oude heorten, oude megalen hemera]. (Cf. Diognet. 34.) Even Justin does not judge the Jews more favourably than the Gentiles, but less favourably; see Apol I. 37, 39, 43, 34, 47, 53, 60. On the other hand, Aristides (Apol. c. 14, especially in the Syrian text) is much more friendly disposed to the Jews and recognises them more. The words of Pionius against and about the Jews, in the "Acta Pionii," c. 4, are very instructive.]

[Footnote 220: Barn. 4. 6. f.; 14. 1 f. The author of Praed. Petri must have had a similar view of the matter.]

[Footnote 221: Justin in the Dialogue with Trypho.]

[Footnote 222: Barn. 9 f. It is a thorough misunderstanding of Barnabas' position towards the Old Testament to suppose it possible to pass over his expositions, c. 6-10, as oddities and caprices, and put them aside as indifferent or unmethodical. There is nothing here unmethodical, and therefore nothing arbitrary. Barnabas' strictly spiritual idea of God, and the conviction that all (Jewish) ceremonies are of the devil, compel his explanations. These are so little ingenious conceits to Barnabas that, but for them, he would have been forced to give up the Old Testament altogether. The account, for example, of Abraham having circumcised his slaves would have forced Barnabas to annul the whole authority of the Old Testament if he had not succeeded in giving it a particular interpretation. He does this by combining other passages of Genesis with the narrative, and then finding in it no longer circumcision, but a prediction of the crucified Christ.]

[Footnote 223: Barn. 9. 6: [Greek: all' ereis, kai men peritetmetai ho laos eis sphragida].]

[Footnote 224: See the expositions of Justin in the Dial. (especially, 16, 18, 20, 30, 40-46); Von Engelhardt, "Christenthum Justin's", p. 429, ff. Justin has the three estimates side by side. (1) That the ceremonial law was a paedagogic measure of God with reference to a stiff-necked people, prone to idolatry. (2) That it—like circumcision—was to make the people conspicuous for the execution of judgment, according to the Divine appointment. (3) That in the ceremonial legal worship of the Jews is exhibited the special depravity and wickedness of the nation. But Justin conceived the Decalogue as the natural law of reason, and therefore definitely distinguished it from the ceremonial law.]

[Footnote 225: See Ztschr fur K.G. I., p. 330 f.]

[Footnote 226: This is the unanimous opinion of all writers of the post-Apostolic age. Christians are the true Israel; and therefore all Israel's predicates of honour belong to them. They are the twelve tribes, and therefore Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, are the Fathers of the Christians. This idea, about which there was no wavering, cannot everywhere be traced back to the Apostle Paul. The Old Testament men of God were in a certain measure Christians. See Ignat. Magn. 8. 2: [Greek: hoi prophetai kata Christon Iesoun ezesan].]

[Footnote 227: God was naturally conceived and represented as corporeal by uncultured Christians, though not by these alone, as the later controversies prove (e.g., Orig. contra Melito; see also Tertull. De anima). In the case of the cultured, the idea of a corporeality of God may be traced back to Stoic influences; in the case of the uncultured, popular ideas co-operated with the sayings of the Old Testament literally understood, and the impression of the Apocalyptic images.]

[Footnote 228: See Joh. IV. 22, [Greek: hemeis proskunoumen ho oidamen]. 1 Clem. 59. 3, 4, Herm. Mand. I., Praed Petri in Clem., Strom. VI. 5. 9 [Greek: ginoskete hoti eis theos estin, hos archen panton epoiesen, kai telous exousian echon]. Aristides Apol. 15 (Syr) "The Christians know and believe in God, the creator of heaven and of earth." Chap. 16 "Christians as men who know God pray to him for things which it becomes him to give and them to receive." Similarly Justin: "From very many old Gentile Christian writings we hear it as a cry of joy 'We know God the Almighty, the night of blindness is past'" (see, e.g., 2 Clem. c. 1). God is [Greek: despotes], a designation which is very frequently used (it is rare in the New Testament). Still more frequently do we find [Greek: kurios]. As the Lord and Creator God is also called the Father (of the world) so 1 Clem. 19. 2 [Greek: ho pater kai ktistes tou sumpantos kosmou]; 35. 3 [Greek: demiourgos kai pater ton aionon]. This use of the name Father for the supreme God was as is well known familiar to the Greeks, but the Christians alone were in earnest with the name. The creation out of nothing was made decidedly prominent by Hermas, see Vis. I. 1. 6 and my notes on the passage. In the Christian Apocrypha, in spite of the vividness of the idea of God, the angels play the same role as in the Jewish, and as in the current Jewish speculations. According to Hermas, e.g., all God's actions are mediated by special angels, nay the Son of God himself is represented by a special angel, viz. Michael, and works by him. But outside the Apocalypses there seems to have been little interest in the good angels.]

