School of Theology at Claremon

MO 10011443040

~~

r ‘

. = > ad i e =. 7 es =

: ; & et ‘ Nhe aed

rae ‘ F ; ’ Peony oes
ee
 The Library
SCHOOL OF THEOLOGY
AT CLAREMONT

WEST FOOTHILL AT COLLEGE AVENUE

CLAREMONT, CALIFORNIA 91711
Orthodoxy and Heresy
in Earliest Christianity
Orthodoxy and
Heresy in
Earliest
Christianity

by WALTER BAUER
second German edition,
with added appendices, by
GEORG STRECKER

translated by a team from the

Philadelphia Seminar on Christian Origins

and edited by
ROBERT A. KRAFT and
GERHARD KRODEL

FORTRESS PRESS Philadelphia

 Theology |_ibrary

SCHOOL OF THEOLOGY
AT CLAREMONT
Californta

This book is a translation of Walter Bauer’s Rechtgléubigkeit

und Ketzerei im dltesten Christentum, which first appeared
in 1934 as volume 10 in the series Beitrage zur historischen
Theologie (Tiibingen: Mohr/Siebeck), and was reprinted
with minor additions and corrections, plus two supple-
mentary essays by Georg Strecker in 1964. A few additional
corrections have also been included in the English edition
(e.g. 242 n. 3). The translators are listed below, p. xviii.

CoryRiGHT © 1971 sy Fortress PREss

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be repro-
duced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form
or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, record-
ing, or otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyright
owner.

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 71-141252

ISBN 0-8006-0055-X

1483]70 Printed in U.S.A. 1-55

 Dedicated to

FRAU L. BAUER
 Contents
Foreword to the Second German Edition, by Georg Strecker xi
Introduction to the English Edition, by Robert A. Kraft xiii

ORTHODOXY AND HERESY IN EARLIEST CHRISTIANITY

by Walter Bauer
Introduction, ET by Robert A. Kraft xxi
1. Epessa, ET by John E. Steely (text) and
Robert A. Kraft (notes) i)
General History since Alexander the Great 1-2
Earliest Christianity There: Sources and Their Value
Eusebius and the Abgar Legend 9-12" »
Edessene Chronicle to the Fourth Century 12-17 *
‘Reconstruction of Earliest Christian History
“Orthodoxy” before Kiné in the Fourth Century
(Palit) 17-22
Predecessors and Competitors of Paldtian
Christianity: Marcion, Bardesanes, Mani, and
Their Literature (Diatessaron, Pauline
Epistles ) 22-32
Kiiné and the Emergence of a Powerful “Orthodoxy”:
Dissemination of the Abgar Legend, Attacks on
Rival Groups, Vindication of Paul through Acts
of Paul/“3 Corinthians” 32-43
2. Ecypt, ET by David Hay 44
Silence of Sources concerning “Orthodoxy” in the
Earliest Period of Egyptian Christianity 44-49
Vii
 ORTHODOXY AND HERESY IN EARLIEST CHRISTIANITY

Earliest Known Representatives and Literature:

Syncretistic Gnostic Writings, Gospel of the /
Egyptians and Gospel of the Hebrews 49-53
Establishment of Ecclesiastical Christianity under
Demetrius and His Successors 53-06
The Half-century before the Victory of Demetrius:
Origen and Clement of Alexandria 56-60 |
. Icnatrus oF ANTIOCH AND POLYCARP OF SMYRNA;
MAcEDONIA AND CreETE, ET by Gerhard Krodel 61
Ignatius and the Monepiscopate: 61-63 »
The Situation in Christian Antioch 63-66
and among His Addressees in Asia Minor 66-69
Polycarp, Smyrna, and Philippi 69-74
Thessalonica 74-76
Crete (based on Dionysius of Corinth) 76
4, Asia Minor Prior to Icnatius
ET by Gerhard Krodel td
The Addressees in Rev. 1-3, Ignatius, and 1 Peter 77-83
Ephesus and Western Asia Minor, and Jewish
Christian Influence There 83-89
Other Anti-Heretical New Testament Writings:
Jude, 2 Peter, Pastorals (and Pliny), 1-3 John 89-94
po ROME AND CHRISTIANITY OUTSIDE OF ROME
ET by Stephen Benko 95
Rome and Achaia: Corinth and 1 Clement 95-106
Rome and the Opponents of Heresy in the Period
between 1 Clement and Dionysius of Corinth 106-108
Rome and Christianity in Alexandria and Antioch 108-110
. Rome's PeRsuasIVE AND POLEMICAL TACTICS
ET by Robert F. Evans lll
Rome’s Appeal to Apostles, Especially Peter, 111-118
and to Apostolic Succession 118-121
Roman Influence through Teaching and Material
Assistance 121-124
Roman-Corinthian Opportunism and Adaptability 124-129
. THE CONFRONTATION BETWEEN ORTHODOXY AND

Vili
 CONTENTS

HERESY: GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS AND

OPERATING PROCEDURES
ET by David Steinmetz 130
Types of Confrontation: Oral and Written Polemics 130-132
The Montanist Controversy as an Example 132-146

8. THE User or LITERATURE IN THE CONFLICT

ET by Howard Bream and Robert L. Wilken 147
Preservation of the Literature
Problem of Identifying Polemical Literature 147-148
The Evidence from Eusebius and His Special
Pleading for “Orthodox” Literature 149-158
The Problem of Forgery, Falsification, and
Public Exposure 158-168
Significance and Influence of Literature 168-169
Concentration of Anti-heretical Literature in the
é Western Areas, and Paucity of Non-orthodox
Polemical Literature 170-173
Types of Literature (etc.) Used 173-190
Relative Numerical Strength of Orthodoxy and
Heresy 190-194

9. THE OLD TESTAMENT, THE LORD, AND THE APOSTLES

ET by Paul J. Achtemeier 195
Old Testament: Its Role as a Formative Influence 195-202
Lord: Traditions about Jesus in General, 202-206
and the Fourth Gospel in Particular 206-212
Apostles: In General, 212-213
and Paul in Particular 213-228

10. THe Becinnincs, ET by John E. Steely and

John J. O’Rourke 229
Centrality of Rome for Christian “Orthodoxy” and
Its Victorious Expansion Eastward 229-232
Early Resistance to Christianity in the East and
the Course of the Pauline Mission 232-235
Flexibility, Recalcitrance, and Syncretism:
The Situation that Paved the Way for
Roman Orthodoxy 235-240
 ORTHODOXY AND HERESY IN EARLIEST CHRISTIANITY

APPENDICES
by Georg Strecker
1. ON THE PROBLEM OF JEWISH CHRISTIANITY
ET by Gerhard Krodel 241
Jewish Christianity in General: Problems and
Perspectives 241-244
Legalistic, Greek-Speaking Jewish Christianity
The Didascalia, an Indirect Witness 244-257
The Kerygmata Petrou Source of
the ps.-Clementines 257-271
The Ecclesiastical Attitude and “Ebionism” 272-284
Conclusions 284-285
2. THE RECEPTION OF THE Book
revised and augmented by Robert A. Kraft
Reviews and Notices of the Original Edition:
Continental Protestant, English Language,
Roman Catholic, Synthetic Summary of the
Reviewers’ Comments 286-297
Turner's Reply to Bauer 297-302
General Influence of the Book 302-303
Ehrhardt’s Positive Appraisal 303-306
Contemporary German Scholarship 306-308
Summary and Prospectus 308-316
Comprehensive Index 317
 Foreword to the Second German Edition

In earliest Christianity, orthodoxy and heresy do not stand in relation

to one another as primary to secondary, but in many regions heresy
is the original manifestation of Christianity.In the present work,
Walter Bauer has developed this thesis in a consistent fashion, and
not only has called into question in a fundamental way the traditional
understanding of the development of church history and the historical
foundation of ecclesiastical-orthodox self-understanding, but at the
same time has indicated new directions for ecumenical discussion.
The unfavorable political situation was, above all, responsible for
denying the book a wider influence. Thus in the field of international
scholarship, W. Bauer is known far less for being the pioneer of the
approach to church history presented herein than as the author of the
Worterbuch zum Neuen Testament.2 Therefore, thanks are all the
more due to the publisher for the decision to make the work available

1. On the person and work of Bauer, see the memorial issue NTS, 9 (1962/63):
1-38 (with presentations by F. W. Gingrich, W. Schneemelcher, and E. Fascher);
also “In Memoriam Walter Bauer,’ Theologische Literaturzeitung, 86 (1961):
313-316 (addresses by W. Zimmerli and J. Jeremias at the funeral service).
Bauer’s bibliography can be found in Theologische Literaturzeitung, 77 (1952):
501-504; and 86 (1961): 315f. (compiled by C.-H. Hunzinger), and biograph-
ical information in the article “Bauer, W.” in RGG%, 1 (1957): 925 (by W.
G. Kiimmel).
2. [W. F. Arndt and F, W. Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testa-
ment and Other Early Christian Literature: a Translation and Adaptation of
Walter Bauer’s Griechisch-Deutsches Wérterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen
Testaments und der iibrigen urchristlichen Literatur, fourth revised and aug-
mented edition, 1952 (Chicago/Cambridge [Eng.]: University Press, 1957).
A revised fifth German edition appeared in 1957, and materials for a revised
English edition are being gathered.]
xi
 FOREWORD TO THE SECOND GERMAN EDITION

once again, and thereby to create the possibility of a new and more
thorough appreciation.
Just a few weeks before his unexpected death on 17 November,
1960, Walter Bauer had learned of the proposed new edition and,
with kind words, expressed agreement with the plan and with the
person of the reviser. The task that faced the undersigned [vi] was
first of all to correct typographical errors and other minor oversights,
and to introduce such improvements as were envisioned by the author,
according to his annotated copy.? Apart from these additions, the
text of the work has remained unchanged—it was even possible to
retain the same pagination. Secondly, it was necessary to deal with
the current state of the discussion. This task is undertaken in a double
appendix, so as not to infringe upon the character of the original
work. Following the original plan, this supplementary material in-
cludes a more detailed consideration of Jewish Christianity, and, in
addition, an account of the reception of the book. In both parts an
effort has been made to indicate possibilities and directions for elabo-
rating Bauer’s position and to provide a critical evaluation of more
recent investigations of similar orientation.*
Thanks are expressed to all who have contributed to the produc-
tion of this edition; in particular to Prof. D. Philip Vielhauer, from
whose suggestion the form of the supplementary material essentially
derives, and to Frau L. Bauer, who with constant, kindly assistance
made accessible her husband’s literary remains, and placed at my
disposal the manuscript of the book, notes from three lectures that
were delivered in September and October of 1933 on the same subject
in Uppsala and Sondershausen, the author’s annotated personal copy,
and also his collection of reviews. My wife has assisted me in the
expansion of the index and in reading proofs, and thus, with the
others named, also deserves the thanks of the reader.
Grorc STRECKER
Bonn, September 1963
3. [The addition of two footnotes (51 n. 31, 59 n. 59) and a reference to Josephus
at the end of 153 n. 12 should be noted, as well as the inclusion of an index of
modern authors.]
4. [The second appendix has been extensively revised and restructured by R. A.
Kraft for this English edition.]

xii
 Introduction to the English Edition

It is not surprising that Bauer’s investigation of “orthodoxy” and

“heresy” in early Christianity has had relatively little direct influence
on the English-speaking world (see appendix 2), and, despite its
obvious significance and its presence on reading lists for advanced
study in Christian origins, never has been translated into English.
The book was written for a rather limited audience—it is not an
introductory volume for the beginner, nor is it a synthesis of modern
opinions about the subject matter, but was written forscholars, as an
original, front-line contribution to the progress ‘of historical investi-
gation. Bauer presupposes that his readers are conversant with the
subject matter at more than an elementary level (see below, xxiv f.).
In short, this investigation originally was oriented toward an audi-
ence that would be difficult to find today outside the hallways and
classrooms of the best institutions of higher learning.
There is also another reason that became increasingly obvious to
those who contributed their time and energy in preparing this edi-
tion. Quite apart from the difficulty of the subject matter (particu-
larly in chap. 1!), Bauer’s German style presents a complex and frus-
trating problem for the translator who hopes to capture something of
the “tone” or “flavor” of the original as well as representing accurately
its content. Bauer writes in a dynamic and highly sophisticated
manner, mixing precision with irony and even insinuation, pictorial
language with careful presentation of the historical evidence, hy-
potheses and caveats with the subtle use of overstatement and under-
but
statement in cleverly nuanced expressions. His German is literary
xili
 INTRODUCTION TO THE ENGLISH EDITION

not necessarily formal. Long sentences with closely interrelated parts

appear alongside brief, sometimes cryptic or oblique comments
couched in clever, often scholarly German idiom. Frequently the
presentation flows along rapidly in an exciting manner, despite the
difficulties of the subject matter—but its flow is such that the motion
is difficult to capture in translation, and is sometimes even difficult
to follow in the original, unless one is already completely steeped in
the evidence being discussed and in Bauer’s general orientation
toward it! Nor is it easy to represent the variety and nuances of his
choice of vocabulary—e.g. some readers will perhaps cringe at such
renderings as “ecclesiastical” for kirchlich and related words, but the
overuse of “orthodox” to cover even that word group in addition to
rechtgldubig and orthodox seemed less than fair to Bauer’s intention.
Hopefully his meaning will not be seriously obscured in such instances.
Editorial Modifications in This Edition. A philosophy of translation—
and also of scholarly serviceability—underlies this English edition.
Translations can be only more or less adequate, and the editors are
fully aware of the fact that there will remain room for improvement
at various places throughout the volume. This English edition does
not aim at “popularization” of the original style (e.g. long sentences
are seldom chopped up or radically recast at the expense of Bauer’s
precision),but attempts to be as faithful as possible to both the con-
tent and the “tone” of the original. At the same time, it attempts to
increase the potential usefulness of the book for English readers both
in the classroom and in the study by a variety of means:
(1) The pagination of the original has been retained wherever
possible by the use of bracketed bold type numbers inserted into the
text at the appropriate places. Thus there should be little difficulty in
using this edition to locate material referred to in earlier publications
based on the two German editions (except for the footnotes which have
been renumbered, and for appendix 2, which has been extensively
revised).
(2) English translations (or equivalents) have been supplied for
all non-English material (ancient or modern) found in Bauer-
Strecker, apart from a few Latin or Greek phrases included in stan-
dard English dictionaries. It should be noted, however, that although
this edition may note the existence of an available ET (English trans-
lation) of material which Bauer (or Strecker) cites, the ET of that
material which is supplied has been made especially for this volume
Xiv
 INTRODUCTION TO THE ENGLISH EDITION

with particular regard to the use made of the material in the German -
edition. This applies to modern as well as to ancient literature (cf. e.g.
44 and n. 1 there). With some exceptions, the Greek, Latin, and
Syriac words and passages found in Bauer-Strecker also are retained
in this edition (Greek and Syriac in transliteration), and sometimes
an ancient text has been expanded or supplied by the editors to
help clarify the argument (e.g. xxiii n. 1). In most instances, the an-
cient sources are referred to by English forms of their titles, rather
than Latin or Greek—a practice not without its frustrations, especially
for the scholar!
(3) In the case of ancient texts, an attempt has been made to refer
to standard editions in current use as well as to convenient ETs as
available. For texts to which frequent reference is made in various
parts of the book, this bibliographical information is included under
the appropriate listing in the index; otherwise it is supplied in foot-
notes at the place of occurrence. Nevertheless, the reader/user will
find that such tools as the patrologies of Altaner and/or Quasten,
or for the less traveled paths of chap. 1, the Short Introduction
by Wright, will be indispensable for following the presentation in all
its detail (see the index).
(4) Where ETs or new editions of modern works mentioned by
Bauer-Strecker are known to the editors, they have been included
(or sometimes substituted) in the footnotes. Occasionally references
to recent discoveries relevant for Bauer’s argument also are added
(e.g. 42 n. 99).
(5) In general, the original footnote procedures have been modified
considerably so that cross-references and brief references to ancient
sources appear in the text itself, while longer references that might
tend to interrupt the presentation unduly are contained in footnotes
along with references to modern literature, parenthetical comments,
supplementary information, and the like (see eg. 2 n. 3 for an
example of reshuffing and revision). Full bibliographical informa-
tion normally is provided at the initial reference to modern works;
thereafter, the author’s name and a short title appear. The index
is so constructed as to facilitate locating such bibliographical data.
Use of Brackets. It has proved difficult consistently to alert the
reader to the presence of such editorial adjustments at their numerous
occurrences in this edition. For some changes, it has seemed un-
necessary to do so—e.g,. the addition of cross-references, substitution
XV
 INTRODUCTION TO THE ENGLISH EDITION

of an English edition for a German title (cf. e.g. 17 n. 34, where

Bauer referred to the German translation of Burkitt’s book!), explicit
mention of certain biblical references implied by Bauer's treatment
(e.g. 234). Instances of substantial editorial additions, however, con-
sistently have been designated by the use of brackets; certain minor
supplements also are so marked. But where brackets occur within
direct quotations (e.g. 3) or within parentheses, it is not to be
assumed that expansion by the American editors is present; on the
contrary, such instances usually represent a normal use of brackets
under those conditions, and have no special significance.
Editorial Responsibility. Almost without exception, the substantive
editorial additions are the responsibility of R. A. Kraft, who has pre-
pared the final form of the manuscript for the press and has attempted
to standardize such things as footnote form and to reduce as much
as possible any obvious inconsistencies in translation and style. It
was the primary editorial responsibility of G. Krodel to check the
work of the individual translators for accuracy of their understanding
of the German. Translating is, for the most part, a thankless task—
and a difficult one if done carefully. Great appreciation is due to the
translation team for their unselfish efforts.
Index. The comprehensive index at the end of the volume is an ex-
periment aimed at facilitating efficient use of the book. It includes
not only such expected matters as subject and author entries, but
also lists abbreviations and provides reference to editions and ETs of
ancient sources cited frequently throughout the book. For less fre-
quently cited sources, the material normally appears at the initial
footnote reference. The index also is intended as a bibliographical
tool for modern works cited, since it directs the user to the appro-
priate footnote (usually the first mentioned) in which such data is
included.
Background of the Translation, Acknowledgements. This English
edition of Bauer represents the work of a team of translators from
the Philadelphia Seminar on Christian Origins (PSCO). In the spring
of 1966, the seminar members voted to devote the forthcoming year
to a study of Bauer’s book, under the cochairmanship of J. Reumann
(Lutheran Theological Seminary, Philadelphia) and R. A. Kraft.
Concurrently, a subcommittee was formed to produce a translation
of the volume, with Krodel and Kraft designated as final editors. Ne-
xvi
 INTRODUCTION TO THE ENGLISH EDITION

gotiations with Fortress Press were opened immediately, and by the

time the 1966/67 seminar commenced in the fall, Fortress Press had
committed itself to the project and was negotiating for translation
rights from the German publisher. Originally, it was proposed that
two volumes be published: (1) a translation of the original 1934
edition of Bauer, and (2) a volume of supplementary studies includ-
ing the material added by Strecker in the 1964 edition. Although this
plan was abandoned in deference to the wishes of the German editor,
it was agreed that the second appendix could be revised for the
purposes of this edition, with added attention to the impact of Bauer's
book in the English-speaking world.
Meanwhile, it was discovered that John E. Steely of Southeastern
Baptist Theological Seminary had been at work independently on a
translation of the book. When he learned of the PSCO project, he
made his rough draft translation available (extending through the
opening pages of appendix 1, without footnotes) and agreed to co-
operate as a member of the team in seeing the project through to its
completion. His draft proved useful not only as an extra checkpoint
in editing the work of the team, but was used as the basic transla-
tion for two chapters of this edition. The translation team generously
agreed that any monetary profit from the book should be channelled
through the PSCO for the establishment of a series of scholarly publi-
cations dealing with Christian origins apart from New Testament
proper.
Appreciation is due to Fortress Press for encouraging this project
and undertaking to publish it, and to the many members and friends
of the PSCO who became involved at various levels—including a
special debt to Niel J. McEleney of St. Paul's College in Washington
D.C. for working through the final draft and offering several valuable
suggestions. Professor Strecker also deserves thanks for making himself
' available by mail, especially in connection with the revision of the
second appendix, Finally, for the often thankless task of transforming
complicated handwritten materials into the final product presented
here, mention should be made of those who, like Joan Krodel and
Uni-
the secretaries from the Department of Religious Thought at the
versity of Pennsylvania, contributed their time and talents.
Rozert A. Krart, for the editors and the translation team
July 1970
xvii
 LIST OF TRANSLATORS

Paul J. Achtemeier (chap. 9), Kunz Professor of New Testament,

Lancaster Theological Seminary, Lancaster, Pa. 17603
Stephen Benko (chap. 5), Associate Professor of Ancient History
and Coordinator of the Classical Studies Program,
Fresno State College, Fresno, California 93710
Howard N. Bream (chap. 8), Kraft Professor of Biblical Studies,
Lutheran Theological Seminary, Gettysburg, Pa. 17325
Robert F. Evans (chap. 6), Associate Professor of Religious Thought,
University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pa. 19104
David M. Hay (chap. 2), Assistant Professor of New Testament,
Princeton Theological Seminary, Princeton, New Jersey 08540
Robert A. Kraft (Foreword, Introduction, Appendix 2, coeditor),
: Associate Professor of Religious Thought,
University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pa. 19104
Gerhard Krodel (chaps. 3-4, Appendix 1, coeditor),
Artman Professor of New Testament,
Lutheran Theological Seminary, Philadelphia, Pa. 19118
John J. O’Rourke (chap. 10), Professor of Sacred Scriptures,
St. Charles Borromeo Seminary, Philadelphia, Pa. 19151
John E. Steely (chaps. 1 and 10), Professor of Historical Theology,
Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary,
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
David C. Steinmetz (chap. 7), Assistant Professor of Church History,
Lancaster Theological Seminary, Lancaster, Pa. 17603
Robert L. Wilken (chap. 8), Assistant Professor of Patristics,
Fordham University, New York, NY 10023
XViii
Orthodoxy and
Heresy in
Earliest
Christianity

by WALTER BAUER
oes ; i
+ a-
at) Pet se

i} AG AST,
 Introduction

“Orthodoxy” and “heresy”: we all know what enormous importance\|

is attached to these two concepts for the history of our religion. Us- }} yA
}
ually, however, investigation of this subject tends to focus upon the |i
later epochs. The period of Christian origins is, as a rule, passed ove
rather briefly. Of course, the “errors” combatted in the earliest litera-
ture of Christianity are described and investigated from various points
of view, with this or that result. But this is usually done with im-
plicit, or even explicit, assent to the view that any:such divergence
really is a4 corruption «of Christianity.)
But if we follow such a nroccdare) and simply agree with the judg-
ment of the anti-heretical fathers for the post-New Testament period,
do we not all too quickly become dependent upon the vote of but
one party—that party which perhaps as much through favorable cir-
cumstances as by its own merit eventually was thrust into the fore-_
ground; and’ which possibly has-at-its disposal today the more “power-
~fuly-and*thus the more prévalent~voicé, only because the chorus o
~ others has been muted? Must not the historian, like the judge, pre-
~ side over the parties and maintain as a primary principle the dictum
audiatur et altera pars [let the other side also be heard]? When one
side cannot, because of anxiety, confusion, or clumsiness, gain proper
recognition, is it not the obligation of the judge—and, mutatis mu-
tandis of the historian—to assist it, as best he can, to unfold its case
instead of simply submitting to the mental agility and firmness, the
sagacity and loquacity of the other? Does either judge or historian
dare to act as though whatever cannot be read and understood by
everyone as part of the public records never existed, and thus is
unimportant for passing sentence? %

Xx
 ORTHODOXY AND HERESY IN EARLIEST CHRISTIANITY

In our day and age, there is no longer any debate [2] that in
terms of a scientific approach to history, the New Testament writings
cannot be understood properly if one now looks back on them from
the end of the process of canonization as sacred books, and prizes
them as constituent parts of the celestial charter of salvation, with all
the attendant characteristics. We have long since become accustomed
| to understanding them in terms of their own time—the gospels as
more or less successful attempts to relate the life of Jesus; the Pauline
letters as occasional writings, connected with specific and unrepeat-
able situations, and having spatial as well as temporal limitations to
their sphere of authority. We must also approach the “heretics” in the
same way. We need to understand them also in terms of their own
» time, and not to evaluate them by means of ecclesiastical doctrine
which was developing, or which later became a ready-made norm.
“We can determine adequately the significance the “heretics” pos-
sessed for nascent and developing Christianity only when we, insofar
as it is possible, place ourselves back into the period in which they
went about their business, and without hesitation cast all our pre-
conceived ideas aside. We must remain open to all possibilities. What
constitutes “truth” in one generation can be out of date in the next—
through progress, but also through retrogression into an earlier posi-
tion. The actual situation in this region may not obtain in that one,
and indeed, may never have had general currency.
| Perhaps—I repeat, perhaps—certain manifestations of Christian life
that the authors of the church 1 renounce as “heresies” originally had
not ‘been. such at all, but, at least here and there, were the only form~
ofthe new religion—that is, for those regions they were simply “Chris-
| tianity.” The possibility also exists that their adherents constituted
the majority, and that they looked down with hatred and scorn on
the orthodox, who for them were the false believers. I do not say
this in order to introduce some special use of language for the in-
vestigations which follow, so that “orthodoxy” designates the prefer-
ence of the given majority, while “heresy” is characterized by the fact
that only the minority adhere to it. Majority and minority can change
places and then such a use of language, which would be able to
represent this change only with difficulty, would easily lead to ob-
ca [scurities and misunderstandings. No, even in this book, “orthodoxy”
\e and “heresy” will refer to what one customarily and [3] usually
xxii
 INTRODUCTION

understands them to mean. There is only this proviso, that we will F

not hear the two of them discussed by the church—that is, by the |4
one party—but by history. .
In order to exclude from the outset all modern impressions and
judgments, I will
proceed
from the view concerning the_heretics ,
and their doctrines which was cherished
already in the second cen- ~** ;
tury by the ancient church, and will test its defensibility in hopes
of discovering, by means of such a critica procedure, a route to the
goal. The ecclesiastical position includes roughly the following main
points: : ,
x

(1) Jesus reveals the pure doctrine to his apostles, partly before |
his death, and partly in the forty days before his ascension. :

(2) After Jesus’ final departure, the apostles apportion the world | 7/)
among themselves, and each takes the unadulterated gospel to the |
land which has been allotted him.

The devil cannot resist sowing weeds in the divine wheatfield—and

he is successful at it. True Christians blinded by him abandon the
pure doctrine. This development takes place in the following se- 7
quence: unbelief, right belief, wrong belief. There is scarcely the | .
faintest notion anywhere that unbelief might be changed directly into —
what the church calls false belief. No, ‘where thereis heresy, ortho- (4)
doxy_must_have preceded. For example, Origen )puts it like this: “All ¢ ~) f
co
heretics at first are believers; then later ‘they swerve from the rule of
Rag ak naa yee HE TARE als
- This view is so deeply rooted, and so widely held, that it applies
even to such personalities as Mani, who is supposed to have been a
©=eengs

a
presbyter of the church and valiant warrior against both Jews and
pagans, but then left the church because he took it as a personal
‘offence that his students received such scanty recognition (see be-
low, 39). In general, it is an opinion of orthodoxy that only impurey-
motives drive the heretic from the church—indeed, this must be so if
1. Commentary on the Song of Songs, 3 (to Cant. 2.2): omnes enim haeretici
primo ad credulitatem veniunt, et post haec ab itinere fidei et dogmatum
veritate declinant (ed. W. A. Baehrens, GCS 33 [1925]; ET by R. P. Lawson,
ACW 26 [1957]). See also the fragment from Origen on Proverbs (to 2.16), ed.
Lommatzsch 13,228 (=PG 13, 28f.). Tertullian speaks similarly at thggend of
Prescription against Heretics 36 in his analogy of the wild olive (or fig) tree
(=heresy) which springs from a cultivated seed (= orthodox doctrine).
Xxiil
 ORTHODOXY AND HERESY IN EARLIEST CHRISTIANITY

the evil-one is at the bottom of it all. Already Hegesippus, who was

in Rome around the year 160, asserts that after the martyr’s death of
James the Just, Thebutis had begun to corrupt the church, which until
then had been a pure virgin, [4] through false belief, because he had
not succeeded James as the leader of the Jerusalem community
(EH 4.22.4-6). We hear similar things about Valentinus (below, 39
n. 91, and 128), Marcion,? and Bardesanes (below, 38 f.).
(4) Of course, right belief is invincible. In spite of all the efforts
of Satan and his instruments, it repels unbelief and false belief,
and extends its victorious sway ever further.
Scholarship has not found it difficult to criticize these convictions.
It knows that the ecclesiastical doctrine was not yet present with
Jesus; likewise, that the twelve apostles by no means played the role
assigned to them out of consideration for the purity and revealed
nature of ecclesiastical dogma. Further, historical thinking that is
worthy of this name refuses to employ here the correlatives “true”
_ and “untrue,” “bad” and “good.” It is not easily convinced of the
moral inferiority attributed to the heretics. It recognizes there the
same embarrassed, and thus artificial, claim that emanated from Jewish
Christianity when it asserted that Paul had sued for the hand of the
high priest’s daughter and, when it was denied him, began to rage
against Torah (Epiphanius Her. 30.16).
Sooner or later, however, a point is reached at which criticism bogs
down. For my tastes, it all too easily submits to the ecclesiastical
opinion as to what is early and late, original and dependent, essential
and unimportant for the earliest history of Christianity. If my im-
pression is correct, even today the overwhelmingly dominant view
still is that for the period of Christian origins, ecclesiastical doctrine
(of course, only as this pertains to a certain stage in its development)
already represents what is primary, while heresies, on the other hand,
somehow are a deviation from the genuine. I do not mean to say that
this point of view must be false, but neither can I regard it as self-
evident, or even as demonstrated and clearly established. Rather, we
are confronted here with a problem that merits our attention.
In this way, the subject of my book is defined more precisely, and
I am left free to bypass much else that also could be treated under
2. [Epiphanius Her. 42.1.8; see also Tertullian Prescription against Heretics
30 and Against Marcion 4.4, and the Edessene Chronicle 6 (below pp. 14 ff., 38).]
XXiv
 INTRODUCTION

the title I have selected. For example, I do not intend to present

once again a description of the tenets of the ancient heresies, but I
presuppose that they are well known, along with many other things.
We live in a time that demands concise discussion, and repetition of
what already has been presented in a suitable manner [5] should
not be tolerated. Therefore, he who opens this book in hopes of
finding therein a convenient synopsis of what fellow-scholars already
have contributed to this or to that aspect of the theme will be
disappointed.
As we turn to our task, the New Testament seems to be both too)
unproductive and too much disputed to be able to serve as a point |
of departure. The majority of its anti-heretical writings cannot be ah
arranged with confidence either chronologically or geographically;
nor can the more precise circumstances of their origin be determined
with sufficient precision. It is advisable, therefore, first of all to inter-
rogate other sources concerning the relationship of orthodoxy and
heresy, so that, with the insights that may be gained there, we may
try to determine the time and place of their origins. I have chosen
to begin with Edessa and Egypt so as to obtain a glimpse into the
emergence and the original condition of Christianity in regions other
than those that the New Testament depicts as affected by this religion._
a aeivi ree alas.

vr’ “90
+ Li igevaind .
: 2a oer: “

7 i wht 2g
rt] i mee :
,
-
:
*
shim i a

' “i ta a"
a
 1

Edessa

After the breakup of the kingdom of Alexander the Great, Mesopo-

tamia, including the region in which Edessa lay, came under the
control of Seleucus I Nicator. He reorganized an extant settlement
there, Osroé, by mixing the population wit ners who spoke
Greek, and gave it the Macedonian nam Edessa‘ In the second
half of the second century sB.c.r., as the Seleucid kingdom disin-
tegrated in the wars with Parthia (145-129), insubordinate despots
seized power for themselves in Edessa and its environs (i.e., in the
Osroéne), as was true elsewhere in Mesopotamia (Diodorus Exc.
Escur. 25), at first under Parthian dominion. Thereafter, they came
under the Armenian banner in the time of Tigranes, and then the
Roman through Lucullus and Pompey. With the assassination of Cara-
calla, which occurred in Edessa in 217 c.x., the local dynasty finally
came to an end, after various preliminary interludes, when the
Osroéne was incorporated into the Roman Empire.”
The Greek influence did not have a long or profound effect here.
According to the Chronicle of Jacob of Edessa, who lived in the
ce
seventh century, the Greek part of the population was so greatly
diminished already by the year 180 of the Seleucid era (= 133 B.c.E.)
1. Appian Roman History 11 (Syrian Wars). 57 (ed. and ET by H. White, LCL
[1912]). The name Edessa, which is Illyrian in origin, means “water-city”; cf.
U. Wilcken, Alexander the Great (ET by G. C. Richards from 1931 German,
London: Chatto and Windus, 1932), p. 23 (=German 20).
2. A. von Gutschmid, Untersuchungen iiber die Geschichte des Kénigreiches
Osroéne, Mémoires de l’Academie impériale des Sciences de S. Pétersbourg,
series 7, vol. 35.1 (St. Petersburg, 1887); E. Meyer, “Edessa,” Paulys Realen-
cyclopddie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft, ed. G. Wissowa, 5.2 (Stuttgart,
1905), 1933-1938,

1
 ORTHODOXY AND HERESY IN EARLIEST CHRISTIANITY

that they allowed the native population to have a king from their own
midst.? The rulers—strictly speaking they were not kings but toparchs,
even though the coins occasionally also call them [7] “king” (basileus)
—even at that time bear predominantly Arabic or Aramaic names:
‘Abdu, Ma‘nu, Bakru, Abgar, W4’il. Moreover, the old Semitic desig-
nation of the city is revived at the expense of “Edessa”—it is called
Urhai, modern Urfa (see below, n. 11). There is a corresponding
lack of Greek inscriptions for the first centuries of the common era.
The native princes use Syriac inscriptions on their coins. Roman gold
pieces, which were in circulation in the area from the time of Marcus
Aurelius, of course have Greek legends, as do the coins which name
the emperor along with a local prince. Only Abgar IX* (179-214),
the Roman minion, prefers a Greek inscription even for himself alone.°
This represents only his own attitude, not the national orientation of
his subjects.
When we ask how and when Christianity gained influence in this
region, it is unnecessary to begin with a survey of the sourees—which
are in Syriac, Greek, and a few in Latin. Instead, for the sake of
convenience, we will combine the information concerning the sources
\ with the evaluation of them and with the collection of discernible
\data made possible thereby.
The story of King Abgar V Ukkama (=the Black), who ruled from
| 9-46 cx., and his relationship to Jesus is well known.° It is found
', “in its oldest form in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History [=EH] 1.13,
who first tells the story, then introduces the documentation, so as to
Py

return once again to the story. The king, who has heard of the miracu-
lous healings performed by Jesus, appeals to him by letter, acknowl-
edges his deity, and begs to be freed from the illness that afflicts
him. At the same time, in view of the hostility of the Jews, he offers
his own home city to Jesus as a safe dwelling place, Jesus answers
3. Syriac text ed. by E.-W. Brooks, with a Latin translation in the companion
volume, by J. B. Chabot, in part 2 of Chronica minora (CSCO, Scriptores Syri,
series 3, vol. 4, 1903), syr. 281 f., lat. 211.
4, So Gutschmid and others such as F. Haase; but H. Leclercq, following M.
Babelon, designates him as Abgar VIII-DACL 4 (1921): 2065 ff. (esp. 2065.7).
5. Gutschmid, Osroéne, pp. 37 ff.; G. F. Hill; Catalogue of Greek Coins in the
British Museum: the Greek Coins of Arabia, Mesopotamia and Persia (London:
Longmans, 1922), e.g. p. CI, no. 5.
6. [See also Bauer’s treatment of this subject in Hennecke-Schneemelcher, 1:
437 ff. On Edessene Christianity in general, see most recently J. B. Segal, Edessa:
“The Blessed City” (Oxford and New York: University Press, 1970).]
2
 EDESSA

likewise in writing. He blesses the king for believing without having

seen. He must decline the invitation, since he has to fulfill his calling
and his earthly life in Palestine. But after his death and ascension
a disciple will come who will heal the king and will bring life to
him, as well as to his people. Then this actually took place. [8]
Eusebius makes the transition from his account (EH 1.13.1-4) to
| the verbatim reproduction of the two letters as follows (13,5): “There
| is also documentary evidence of these things, taken from the record
\ office at Edessa, a city which at that time was still ruled by a king.
For in the public documents there, which also contain the experi-
ences of Abgar among other events of antiquity, these things also have
been found preserved from his time until the present. But there is
nothing like listening to the letters themselves, which we have taken
from the archives, and which translated literally from the Syriac are
as follows.”
After reproducing the letters (13.6-10) Eusebius continues: “To
these letters the following is appended, in Syriac” (13.11). There
follows (13.12-21) the account of how after the ascension “Judas,
who is also called Thomas” sends Thaddaeus, one of the seventy
disciples, to Edessa. pase a ‘Abgar and many others, and is
requested by the “toparch” (13.13; cf. also 13.6) to tell him about
Jesus’ life and works. Thaddaeus declares his willingness, but he
wants to do so on the following day before the entire populace. Thus
all the citizens of the city are summoned (13.20). Still, nothing more
is said about the projected apostolic sermon, but the account con- f

cludes with the statement: “These things took place in the year 340_ oA ’ fyh
re

[of the Seleucid era = 28/29 c.x.J” (13.22*). Finally the whole thing
ends with the words of Eusebius: “Let this useful story, translated
literally from the Syriac, stand here in its proper place” (13.22°),
The account of the conversion of Edessa, which we have just pre-
sented from Eusebius (EH 1.13; cf. 2.1.6-8), can in no way and to
no extent be traced back as a report that is earlier than the beginning
of the fourth century, when Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History originated.
On the other hand, toward the end of that century or the beginning
of the next, the report underwent further development, which reached
a culmination of sorts in the so-called Doctrina Addai, a Syriac book
which was written in Edessa around the year 400.7 In it the material
7. G. Phillips, The Doctrine of Addai the Apostle (London, 1876).
3
 ORTHODOXY AND HERESY IN EARLIEST CHRISTIANITY

known from Eusebius reappears, albeit to a considerable measure

expanded, among other things, by a detailed account of the activity
of the apostolic emissary ® in Edessa, who preaches, baptizes, and
builds the first church. [9]
In surveying this information from the earliest history of Christian
Edessa there naturally occurs to us what had been said above xxiii
about the ecclesiastical way of thinking. The decisive role that is
attributed to Jesus and his apostle is viewed quite ecclesiastically.
Indeed, the stronger the ecclesiastical coloring is applied, the more
powerfully does doubt assert itself as to the truth of what is stated.
In this instance we are in the happy position of not having to in-
vestigate the doubts individually. In the twentieth century the con-
viction has quite generally prevailed that Eusebius is not tracing the
actual course of history, but is relating a legend. Today the only thing
that remains to be asked is whether the church father’s presentation
is completely useless for shedding light upon the origin of the Chris-
tian church in Edessa, or whether in the justifiable rejection of the
whole we may still single out this or that particular trait, in order
to derive therefrom some sort of tenable insight for ourselves.
That the latter is legitimate is at present the almost universally
acknowledged scholarly view. Thus one may point, for example, to
the figure of Tobias, who according to Eusebius, lives in Edessa and
mediates the contact between Thaddaeus and Abgar (EH 1.13.11
and 18). From this, one ore posuce the pets —- that Ons
pu ae
quite tenuous in view ‘of the fact that Pachnn have nothing at all
about the Judaism of Tobias, but it is left to the reader to draw from
the name itself the necessary conclusion as a basis for all the rest.
Much more significant is the wide currency gained, especially
through the work of the historian A. von Gutschmid, by the view that
it was not Abgar V, the contemporary of Jesus, but in fact a later
prince by the same name—Abgar IX (179-214)—who first turned
Christian and thereby helped this religion to erupt.® Nevertheless, the
8. Here he is called Addai, not Thaddeus as in Eusebius.
9, Gutschmid, Osroéne, pp. 1 ff. [See also, e.g. H. Lietzmann, A History of the
Early Church in 4 vols. (ET by B. L. Woolf from the 1932-44 German; London:
Lutterworth, 1937-53; reprint New York: Meridian paperback, 1961), 2:
260 (=German p. 266), in conscious disagreement with Bauer. (The date
250 in the ET is a typographical error for 200.)]
4
 EDESSA