[Footnote 229: See, for example 1 Clem. 20.]

[Footnote 230: This is frequent in the Apologists, see also Diogn. 10. 2; but Hermas, Vis. II. 4. 1 (see also Cels. ap Orig. IV. 23) says [Greek: dia ten ekklesian ho kosmos katertisthe] (cf. I. 1. 6 and my notes on the passage). Aristides (Apol. 16) declares it as his conviction that "the beautiful things, that is, the world are maintained only for the sake of Christians," see besides the words (I. c.), "I have no doubt that the earth continues to exist (only) on account of the prayers of the Christians." Even the Jewish Apocalyptists wavered between the formulae, that the world was created for the sake of man and for the sake of the Jewish nation. The two are not mutually exclusive. The statement in the Eucharistic prayer of Didache, 9. 3 [Greek: ektisas ta panta heneken tou onomatos sou] is singular.]

[Footnote 231: God is named the Father, (1) in relation to the Son (very frequent) (2) as Father of the world (see above) (3) as the merciful one who has proved his goodness, declared his will and called Christians to be his sons (1 Clem. 23. 1, 29. 1, 2 Clem. 1. 4, 8. 4, 10. 1, 14. 1, see the index to Zahn's edition of the Ignatian Epistles, Didache, 1. 5, 9. 2, 3, 10. 2). The latter usage is not very common, it is entirely wanting for example in the Epistle of Barnabas. Moreover God is also called [Greek: pater tes aletheias] as the source of all truth (2 Clem. 3. 1, 20. 5 [Greek: theos to aletheias]). The identity of the Almighty God of creation with the merciful God of redemption is the tacit presupposition of all declarations about God in the case of both the cultured and the uncultured. It is also frequently expressed (see above all the Pastoral Epistles), most frequently by Hermas (Vis. 1. 3. 4) so far as the declaration about the creation of the world is there united in the closest way with that about the creation of the Holy Church. As to the designation of God in the Roman Symbol as the "Father Almighty," that threefold exposition just given, may perhaps allow it.]