grounds for accepting a conversion of this later Abgar appear to me

to be overrated, while the counterarguments are not given enough
consideration.’° [10] We must still give serious attention to the fact
that without exception the ancient authors who speak of a Christian
King Abgar of Edessa mean that one with whom Jesus is supposed
to have been in correspondence. The possibility of this ninth Abgar
has been uncovered by modern scholarship only as a substitute for
the conversion of the fifth Abgar, which at present no one can se-
riously accept any longer.
The only support for the modern view is, after all, a passage from
the Book of the Laws of the Countries, one of the oldest monuments
of original Syriac prose, a product of the school of Bar Daisan (whom
the Greeks call Bardesanes), from the beginning of the third century,
Chapter 45 reads: “In Syria and in Urhai!! the men used to castrate
themselves in honor of Taratha. But when King Abgar became a
believer, he commanded that anyone who emasculated himself should
have a hand cut off. And from that day to the present no one in
Urhai emasculates himself anymore.” !2 Thus we have reference to a
Christian King Abgar by an Edessene author at the beginning of
the third century. Since, on the basis of what is known, Abgar V
does not qualify, one may now think of the ninth Abgar, who prob-
ably would have been an early contemporary of that author.
But does a person use the expression “from this day down to mine”
to speak of his contemporary? Is not one who speaks in this way
looking back to a personality who lived much earlier? But this ob-
servation, which serves to shake the opinion that the text refers to
Abgar IX, by no means leads to the view that one must now refer
it to Abgar V and suppose that the Abgar legend already existed
in some form at the time when the Book of the Laws of the Countries
was written. For that book really offers no guarantee for the presence
10. H. Gompertz opposes the idea that Abgar IX was converted to Christianity
in an essay “Hat es jemals in Edessa christliche K6énige gegeben?” in the
Archiologisch-epigraphischen Mitteilungen aus Csterreich-Ungarn, 9 (1896):
154-157. Also sceptical is F. Haase, Altchristliche Kirchengeschichte nach orienta-
lischen Quellen (Leipzig, 1925), pp. 84 ff.
11. Urhai is the Aramaic name of the city called Edessa by the Macedonians.
The old name later regained its prevalence and still is reflected in the modern
name Urfa (see above, 2). [Greek text Eusebius Pr. Gosp. 6.10 reads Osroéne.]
12. Ed. by F. Nau in PSyr 1.2 (1907): 606. [Separate ed. by Nau (Paris, 1931).
Text and ET by W. Cureton, Spicilegium Syriacum (London, 1855); ET by
B. P. Pratten, ANF 8:723-734.]
5
 ORTHODOXY AND HERESY IN EARLIEST CHRISTIANITY

of Christianity within the Edessene royal household, be it earlier or

later. The Syriac text from which we have proceeded can not be
trusted. The earliest witness for the text of that [11] ancient Syriac
writing under consideration is not a codex in that language, but is
Eusebius, who has copied the Book of the Laws in his Preparation
for the Gospel 6.10. When he comes to speak of the customs in Edessa,
he is in close enough agreement, for the most part, with the Syriac
text; but the explanation referring to the faith of the king—that is,
the words “when he became a believer” in the passage cited above—
cannot be found in Eusebius (6.10.44). But since he knew of a King
Abgar of Edessa who had become a believer, as is clear from the
Ecclesiastical History (see above, 2f.), and since he had absolutely
no reason to eliminate the words which would have been helpful to
the Christian cause, the only remaining conclusion is that he did not
find them in his source; and the Syriac text doubtless is indebted for
them, as an appended postscript, to someone who knew the Abgar
legend. If this sort of person heard of such a measure taken by a
King Abgar, a measure which from his point of view must have
seemed directed against paganism, to what else could he attribute
it than the Christian faith of the famous prince Abgar? Actually, the
decisive stand of an ancient ruler against emasculation requires no
Christian motivation. From the time of Domitian, the pagan emperors
proceeded with ever sharper measures against this offense.1*
The rest of what is adduced in support of a Christian king of
Edessa appears to me to be entirely without importance. The Chris-
tian Sextus Julius Africanus, who around the year 200 spent some
time at the Edessene royal court, once refers to his contemporary
Abgar as “a holy person.” 14 This is not to be exploited as a Christian
13. Moreover, the measure instituted by that Abgar of whom the Book of the
Laws speaks (above, n. 12) and to whom we are no longer able to ascribe a
number in no way produced the thorough and lasting effect that one is led to
expect when he reads the passage devoted to him. Even in the fifth century,
Rabbula of Edessa in his rules for priests and clerics must stipulate that no
Christian is to emasculate himself: J. J. Overbeck (ed.), S. Ephraemi Syri
Rabulae Episcopi Edesseni, Balaei, aliorumque opera selecta (Oxford, 1865),
p. 221.4, Isaac of Antioch, doubtless an Edessene priest of the fifth cen-
tury, inveighs mightily against self-mutilation in Carmen 37.467 ff. (ed. G.
Bickell, S. Isaaci Antiocheni, doctoris Syrorum, opera omnia, 2 [Giessen, 1877]:
260 ff. = ed. of P. Bedjan [Paris, 1903], no. 51, pp. 633 ff.)
14. Hieros anér, in George Syncellus, Chronicle (Chronographie, ed. G. Dindorf
[Bonn, 1829], 1: 676.13).
6
 EDESSA

confession, and is understood quite correctly by Eusebius in his

Chronicle for the year 2235 of Abraham (probably = 218 cx.), when
he says: [12] “Abgar, a distinguished man, ruled over Urrha, as Afri-
canus relates.” Also from Africanus derives the report of Epiphanius,
when in the description of the heresy of Bardesanes he character-
izes the contemporary Edessene ruler Abgar as a “most pious and
reasonable person” (anér hosidtatos kai logidtatos, Her. 56.1.3).
In support of our position is the fact that in a Syriac novel dealing
with Julian the Apostate, from a manuscript no later than the seventh
century, Satan explains: “From the beginning of the world, there was
no nation or kingdom that did not honor me. Only this Constantine
reneged.” *° Itappears, then, that the original Syrian who is telling
this story knows nothing of a Christian prince prior to Constantine;
of no such tradition from his own, Syriac-speaking area,
thus he knows
~ Further, two large marble columns are still standing on the citadel
in Edessa (Urfa), one of which bears an inscription in honor of the
Queen Chelmath, the daughter of Manu.’® The form of the letters
in the inscription is that of approximately 200 c.z. Thus it is quite
possible that the princess named was the wife of that Abgar who is
supposed to have become a Christian around the turn of the third
century.17 Now H. Pognon suggests what appears to me quite likely,
that the columns originally were among those mentioned in an anony-
mous Chronicle that Rahmani has edited from an Edessene codex:
“There was in Urhai a great pagan temple, splendidly built, from
the time of the great king Seleucus. . . . It was magnificently deco-
rated and in its midst were great marble columns.” !® Later, this
temple was remodelled into a church and received the name “Church
of our Redeemer.” If Pognon’s supposition is correct, and people have
perpetuated the name of Abgar’s wife in a pagan temple to her honor,
and the inscription was not removed [13] subsequently, then from
15. T. Néldeke in Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenlindischen Gesellschaft,
28 (1874): 665 (see 671 on the date of the manuscript). The Syriac text is
given in G. Hoffmann, Julian der Abtriunnige (Leiden: Brill, 1880), at the end
(fol. 53>-542) [ET by H. Gollancz, Julian the Apostate, now translated for the
first time from the Syriac original (London: Milford, 1928), p. 260].
16. According to Eusebius EH 2.12.3, several splendid pillars of Queen Helena
of Adiabene stand in the suburbs of Aelia [= Jerusalem].
17. So H. Leclereq in DACL 4 (1921): 2102 f.
18. H. Pognon, Inscriptions sémitiques de la Syrie, de la Mésopotamie et de la
Région de Mossoul (Paris: Lecoffre, 1907), pp. 206 f. I. E. Rahmani (ed.),
Chronicon civile et ecclesiasticum anonymi auctoris (Mt. Libano, 1904), p. 66.3 ff.
7
 ORTHODOXY AND HERESY IN EARLIEST CHRISTIANITY

this point of view also, the Christianity of her royal spouse is ren-
dered somewhat doubtful.
Finally, it is to be remembered that Dio Cassius tells of the extra-
ordinary cruelty of this very Abgar.1® Thus at least in his case, the
Christian faith cannot have had a very deep effect.
The purpose of this criticism is to contest the assumption that the
presence of a Christian prince and of a state church for Edessa
around the year 200 is in any way assured. But also, apart from the
problem of the ruler, the existence of ecclesiastically organized Chris-
tianity in Edessa at this time cannot be asserted with any confi-
dence, no matter how frequently and from what impressive quarters
this is constantly repeated. If we examine the sources for the earliest
history of Christianity in Edessa, it will appear to us that in his
Ecclesiastical History, which went through four editions in the years
311/12 to 324/25,2° Eusebius ought to be able to give us the best in-
formation. The learned bishop even lived in Palestine, not excessively
distant from the region with which we are concerned, and he also
understood Syriac, the language spoken there. But an investigation
of what the “father of church history” knows, or at least communi-
cates, concerning the situation in the Mesopotamian neighborhood
before and during his epoch—apart from the impossible Abgar story—
discloses a result that is disturbing for its poverty. I enumerate:
a) EH 4.2.5: Trajan has cleared Mesopotamia of the Jews. Eusebius
knows this from the Greek historians who tell of Trajan’s reign.
b) EH 7.5.2: A letter of Dionysius of Alexandria to the Roman
bishop Stephen (255-257) is quoted, in which, among the Oriental
churches which earlier were divided and now are united, there are
also listed quite summarily “Mesopotamia, and Pontus and Bithynia”
(Mesopotamia Pontos te kai Bithynia).
c) EH 9.12.1: Under Diocletian the Christians in Mesopotamia, in
contrast to other provinces, were hung by the feet over a slow fire.
There is nothing much of significance there. But up to this point
we still have not examined [14] the passage that always is adduced
in order to prove that already in the second century there must
have been ecclesiastically organized Christianity of a not-inconsid-
erable size in Mesopotamia.
19. Roman History, Epitome of 78.12.la (ed. E. Carey, LCL [1927] = Exc. Vales.
369/p. 746); cf. Gutschmid, Osroéne, p. 36.
20. Cf. the GCS edition of EH by E. Schwartz, 3: XLVII ff.
8
 EDESSA

d) EH 5.23.4; At the time of the Roman bishop Victor (189-99),

gatherings of bishops took place everywhere on the matter of the
Easter controversy, and Eusebius still knows of letters in which the
church leaders have set down their opinion, In this connection, the
following localities are enumerated: Palestine, Rome, Pontus, Gaul,
and then the “Osroéne and the cities there.” The phrase “and the
cities there” is as unusual as it is superfluous. Where else are the
Osroéne bishops supposed to have been situated except in the “cities
there”? But what speaks even more decisively against these words
than this-sort of observation is the fact that the earliest witness for
,| the text of Eusebius, the Latin translation of Rufinus, does not con-
\\ tain the words “as well as from those in the Osroéne and the cities
Athere.” This cannot be due to tampering with the text by the Italian
translator, for whom eastern matters are of no great concern. In those
books with which he has supplemented Eusebius’ History, Rufinus
mentions Mesopotamia and Edessa several times (11.5 and 8 at the
end; see below, n. 24). Thus the only remaining possibility is that in
his copy of EH 5.23.4 he found no reference to the Osroéne, but
that we are dealing here with a grammatically awkward interpola-
tion by a later person who noted the omission of Edessa and its
environs.
The author of the Ecclesiastical History is not well informed about
Mesopotamia; this verdict may be rendered without apology. He
does mention Julius Africanus and makes excerpts from his Chron-
icle,21 but without mentioning Mesopotamia or Edessa on such oc-
casions. For him, Bardesanes belongs quite generally to the “land
of the two rivers”; he has not learned anything more specific about
him (EH 4.30.1). And by his own admission, it is only by hearsay
that he is acquainted with the gospel in use by the Christians of that
area in his own time, the so-called Diatessaron (4.29.6). This indi-
\cates to me that ecclesiastical Christianity cannot have been flourish-
ing in Mesopotamia at that time, at least not in a form congenial to
| Eusebius. Apparently, he never felt the temptation to examine these
‘areas in person, and he was able to secure only a few literary items
lofinformation about them. [15]
] And for this reason alone he could fall victim to a forgery like
{the Jesus-Abgar correspondence. What then is the situation? Eusebius

21. See the index of literature cited in the Schwartz edition of EH, 3: 62.
9
 ORTHODOXY AND HERESY IN EARLIEST CHRISTIANITY

declares often (above, 3) and with emphasis that he is dealing with

a document from the archives of Edessa. Although we cannot be
absolutely sure from his statement that he himself had translated the
material from the Syriac, we can be certain that the material was
given to him with the express assurance that it came from the public
records of Edessa. It is well to note that it is not Jerome or some
other questionable person that is speaking here, but a man whose
devotion to truth and whose honesty are above suspicion. Thus for me,
what he describes to be the state of affairs is reliable. This means that
_I proceed from the following assumption: Eusebius has not fabricated
- this himself, but has been deceived by ‘someone else. And his credu-
lity is explained first of all by.his utter ‘ignorance of the entire Mesopo-
tamian situation, and perhaps also because the one who brought him
\ the Syriac manuscript introduced himself in such a way as to pre-
' clude any misgivings. Later, we will suggest a possible solution to this
. problem (below, 35-39).
But first, a few observations. Naturally, based on the principle
“Who stands to benefit?”, the correspondence with its embellishments
stems from Edessa. But it is noteworthy that even long after the
appearance of Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History the Edessene public
knows nothing of this exchange of letters. Ephraem of Edessa (d. 373),
who praises the conversion of the city with rhetorical exaggeration,
knows only of the sending of the apostle Addai, nothing more.”? At
least nothing else seems to him [16] worth mentioning. It is not that
92. See F. Haase, Kirchengeschichte, pp. 71f.; R. A. Lipsius, Die apokryphen
Apostelgeschichten und Apostellegenden, 2.2 (Braunschweig, 1884): 182 ff. More-
over, the only place, to my knowledge, in which Abgar appears in the works of
Ephraem—and here not as a letter writer or author, but as a patient of Thaddeus
—is in the appendix to his commentary on the Diatessaron (preserved in Armenian;
Latin tr. by J. B. Aucher with ed. of G. Moesinger, Evangelii concordantis ex-
posito [Venice, 1876], p. 287; ed. L. Leloir, CSCO 137/145 = Scriptores Armeniaci
1-2 [1953-54], 350/248; this material is lacking in the Syriac materials—see
Leloir’s introduction and French translation in SC 121 [1966]), against which
one may raise doubts. Immediately after the interpretation of the gospel har-
mony, this text deals with the origin of the four canonical gospels, with which
Ephraem had no close connection (cf. J. Schafers, Evangelienzitate in Ephraems
des Syrers Kommentar zu den paulinischen Schriften [Freiburg im B., 1917],
especially 47), and adds a catalogue of heretics that has nothing in common
with the struggle against false belief exhibited elsewhere by Ephraem, and can
scarcely be derived from a treatise of Ephraem “De Sectis” (On the Sects/Here-
sies )—essentially it deals with the seven Jewish heresies that were known since
the time of Justin and [16] Hegesippus (in EH 4.22.7). Ephraem Carmina
Nisibena 27.62 (see below, n. 58) alludes to an apostle as the founder of the
Edessene church, without saying more.
10
 EDESSA

personal critical principles have determined Ephraem’s selection;

there is another apocryphal exchange of letters, between Paul and the
Corinthians (from the spurious Acts of Paul), that he incorporates
confidently into his Bible. Not until around the end of the fourth
century or the beginning of the fifth do we find evidence that the
Edessene Christians are acquainted with the Abgar saga, which has
now increased considerably in scope beyond the form known to
Eusebius (see above, 2-3)—it is attested by the pilgrim Aetheria,?*
who at the same time shows that her western homeland was ac-
quainted with it, and by the Doctrina Addai (above, 3).
From this I conclude that someone in Edessa must have proceeded
in an exceptionally cautious fashion. He did not endanger the under-
taking by suddenly appearing in Edessa itself with the assertion that
——.
nearly three centuries earlier the city had stood in close connection
with Jesus in person, which certainly would not have been accepted
without contradiction, least of all by the opponents of those circles
interested in the legend. Rather, this person made use of the zeal
/ for collecting which characterized the learned and guileless bishop
of Caesarea, who was wholly inexperienced with regard to the situa-
\. tion in Mesopotamia, slipped into his hands the “Syrian Acts,” cheer-
fully and justifiably confident that this story soon would find its way
back home in improved and enlarged form, now secure against all
assaults,
Thus we find the Abgar saga to be a pure fabrication, without any
connection with reality, which need not have emerged éarlier than
the beginning
of the fourth century (see below, 35 f.), and which says
nothing certain about theChristianity of Edessa in an earlier time.
The converted king loses all claim to be taken seriously when one
accepts him as a legendary figure and resolutely rejects any thought
of a “historical kernel.” The apostle Thomas, whose remains rested
in Edessa from the fourth century,24 and whose much earlier Acts
23. P. Geyer (ed.), Itinera Hierosolymitana saec. IV-VIII (CSEL 39, 1898),
p. 19 (=17.1). Cf. A. Bludau, Die Pilgerreise der Aetheria (Paderborn: Schéningh,
1927), 245 ff.dated no earlier than the very end of the fourth century (ca.
394; p. 248).
24. According to Ephraem Carmina Nisibena 42.9-40 (see below, n. 58);
Edessene Chronicle 38, for 22 August 394 (the day on which the shrine in the
reat church at Edessa, which is still called that of Thomas, was transferred
there); [17] Rufinus Eccl. Hist. 2.5 (= 11.5 in the Schwartz-Mommsen GCS ed. of
EH); Socrates Eccl. Hist. 4.18 [ET by A. C. Zenos, NPNF 2, series 2]; Sozomen
Eccl. Hist. 6.18 [ET by C. D. Hantranft, NPNF 2, series 2].
i
 ORTHODOXY AND HERESY IN EARLIEST CHRISTIANITY

stems from this region, [17] also converted a king, Gundafor of India
(Acts of Thomas 24 ff.). This story may have provided inspiration
for the fabricator, but it is not necessary to conjecture such a
connection.
If Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History does not reach back to_an earlier
period as a source forEdessa, where else do we hear anything about
ihe earlier time? We know that Sextus Julius “Africanus, who stayed
at theEdessecourtne as a friend of Abgar IX and companion to his
son, was a Christian. But his Christianity could tolerate not only the
close association with pagan princes, but even contact with Barde-
sanes, and in general was of such a sort that one could hardly de-
scribe him as a particular “type,” and certainly not as a representative
of “orthodoxy” in any ecclesiastical sense.?° But that there were Chris-
tians of another kind in Edessa_at_that_time does not need to be
since we have just mentioned one such example in the
demonstrated,
person of Bardesanes. I pose the question: With respect to the history
-| of the church of Edessa, how well does the widely held view stand
up, that in the various cities at the beginning there existed com-
» munities of orthodox Christians—naturally orthodoxy is understood to
- involve a certain development and unfolding—who form the genuine
kernel of Christianity, and alongside are minorities of those who are
“off the track” and are regarded and treated as heretics? I raise the
question as to how well it stands the test, and find the answer,~it
stands up poorly. Up to now nothing has spoken in its favor.
Even the Edessene Chronicle requires no different interpretation.”®
Quite the contrary. Compiled at the close of the sixth century,?* [18]
the Chronicle contains a lengthy account of the great inundation in
Edessa in November of 201 c.£. prior to the actual chronology, which
25. See below, 159-165. The same may be said of the scripturally learned
Macarius of Edessa, with whom Lucian, the spiritual foster-father of Arius, is
supposed to have pursued his first studies according to Suidas and Symeon
Metaphrastes (texts in J. Bidez [ed.], Kirchengeschichte des Philostorgius [GCS,
1913], p. 184). On the whole, when someone has obtained something from
Edessa, it is scented with the odor of heresy, as with Eusebius of Emesa (d.
359) whose astrological inclinations caused the members of his diocese to oppose
his installation. For the subtleties of trinitarian orthodoxy, on the other hand, he
had no capacity. See G. Kriiger, RPTK3 5 (1898): 618 f.
26. Ed. by I. Guidi in part 1 of Chronica minora (CSCO, Scriptores Syri ser. 3,
vol. 4, 1903), pp. 1-11. L. Hallier, Untersuchungen iiber die Edessenische Chronik
Vike 1893). [ET by B. H. Cowper in Journal of Sacred Literature 5 (1864):
28 f .
27. Hallier, Chronik, p. 63.
12
 EDESSA

is presented for the most part in short sentences or sections. According

to the concluding remark, this flood account purports to be the au-
thentic record that King Abgar—at this time it is Abgar IX, whom
we already know (see above, 4ff.)—had drawn up and incorpo-
rated into his archives. According to the account, everything that lay
in the range of the river Daisan, which flowed through the city, had
been flooded, including the king’s palace and “the holy place of the
church of the Christians.”
Thus by the end of the second century, at the latest, there was
already a special Christian cultic edifice in Edessa, and therefore
certainly also an organized church group.
With respect to the course of argument being pursued, I do not
now intend to withdraw from the field by insisting that the co-
religionists of Bardesanes could have sung their hymns in the above-
mentioned house of God. Nor will I maintain that the Marcionites,
of whose tremendous importance for the establishment of Christianity
in Edessa we shall hear more (below, 16 and 21 ff.), were the
owners of the building, and thus rule out the orthodox church at
Edessa around the year 200, Finally, it is also not my intention to
seek cover behind the Chronicle of Dionysius of Tell Mahré (from
the year 776),?8 which contains the same account of the inundation,
only briefer and without mentioning the church building. Something
else arouses my suspicions, Could there already actually have been a
Christian church in Edessa around the year 200 that a neutral ob-
server would have singled out for mention from the general catas-
trophe as the only building besides the royal palace? Is it.not far
more likely that Christian interest is manifest here? “The holy place
of the church of the Christians” is too emphatic. The pagan archivist
who was commissioned to frame the report would, in my opinion,
have spoken either of the “holy place” or of the “church’—both in the
sense of the cultic building. The redundance points to a Christian.
' For at this time simply the one word alone—the church—can desig-
_ nate the building; with the expression “holy place,” on the other hand,
the emphasis falls upon the concept implied therein, which is to be
eee
ce
a rendered adjectivally—“the holy church of the Christians.” But this,

28. Ed. by J. B. Chabot, CSCO Script. Syri 3.1-2 (1927, 1933), with correspond-
ing Latin translation in CSCO 121 (=Ser. Syri 3.1, 1949). German translation
by T. Nodldeke in Gutschmid, Osroéne, p. 7.
13
 ORTHODOXY AND HERESY IN EARLIEST CHRISTIANITY

it seems to me, is an impossible mode of expression for an

unbeliever. [19]
In addition, something more is recorded, and that settles matters
for me. The Christian Chronicle which follows the pagan archival
account notes for the year 205/6: “Abgar built the palaces ** in his
city,” but it says nothing about that which must above all else have
been of interest to its readers, the rebuilding of the church. And to
illumine the state of things even more clearly, even to the most
remote corner, it is more than a century before the Chronicle declares,
for the year 313: “Bishop Ktiné (= Koinos) laid the foundation for
the church in Urhai. His successor Scha‘ad built and completed it.”
Thus it was not a rebuilding, even of a structure that had lain in
ruins for more than a century, but an initial construction of the church
of Urhai, This church was actually destroyed by flooding in the year
525 and was restored by the Emperor Justinian in lavish splendor.*°
Therefore a Christian of the sixth century, to whom it was, of course,
self-evident that the apostolic emissary Addai had already built the
church of Edessa,?! may have felt the impulse to include the destruc-
tion of the church with the account of an earlier inundation. At any
rate, this much seems certain to me—in the year 201 there was still
no “church of Edessa.”
ae
Scikined
Nevertheless, the Edessene Chronicle offers us also some important
positive insights. In it an Edessene Christian of the sixth century has
listed the succession of events that are of particular significance for
his countrymen and his fellow believers. At the beginning, he also
brings forward matters from secular history, but later the secular
recedes more into the background. If we count as number 1 the
chronologically, materially, and formally different account of the flood,
Fd

29, The pural number is explained by the official report, which speaks of a
temporary winter dwelling for the king, and of a new palace ready for occupation
in the summer. Cf. Hallier, Chronik, p. 91. That also helps us to understand
the chronological interval between 205 and the year of the catastrophe in 201.
30. Procopius Buildings 2.7 (ed. Dindorf, 3 [Bonn, 1838]: 228; ed. and ET by
H. B. Dewing and G. Downey, LCL [1940]).
31. Doctrina Addai (ed. Phillips, p. 30). This is repeated by, among others,
Solomon of al-Basra, The Bee (ed. with ET by E, A. W. Budge [Oxford, 1886]),
p. 109; and Bar Hebraeus (see Haase, Kirchengeschichte, p. 74). According
to the Syriac biography of Bardesanes by Michael the Syrian (ed. J. B. Chabot,
Chronique de Michel le Syrien, 1 |Paris 1899]: 183f.; reproduced in F. Nau
[ed.J, P Syr 1.2 [1907]: 523), in 169, Bardesanes passed by the church built
by Addai; see below, 38.
14
 EDESSA

which today stands at the beginning, the Chronicle proceeds as

follows: [20]
2. In the year 180 (of the Seleucid era = 133/32 B.c.z.), kings be-
gan to reign in Urhai.
3. In the year 266 (Sel. = 44/43 3.cx.) Augustus Caesar (qsr)
entered upon his reign.
aS. In the year 309 (Sel. = 3/2 B.c.z.) our Lord was born.
In the year 400 (Sel. = 88/89 cx.) King Abgar (VI, 71-91 cz.)
built his mausoleum.
. In the year 449 (Sel. = 137/38 cz.) Marcion departed (npq mn
= to go out) from the catholic church.
. Lucius Caesar, in company with his brother, brought the Par-
thians into subjection to the Romans in the fifth year of his
reign (this would be in 165 c.z.). [See below, n. 33]
. On the 11th of Tammuz in the year 465 (Sel.=11 July, 154
c.E.) Bar Daisan was born.
In the year 517 (Sel. = 205/06 c.z.) Abgar built the palaces in
his city (see above, 14).
10. In the year 551 (Sel. = 239/40 c.£.) Mani was born.
SBE In the year 614 (Sel. = 303 cx.), in the days of the Emperor
(mlka) Diocletian, the walls of Urhai collapsed for the second
time.
12. In the year 624 (Sel. = 313 cx.) Bishop Kimné laid the founda-
tion for the church in Urhai. And Bishop Scha‘ad, his succes-
sor, built it and completed the construction (see above, 14).
And now it proceeds along the lines of ecclesiastical reporting:
13. In the year 635 (Sel. = 324 cx.) the cemetery (koimétérion)
of Urhai was built, in the days of Bishop Aithilaha, ** one year
before the great synod of Nicaea.
14. In the year 636 (Sel. = 325 cx.) Aithilaha became bishop in
Urhai. And he built the cemetery and the east side of the °
church. (This does not agree at all with 13, and it does not
fit very well with 12, according to which Bishop Scha‘ad had
completed construction of the church.)
32. In Greek, Aeithilas. Cf. H. Gelzer (et alii), Patrum Nicaenorum nomina
(Liepzig, 1898), p. LXI no. 78; also pp. 102f. and Index 1 (p. 216), under
Aithalas.
15
 ORTHODOXY AND HERESY IN EARLIEST CHRISTIANITY

15. And in the next year the synod of 318 bishops was gathered
in Nicaea. (This bypasses 14 and is connected with 13.) [21]
16. In the year 639 (Sel. = 328 cx.) an expansion of the church
building of Urhai was undertaken. (This again relates back to
14, where construction on the east side of the church is men-
tioned.)
17. In the year 649 (Sel. = 338 cx.) Mar Jacob, bishop of Nisibis,
died.
18. In the year 657 (Sel. =346 cx.) Abraham became bishop of
Urhai. And he built the chapel of the confessors.
Here I break off; the form of the Edessene Chronicle probably has
been adequately illustrated. One further word about its contents is
indispensable. In its particular details, the Chronicle cannot have been
composed entirely by the Christian of the sixth century who is
responsible for the work as a whole. Otherwise we could not under-
stand how Jesus, in his relation to Abgar, and the apostolic missionary
after Jesus’ death could have been completely overlooked. Abgar V
is not referred to at all, a fact that is all the more significant since
we hear of Abgar VI; we also hear that Abgar IX had rebuilt his
ruined palace, but find nothing of what modern scholarship says about
him, that he was converted. The Chronicle has grown up gradually,
as is already indicated by its inorganic connection with the originally
independent archive account; ** and the material surrounding the
Council of Nicaea, with its discrepancies, leaves the impression of a
literary seam, in which new material is joined to the old tradition.
The older portion of the Chronicle certainly comes from the time in
which the Abgar legend had not yet taken root in Edessa, and from
a person who was still aware that the earliest history of Christendom
in Edessa had been determined by the names of Marcion, Bar Daisan,
never hadly
and Mani. The first and third of this trio probab been in
Edessa;at any rate Marcion’s departure from the church, referred to
in the Chronicle, took place not in Edessa, but in Rome. The inclusion
of these names in a Chronicle from Edessa thus must be due less to
the relationship_ of their persons to this city than to that of the doc-
trines that they advocated. If these three, and only these—with no
“ecclesiastical” “bishop” alongside of them—are specified by name in
33. Item seven also is open to suspicion of being a later interpolation, on both
formal and chronological grounds.
16
 EDESSA

a Christian Chronicle of Edessa, that indicates that the form of religion

and of Christianity which they advocated [22] represents asennesenetncomionenesSoVTOSA
what_was
original for Edessa. Ecclesiastically organized Christianity, with cul- /
ticedifice, cemetery, andbishop, firstappears at the beginning
ofthe
fourth century—the time of Eusebius and of the Emperor Constantine
—and from then on, it unremittingly determines the course of things
for the chronicler.
To be sure, the existence of three other predecessors of Kiné can
be verified historically—Paliit, ‘Abshelama, and Barsamya.** But the
sources on which one must rely in this matter are quite questionable:
the Doctrina Addai from the turn of the fifth century, with its ex-
pansion of the Abgar story which wanders into utter impossibilities,
and martyr acts from the same time and of equal worth. Only Palit
need occupy us here. The other two figures are much less certain
than is he. The Doctrina Addai asserts that Palit, who was made a
presbyter in Edessa by the apostle Addai (one of the seventy-two
disciples), betook himself to Antioch after the death of the apostle
and there was consecrated bishop of Edessa by Serapion of Antioch
(in office circa 190-210), who for his own part had received conse-
cration at the hands of Zephyrinus of Rome (198-217).3° Simon
Cephas, who for twenty-five years had occupied the Roman chair, .
had chosen Zephyrinus as his successor. Even a critic of the stature
of R. A. Lipsius discovers in this rumor a historical kernel, that Palit
actually was consecrated to the office of bishop of Edessa by Serapion
of Antioch.3¢ And yet, apart from the actual names Serapion, Zephy-
rinus, and Simon Cephas, the statement of the Doctrina Addai is
devoid of all credibility. No one can force the apostle Addai and his
presbyter into the same time period with Serapion. Simon Cephas
was not bishop of Rome, least of all not for twenty-five years; he
could not have selected Zephyrinus, who was active a century and
a half after his own time, as his successor; and again Zephyrinus could
not have ordained Serapion, who already had ascended the throne
almost a decade earlier. And finally, an Edessene presbyter around
34, CE£., e.g. Hallier, Chronik, p. 52.1; H. Leclercq, DACL 4 (1921): 2082-2088.
F. C. Burkitt, Early Eastern Christianity (London: Murray 1904), pp. 31-35
(cf. 18-21), goes even further.
35. Phillips, Doctrine of Addai, pp. 5 (Addai as one of the 72 in Luke 10.1),
39 (Palit as presbyter), and 50 (Palit made bishop) of the translation.
36. Lipsius, Die edessenische Abgarsage (Braunschweig, 1880), pp. 8f. [See
also Lietzmann, History, 2: 264.]
17
 ORTHODOXY AND HERESY IN EARLIEST CHRISTIANITY

200 would not have the slightest reason for receiving a higher con-
secration from Antioch. [23]
It is indeed confidently asserted that such a necessity did exist for
him. But with what justification? Konrad Liibeck argues that even
in the middle of the third century no one troubled himself about
Antioch and its bishop. In the Easter controversy (at the end of the
second century) Antioch played no role. “The bishops of Palestine
and Syria ignore it and are united into a synod under the presidency
of the bishops of Caesarea and Jerusalem in Palestine. Or on the other
hand, the provinces [that is, those in the vicinity of Antioch] act
independently and for themselves. . . . Antioch is still without any
leading hierarchical central position among the Oriental provinces.” *7
We can appreciate this to some extent when we consider what in-
tellectual mediocrity this church endured at this time in having
Theophilus as its bishop.** Others may have been like him; we can
at least evaluate him with the help of his books to Autolycus. It
does not follow that we ought to deny him authorship of this well-
attested work (EH 4.24), as Viktor Schultze recently has recom-
mended on the grounds that it “seems impossible that an Antiochene
bishop could have composed a writing filled with so much folly and
so many errors.” 8® We can only receive this opinion of Schultze as
an acknowledgment of the state of affairs in Antioch, as to what sort
of inferior personalities could at that time be called to the leadership
of the “church” there. On the basis of such leadership, it is hard to
avoid drawing an inference as to the kind and number of those
subject to him.
Nor does Serapion of Antioch, in his helpless conduct with respect
to the gospel of Peter (EH 6.12.2-6), make a particularly imposing
impression. If we consider all this, in addition to what Liibeck has
adduced (above, n. 37), we are all the more disconcerted when

37. K. Liibeck, Reichseinteilung und kirchliche Hierarchie des Orients bis zum
Ausgang des vierten Jahrhunderts (Minster, 1901 = Kirchengeschichtliche Studien
5.4), p. 100.
38. I fully realize that F. Loofs, Theophilus von Antiochien adversus Marcionem
(TU 46.2, 1930) thinks otherwise. He respects Theophilus more highly and
concludes that Theophilus “was greater than Irenaeus both as a writer and as a
theologian” (431). To me, there is no comparison between the superior
theologian Irenaeus and the shallow babbler of the Apology to Autolycus. A.
Ehrhard has also raised objections to Loofs’ judgment; Die Kirche der Martyrer
(Munich: Késel, 1932), pp. 217 f.
39. V. Schultze, Antiocheia, Altchristliche Stadte und Landschaften 3 (Giitersloh,
1930), p. 57.
18
 EDESSA

Liibeck continues: “On the other hand it [i.e. Antioch] exercises,

even if only temporarily, jurisdiction [24] even in countries that later
were never subject to it, such as Edessa, whose bishop received con-
secration from Antioch.” As evidence he makes reference to two
books by Tixeront and Duchesne. In sum, among Greeks of the im-
mediate neighborhood Antioch has nothing to say; but it exercises
-
\
jurisdiction over Syriac-speaking people in a city which lies nearly
|
_ three hundred kilometers away, as the crow flies [ = 186 miles.] In
my opinion such an interpretation collapses of its own weakness
/ without any refutation. The two Frenchmen do not frighten us. They
base their argument on those sources whose usefulness we have al-
\\ year 400 and later.
ready contested (above, 17f.), the Syrian legends from around the

‘Just how loose the connections between Antioch and Edessa still
must have been in the second half of the fourth century is well
illustrated by the fact that in a recently published two-volume work
on John Chrysostom *° Edessa is not even mentioned, in spite of the
fact that the church father was born in Antioch, worked in his —
home city for some decades, and composed a large part of his writings
there.
In agreement with this is the fact that in the following instance
where we are able to grasp the facts, nothing is said of Antioch. In
379 Eulogius was consecrated as bishop of Edessa by Eusebius of
Samosata (Theodoret Eccl. Hist. 5.4). And the famous Rabbula, ac-
cording to his Life (below, n. 60), was indeed elevated to the office
of bishop in Antioch. Nevertheless, along with this is contained the
recollection that the one who actually brought him to the bishop's
chair in Edessa had been Bishop Acacius of Aleppo.4! Not until the
fourth century do we note something of Antioch’s extending its ec-
clesiastical influence beyond its own territory. The Council of Con-
stantinople in 381 says in Canon 2: “The bishops of the Orient *
are to limit themselves to the ecclesiastical administration of the Orient

40. C. Baur, John Chrysostom and His Time (ET by M. Gonzaga from 2nd Ger-
man ed. [post 1947], Westminster [Md.]: Newman, 1959-69).
41, Cf. C. Brockelmann, Geschichte der christlichen Literaturen des Orients®
(Leipzig, 1909), p. 34. Basil of Cappadocian Caesarea is supposed to have
offered Ephraem the Edessene episcopate (see E. Nestle, RPTK® 5 [1898]:
407.42 f.).
42, This means the bishops from the eastern diocese according to the divisions
of the empire established by Diocletian in 292. Mesopotamia and the Osroéne
are included. Cf. Liibeck, Reichseinteilung, pp. 106 ff.
19
 ORTHODOXY AND HERESY IN EARLIEST CHRISTIANITY

with the preservation of the privileges which the Canons of Nicaea

[what is meant here is Canon 6, which however does not [25] more
precisely define the “privileges”] guarantee to the church of An-
tioch.” An effort at expansion by Antioch is obvious here, which is
met by the attempt of a part of those Syrian nationals to link up
with the West. We need not investigate whether, how and when this
led to the point where the Edessene bishop actually received con-
secration from Antioch. It suffices that we now recognize the basis
upon which, for example, the legend could grow that the “catholikos”
or primate of the East, the head of the Persian church (he resides in
the Mesopotamian city of Seleucia-Ctesiphon) is to be consecrated
in Antioch. The men who occupied this office are found listed in The
Bee of Solomon of al-Basra (see above, n. 31) and in some Patriarchal
Chronicles.*? The list begins—and already the somewhat musty air of
Edessa hits us—with the apostle Addai, the missionary of the East.
He is followed by his pupil Mari, who serves the Oriental church as
actual founder of the patriarchate of Seleucia-Ctesiphon.** After him
comes Abris or Abrosis (= Ambrosius), a relative of Jesus who is
elected in Jerusalem and consecrated in Antioch. Next comes Abra-
ham-related to James the Just—who also is ordained in Antioch. It is
clear that we are dealing here not with history, but with legend.*®
When the Doctrina Addai then asserts that Palit had received his
episcopal consecration in Antioch, we immediately recognize the
legendary thrust, and sense that we are not in the second century,
but in the fourth, at the earliest. Thus even with reference to the
figure of Palit, there is no confirmation of the claim that there was
already a bishop deserving of the name in Edessa prior to the year
200, that is, a bishop consecrated in the context of the “great church.”
The Edessene Chronicle apparently is correct when it begins the
series of bishops only in the fourth century.
43, Cf. Burkitt, Eastern Christianity, pp. 28 £. G. Westphal, Untersuchungen tiber
die Quellen und die Glaubwiirdigkeit der Patriarchenchroniken des M4ri ibn
Sulaiman, ‘Amr ibn Matai und Saliba ibn Johannan (Strassburg inaugural dis-
sertation, Kirchhain, 1901), pp. 38, 40, 44, 46-48.
44, Westphal, Patriarchenchroniken, p. 30.
45. Seleucia-Ctesiphon had never been dependent on Antioch, At the place
where the legend must be brought into relationship with the existing situation
at the time of the chronicler, there is a section explaining why the patriarch no
longer, as previously, is consecrated in Antioch (see Westphal, Patriarchen-
chroniken, pp. 47f., 53). For Edessa, which was part of the Roman Empire,
conditions may have been different—but certainly not in the second century.
20
 EDESSA

Not that the figure of Palit himself dissolves under the acid test -
of criticism. [26] But we must remove from his hand the episcopal
staff of the West. Ephraem of Edessa testifies to his existence, and
that in a form which astonishes us. In his twenty-second “Madrash”
[metrical homily] against false teachers the church father, after he
has named and abused all kinds of heretics, says in verses 5 and 6:

They [i.e. the heretics] again call us [i.e. the orthodox] ‘Palitians,’ and
this we quite decisively reject and disown. Cursed be those who let
themselves be called by the name Palit instead of by the name Christ!
. . . Even Palit would not wish that people call themselves by his
name. And if he were still living, he would anathematize all disobedi-
ence. For he was a pupil of the Apostle, who was filled with pain and
bitterness over the Corinthians because they had given up the name of
Christ and called themselves after the name of men [see 1 Cor. 1.13].4¢