[Footnote 232: The present dominion of evil demons or of one evil demon, was just as generally presupposed as man's need of redemption, which was regarded as a result of that dominion. The conviction that the world's course (the [Greek: politeia en to kosmo], the Latins afterwards used the word Saeculum) is determined by the devil, and that the dark one (Barnabas) has dominion, comes out most prominently where eschatological hopes obtain expression. But where salvation is thought of as knowledge and immortality, it is ignorance and frailty from which men are to be delivered. We may here also assume with certainty that these, in the last instance, were traced back by the writers to the action of demons. But it makes a very great difference whether the judgment was ruled by fancy which saw a real devil everywhere active, or whether, in consequence of theoretic reflection, it based the impression of universal ignorance and mortality on the assumption of demons who have produced them. Here again we must note the two series of ideas which intertwine and struggle with each other in the creeds of the earliest period, the traditional religious series resting on a fanciful view of history—it is essentially identical with the Jewish Apocalyptic, see, for example Barn 4—and the empiric moralistic, (see 2 Clem. 1. 2-7, as a specially valuable discussion, or Praed. Petri in Clem, Strom. VI. 5, 39, 40), which abides by the fact that men have fallen into ignorance, weakness and death (2 Clem. 1. 6 [Greek: ho bios hemon holos allo ouden en ei me thanatos]). But perhaps, in no other point, with the exception of the [Greek: anastasis sarkos] has the religious conception remained so tenacious as in this and it decidedly prevailed, especially in the epoch with which we are now dealing. Its tenacity may be explained, among other things, by the living impression of the polytheism that surrounded the communities on every side. Even where the national gods were looked upon as dead idols—and that was perhaps the rule, see Praed. Petri. I. c, 2 Clem. 3. 1, Didache, 6—one could not help assuming that there were mighty demons operative behind them, as otherwise the frightful power of idolatry could not be explained. But on the other hand, even a calm reflection and a temper unfriendly to all religious excess must have welcomed the assumption of demons who sought to rule the world and man. For by means of this assumption which was wide-spread even among the Greeks, humanity seemed to be unburdened, and the presupposed capacity for redemption could therefore be justified in its widest range. From the assumption that the need of redemption was altogether due to ignorance and mortality there was but one step, or little more than one step, to the assumption that the need of redemption was grounded in a condition of man for which he was not responsible, that is, in the flesh. But this step which would have led either to dualism (heretical Gnosis) or to the abolition of the distinction between natural and moral, was not taken within the main body of the Church. The eschatological series of ideas with its thesis that death evil and sin entered into humanity at a definite historical moment when the demons took possession of the world drew a limit which was indeed overstepped at particular points but was in the end respected. We have therefore the remarkable fact that, on the one hand, early Christian (Jewish) eschatology called forth and maintained a disposition in which the Kingdom of God, and that of the world, (Kingdom of the devil) were felt to be absolutely opposed (practical dualism), while, on the other hand, it rejected theoretic dualism. Redemption through Christ, however, was conceived in the eschatological Apocalyptic series of ideas as essentially something entirely in the future, for the power of the devil was not broken, but rather increased (or it was virtually broken in believers and increased in unbelievers), by the first advent of Christ, and therefore the period between the first and second advent of Christ belongs to [Greek: houtos ho aion] (see Barn. 2. 4; Herm. Sim 1; 2 Clem. 6. 3: [Greek: estin de houtos ho aion kai ho mellon duo echthroi; houtos legei moicheian kai phthoran kai philargourian kai apaten, ekeinos de toutois apostassetai], Ignat. Magn. 5. 2). For that very reason, the second coming of Christ must, as a matter of course, be at hand, for only through it could the first advent get its full value. The painful impression that nothing had been outwardly changed by Christ's first advent (the heathen, moreover, pointed this out in mockery to the suffering Christians), must be destroyed by the hope of his speedy coming again. But the first advent had its independent significance in the series of ideas which regarded Christ as redeeming man from ignorance and mortality; for the knowledge was already given, and the gift of immortality could only of course be dispensed after this life was ended, but then immediately. The hope of Christ's return was therefore a superfluity, but was not felt or set aside as such, because there was still a lively expectation of Christ's earthly Kingdom.]

[Footnote 233: No other name adhered to Christ so firmly as that of [Greek: kurios]; see a specially clear evidence of this, Novatian de trinit. 30, who argues against the Adoptian and Modalistic heretics thus: "Et in primis illud retorquendum in istos, qui duorum nobis deorum controversiam facere praesumunt. Scriptum est, quod negare non possunt: 'Quoniam unus est dominus.' De Christo ergo quid sentiunt? Dominum esse, aut illum omnino non esse? Sed dominum illum omnino non dubitant. Ergo si vera est illorum ratiocinatio, jam duo sunt domini." On [Greek: kurios—despotes], see above, p. 119, note.]

[Footnote 234: Specially instructive examples of this are found in the Epistle of Barnabas and the second Epistle of Clement. Clement (Ep. 1) speaks only of faith in God.]