Thus at the end of the second century (or possibly a bit later),
Palit was theleader of those people in Edessa_who confessed what
later developed into orthodoxy in thesense acceptable to Ephraem.
It is quite possible that Palit’s own group called him “bishop.” Cer-
| tainly no one will want to introduce modern conditions into the pic-
ture and suggest that for one to be a “bishop,” there must be thousands
upon thousands of people who are his spiritual subjects. He who was
called “bishop” at that time certainly would, in many cases, have had
room for his entire constituency in a private house. But much more
important than clarity about the title that he enjoyed in his own
circles is the insight that Paldt was the leader of a minority that was
of such limited significance that the Edessene Chronicle could com-
pletely forget him in favor of such significant personalities as Marcion,
Bardesanes, and Mani.
In addition to this, another point is of great importance—the fact
that Palit and thosein agreement with him first appear after Chris-
tianity
of another type already is in existence. They had to identify
themselves,and to allow themselves to be identified, by the name
46. See below, n. 58. The Syriac text from the Roman edition (vol. 2, pp.
437 ff.) is reproduced in the Chrestomathia syriaca, sive S. Ephraemi Carmina
selecta of A. Hahu and F. L. Sieffert (Leipzig, 1825), pp. 137 ff. Cf. also the
Letter of Jacob of Edessa to John the Stylite (below, nn. 49 and 55), in W.
Wright, Catalogue of the Syriac MSS. in the British Museum acquired since the
year 1838 (London, 1870-72), p. 300, and Journal of Sacred Literature 10
(1867): 430 ff. [H. E. W. Tumer, Pattern of Christian Truth (see below, p. 297
n. 9), p. 44, gives an ET of this passage from Jacob of Edessa.]
21
 ORTHODOXY AND HERESY IN EARLIEST CHRISTIANITY

of their leader, The name of “Christians” was denied them. Surely

[27] this was because that name could in no way clearly distinguish
them from the Marcionites and the Bardesanites, probably also be-
cause the name “Christians” already had been appropriated by an-
t
f
other group—naturally those who had come first, and had introduced
|
i Christianity of their own brand into the city.
When we ask who that might have been, the chronological sequence
;:
if

a favors the Marcionites. Already around the year 150, Justin says
that their false teaching has spread to the whole human race, and
in the same connection, he emphasizes that they placed great value
in being called “Christians” (Apol. 26.5-6). Similarly, Tertullian states:
“Marcion’s heretical tradition has filled the whole world” (Against
Marcion 5.19). One may also suggest in support of Marcionite priority
that although the teaching of Bardesanes, at least in its earliest
stages,47 remained a local Edessene phenomenon in which the name
of the great “local son” hardly could have failed to play a role,**
the Christianity of Marcion had become even more international
than that of the apologists. It is true that Ephraem, like Justin before
him (Dial. 35.4,6), is of the opinion that only the representatives of
the unadulterated apostolic teaching may be called “Christians.” The
heretics on the other hand should have had to call themselves after
the current human leader of their sect (Madrash 22.7). This view is
so firmly rooted in his circles that later on it was even found nec-
essary to defend Palit against the belief that he had been a heretic
or even a heresiarch.*® But that with Ephraem it expresses more a
wish than a reality is clearly seen by his vexed acknowledgment:
“They call us ‘Palitians.’” This is how things still stood in the fourth
century. Since the appearance of Palit, nothing had changed in this
regard,
As for the other side of the question, whether the Marcionites
designated themselves simply as “Christians,” here, as is so often the
case, the true state of affairs has become unclear because we are
informed about the heretics primarily by men of the church for whom
it is simply self-evident that the name Christian belongs only to
people of their kind. That in the early period this had not been true,
47, His students seem to have been the first to enter Greek-speaking areas; see
EH 4:30.1.
48. This is confirmed by the indignation of Ephraem; Madrash 23.5.
49, See the twelfth Letter of Jacob of Edessa (above, n. 46, and below, n. 55),
page 27 of the Syriac text.
22
 EDESSA

at least not everywhere, in my opinion follows from the account of

the conversion of Mar Aba, [28] patriarch of the Orient who died in
552. I have no thought of accepting the “History of His Marvellous
and Divine Struggles” © as a whole. But one passage, which does not
seem to be tendentious—indeed it stands in contrast to the otherwise
prevailing rule—may still prove to be useful.
Mar Aba, originally a fanatical pagan, during an attempt to cross
the Tigris was brought to see the light through a miracle and an
ensuing conversation with a Christian ascetic Joseph, whose surname
was Moses. He was struck by the strangeness of Joseph’s clothing
(the Syriac uses the Greek loan-word schéma), and wishing to know
whether Joseph might be an orthodox, a Marcionite or a Jew, he
asked (chap. 3): “Are you a Jew?” The answer was “Yes.” Then comes
a second question: “Are you a Christian?” To this comes also an
affirmative response. Finally: “Do you worship the Messiah?” Again
agreement is expressed. Then Mar Aba becomes enraged and says:
“How can you be a Jew, a Christian, and a worshipper of the Messiah
all at the same time?” Here the narrator inserts by way of explanation:
“Following the local custom he used the word Christian to designate
a Marcionite.” Joseph himself then gives his irate companion the
following explanation: “I am a Jew secretly [cf. Rom. 2.29]; I still
pray to the living God ... and abhor the worship of idols. I am a
Christian truly, not as the Marcionites, who falsely call themselves
Christians. For Christian is a Greek word, which in Syriac means
Messiah-worshipper (m‘%i*hid).®1 And if you ask me ‘Do you wor-
ship the Messiah?’, I worship him truly.” [29]
50. Syriac text in P. Bedjan (ed.), Histoire de Mar Jabalaha, de trois autres
patriarches, d’un pretre et deux laiques nestoriens* (Paris, 1895), pp. 206-274.
German translation by O. Braun, Ausgewdhlte Akten persischer Mdrtyrer, BKV?
22 (Munich, 1915). In chapter 7, Mar Aba comes to Edessa. [For a brief sum-
mary of the life of this Mar Aba (Mar-abha, Mari-abha; “the Elder”), see W.
Wright, Short History of Syriac Literature (London: Black, 1894), pp. 116-118.]
51. The same comparison is used to explain the (Syriac) proper name Kristiana,
applied to the believers on the basis of Acts 11.26, in Aphraates, Demonstrations
20.10 [ed. J. Parisot, PSyr 1.1 (1894)], and in Marutha (ed. Braun, p. 41; see
below n. 64). Kristiéna was used especially in Edessa as a designation for
Christian: Book of the Laws of the Countries 46 (see above, n, 12); Edessene
Chronicle, (addition to) the flood report (ed, Guidi, p. 2.4; see above, n. 26);
Ephraem Syrische Schriften 2 (above, n. 46), 490 E—cf. ed. Overbeck, p. 161.24
(above, n. 13); Doctrina Addai, Syriac p. 49 (ed. Phillips; above n. 7);
Martyrdom of Shamuna and Guria, chaps. 1, 7, 8, and passim (in F, C. Burkitt,
Euphemia and the Goth with the Acts of Martyrdom of the Confessors of Edessa
[London: Williams and Norgate, 1913]); Syriac Apology of Aristides 2.6 [ed.
and ET by J. R. Harris and J. A. Robinson (Cambridge, 18932)].
23
 ORTHODOXY AND HERESY IN EARLIEST CHRISTIANITY

This story reveals that even at a relatively late date, Marcionites

designated themselves as the ‘Christians—much to the offence of the
orthodox, who must be content with misleading alternatives such as
“Messiah-worshippers.” Is it not reasonable to suggest that some-
ey
a
thing similar was true with respect to the beginnings of Christianity
in Edessa? ®2 ‘That would be an excellent explanation of why the
orthodox call themselves Paldtians until far into the fourth century,
\
Bs
OP
ro;
or at least are known by that name to the public.
How hard they must have had to struggle for their existence is
indicated clearly in our sources. For centuries the theologians among
them had no demand more pressing than to contend against Marcion,
Bardesanes and Mani, precisely those three who appear in the Edes-
wT ASAT 8 heciinclre

sene Chronicle as bearers of Christian thought prior to Eusebius. The

first native Syrian ecclesiastical author of any importance, Aphraates
the “Persian” sage (that is, he lived in or came from the Sassanid
kingdom) dealt with Marcion, Valentinus, and Mani in his third
treatise,°* which according to his own account was written in 336/37.
The absence of the Edessene native son Bardesanes is easily ex-
plained and is balanced by the inclusion of the gnostic Valentinus,
whose influence penetrated both East and West and whom Hip-
polytus (Ref. 6.35.7), Eusebius (EH 6.30.3), and Epiphanius (Her.
56.2), as well as Syrian authors ** and even the Armenian Moses of
[30] Chorene °° described as the spiritual foster father of Bardesanes.
What persisted as Valentinianism in the areas known to Aphraates,
52. Naturally, it is not my intention to suggest that the Marcionites have made
a universal claim to the name Christian, as their own monopoly. Well known is
the Greek inscription from the year 318/19 from the vicinity of Damascus, refer-
ring to a synagégé Markidniston (W. Dittenberger, Orientis graeci inscriptiones
selectae (Leipzig, 1903-1905] 608.1). But in those places where Marcionites intro-
duced Christianity, the designation “Christians” was quite simply used of them.
53. See also below, n. 82, on the question whether the Marcionites called them-
selves “Christians” in Edessa.
54. On Fasting 9 (ed. Parisot, p. 115; see above, n. 51).
55. Jacob of Edessa (d. 708), in his 12th Letter to John the Stylite (ed. Wright,
above nn. 46 and 49, Syriac page 26, line 2 from below); Theodore bar Khoni
(ninth century) in his scholion ed. by F. Nau PSyr 1.2 (1907): 517f. (=H.
Pognon, Inscriptions mandaites des coupes de Khouabir (Paris, 1898], pp. 122 f.).
Biographical materials concerning Bardesanes from Syrian sources are contained
in the Chronicle of Michael the Syrian (Jacobite patriarch in Antioch, 1166-
1199), ed. J. B. Chabot 1 (above, n. 31), p. 184=ed. Nau, p. 523. Cf, F. Nau,
Une biographie inédite de Bardesane lastréopologue (Paris, 1897). For the her-
esies according to Philoxenus of Mabbug (d. 523), see Nau, PO 13 (1919): 248.7.
56. Historia Armenia 2, chap. 63 (ca. 450 c.£.). The text is in A. von Harnack,
Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur bis Eusebius 1.1 (Leipzig, 1893; supple-
mented reprint ed. K. Aland, Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1958), p. 188.
24
 EDESSA

apparently became absorbed in Edessa by the teaching and the com-

munity of faith of Bardesanes.57
Concerning the situation in Edessa in the middle of the fourth
century we would do best to let Ephraem inform us. He indeed
names still other heresies, and behind the “pedants” whom he attacks
but does not describe more specifically, more than one kind may be
concealed. In poetry and in prose he fights against the followers of
Marcion, Bardesanes, and Mani, whose names again and again he
exposes to hatred and scorn; and he attacks them so vigorously, so
frequently, and so explicitly that one cannot escape the impression
that there is a pressing, present danger.°® Of what significance is an
Arius in comparison to them? He does, in fact, appear. Still, com-
pared to them—this is around the year 370—his appearance is almost
infinitesimally rare, and he is not “the ravening wolf,” “the filthy
swine,” “the dreadful blasphemer.” These designations are reserved
for the “raving Marcion,” the “deceiver Bar Daisan,” and the “de-
ranged Mani.” 5
Despite all his efforts, Ephraem was not able to exorcise the danger.
With great tenacity the heretics held firmly to what appeared to them
to be true. Their suppression was finally accomplished—to a large
extent only by expulsion—by the powerful personality of the Bishop
57. H. H. Schaeder, “Bardesanes von Edessa in der Uberlieferung der griechischen
und der syrischen Kirche,” ZKG 51 (1932): 21-74, has disputed (41 ff.) that
Bardesanes may have been a student of Valentinus. He maintains that only con-
tacts of a general gnostic sort and origin exist between the two figures (43).
58. The second Syriac-Latin volume of the Roman edition of the works of
Ephraem, by S. E. Assemani (1740), contains 56 Madrashes (learned discourses
in poetic form) against the heretics, primarily against the three named above
(pp. 437-560; selections are reprinted in Hahn-Sieffert [above, n. 46], and there
is a German translation by A. Riicker in BKV? 61 [=Ephraem 2, 1928], pp.
80 ff.). [The material has now been reedited by E. Beck in CSCO 169-170
= Scriptores Syri 76/77 (1957); for an introduction and ET of a few selections,
see H. Burgess, Select Metrical Hymns and Homilies of Ephraem Syrus (London,
1853), xxviii-xxxi (from Madrashes 2, 53, 1, 55), Ixvf. (M. 46), 142-155 (M. 14,
27).] See also G. Bickell (ed.), S. Ephraemi Syri Carmina Nisibena (Leipzig,
1866), nos. 43-51 and 66-77 [reedited by E. Beck, CSCO, pp. 218-219 and
240-241 =Scr. Syri pp. 92-93 and pp. 102-103 (1961 and 1963); ET of nos.
66-68 by J. Gwynn, NPNF 13, series 2 (1898)]. For anti-heretical prose writings
of Ephraem, see C. W. Mitchell, St. Ephraim’s Prose Refutations of Mani, Marcion
and Bardaisan (2 vols., London, 1912-1921). The Madrashes against the remain-
ing unnamed “pedants” [“disputers”] are in vol. 3 (1743) of the Roman edition,
pp. 1-150 [ET by J. B. Morris, Rhythms of St. Ephrem the Syrian (Oxford: Parker,
1847), pp. 106-361].
59. Of the close relationship between Marcion, Bar Daisan, and Mani in Edessa,
John of Ephesus still speaks in the sixth century in his Lives [or, History] of the
Eastern Saints, ed. E.-W. Brooks, PO 17.1 (1923): 138 f.
25
 ORTHODOXY AND HERESY IN EARLIEST CHRISTIANITY

Rabbula of Edessa (411-435). [31] And here, indeed, we find ourselves

in a period in which the power of the state also was already deliber-
ately cooperating in the suppression of outspoken heresy. The “Life
of Rabbula,” ® composed after his death by a colleague of the bishop,
pictures the heresies of their time and the attitude of Rabbula in the
following manner, in which panegyric judgments and exaggerations
are evident enough: “Even with many words I could not show how
great was his zeal with respect to the Marcionites. This putrefying
malignancy of Marcionite false teaching he healed with the solicitude
of the great physician [= Christ] . . . full of long-suffering toward
them. For God sent into their hearts fear in the presence of the
holy Rabbula and they faithfully accepted his truth, so that they
renounced their false teaching” (193.17-25).
Bardesanes had already been treated previously, and this entire
section about the heretics was introduced by a comparison of Rabbula
with Joshua (192.3 ff.): as Joshua found the land of Canaan full of
the thorny undergrowth of paganism, so Rabbula found the Edessene
region completely overgrown by the thicket of sins. Particularly flour-
ishing in Urhdi was the evil teaching of Bar Daisan (192.11 ff.), until
it was uprooted by Rabbula. “For once, through his cunning and the
sweetness of his songs, this accursed Bar Daisan had drawn all the
leading people of the city to himself, so that by them as by strong
walls he might be protected.” That is, Bardesanes nourished the
foolish hope of being able to secure the permanency of his false
teaching through the transient power of influential patrons. Rabbula
did not proceed against them as had Joshua, did not blow them down
with frightening trumpets, but with his gentle and kind language
(193.1 ff.) succeeded in having their meeting place torn down and
all their property transferred to his church; in fact, even obtained
their building stones to use for his own purposes. He gently persuaded

they abjured their error. Then he baptized them into Christ and took
them into his (i.e. Christ’s) [32] service. In this manner through his

60. Syriac text in Overbeck (above, n. 13), pp. 159-209; also in P. Bedjan, Acta
martyrum et sanctorum, 4 (Paris, 1894): 396-470. German translation in G.
Bickell, Ausgewdhlte Schriften der syrischen Kirchenvater Aphraates, Rabulas
und Isaak von Ninive, BKV 102-104 (Kempten, 1874), pp. 166-211. [The ref-
erences that follow in the body of the text are to pages and lines in the Over-
beck edition.]
26
 EDESSA

teaching he converted many sects and brought them into subjection

to the truth, And he baptized thousands of Jews and tens of thousands
of heretics into Christ in all the years of his episcopate (193.10 f.).
“And likewise, through his divine wisdom, he brought the deluded
Manichaeans to careful consideration of reasonable understanding.
Therefore they made their confession as he desired. And they believed
in the truth, allowing themselves to be baptized into Christ and to
be joined to his people” (193.25 ff. ).*4
Even when we make considerable allowance for the tens of thou-
Bands of heretics whom the enthusiastic disciple pictures as pressing
for baptism at the hands of Rabbula, there is still enough left over
for us to recognize the abiding attraction of those “heretical” teach-
ings. Only through rather coarse methods * [33] was the “tyrant of
61. The danger of the Manichaeans for the environs of Edessa, in both a narrow
and a broad sense, is also attested by the Acts of Archelaus by Hegemonius (from
the first half of the fourth century [ed. C. H. Beeson, GCS 16 (1906); ET by
S. D. F. Salmond, ANF 6: 179-235]), in which (the setting is fictitious)
Archelaus, Bishop of Charchar (=Carrhae-Harran, in Mesopotamia) disputes
with Mani himself. A biographical sketch of Mani (see below, n. 93) in Syriac
by a Christian author can be found in the Chronicon Maroniticum (MS of the
8/9 century) ed. by Brooks, Chronica minora, 1.2: 58-60 (above, n. 3; Chabot’s
Latin translation, 47 ff.); similar materials are found in Theodore bar Khoni
(ed. Pognon, Inscriptions mandaites, pp. 125-127 and 181-184; see above, n. 55),
in the Chronicle of Michael the Syrian (ed. Chabot, vol. 1: pp. 198-201; see
above, n. 31), and already in Epiphanius Her. 66.1 ff.
62. Cf. also Rabbula’s Rules for Priests and Clerics (ed. Overbeck, pp. 215-222;
see above, n. 13), where arraignment in chains before the municipal judge is
prescribed as a means of ecclesiastical discipline (218.16 [ET in Burkitt, Eastern
Christianity, p. 146 #27]); similarly 219.11f. Moreover, pressure is brought
to bear on ascetics and consecrated virgins who withdraw from monastic life
that not only they, but also their parents be cut off from communion (218.22
[ET in Burkitt, p. 147 #28]). This harsh step was later considered too severe.
To the words “their parents” is added the phrase “if they agree with them” in
Bar Hebraeus (“Book of Directions” or Nomocanon for the Syrian church of
Antioch, a Latin translation of which, by J. A. Assemani, appears in A. Mai,
Scriptorum veterum nova collectio e vaticanus codicibus 10.2 [Rome, 1838] ), p. 58.
In general, Rabbula was neither the only one nor the first to employ such
' unscrupulously callow and violent measures in the struggle with heresy. Emperor
Julian writes to the Bostrians, who had been persecuted by his imperial prede-
cessor, how “many multitudes of the so-called heretics had even been executed”
(polla de hédé kai sphagénai pléthé ton legomenén hairetikon) in Samosata, which
is near Edessa, and various regions of Asia Minor. Entire villages had been
completely depopulated and destroyed (Epistle 41 [ed. and ET W. C. Wright,
LCL 3 (1923)] =141 ed. Bidez = 52 ed. Hertlein). This is the context to which
belongs the cry of triumph that Theodoret strikes in_his letters—eight whole
Marcionite villages he has “converted” in his bishopric, a thousand, yea ten
thousand Marcionites (A. von Harnack, Marcion: das Evangelium vom fremden
Gott2 [TU 45, 1924; repr. Darmstadt, 1960], pp. 158, 341° f., and 369° ff. (cf.
454° £.).
27
 ORTHODOXY AND HERESY IN EARLIEST CHRISTIANITY

Edessa” ®? able to alienate the heretics, at least outwardly, from their

former faith. That makes it easy to imagine how strong an appeal
these beliefs might have had in the freshness of their youth, before
any pressure was exerted against subscribing to them. What was
achieved in Edessa—to be honest about it—was at best only the out-
ward submission of people whose buildings had been torn down,
whose scriptures had been burned, whose community goods had been
confiscated, and who found themselves subjected to the worst kind of
harassment, including danger to life and limb. Thus it would be
illegitimate for one to reason back from the situation which Rabbula
had brought about by force, and to use this as a corrective to the
picture that we have discovered for the time of Ephraem, when
orthodoxy in Edessa still occupied a quite secondary place.
Our case is supported by still another consideration. The situation
in Edessa during the fourth century would hardly have been much
different from that in the southwest part of Greater Armenia, a
region not far from Edessa and part of the Roman Empire. Here an
older colleague of Rabbula, Bishop Marutha of Maiperkat ( = Martyr-
opolis), who died prior to the year 420 and like Rabbula, spoke
Syriac, describes the situation as follows: ®* Satan brings a profusion
of heresies to the church, and things go so far that there are as many
heresies as there are bishops—an instructive use of the superlative
from both points of view. “The orthodox decreased and became like
one single stalk of wheat in the great field of tares. . . . Thus the
heresies flourished.” Of course, this too is an exaggeration of pious
anxiety. But it certainly strengthens the impression that even far into
the fourth century orthodoxy simply had not prevailed against heresy
in its various forms. [34]
In the picture that the representatives of the church sketch, it is
precisely the detail about a great apostasy from the true faith that is
seen to be incorrect—in any event, it is not true of Edessa. Here it

63. This is what the presbyter Ibas calls his bishop, Rabbula; cf. his letter to
bishop Mari [or Maris] of Hardashér in Persia (probably from the year 433),
in J. D. Mansi, Sacrorum Conciliorum nova collectio, 7 (Florence, 1762): 245—
ho tés hémeteras poleds tyrannos.
64. German translation by O. Braun, De Sancta Nicaena Synodo (Kirchenge-
schichtliche Studien 4.3 [1898]). See also A. von Harnack, Der Ketzerkatalog des
Bishofs Maruta von Maipherkat (TU 19.1, 1899). The Syriac text is edited
by I. E. Rahmani in Studia Syriaca 4: Documenta de antiquis haeresibus (Mt.
Libano, 1909), pp. 76-80 and Syriac pp. 43-98.
28
 EDESSA

was by no means
ms _orthodoxy,. butt_rather heresy, that was present at
AOA thetmAh Ne ale ec
the beginning. Christianity was
wfirst established inthe form
orm of
of Mar-
cionism, probably iimported f
from the
the West_and certainly not
not_much
m
later than the year 150.
ter some time, probably considerably before 200, a dangerous
rival to Marcionism developed in the perso and doctrine
n of the
native son Bardesanes. The differences became obvious to everyone
and demandeda decision. “Bar Daisan adorns himself,” °° so Ephraem
orates, “with fine clothes and precious stones; Marcion is clothed
with the garb of a penitent. In the grottoes of Bar Daisan are heard
hymns and songs—amusements for the youth; Marcion fasts like a
serpent” (Madrash 1.12 and 17). Elegance, education, artistic sense,
culture, in a word openness to the world collided with ascetic
fanaticism and the most extreme world-rejection. With respect t to
Christology,
a
Bardesanes would have been able more _easily to come
com
to an agreement with Marcion than, with the orthodoxy of tthe“great
church.” Here itit is instructive to observe ‘that Bardesanes_did_not
dispute with orthodoxy, ins in spite of ‘the fact. that, eeven apart
part from
Christology, sufficient sources of irritation would have been present
in Bardesanes’ astrology, belief in fate, and rejection of the resur-
rection. Instead, he engaged in feuda with the Marcionites, noise
of which echoed for a long time.®* Orthodoxy, embodied in the hand-
ful of Palitians who perhaps already were in ¢
existence, parently

Marcion had to be eliminated, or at

at least
So in order en gain
room for the new development.
This was achieved by forming his own community with its own
meeting place and its own order of worship, in which the splendid
psalms of the accursed “new David” ® played such a great role, and
also by using his own “scripture,” since the Marcionite Bible was
' unsuitable both in terms of content and for personal reasons. [35]
Perhaps Bardesanes acknowledged no Old Testament, if his 150
psalms were intended to take the place of the Davidic corpus and if
the statement by Ephraem can be taken literally: “He [ = Barde-
65. Schaeder, “Bardesanes,” 30.12, renders it “he [ = the devil] adorns Bardesanes.”
66. Cf. EH 4.30.1, Bardesanes writes dialogoi against the Marcionites; Theodoret
Her. 1.22; Hippolytus Ref. 7.31.1, refers to a polemical writing against Bardesanes
by the Syrian Marcionite Prepon.
67. This is what Ephraem calls Bardesanes in Madrash 53.5f.
29
 ORTHODOXY AND HERESY IN EARLIEST CHRISTIANITY

sanes] did not read the prophets but the books of the Zodiac” (Mad-
rash 1.18). But certainly he possessed a New Testament. It is not
simply our idea to equip the rival of Marcion in such a way, but
Ephraem refers expressly to Bardesanes’ Apostolos.®* And an Aposto-
los without a corresponding “Gospel” to precede it never existed
anywhere. Thus we are confronted with the question: what did the
gospel of Bardesanes look like? As has been said, it is out of the
question that Bardesanes could have adopted the gospel used by the
Marcionites; but it is equally unlikely that there was a special “Gospel
of Bardesanes,” of which we scarcely hear anything, and never any-
thing of value.® Likewise, it could not have been the so-called Gospel
of the Separated [Evangelion da-Mepharreshe]—i.e. the four canoni-
cal gospels arranged one after another but regarded as a unit. At a
time in which Irenaeus strives rather laboriously to establish the four-
fold gospel in the “great church,” it cannot already have been in use
in Edessa. Furthermore, if that had been the case, it is inconceivable
how the fourfold gospel then could have disappeared once more
from this city for a quarter of a millennium, or at least have receded
so completely into the background for Edessene Christianity. The
view that one or another of the four constituted the gospel of Bar-
desanes—perhaps the Gospel of John, which the western Valentinians
Heracleon and Ptolemy treasured so highly—is purely a hypotheti-
cal possibility, the further pursuit of which is unrewarding.
; Thus there remains, it seems to me, only the so-called Diatessaron,
|the [36] harmony of the gospels which Tatian, shortly before the ap-
|pearance of Bardesanes, offered to the Syriac speaking Christians as
| the first written gospel in their native language. In favor of the
Diatessaron as the gospel of Bardesanes is first of all the general
observation that for a Syrian living among Syrians, the most obvious

68. Commentary on the Pauline Epistles; see T. Zahn, Geschichte des neutesta-
mentlichen Kanons, 2.2 (Leipzig, 1892): 598.
69. A collection of Nestorian narratives, preserved in Arabic and published in
PO 5 (1910), contains a “History of Ephraem” in which it is reported on the
basis of ancient authorities that Bardesanes used a gospel different from the
canonical gospels (p. 298). But this evidence cannot be used. Bardesanes and
Ephraem supposedly are contemporaries here. The manner in which Ephraem
obtains a copy of the book is completely unbelievable, all the more so since it
is quite similar to what is related in the panegyric on Ephraem by ps. = Gregory
of Nyssa, only there the story refers to Apollinaris and his blasphemous writing
(cf. also Haase, Kirchengeschichte, p. 334). Even if, in spite of this, there is
some validity to the report, it is not difficult to bring it into harmony with the
view that I have suggested above.
30
 EDESSA

thing to do would be to obtain that Syriac book, the recent appearance

of which in Mesopotamia could not have been unknown to Bar-
desanes because of his connections and his sophistication. It was
much more comprehensive than the scanty 7 gospel booklet of the
Marcionites that had been used previously in Edessa. And even
though Tatian himself had not done so, a member of his school by
the name of Rhodon composed writings in opposition to the sect of
Marcion just at the time Bardesanes flourished (EH 5.13.1), and thus
established himself as a desirable ally. Under such circumstances
there would have been hesitation only if the contents were felt to be
objectionable, thus precluding it from acceptance as the true gospel.
Clearly this was not the case. On the contrary, it contains certain
similarities to Bardesanes’ teaching that are all the more comprehen-
sible if, as Irenaeus had already claimed, Tatian also had come under
the influence of Valentinus.7! While the Syriac gospel-harmony ex-
cluded Marcion’s view that Jesus had come directly from heaven to
the synagogue at Capernaum by eliminating the genealogies of Jesus
as well as everything that was connected with the birth of Jesus
from the seed of David according to the flesh,7? it could accomo-
date the interpretation of Bardesanes concerning the heavenly body
of the Lord, which had only passed through Mary but had not been
formed in her.*3
If Bardesanes already had introduced the Diatessaron in Edessa
and [37] had made it popular there, it becomes easier to understand
how that later, among the orthodox Edessenes, the gospel edition
of a person whose heretical position the church had never been able
to overlook *4 could gain canonical status. The numerically weak
70. This peculiarity requires little demonstration. That Marcion’s opponents
clearly perceived this is intrinsically self-evident. According to Irenaeus, the Mar-
cionites had a “circumcised little Gospel”; H. Jordan, Armenische Irenaeusfrag-
mente (TU 36.3, 1913), 135, no. 10.16 f.
71. Irenaeus, AH 1.28.1 ( = 26.1) = Hippolytus Ref. 8.16 = Eusebius EH 4.29.3.
Cf. Clement of Alexandria Strom. 3.(13.)92; Chronicle of Michael the Syrian
(ed. Chabot, vol. 1: p. 181; see above, n. 31).
72. Theodoret Her. 1.20.
73. See the Bardesanite Marinus, in Adamantius On the True Faith 5.9 (ed. van
de Sande Bakhuyzen, GCS 4 [1911], 190.24 ff); Ephraem in his interpretation of
3 Corinthians (Zahn, Geschichte, 2.2; 597f.; see above, n. 68). Cf. also the
eastern Valentinian “Ardésianés” in Hippolytus Ref. 6.35.7.
74, Irenaeus AH 1.28.1 (= 26.1), 3.23.8 (=37)—Tatianus connexio quidem factus
omnium haereticorum; Rhodon, once a student of Tatian; Clement of Alexandria;
Origen; Tertullian; Hippolytus; Acts of Archelaus; and later witnesses. The pas-
sages are listed and the most significant reproduced by Harnack, Geschichte, 1.1:
486 ff.
31
 ORTHODOXY AND HERESY IN EARLIEST CHRISTIANITY

group of Palitians, composed of poor people—the wealthy Christians

in Edessa adhered to the prominent Bardesanes (see above, 26, 29)—
were probably not in any position to provide their own Syriac gospel.
Of the two books available, that of Marcion and the Diatessaron,
the latter was decidedly more orthodox in orientation—indeed, under
a not very penetrating examination, it was simply orthodox. It would
have had very little to fear from a comparison with the gospels used
in the “great church” as books of instruction. There was scarcely a
single instance in which Tatian had expressed his particular views by
means of additions, but to a much greater degree had expressed them
by means of omission. But such omissions are so characteristic of the
style of a harmony that in a particular case one can almost never
determine for certain whether the omission was due to literary con-
siderations, or whether it reflects the malicious wickedness of the
false teacher.
“Not only Tatian’s group have used this book,” says Theodoret of
Cyrus as late as the fifth century (Her. 1.20), “but the adherents of
the apostolic teaching also have innocently employed the book as a
convenient compendium, since they did not recognize the deception
of the compilation. I myself found more than two hundred such books
which were being held in honor in the congregations of our region;
I collected and destroyed them and in their place introduced the
gospels of the four evangelists.” This is the way in which the Paldtians
also may have come into contact with the Diatessaron, and without
prejudice, had put it to use. It was much better than having no
gospel at all in the language of the people, in spite of its being
tainted with the approval of Bardesanes—possibly the Palitians knew
nothing of Tatian, since the name of a human author seldom re-
mains attached to such gospel compilations, by their very nature.
As for the letters of Paul, it is first of all indisputable that a
nse

collectio of writings of the Apostleto the “Gentiles ‘was used

[38] n
if Marcion
| by the Christians of Edessa from the very beginning.withForhim
stands at the beginning of Edessene Christianity, stands
also theapostle Paul’It“was only in the contents and order ofthis
corpus that a difference existed between Marcionites,” Bardesa-

75. Mention of Marcion’s particular textual recension, which obviously was not,
as a whole, used beyond the bounds of his own community, will suffice at this
point. [See Harnack, Marcion?.]
32
 EDESSA

nites,“° and the orthodox. To be sure, it is not entirely certain when

this difference became obvious. The fact that both Ephraem and an
orthodox Syrian canonical list from around the year 400 agree with
Marcion in the arrangement of the letters of Paul at important
points “” encourages the suggestion that in Edessa, with reference to
the Pauline canon, Marcion’s influence was not limited to his im-
mediate adherents. We observe how “heretical,” or better “original”
conditions effect later epochs and how even the ecclesiastical struc-
ture cannot avoid this. That strengthens our belief in the correctness
of the view presented above, that Edessene orthodoxy received the
Diatessaron through Bardesanes and his community, just as it re-
ceived the letters of Paul ultimately from Marcion.
But at what point did the orthodox actually become something
of a power factor—we do not mean for Edessa as a whole, but rather,
within the Christianity of that city? It makes sense to pose the prob-
lem in this more modest form, for at the beginning of the third ‘
NES

century the totality of those baptized, including all kinds, constitute

only a small minority by comparison to the [non-Christian] Edessenes
with their customs (Laws of the Countries 32 and 40; see above,
n. 12). Perhaps the wisest thing to do would be to refrain from’
offering a more detailed answer to the above question on the grounds
that it is impossible to do so. In spite of this, however, I will seek |
to give an answer, although with full awareness that I am thereby
treading on uncertain ground to a greater degree than previously.
I should like to ascribe the decisive influence to that person whom
the Edessene Chronicle names as the first bishop, Kiné (Koinos in
Greek). He was the one, if I am correct, who organized orthodoxy
[39] in Edessa in an ecclesiastical manner and gave to it significant
impetus—with the assistance of favorable times, yet not without merit
of his own. At the beginning of such a development, especially in a
/ region in which one must prevail against strong rivals by his own
power, must stand a person of energy, ability, and determination,
who also has time to expand. That Kiné was a man of exceptional
76. It is uncertain whether Bardesanes had been influenced by Tatian also with
respect to his “Apostolos”; cf. EH 4.29.6, and the comments of Zahn, Geschichte
1.1 (1887): 423 ff.
77. Cf. T. Zahn, Grundriss der Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons?
(Leipzig, 1904), pp. 48-50. W. Bauer, Der Apostolos der Syrer in der Zeit von
der Mitte des 4. Jahrhunderts bis zum Spaltung der syrischen Kirche (Giessen,
1903), pp. 32 ff.
33
 ORTHODOXY AND HERESY IN EARLIEST CHRISTIANITY

importance is confirmed by the fact that among the sacred buildings

of Edessene Christianity a “house” (Syr. beit) of Mar Kané later was
displayed,’® probably a chapel dedicated to him. At any rate this is
evidence that grateful recollection distinguished him from the multi-
tude of bishops, although he had not suffered a martyr’s death.
As to his length of time in office, I would prefer to appeal to
Leclercq, who has Ktiné active from before 289 until 313. Un-
fortunately, however, only the year of his death is unquestionably
established by the Edessene Chronicle (above, 15, item 12). A ter-
minus ad quem for his entrance into office is provided by the History
of the Martyrs Shamuna and Guria, which can be trusted as far as
the externals are concerned because they are two of the three Edes-
sene marytrs who are named already in the ancient Syrian martyr-
ology contained in a manuscript written in Edessa in 411/12, the
contents of which certainly go far back into the fourth century.*
They suffered in the days of Kuné,*! but perhaps not until the
year 309. This in no way rules out a more lengthy episcopate for
Kiiné, but neither does it champion that possibility with the desired
vigor. Only a period of some half-dozen years is a firm necessity. [40]
In any event, in that which the Edessene Chronicle lists as his
achievement, the building of the church, Kiné waited until the end
of his days, when he had to be content only with laying the founda-
tion. Too much should not be ascribed here to accident. If Ktné
allowed the year 313 to arrive before remedying a deficiency that he
surely had already been aware of for a long while, this demonstrates
the powerful purposefulness of a person who knows how to interpret
the signs of the times and to take advantage of favorable circum-
stances without hesitation. For it is certainly significant that 313 is
the very year in which, on the 13th of June, after the victory over
Maximinus in Nicomedia, Licinius issued an edict of toleration that
78. Chronicle of Joshua the Stylite 43 (ed. W. Wright [Cambridge, 1882 repr.
Amsterdam, 1968], p. 39.8). The context indicates that this does not refer to the
church founded by Kané [mentioned above, 15 item 12].
79. Leclercq, DACL 4: 2088 f.
80. See H. Achelis, Die Martyrologien, Abhandlung der Gesellschaft der Wis-
senschaften zu Gottingen, 3.3 (1900), pp. 30-71, with extensive reference to
the work of L. Duchesne. A German translation is given by H. Lietzmann, Die
drei dltesten Martyrologien, Kleine Texte, 2? (1911), pp. 7-15.
81. So chap. 1 of the History; the text is found in Burkitt, Euphemia, Syriac p.
3.8£. (see also pp. 90 and 29 ff.). [Burkitt, Eastern Christianity, 22 and 131,
dates their martyrdom in 297.]
34
 EDESSA
now guaranteed Christians the free exercise of religion even in the
East and explicitly decreed that the confiscated meeting houses and
all possessions should be returned to the church without cost to them.
Kiné took advantage of the favorable situation immediately, and cer-
tainly did not hesitate to present the claims of his community. There
was no meeting house to be returned to them, but there were all sorts
of possessions, which facilitated the construction of a new building.
Just as I have refused to view as coincidental the contemporaneity
of the church building and the edict of toleration, I now wish to go
a step further and to oppose the assumption that it happened by
chance that Eusebius prepared and issued his Ecclesiastical History
precisely in the same years that Kiné was in office. In this, we turn
back to the question as to who had been the spiritus rector [guiding
light] in the fabrication of the Abgar legend (see above, 10-12). I
would suggest that it was Kiné, who surely did not intend to givere
expression to his parochialism thereby, but wished to strikeapower-
ful blow against the false beliefs. It has already been established
that“only Edessene Christians had an interest in the falsification
(above, But we can describe these Christians with even more

could fot tracetheir origins back Rauandl the founders of their sects.
Or, if they attempted to do so, the story that served such a purpose
must take a turn that shows how the revelation of Jesus has come
down unadulterated through the generations to Marcion or Barde-
sanes—something like what is reported by Hippolytus (Ref. 7.20.1),
that Basilides was said to have been in contact with the apostle
Matthias, to whom Jesus in secret instruction had communicated the
Basilidian teaching. Yet in our case nothing of this sort occurs. On
we contrary, from the very beginning it is one of the anti-heretical
[41] devices of orthodoxy to demonstrate how ‘the church, in contrast
‘\to the heresies which stem from men and are named for them, estab-
lishes through the apostles a sure line of contact with the Lord him-
lself, which it never needed to break. If Jesus in person already has
ordered the gospel to be preached in Edessa by his apostle, then the
teaching of Marcion, Bardesanes, or even Mani immediately is un-
masked and condemned as a human work by way of imitation. They
have belatedly stolen their sheep from someone else’s flock. Ephraem
says: “Bar Daisan designated and called his flock by his name. More-
35
 ORTHODOXY AND HERESY IN EARLIEST CHRISTIANITY

over, the flock of Mani is called by his name.®? Like stolen sheep they
are marked with the detestable brand of the thief. It is Christ who
has gathered them; [thus] the sheep are [to be called] Christians”
(Madrash 56.1). Then the apostles, the “sons of truth,” are described
as the ones who as the wedding attendants of Christ have secured
for him the. bride who is to be called by his name (Madrash 56.2;
cf, 22.3).
Thus, with the tentativeness that limits all such conjectures, it was
.Kiné who gave the impetus for the establishment of the Abgar saga
and secured for it the widest conceivable distribution and credibility
by slipping the “Syrian records” into the hands of Eusebius, who was
/ collecting materials for his Ecclesiastical History. If the latter had
been inclined at all to examine his materials critically, such thoughts
( must have been further from his mind than ever in this case.
{ We need not make excuses for the Edessene bishop to whom we
attribute such a deed. He lived in an epoch in which the growth
of Christian legends flourished, and which accepted a remarkable
number of them to help oppose the heretics. So as not to go too far
from Edessa, we need..think only of the Syriac Didascalia as an
apostolic writing, of the Apostolic Constitutions and the expansion
and reworking of the collection of Ignatius’ letters, and of the Testa-
ment of Our Lord Jesus Christ.8* [42] It is not necessary to point
to examples such as Juvenalis of Jerusalem in order to establish the
probability that even bishops were associated with “forgeries.” ** It
was simply self-evident that they would look after the interests of
the true faith in the most effective manner. What other authority
stands behind the church orders mentioned above, if not the bishops? *°
Even the apostles had not viewed things differently and had not
shrunk from using methods that a lesser mind perhaps would have