[Footnote 235: See 1 Clem. 59-61. [Greek: Didache], c. 9. 10. Yet Novatian (de trinit. 14) exactly reproduces the old idea, "Si homo tantummodo Christus, cur homo in orationibus mediator invocatur, cum invocatio hominis ad praestandam salutem inefficax judicetur." As the Mediator, High Priest, etc., Christ is of course always and everywhere invoked by the Christians, but such invocations are one thing and formal prayer another. The idea of the congruence of God's will of salvation with the revelation of salvation which took place through Christ, was further continued in the idea of the congruence of this revelation of salvation with the universal preaching of the twelve chosen Apostles (see above, p. 162 ff.), the root of the Catholic principle of tradition. But the Apostles never became "[Greek: hoi kurioi]" though the concepts [Greek: didache (logos) kuriou, didache (kerugma) ton apostolon] were just as interchangeable as [Greek: logos theou] and [Greek: logos christou]. The full formula would be [Greek: logos theou dia Iesou Christou dia ton apostolon]. But as the subjects introduced by [Greek: dia] are chosen and perfect media, religious usage permitted the abbreviation.]

[Footnote 236: In the epistle of Barnabas "Jesus Christ" and "Christ" appear each once, but "Jesus" twelve times: in the Didache "Jesus Christ" once, "Jesus" three times. Only in the second half of the second century, if I am not mistaken, did the designation "Jesus Christ", or "Christ", become the current one, more and more crowding out the simple "Jesus." Yet the latter designation—and this is not surprising—appears to have continued longest in the regular prayers. It is worthy of note that in the Shepherd there is no mention either of the name Jesus or of Christ. The Gospel of Peter also says [Greek: ho kurios] where the other Gospels use these names.]

[Footnote 237: See 1 Clem. 64: [Greek: ho theos, ho eklexamenos ton kurion Iesoun Christon kai hemas di' autou eis laon periousion doe, k.t.l.] (It is instructive to note that wherever the idea of election is expressed, the community is immediately thought of, for in point of fact the election of the Messiah has no other aim than to elect or call the community; Barn. 3. 6: [Greek: ho laos hon hetoimasen en to egapemenoi autou]). Herm. Sim. V. 2: [Greek: eklexamenos doulon tina piston kai euareston] V. 6. 5. Justin, Dial. 48: [Greek: me arneisthai hoti houtos estin ho Christos, ean phainetai hos anthropos ex anthropon gennetheis kai ekloge genomenos eis to Christon einai apodeiknuetai].]

[Footnote 238: See Barn. 14. 5: [Greek: Iesous eis touto hetoimasthe, hina ... hemas lutrosamenos ek tou skotous diathetai en hemin diatheken logoi]. The same word concerning the Church, I. c. 3. 6. and 5. 7: [Greek: autos eauto ton laon ton kainon etoimazon] 14 6.]

[Footnote 239: "Angel" is a very old designation for Christ (see Justin's Dial.) which maintained itself up to the Nicean controversy, and is expressly claimed for him in Novatian's treatise "de trinit." 11. 25 ff. (the word was taken from Old Testament passages which were applied to Christ). As a rule, however, it is not to be understood as a designation of the nature, but of the office of Christ as such, though the matter was never very clear. There were Christians who used it as a designation of the nature, and from the earliest times we find this idea contradicted (see the Apoc. Sophoniae, ed. Stern, 1886, IV. fragment, p 10: "He appointed no Angel to come to us, nor Archangel, nor any power, but he transformed himself into a man that he might come to us for our deliverance." Cf. the remarkable parallel, ep. ad. Diagn. 7. 2: ... [Greek: ou, kathaper an tis eikaseien anthropos, hypereten tina pempsas e angelon e archonta e tina ton dieponton ta epigeia he tina ton pepisteumenon tas en ouranois dioikeseis, all' auton ton techniten kai demiourgon ton holon. k.t.l.]). Yet it never got the length of a great controversy and as the Logos doctrine gradually made way, the designation "Angel" became harmless and then vanished.]