82. Here only Bardesanes and Mani are lumped together, whereas in the wider
context of the hymn, Marcion again fills out the trilogy of leading heretics in the
usual way. Could this be additional evidence that such a rebuke would not
apply to the contemporary Edessene Marcionites because they call themselves
simply “Christians?” See above, 24.
83. The numerous legends of martyrs and saints can be left aside. [On Didascalia,
see below, 244-257 (244 n. 7 also provides material on Apostolic Constitutions);
the Testamentum Domini was edited by I. E. Rahmani (Mainz, 1899).]
84. Cf. Schultze, Antiocheia, p. 231.
85. Concerning such forgeries in the first half of the fourth century, see A. von
Harnack, Die Briefsammlung des Apostels Paulus und die anderen vorkonstantin-
ischen christlichen Briefsammlungen (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1926), pp. 31 f.
36 ©
 EDESSA
called questionable. Possibly Kiné was acquainted with the story that
found its way into a metric homily of Jacob of Sarug (d. after 519),
and tells of the conversion of Antioch by the apostles Peter, John, and
Paul.** At first the former two begin to preach in Antioch, But Aétius,
the high priest of the city, stirs up the populace against them and,
instead of having success, they are beaten and their heads are shaved
as a mark of disgrace. Paul meets the men thus humiliated, and ex-
plains to them that one cannot proceed in such an innocent and
simple manner—purely as a preacher of the gospel. He proposes the
following crafty procedure, which meets with their approval, He pre-
tends to be a pagan and becomes an associate of Aétius. As the chief
defender of the religion then dominant in Antioch, he demands a
miracle of the newcomers as proof of the correctness of their faith,
Thereupon Peter heals a blind man. But Paul proceeds to do the
same, seemingly with the help of the pagan gods, but in truth by
means of a secret invocation of the name Jesus. Thus the scales are
evenly balanced. So as to bring about a decision, Paul demands that
his alleged opponent raise a dead person. If he can do this, Paul
would then accept the faith in the God of the Christians. So, in the
theater in the presence of all the people, Peter calls back to life the
dead son of a prominent Antiochene. Now Paul enacts his conversion,
and great masses of people follow his apparent example. In the house
of Cassian, the father of the resuscitated young man, a church is
established, and in it the new converts are baptized. [43]
If the apostles themselves proceed in such a fashion,8? who would
blame the bishop for his actions on behalf of the correct faith? To
wish to apply here the categories of “honest” and “dishonest” is to
-employ a standard that is simply out of place. Moreover, to the extent
that Kiné also shares the firm conviction of his circle that heresy is
conceivable onlyas a departure from_the..true_(i.e...his..own).. faith,
!he is operating in good faith. The orthodox Christian was not able
to understand that at the beginning the heresies often were nothing
86. A. Baumstark, Die Petrus- und Paulusacten in der litterarischen Uberlieferung
der syrischen Kirche (Leipzig: Harrasowitz, 1902), pp. 27-29.
87. Cf. also the recently published Apocalypse of Peter; A. Mingana, Woodbrooke
Studies, 3.2 (Manchester, 1931), p. 93 ff. Here the Apostle to the Gentiles, and
Peter with him, plays almost a double role (132 ff., 396 ff.). He behaves like an
idolater before the “King of Antioch” and then before the emperor, and by this
clever, obliging conduct, which Peter supports with great miracles, secures the
conversion of the rulers and of their people.
37
 ORTHODOXY AND HERESY IN EARLIEST CHRISTIANITY

but mixtures, produced in the soil of syncretism, in which elements

of the most diverse kinds, including some Christian, were bound to-
gether into a new unity. He interpreted Christian elements as indi-
cations of original adherence to the one church, the protectress of all
_ genuine Christian possessions. And if the originator or the representa-
‘tive of the divergent approach actually stood outside the “church,”
ane
al

this was either because he himself had withdrawn from it, usually
for impure motives, or because he had been expelled from the church
\ as being unworthy.
That the apostolic teaching, which is identical with the conception
of orthodoxy of all times and places, had been present long before
there was heresy is also the view of Edessene orthodoxy of the fourth
century. As Ephraem explains (Madrash 24.20 f.): “For_years_the
apostles preached , after them, _and_s
and others til
there lo
_were—n
tares.” They first emerge with Marcion.** And, in fact, they emerge
in such a way that Marcion withdrew from the orthodox church, a
point that the Edessene Chronicle also explicitly noted.
With Bardesanes it is no different. The Edessene Chronicle, it is
true, does not claim that he withdrew from the church, or that Mani
did so. And in Eusebius the correct information is still preserved that
Bardesanes originally was a Valentinian of sorts (see above, 24 f.) and
[44] had never shared the faith of the church (EH 4.30.3). However,
already in Epiphanius he is depicted as having withdrawn from the
church (Her. 56.1.2). Jacob of Edessa clearly pictures him as hav-
ing been removed by force.*® But alongside this, the Syrians tell the
following edifying story, which has been transmitted in various
forms.®® Bardesanes had grown up somewhere outside Edessa as the
adopted son of an idolatrous priest, who taught him pagan hymns.
When he was twenty-five years old, his father sent him to Edessa to
make some purchases. There he passed the church built by Addai
and heard Bishop Hystaspes explaining the scriptures to the people.
The discourse pleased Bardesanes so much that he wished to be
88. Cf. also Madrash 23.10: “Let us go back even before Bar Daisan and
Marcion to the earlier ones, who are more ancient than Marcion.”
89. In his twelfth epistle (see above, n. 55), Syriac page 27 (ed. Wright): “The
adherents of Bar Daisan ... got their start from him. When he was expelled
from the church of the orthodox of Urhai, many adherents of his wickedness
followed him and founded a heresy and a sect for themselves.”
90. Theodore bar Khoni (above, n. 55), ed. Nau, 517=ed. Pognon, pp. 122 .
Michael the Syrian (above, n. 31), ed. Chabot, vol. 1: pp. 183 f.=ed. Nau, 523.
38
 EDESSA
initiated into the secrets of Christianity. Hystaspes taught him,
bap-
tized him, and ordained him as a deacon or presbyter. Now he would
have liked to become bishop. But when he was not able to do this,
he left the church ® and became a Valentinian; and when even in
this setting his ambition was not completely fulfilled, he founded
his own sect.°2
From the same sort of viewpoint, Mani is said to have become a
Christian presbyter who fought against Jews and pagans, but then
he turned his back upon the church because his pupils were not ac-
cepted with their message.°* Thus for Bishop Kiné, the Abgar legend
is only a concrete expression of his bedrock [45] conviction that his
faith is older than all heresy and therefore also must have made its
appearance in Edessa, with a clearly apostolic seal, earlier than heresy.
_ But the Abgar legend is perhaps not the onlyexample of the way
in which Kiné attacked the heretics through literature, and summoned
\Jesus with the apostles against them. If with some confidence we
may conjecture such efforts on his part, then surely it is also per-
missible to explore this approach still further, and to explain a pe-
culiarity of the Edessene Bible that is particularly striking along with
/ the presence of the Diatessaron. The Pauline canon also had a pecu-
liar shape in Edessa, since it contained a third letter to the Corin-
~thians, or more correctly, an exchange of letters between Paul and the
91. This is yet another recurrent device in the struggle against heresy: frustrated
ambition drives the one in question out of the church and causes him to become
a heresiarch. Tertullian already says this of Valentinus (Against Valentinus 4;
cf. Prescription against Heretics 30). Epiphanius reports a similar story about
Marcion, who is supposed to have wanted to be bishop of Rome (Her. 42.1).
92. Burkitt (Eastern Christianity, pp. 30f., 156 ff., 187 ff.) agrees with this
presentation to the extent that he pictures Bardesanes as having first belonged
to the orthodox church, after which he turned to “gnosis” and was excommuni-
cated. [But Burkitt is himself quite sympathetic to Bardaisan, whom he calls
“the best scientific intellect of his time,” and is saddened that Syrian orthodoxy
rejected him through “intellectual cowardice” (189; see also 34f.). It is not
_ clear that Burkitt would want to call him “gnostic.”]
93. See above, 27 n. 61, for the relevant materials from Chronicon Maroniticum
and Michael the Syrian. According to Epiphanius Her. 66.5 ff., Mani deceitfully
passes himself off as a Christian. [For other similar references, see K. Kessler in
RPTK? 12 (1903), 202.20 ff., and the recently published Arabic material in S.
Pines, “Jewish Christians” (below, p. 314 n. 31), pp. 66 ff.-Mani was first a
priest, then bishop/metropolitan in Christian Persia, before proclaiming his
objectionable message. By way of contrast, Eusebius has nothing of the sort in
his vituperative paragraph on Mani (EH 7.31); see also Cyril of Jerusalem
Catecheses 6.21 (on the Unity of God)—“Mani was not a Christian. Far be it.
He was not thrown out of the church like Simon” (for text, see Migne, PG 33;
ET by E. H. Gifford, NPNF 7, series 2 [1894]).]
39
 ORTHODOXY AND HERESY IN EARLIEST CHRISTIANITY

Corinthians with a connecting passage in between. At the time of

Ephraem, this material had a firm spot in the New Testament, and in
Ephraem’s commentary on Paul it is dealt with after 2 Corinthians.
Since Aphraates already cites two passages of “3 Corinthians” as the
words “of the apostle,” the letter must have been accepted as canoni-
cal in Syriac-speaking areas, and above all in Edessa, around the
year 330. Neither the Syriac Didascalia nor Agathangelos’ notice about
Gregory the Illuminator, the apostle of the Armenians,®** provide any
evidence that this would have been the case earlier.
Indeed, Ephraem asserts that the Bardesanites had not admitted
“3 Corinthians” into their Bible because it contradicted their teach-
ing.®> And if he were correct, we would have to conclude that the
letter was already regarded by the Paltitians as sacred by the time
Bardesanes’ false teaching arose; and that would guarantee for the
Paltitians greater antiquity than has been conceded to them. However,
the discovery and deciphering of the Coptic version of the Acts of
Paul by Carl Schmidt * has established that the correspondence orig-
inally formed a part of the Acts of Paul, and that makes the assertion
of Ephraem impossible. For, [46] as we learn from Tertullian, the
apocryphal story of Paul had been composed only about the year 180
or even later, after Bardesanes was fully active, by a presbyter in
Asia Minor, “as though he could add something on his own authority
to the reputation of Paul” (On Baptism 17). The author himself con-
fessed that he had acted out of love for the Apostle to the Gentiles.
Thus we see here quite clearly an officer of the “great church” per-
petrating a “forgery” that focuses upon an apostle. In view of these
considerations, a Syriac translation of the correspondence and its use
in Edessa before the third century is quite inconceivable. And it is
not the patrons of “3 Corinthians” but rather Bardesanes and _his
people who bear witness to the earlier situation by their silence con-
cerning the letter.
But Ephraem was correct at one point. In a life devoted to fighting
94. See E. Rolffs, “Paulusakten,” in Hennecke?, p. 195.
95. In the Armenian works of Ephraem, ed. by the Mekhitarists in Venice, vol.
3 (1836), p. 118. German translation in Zahn, Geschichte, 2.2: 598; J. Vetter,
Der apocryphe dritte Korintherbrief (Vienna, 1894), p. 72.
96. C. Schmidt, Acta Pauli aus der Heidelberger koptischen Papyrushandschrift
Nr. 1 (Leipzig, 1904, 19052). [This material was reedited by Schmidt and W.
Schubart (Hamburg: Augustin, 1936); for more recent developments, see W.
Schneemelcher in Hennecke-Schneemelcher, 2: 322 ff.]
40
 ORTHODOXY AND HERESY IN EARLIEST CHRISTIANITY

heretics he had learned by experience that the Bardesanites rejected

“3 Corinthians” as non-apostolic because it conflicted with their view-
point; they had become acquainted with this material at a later period
through its incorporation into the Bible of their orthodox fellow citi-
zens, and from their disputes with them. This makes sense, since the
correspondence was intended, in the context of the work of its ortho-
dox inventor, as part of the anti-gnostic polemic. Once again the
question arises: who was interested in introducing such literature in
Edessa? And again comes the only possible answer: only the orthodox
—with their farsighted and industrious bishop Kiné leading the way.
For it was in the century in which his tenure falls, from the be-
ginning of the third to the beginning of the fourth century, that the
exchange of letters must have been incorporated into the canon of the
orthodox in Edessa.
Even in this case, the integrity of Kiné is to a large extent main-
tained. He certainly never doubted for a moment the authenticity
of this Pauline correspondence. To him it was only a new confirmation
of his unshakable confidence that he, rather than the heretics, was in
agreement with the apostles. We can perhaps infer from a remark
made by Ephraem in his commentary on “3 Corinthians” how the
Acts of Paul came to Edessa. According to this, the Bardesanites have
written apocryphal Acts of the apostles in which the miraculous deeds
of the apostles are told, but at the same time the teachings of the
Bardesanites also had been put into the mouths of the apostles—
[47] perhaps the Acts of Thomas is the main target here.®7 We know
how the “church” met the efforts of the heretics to influence the
common man through such popular books—partly by reworking the
_ heretical works in an orthodox fashion, and partly by using their own
newly created works containing barbed thrusts against the enemy,
where such works existed. In the latter category, we may include the
, Acts of Paul; which Eusebius values much more highly than the
gnostic Acts of Peter—the latter he simply rejects (EH 3.3.2), while
he counts the former among those writings whose canonical worth
is not sufficiently firm (EH 3.3.5, 25.4). By using a little imagination,
we might picture Kiné’s emissaries to Eusebius returning home to
their bishop and bringing the Pauline material in exchange for the
97. See G. Bornkamm, Mythos und Legende in den apokryphen Thomasakten
(Gottingen, 1933), pp. 86f., [and more recently, Bornkamm’s treatment of the
Acts of Thomas in Hennecke-Schneemelcher, 2: 425 ff.].
4]
 EDESSA

“Syriac records,” as an instrument for combatting the apostolic books

of the Bardesanites.
We will disregard such possibilities. But I would consider it certain
that the Acts of Paul came to Edessa as a whole,®® for the corre-
spondence probably became separated from the body of the work
in an area in which the former actually came to have a separate
existence, which up to the present time is not demonstrable for the
Greek-speaking world. I do not wish to dwell upon hypotheses as
to why Kiné, or whoever it was, did not incorporate into his New
Testament the entire document, but only the correspondence most
| immediately connected with the apostle, with its clearly discernible
’ anti-heretical attitude. (I have already had to assume much more
than I would like, but unfortunately, in this area, there is very little
that one can know for sure.) Perhaps this was decided for him by
the fact that the Lukan Acts of the Apostles, which was exegeted
as holy scripture by Ephraem some decades after Kiiné’s tenure, al-
ready occupied a place in the Edessene Bible. Possibly the Acts of
Paul also was too extensive for him and was still not sufficiently
authenticated as a whole. Or he was offended, as were other church-
men, by the role played there by Thecla—especially since in the
Marcionite communities women possessed the right to administer
baptism. [48] Furthermore, there certainly would be much less
resistance to the innovation if only the correspondence were added,
and thus it would become all the more difficult for the heretics to
parry the thrust. One could easily turn the figure of Thecla into
something ridiculous. Perhaps Kiiné was on his guard because he could
observe an actual example such as the Sabbatians,!°! who later were
opposed by Ephraem. “A woman,” scoffs Ephraem, “brings the Sab-
98. On the use of the Acts of Paul among the Syrians, see Baumstark, Petrus-
und Paulusacten, and W. Bauer, Apostolos, pp. 19-21.
99. [Discoveries subsequent to 1934 necessitate some readjustments in this argu-
ment, for a Greek text of “3 Corinthians” has appeared among the Bodmer
papyri (several Latin fragments also are known)—see M. Testuz, Papyrus Bodmer
X-XIII (Cologne-Geneva: Bibliotheca Bodmeriana, 1959), and W. Schneemelcher
in Hennecke-Schneemelcher, 2: 326f, For the Latin text, see A. Harnack, Die
Sean Briefe des Paulus an die Laodicer und Korinther?, KT 12 (1912):

tan Cf, Hamack, Marcion?, pp. 147 and 365°, n. 2.

101. In the heresy-catalogue of Marutha (above, n. 64), they are treated first.
More precise information concerning them is found in the 12th letter of Jacob
of Edessa (above, n. 55). The text is on Syriac p. 25, line 13 from below (ed.
Wright). See also Riicker, Ephraem, 2: 12f. (above, n. 58).
42
 EDESSA

batians under her power, so that they bow their heads beneath her
hand. Sitting on the teacher’s chair in the chancel,!°2 she rants at
them and derides their beards. Is that not a reproach and a shame
to nature itself?” (Madrash 2.6). Thus there are reasons that could
make it seem advisable to an Edessene churchman to limit the addi-
tion to the exchange of letters between Paul and the Corinthians.
We need not tarry longer on this point. These closing comments
about Kiné are intended only to bring into some kind of focus
various lines of the investigation that we had to pursue. The time
of Kiné itself lies far beyond the boundaries of the period which we
have in view. We are concerned with the beginnings. And the in-
vestigation of these beginnings for the history of Christianity in Edessa
has made us aware of a foundation that rests on an unmistakably
heretical basis. In relation to it, orthodoxy comes to prevailil_only
ty gradually and with great difficulty, becoming externally vic-
very
toriou
only in thes the use
days of Rabbula, and then through means
of which leaves behind a bitter taste—means that no one had dared__
to use in the pre-Constantinian, era.
102. Tacos oF Eucae stresses explicitly that at that time, there had been a church
of the Sabbatians in Urhdi (Syriac p. 26.5 ff., ed. Wright). Jacob knows from
personal experience (lines 13 ff.) that the place where they gathered was still
called by his contemporaries “church of the Sabbatians.”

43
 2
Egypt

Let us now turn our attention to another region, which resembles

Edessa in its physical proximity to the cradle of Christianity and
possesses an even greater significance for the intellectual as well
as the ecclesiastical history of Christianity, namely Egypt, and the
origins of Christianity there. What we have observed with respect
to Edessa makes it difficult for us to accept the attitude with which
even the most competent investigators approach this subject. For ex-
ample, Adolf von Harnack says:

| The most serious gap in our knowledge of primitive church history is

| our almost total ignorance of the history of Christianity in Alexandria
: and Egypt ... until about the year 180 (the episcopate of Demetrius).
\It is only at that time that the Alexandrian church really emerges for
/ us into the light of history. . . . Eusebius found nothing in his sources
( about the primitive history un Chrstanieg in Alexandria. We can with
) more or less probability suppose that certain very ancient Christian
A writings (e.g. the Epistle of Barnabas. . . [et alia]) are of Egyptian or
) Alexandrian origin, but strictly aieakite: this can hardly be demon-
isPsrated for any one of them.

This implies simply that there is nothing in the sources. But they
are too uncommunicative. Something ought to be found in them!
1. Harnack, The Mission and Expansion of. Christianity in the First Three
Centuries2, 2 (ET by J. Moffatt from the 2nd German edition of 1906; London:
Williams and Norgate, 1908): 158f. The material of this second edition is re-
vised and extensively supplemented in the 4th German edition (Leipzig, 1924);
thus reference to both ET and the more recent German ed. are included below
(see German‘ 2: 706 f., for the above quotation).
44
 EGYPT

Now these sources were certainly seen and inspected, if not written,
by churchmen. What reason could they have had for being silent
about the origins of Christianity in such an important center as Alex-
andria if there had been something favorable to report?
Eusebius, who “found nothing in his sources about the primitive
history of Christianity in Alexandria,” had in any event [50] searched
very diligently in them. He repeats various items from pagan re-
porters concerning the Jewish revolt in Egypt under Trajan (EH 4.2),
quotes excerpts from Philo and in his desperation even allows Philo’s
Therapeutae (below, n. 14) to appear as the oldest Christians of
Egypt and to be converted by Mark, the first bishop of Alexandria,
after Philo previously had been in touch with Peter in Rome (EH
2.16-17). He traces a succession of ten bishops from Mark down to the
reign of the Emperor Commodus (180-192).? But this list, which he
owes to Sextus Julius Africanus, serves only to make the profound
silence that hangs over the origins even more disconcerting. “There
is absolutely no accompanying tradition’—since this is so, what may
be gathered at best is still almost less than nothing.’ And the timid
notation of that copyist of the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius who
calls Annianus, the immediate successor of Mark, “a man beloved by
God and admirable in all things,” + does not raise the tradition above
the zero point. The first ten names (after Mark, the companion of the
apostles) are and remain for us a mere echo and a puff of smoke;
and they scarcely could ever have been anything but that. At least,
here and there, the Roman succession list to the time of the Emperor
Commodus offers us a living personality. And even in the defective
catalogue of Antioch (see below, 63-64), with its half dozen names,
for the same span of time, we already meet a familiar face in Ig-_
natius, quite apart from the sixth figure, Theophilus. There is simply.
nothing comparable that can be established for Alexandria. Yet we |
' can hardly suppose that some inexplicable misfortune overtook the |
account of the earliest period of Egyptian church history, and in this
way explain the deathly silence.
In the same vein as those remarks from Harnack quoted above
2. EH 2.24, 3.14, 3.21, 4.1, 4.4, 4.5.5, 4.11.6, 4.19, 5.9. For the various names,
see the GCS edition by Schwartz, vol. 3: p. 9.
3. Harnack, Geschichte 2 (Chronologie) .1 (1897): 205 f.
4, Anér theophilés kai ta panta thaumasios. See the apparatus to EH 2.24 in the
GCS edition.
45
 ORTHODOXY AND HERESY IN EARLIEST CHRISTIANITY .

(cf, ton. 1) are the brief lines which Karl Miiller has recently devoted
to our subject: ®

It is precisely because of the strength of the Jewish community

in Alexandria [51] that Christianity cannot long have been absent
from Egypt.6 Yet we have no actual reports about it: it is un-
known whether Apollos of Alexandria (Acts 18.24) already had be-
come a Christian in his native city, and the literary vestiges (the
Epistle of Barnabas), like the beginnings of gnosticism in Alexandria,
first appear in the time of Hadrian. But in any event, this evidence
at
permits the inference that Christianity was present in the country
the latest by the turn of the century,’ a conclusio n that, on other
grounds, also could hardly be doubted.