[Footnote 240: [Greek: Pais] (after Isaiah): this designation, frequently united with [Greek: Iesous] and with the adjectives [Greek: hagios] and [Greek: egapemenos] (see Barn. 3, 6; 4, 3; 4, 8; Valent. ap. Clem. Alex., Strom. VI. 6. 52, and the Ascensio Isaiae), seems to have been at the beginning a usual one. It sprang undoubtedly from the Messianic circle of ideas, and at its basis lies the idea of election. It is very interesting to observe how it was gradually put into the background and finally abolished. It was kept longest in the liturgical prayers: see 1 Clem. 59. 2; Barn. 61. 9. 2; Acts iii. 13, 26; iv. 27, 30; Didache, 9. 2. 3; Mart. Polyc. 14. 20; Act. Pauli et Theclae, 17, 24; Sibyl. I. v. 324, 331, 364; Diogn. 8, 9, 10: [Greek: ho hagapetos pais] 9; also Ep. Orig. ad Afric. init; Clem. Strom. VII. 1. 4: [Greek: ho monogenes pais], and my note on Barn 6. 1. In the Didache (9. 2) Jesus as well as David is in one statement called "Servant of God." Barnabas, who calls Christ the "Beloved", uses the same expression for the Church (4. 1. 9); see also Ignat ad Smyrn. inscr.]

[Footnote 241: See the old Roman Symbol and Acts X. 42; 2 Tim. IV. 1; Barn. 7. 2; Polyc. Ep. 2. 1; 2 Clem. 2. 1; Hegesipp. in Euseb. H. E. III. 20, 6: Justin Dial. 118]

[Footnote 242: There could of course be no doubt that Christ meant the "anointed" (even Aristides Apol. 2 fin., if Nestle's correction is right, Justin's Apol. 1. 4 and similar passages do not justify doubt on that point). But the meaning and the effect of this anointing was very obscure. Justin says (Apol. II. 6) [Greek: Christos men kata to kechristhai kai kosmesai ta panta di autou ton theon legetai] and therefore (see Dial. 76 fin.) finds in this designation an expression of the cosmic significance of Christ.]

[Footnote 243: See the Apologists: Apost. K.O. (Texte. v. Unters. II. 5, p. 25) [Greek: proorontas tous logous tou didaskalou hemon], ibid, p. 28 [Greek: ote etesen ho didaskalos ton arton], ibid. p. 30 [Greek: proelegen ote edidasken], Apost. Constit. (original writing) III. 6 [Greek: autos ho didaskalos hemon kai kurios], III. 7 [Greek: ho kurios kai didaskalos hemon eipen], III. 19, III. 20, V. 12, 1 Clem. 13. 1 [Greek: ton logon tou kuriou Iesou hous elalesen didaskon], Polyc. Ep. 2 [Greek: mnemoneuontes hon eipen ho kurios didaskon], Ptolem. ad Floram 5 [Greek: he didaskalia tou soteros].]

[Footnote 244: The baptismal formula which had been naturalised everywhere in the communities at this period preserved it above all. The addition of [Greek: idios prototokos] is worthy of notice. [Greek: Monogenes] (= the only begotten and also the beloved) is not common, it is found only in John, in Justin, in the Symbol of the Romish Church and in Mart. Polyc. (Diogn. 10. 3).]

[Footnote 245: The so-called second Epistle of Clement begins with the words [Greek: Adelphoi outos dei hemas phronein peri Iesou hos peri theou, hos peri kritou zonton kai nekron] (this order in which the Judge appears as the higher is also found in Barn. 7. 2), [Greek: kai ou dei hemas mikra phronein peri tes soterias hemon; en to gar phronein hemas mikra peri autou mikra kai elpizomen labein]. This argumentation (see also the following verses up to II. 7) is very instructive, for it shews the grounds on which the [Greek: phronein peri autou os peri theou] was based H. Schultz (L. v. d. Gottheit Christi, p. 25 f.) very correctly remarks. In the second Epistle of Clement and in the Shepherd the Christological interest of the writer ends in obtaining the assurance, through faith in Christ as the world ruling King and Judge that the community of Christ will receive a glory corresponding to its moral and ascetic works.]

[Footnote 246: Pliny in his celebrated letter (96) speaks of a "Carmen dicere Christo quasi deo" on the part of the Christians. Hermas has no doubt that the Chosen Servant, after finishing his work, will be adopted as God's Son, and therefore has been destined from the beginning, [Greek: eis exousian megalen kai kurioteta], Sim. V. 6. 1. But that simply means that he is now in a Divine sphere and that one must think of him as of God. But there was no unanimity beyond that. The formula says nothing about the nature or constitution of Jesus. It might indeed appear from Justin's dialogue that the direct designation of Jesus as [Greek: theos] (not as [Greek: o theos]) was common in the communities, but not only are there some passages in Justin himself to be urged against this but also the testimony of other writers. [Greek: Theos], even without the article, was in no case a usual designation for Jesus. On the contrary, it was always quite definite occasions which led them to speak of Christ as of a God or as God. In the first place there were Old Testament passages such as Ps. XLV. 8, CX. 1 f. etc. which as soon as they were interpreted in relation to Christ led to his getting the predicate [Greek: theos]. These passages, with many others taken from the Old Testament, were used in this way by Justin. Yet it is very well worth noting that the author of the Epistle of Barnabas avoided this expression in a passage which must have suggested it (12, 10, 11 on Ps. CX. 4) The author of the Didache calls him "[Greek: o theos Dabid]" on the basis of the above psalm. It is manifestly therefore in liturgical formulae of exalted paradox or living utterances of religious feeling that Christ is called God. See Ignat. ad Rom. 6. 3, [Greek: epitrepsate moi mimeten einai tou pathous tou theou mou] (the [Greek: mou] here should be observed), ad Eph. 1. 1 [Greek: anazopuresantes en aimati theou], Tatian Orat. 13 [Greek: diakonos tou peponthotos theou]. As to the celebrated passage 1 Clem. ad Cor. 2. 10 [Greek: ta pathemata autou] (the [Greek: autou] refers to [Greek: theos]) we may perhaps observe that that [Greek: o theos] stands far apart. However, such a consideration is hardly in place. The passages just adduced shew that precisely the union of suffering (blood, death) with the concept "God"—and only this union—must have been in Christendom from a very early period, see Acts XX. 28 [Greek: ten ekklaesian tou theou hen periepoiesato dia tou haimatos tou idiou], and from a later period Melito, Fragm (in Routh Rel Sacra I. 122), [Greek: ho theos peponthen hupo dexias Israelitidos], Anonym ap Euseb H. E. V. 28 11, [Greek: ho eusplanchnos theos kai kurios hemon Iesous Christos ouk ebouleto apolesthai martura ton idion pathematon], Test XII. Patriarch. (Levi. 4) [Greek: epi to pathei tou hupsistou]; Tertull. de carne 5, "passiones dei," ad Uxor. II. 3: "sanguine dei." Tertullian also speaks frequently of the crucifying of God, the flesh of God, the death of God. (see Lightfoot, Clem. of Rome, p. 400, sq.). These formulae were first subjected to examination in the Patripassian controversy. They were rejected by Athanasius for example in the fourth century (cf. Apollin. II. 13, 14, Opp. I. p. 758) [Greek: pos oun gegraphate hoti theos ho dia sarkos pathon kai anastas, ... oudamou de haima theou dicha sarkos paradedokasin hai graphai e theon dia sarkos pathonta kai anastanta]. They continued in use in the west and became of the utmost significance in the christological controversies of the fifth century. It is not quite certain whether there is a theologia Christi in such passages as Tit. II. 13, 2 Pet. I. 1 (see the controversies on Rom. IX. 5). Finally [Greek: theos] and Christus were often interchanged in religious discourse (see above). In the so called second Epistle of Clement (c. 1. 4) the dispensing of right knowledge is traced back to Christ. It is said of him that like a Father, he has called us children, he has delivered us, he has called us into existence out of non-existence and in this God himself is not thought of. Indeed he is called (2. 2. 3) the hearer of prayer and the controller of history, but immediately thereon a saying of the Lord is introduced as a saying of God (Matt. IX. 13). On the contrary Isaiah XXIX. 13 is quoted (3. 5) as a declaration of Jesus, and again (13. 4) a saying of the Lord with the formula [Greek: legei o theos]. It is Christ who pitied us (3. 1, 16. 2), he is described simply as the Lord who hath called and redeemed us (5. 1, 8. 2, 9. 5 etc). Not only is there frequent mention of the [Greek: entolai] ([Greek: entalmata]) of Christ, but 6. 7 (see 14. 1) speak directly of a [Greek: poiein to thelema tou Christou]. Above all, in the entire first division (up to 9. 5) the religious situation is for the most part treated as if it were something essentially between the believer and Christ. On the other hand, (10. 1), the Father is he who calls (see also 16. 1), who brings salvation (9. 7), who accepts us as Sons (9. 10; 16. 1); he has given us promises (11. 1, 6. 7.); we expect his kingdom, nay, the day of his appearing (12. 1 f.; 6. 9; 9. 6; 11. 7; 12. 1). He will judge the world, etc.; while in 17. 4. we read of the day of Christ's appearing, of his kingdom and of his function of Judge, etc. Where the preacher treats of the relation of the community to God, where he describes the religious situation according to its establishment or its consummation, where he desires to rule the religious and moral conduct, he introduces, without any apparent distinction, now God himself, and now Christ. But this religious view, in which acts of God coincide with acts of Christ, did not, as will be shewn later on, influence the theological speculations of the preacher. We have also to observe that the interchanging of God and Christ is not always an expression of the high dignity of Christ, but, on the contrary, frequently proves that the personal significance of Christ is misunderstood, and that he is regarded only as the dependent revealer of God. All this shews that there cannot have been many passages in the earliest literature where Christ was roundly designated [Greek: theos]. It is one thing to speak of the blood (death, suffering) of God, and to describe the gifts of salvation brought by Christ as gifts of God, and another thing to set up the proposition that Christ is a God (or God). When, from the end of the second century, one began to look about in the earlier writings for passages [Greek: en hois theologeitai ho christos], because the matter had become a subject of controversy, one could, besides the Old Testament, point only to the writings of authors from the time of Justin (to apologists and controversialists) as well as to Psalms and odes (see the Anonym. in Euseb. H. E. V. 28. 4-6). In the following passages of the Ignatian Epistles "[Greek: theos]" appears as a designation of Christ; he is called [Greek: ho theos haemon] in Ephes. inscript.; Rom. inscr. bis 3. 2; Polyc. 8. 3; Eph. 1. 1, [Greek: haima theou]; Rom. 6. 3, [Greek: to pathos tou theou mou]; Eph. 7. 2, [Greek: en sarki genomenos theos], in another reading, [Greek: en anthropo theos], Smyrn. I. 1, I. Chr. [Greek: ho theos ho outos humas sophisas]. The latter passage, in which the relative clause must he closely united with "[Greek: ho theos]", seems to form the transition to the three passages (Trall. 7. 1; Smyrn. 6. 1; 10. 1), in which Jesus is called [Greek: theos] without addition. But these passages are critically suspicious, see Lightfoot in loco. In the same way the "deus Jesus Christus" in Polyc. Ep. 12. 2, is suspicious, and indeed in both parts of the verse. In the first, all Latin codd. have "dei filius," and in the Greek codd. of the Epistle, Christ is nowhere called [Greek: theos]. We have a keen polemic against the designation of Christ as [Greek: theos] in Clem. Rom. Homil. XVI. 15 sq.; [Greek: Ho Petros apekrithae ho kurios haemon oute theous einai ephthenxato para ton ktisanta ta panta oute heauton theon einai anaegoreusen, huion de theou tou ta panta diakosmaesantos ton eiponta auton eulogos emakarisen, kai o Simon apekrinato; ou dokei soi oun ton apo theou theon einai, kai ho Petros ephae: pos touto einai dunatai, phrason haemin, touto gar haemeis eipein soi ou dunametha, hoti mae haekousamen par' autou.]]

Previous Part     1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11     Next Part
Home - Random Browse