The question whether Apollos already was a Christian in Alex-

andria is answered in the affirmative by codex D at Acts 18.25, where
he is said to have preached already “in his homeland.” * Be that as
it may, it is perhaps no accident that here also, as in Eusebius’
Ecclesiastical History (see above, 45 n. 4), an amplification of the
original text insists on knowing something about the most primitive
period of Christian Egypt. But even supposing codex D were correct,
surely no one would care to label as in any sense “ecclesiastically
oriented faith” that mixture made up of Alexandrian Judaism and
scriptural learning, of discipleship to John which knows only the
baptism of the Baptist and of Christian ingredients—Apollos himself
does not at first proclaim more than this at Ephesus. Also of quite
uncertain value is the letter of the Emperor Hadrian to the Consul
Servianus quoted by Flavius Vopiscus, Vita Saturini 8, though a
historian of the stature of H. Gelzer regards it as authentic, and
Hamnack is also willing to give it consideration.’ According to the
context (7.6), this letter comes from the writings of Phlegon,!° the
5, K. Miiller, Kirchengeschichte2, 1 (Tiibingen: Mohr, 1929): 121, Cf. also
Lietzmann, History, 1: 132 f.
6. Is it possible to demonstrate, not as an occasional occurrence, but as a general
rule, that a large population of Jews would immediately attract Christianity?
7. Notice that here, too, we have the good ecclesiastical view that “the be-
ginnings of gnosticism” must presuppose the prior existence of “Christianity” in
the same locality.
8. [Strictly speaking, the Greek of codex D says only that Apollos was instructed
" Christianity at Alexandria: hos én katéchémenos en té patridi ton logon tou
uriou.]
9. Gelzer, Sextus Julius Africanus und die byzantinische Chronographie, 1
(Leipzig, 1880): 16; Harnack, Mission”, 2: 159 f. n. 4 (= German‘ 2: 707, n. 3).
10. See W. Weber, Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des Kaisers Hadrianus
(Leipzig: Tuebner, 1907), pp. 97 ff.
46
 EGYPT

freedman of Hadrian. In the letter, the emperor remarks that he is

well acquainted with the Egyptians as frivolous and avid for novel-
ties: “Here those who worship Serapis are [at the same time] Chris-
tians, and those who call themselves bishops of Christ are also dev-
otees of Serapis. Here there is no synagogue leader of the Jews, no
[52] Samaritan, no Christian presbyter who is not also an astrologer,
a haruspex, and an aliptes” (8.2 ff.).11 That the document is spurious
seems to me readily demonstrable; nevertheless, that one could falsify
in such fashion is not without significance.
Certainly neither Philo, when he complains of the distress of the
Jews under Caligula,!? nor the Emperor Claudius, in the letter to the |
Egyptian prefect L. Aemilius Rectus in which he demands the cessa- |
tion of strife between pagans and Jews,1* gives the slightest hint
| that there were also Christians in Alexandria. Likewise, no one today
would dare to suppose with Eusebius (EH 2.16-17) that Philo’s “Ther-
|apeutae” were Christians."
When K. Miiller deals with the Epistle of Barnabas prior to his
discussion of gnosticism, perhaps he views it as a representative of
\. some sort of orthodoxy in Alexandria. But quite apart from the fact
that its origin in Egypt is no more than a possibility, its orthodoxy
must also be viewed as suspect. The basic thesis of the Epistle, that
Judaism is an aberration with which Christianity can have nothing to
do, but which deserves only rejection, remains gnostic—even if, by
means of a thoroughly grotesque allegorization, which turns the Old
Testament topsy-turvy with respect to its literal meaning, a condem-
nation of Jewish scripture ostensibly still is avoided. Actually, the
Valentinian Ptolemy has retained more of the Old Testament than
11. Scriptores historiae Augustae, ed. E. Hohl (2 vols, Leipzig 1927): Aegyptum
. .. totam didici levem pendulam et ad omnia famae momenta volitantem, illic qui
Serapem colunt Christiani sunt et devoti sunt Serapi qui se Christi episcopas
dicunt, nemo illic archisynagogus Iudaeorum, nemo Samarites, nemo Christianorum
presbyter non mathematicus, non haruspex, non aliptes. The final word is from
the Greek aleiphein, to anoint. [The haruspex performs divination by interpreting
the entrails of sacrificial victims.]
12, [Philo Embassy to Gaius 162 ff. and passim.]
13. Papyrus London 1912, dated 41 cx. [10 November]. [For the text, ET,
and an up-to-date discussion of the document, see V. A. Tcherikover and A. Fuks,
Corpus Papyrorum Judaicarum, 2 (Cambridge: Harvard University, 1960), no.
153, pp. 36-55.]
14, See above, p. 45 [Philo describes the Therapeutae in his On the Contempla-
tive Life. In connection with the theory that the “Dead Sea Scrolls” are of
Jewish-Christian origin, J. L. Teicher recently has argued for the Christian origin
of this allegedly Philonic treatise; cf. e.g. his article on “The Essenes” in
Studia Patristica, 1 (TU 63, 1957): 540-545.)
47
 ORTHODOXY AND HERESY IN EARLIEST CHRISTIANITY

has Barnabas, And quite similar to the latter may have been the ap-
proach of the Valentinian Theotimus, who took such pains with the
“ideas of the law.” 1° Quite significant is the high esteem enjoyed by
the concept “knowledge” and the term “gnosis” in Barnabas.1® We
(2: the progression repeated: “wisdom, insight, knowledge, gnosis”
(2.3, 21.5). Christians are to add “perfect gnosis” to their faith (1.5).
| And repeatedly, it is “gnosis” that perverts the real sense of the Old
Testament (9.8, 10.10, 13.7). A passage from scripture is adduced
( and then the question raised: “but what does gnosis say about
this?” (6.9). If we add that the Christology of Barnabas contains
nothing which can be interpreted as anti-heretical—but on the con-
trary, it seems docetic—then the document has, to my mind, for-
feited any claim to represent the ecclesiastically orthodox faith in
Alexandria. [53]
Again, we are hardly brought into the realm of orthodoxy by that
story which Justin tells concerning “one of our people” in Alexandria,
as a proof of the high level of Christian morality (Apol. 29.2-3). This
individual is stated to have lodged a biblidion with the prefect
Felix 17—a petition requesting that a physician be permitted to emas-
culate him, The physicians refused to fulfill his wish without the gov-
ernor’s authorization. Although the prefect refused permission, the
young man led a moral life even without the physical operation.
‘¢ Certainly there were Christians in Egypt in the middle and at the
|| beginning of the second century—this story proves nothing more than
_ that. But the burning question is, of what sort were they? Everything
\, that we know of this Christianity, apart from what has been men-
| tioned already, clearly has grown up apart from all ecclesiastically
|| structured Christendom until farit into the: second century. Its personal
\representatives “of whom we hear are the gnostics '*—Basilides, with
|his son Isidore,, Carpocrates_ and Valentinus, with various of his dis-
‘Is. Tenlhany)Against Valentinus 4: multum circa imagines legis Theotimus
operatus est.
16. [See the material collected by R. A. Kraft, Barnabas and. the Didache
(=Grant, AF 3, 1965), pp. 22-27.]
17. The person meant is L. Munatius Felix, who held office around the year
150. See A. Ehrhard, Die altchristliche Literatur und ihre Erforschung von 1884-
1900, 1: Die vornicdnische Literatur (Freiburg im B., 1900), p. 220.
18. According to the ps.-Clementine Hom. 2.22, Simon Magus already is supposed
to have acquired all his gnostic knowledge and skill in Alexandria (cf. 2.24).
Pate the texts speak of “Egypt” in general as the source of Simon’s
magic
48
 EGYPT

ciples,"® Theodotus and Julius Cassianus—the overwhelming majority

of whom demonstrably come from the land of the Nile.2° Apelles,
the independent pupil of Marcion, also was active here,2! and ac-
cording to Hippolytus, Cerinthus had been trained in Egypt.22 The
Barbelo-Gnostics also flourished here under the influence of Valen-
tinus and produced a work which is preserved in Coptic under the
title Apocryphon of John and which served Irenaeus as a source for
his presentation of those [54] gnostics.23 It must therefore have orig-
inated _prior to 180, and that type of Egyptian gnosticism must be
older still.
There are also other writings which, like the one just mentioned,
betray their homeland by their language: Coptic-gnostic gospels and
other apocryphal materials, including the Pistis Sophia (which in
turn presupposes the use of the gnostic Odes of Solomon in Egypt),
and the Books of Jeti—gnosticism of the first water. We have also re-
cently learned of a very copious Manichean literature in Coptic.?°
19. The Valentinians still had communities in Egypt in the second half of the
fourth century, as well as elsewhere in the East. Cf. Harnack, Geschichte, 1. 1:
174.
20. Cf. Hammack, Mission2, 2; 159-162 (=German* 2: 707-710). J. P. Kirsch,
Die Kirche in der antiken griechisch-rémischen Kulturwelt (1930), pp. 185-195.
I mention here only persons and movements that can be proved to belong to
Egypt. The fact that the widely travelled and very well read collector, Clement
of Alexandria, knows and fights them is not in itself sufficient evidence (cf. Strom.
7.[17.]108). Nevertheless, it is more than likely that other such heretics also flour-
ished in Egypt, without leaving behind any express witness.
21. Tertullian Prescription against the Heretics 30; Harnack, Marcion?, pp. 177
and 179 f.
22. Ref. 7.7.33 and 10.21. [According to the corresponding Latin material pre-
served in Irenaeus AH 1.26.1 (=21), “in Asia” not “Egypt.”]
23. AH 1.29 (= 27); C. Schmidt, “Irenaus und seine Quelle in adv. haer. I, 29.”
in Philotesia (Festschrift for Paul Kleinert; Berlin, 1907), pp. 315-336. [The
text has now been edited by W. Till, Die gnostichen Schriften des koptischen
Papyrus Berolinensis 8502 (TU 60, 1955), pp. 33-51, 79-195. For other recently
discovered Coptic forms of the text, see M. Krause and P. Labib (eds.), Die drei
Versionen des Apokryphon Johannes im koptischen Museum zu Alt-Kairo (Ab-
! handlung der Deutsche Akad. I, Koptische Reihe 1; Berlin, 1962). An ET of
Till’s text may be found in R. M. Grant, Gnosticism: an Anthology (London:
Collins, 1961), 69-85, and further discussion of the document by H. C. Puech
in Hennecke-Schneemelcher, 1: 314-331.]
24, C. Schmidt, “Ein vorireniiisches gnostisches Originalwerk in koptischer
Sprache,” Sb Berlin for 1896, pp. 839-847. Cf. Hennecke, “Bruchstiicke gnostischer
und verwandter Evangelien,” Hennecke?, pp. 69 ff. [A more up-to-date survey
of these materials by H. C. Puech is now available in ET in Hennecke-Schnee-
melcher, 1: 231-362 (see also pp. 511-531).]
25. C. Schmidt and H. J. Polotsky, “Ein Mani-Fund in Agypten,” Sb Berlin 1
for 1933. [More recently, cf. H. Ibscher, Manichaean Manuscripts in the Chester
49
 ORTHODOXY AND HERESY IN EARLIEST CHRISTIANITY

Although some of this literature certainly must be dated subse-

quent to the year 200, there still belongs to the beginning of the
second century that book which Clement of Alexandria, the earliest
possible witness for such things, already knows by the title The Gospel
of the Egyptians.2° The construction with kata is here, as in the
similarly formed superscriptions to the canonical gospels (e.g. to kata
Matthaion euaggelion) a good Greek substitute for the genitive. Since
there surely never had been a heretical group. called “the Egyptians,”
the designation Gospel of the Egyptians points back to a time in
which the Christians of Egypt used this gospel, and only this gospel,
as their “life of Jesus.” And the pronounced heretical viewpoint of
the Gospel of the Egyptians 27 accords well with what we have had
to conjecture about the earliest state of Egyptian Christianity. For
several of the gnostics enumerated above, the use of the Gospel of
the Egypt demonstrable on good authority.?* The Salome with
isians
whom theapocryph al
gospel depicts Jesus inconversation is also a
popular figure in subsequent extra-canonical [55] Egyptian gospel lit-
erature.2® Moreover, the followers of the Egyptian gnostic Carpoc-
rates derived the origin of their teaching from Salome.*°
It may seem remarkable that the name Gospel of the Egyptians
should arise in Egypt itself and be used by Christians there. They
would have had no occasion to speak of their lone gospel as the gospel
“of the Egyptians.” It would simply be the gospel. The special des-
plurality of gospels which makes a distinction
ignation presupposes a
necessary. Quite right! It is only in this context that the expression

Beatty Collection, 2: A Manichaean Psalm-Book, 2 (Stuttgart, 1938), and

Manichdische Handschriften der staatlichen Museen Berlin, 1: Kephalaia, 1 (Stutt-
gart, 1940). See also below, 315 n. 35.]
26. To kat’ Aigptious Euaggelion, Strom. 3.(9.)63, 3.(13.)93.
27. Cf. Bauer, RGG2, 1 (1927): 114; Hennecke in Hennecke?, pp. 55-59. [More
recently, O. Cullmann in RGG3, 1 (1957): 126 f.; W. Schneemelcher in Hennecke-
Schneemelcher, 1: 166-78.]
28. Theodotus, in Clement of Alexandria Excerpts from Theodotus 67 (cf. Strom.
3.[6.]45.3, 3.[9.]63-64 and 66); Julius Cassianus, in Strom. 3.(13.)92-93. The
gnostic Naassenes also made use of it according to Hippolytus Ref. 5.7.
29. Cf. Pistis Sophia, ed. by C. Schmidt in his Koptisch-gnostische Schriften, 1
(GCS 13, 1905): 401, col. 2 (name and subject index) [revised by W. Till (GCS
45, 19542), p. 417, col. 2]. The Coptic text was published by Schmidt in Coptica,
2 (Copenhagen 1925), with the name index on p. 450. [For ET of Pistis Sophia
see G. R. S. Mead (London, 19212) or G. Horner (London, 1924).]
30. So Celsus according to Origen Against Celsus 5.62. Surely it is they who are
concealed behind the name “Harpocratianoi” that is transmitted in the text.
50
 EGYPT

“of the Egyptians” can be correctly appreciated. The phrase would

be completely incomprehensible if one supposes that only a heretical
minority of the Egyptian Christians used this book while, on the con-
trary, the majority employed the canonical gospel, or at least some
of them.(The gospel of a minority could never have been called
simply the Gospel of the Egyptians.**) And neither the Gospel of
Matthew, nor that of Luke, really constitutes a plausible (i.e. a nat-
ural) antithesis to the Gospel of the Egyptians.
Now it is instructive that the same Alexandrians who speak of the
Gospel of the Egyptians refer to another gospel with the title The
Gospel of the Hebrews.** From the beginning, an unlucky star has
hovered over the Gospel of the Hebrews and its investigation, in
that Jerome used this name to designate a Jewish-Christian revision
of the Gospel of Matthew which he found among the Nazarenes
in Beroea (a work we would do better to call the Gospel of the
Nazarenes), and Epiphanius confused the Gospel of the Hebrews
with the Gospel of the Ebionites. What we know of both these Jewish
Christian gospels [56] clearly has nothingto do with that Gospel of
the Hebrews that was known in Egypt.** The latter probably was
composed during the first half of the second century, in Greek, and
I should suppose, in Egypt. It is there that it makes its first appear-
ance,*+ and to that country belong the Jesus-logia of the Oxyrhynchus
papyri with which it has affinities in content. Note that we also find
among the “logia” of Oxyrhynchus papyrus 654 a dominical say-
ing which Clement of Alexandria cites from the Gospel of the He-
31. Cf. (L. Mitteis and) U. Wilcken, Grundziige und Crestomathie der Papyrus-
urkunde, 1.2 (Chrestomathie) (Leipzig: Teubner, 1912), 22.17 (p. 38f.), where
the “true Egyptians” (aléthinoi Aiguptioi) are distinguished from the grecianized
Alexandrians (= Papyrus Giessen 40, dated 215 c.z.).
32. To kath’ Hebraious Euaggelion. Clement of Alexandria Strom. 2.[9.]45.5;
Origen Commentary on John 2.(12.)87 [and elsewhere]. Origen also refers
. to the Gospel of the Egyptians in his first Homily on Luke (ed. M. Raver, GCS
35 = Origenes 9, 1930). The texts are collected in E. Klostermann (ed.), Apocrypha
2: Evangelien (Kleine Texte 8, 1929%), p. 4. [For ET, see Hennecke-Schnee-
melcher, 1: 120, 164, 166 (and 55).]
33. Cf. Bauer, RGG?, 2 (1928): 1673; A. Schmidtke, Neue Fragmente und
Untersuchungen zu den juden-christlichen Evangelien (TU 37.1, 1911); H.
Waitz in Hennecke2, pp. 10-32, 39-55. [See now H. W. Surkau in RGG%, 3
(1959): 109; and P. Vielhauer in Hennecke-Schneemelcher, 1: 117-165.]
34. When Eusebius (EH 4.22.8) states that Hegesippus quoted from the Gospel
of the Hebrews and from the Syriac (Gospel), we should probably refer the
former to the Gospel of the Nazarenes (cf. Jerome Illustrious Men 3) and the
latter to the Gospel of the Ebionites (cf. EH 3.27.4 and 6.17).
51
 ORTHODOXY AND HERESY IN EARLIEST CHRISTIANITY

brews: “He who seeks will not rest until he has found, and when he
has found he will marvel, and when he has marvelled he will reign,
and when he has reigned he will rest.” *°
If I am not mistaken, the Gospel of the Hebrews was the “life of
Jesus” used by the Jewish Christians of Alexandria. “Hebrews” can
also mean Greek-speaking Jews when it is a matter of designating
their nationality. Paul, a hellenistic Jew, spoke of himself in this way
(Phil. 3.5, 2 Cor. 11.22), and Eusebius applies the same term to
Philo of Alexandria, a Jew of Greek culture (EH 2.4.2). The recently
discovered door superscription in Corinth reads “Synagogue of the
Hebrews.” The ancient title of the Epistle to the Hebrews means
by Hebraioi Jewish (-Christian) recipients who spoke Greek. In-
deed, the words of an Egyptian magical text, “I adjure you by the
God of the Hebrews, Jesus,” 8° sound almost like an echo of those
persons who oriented themselves around the Gospel of the Hebrews. In
contrast to it, the Gospel of the Egyptians was the gospel of the “real”
Egyptians (see n. 31 above) who had become Christian—the gentile
Christians of Egypt. In such circumstances, the genesis of the name
and its use in Egypt become intelligible.
It is quite in harmony with our conception of the original situation
in Christian Egypt that the Gospel of the Hebrews clearly displays
the heretical trademark. In the fragment ‘preserved by Origen, Jesus
declares (on an occasion that we can no longer recover with cer-
tainty): “Just now [57] my mother, the Holy Spirit, siezed me by one
of my hairs and carried me away to the high mountain Tabor.” *”

35. Clement of Alexandria Strom. 2.(9.)45.5 and 5.(14.)96.3. [For the text
of P, Ox. 654, see B. P. Grenfell and A. S. Hunt, The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, 4
(London, 1903), with reproductions (also Klostermann’s ed. mentioned above,
n. 32). This papyrus has now been identified as part of the Gospel of Thomas
(see Schneemelcher and Puech in Hennecke-Schneemelcher, 1: 97 ff., 278-307),
and there are some recent commentators who would argue for a Syrian rather
than Egyptian origin of the Gospel (e.g. H. Koester in HarvTR 58 (1965): 293;
' see below, p. 310).]
36. Paris Magical Papyrus [Bibl. Nat. suppl. gr. 574], line 3019. [For the text, see
K. Preisendanz, Papyri Graecae Magicae: die griechischen Zauberpapyri, 1 (Leip-
zig: Teubner, 1928): 170. An ET may be found in C. K. Barrett, The New Testa-
ment Background: Selected Documents (London: SPCK, 1956; reprint Harper
Torchbooks), no. 27 lines 13 ff. This section of the Paris papyrus also closes with
the words “the sentence is Hebrew and kept by men that are pure” (3084 f.).]
37. Commentary on John 2.(12.)87, Homily in Jeremiah 15.4 [The passage is
also cited by Jerome; see the references by Vielhauer in Hennecke-Schneemelcher,
1: 164.]
52
 EGYPT

According to Cyril of Jerusalem, the following also stood in the Gos-

pel of the Hebrews: “When Christ desired to come to earth to men,
the good Father chose a mighty Power in heaven named Michael,
and entrusted Christ to its care. And the Power entered the world
and was called Mary, and Christ was in her womb seven months.” 38
The great importance which Michael has in the Egyptian magical
texts—Greek ®® as well as Coptic*9—and in the Pistis Sophia‘! is
well known.
Thus in Egypt at thebeginning of the second _century—how long
paThi

before that we cannot ‘say—there were ‘gentile Christians alongside

Jewish Christians, with both movements resting on “syncretistic-gnostic
foundations. But apparently they were not both united_ in_a_single
community, but each group congregated aroundadistinctive gospel,
with the Jewish Christians at the same time also being influenced by
the synagogue with regard to worship and organization. That these
people, whose primary religious books were differentiated as the Gos-
pel Pee eebeuplions and that of the Hebrews, called themselves
simply “Christian” seems to me self-evident. For 1them, the situation
was no different from that of the Marcionites in Edessa (above, 22-24).
We first.catch sight of something like “ecclesiastical” Christianity
in Demetrius, the bishop of Alexandria _from 189 to 231. Certainly
there had aveuen beeri orthodox believers there ‘prior to that time,
and their community possessed a leader. But we can see how small
their number must have been from the fact that when Demetrius
assumed his office he was the only Egyptian “bishop.” Apart from
him there were a limited number of presbyters, who when need
arose elected a new leader.*? Demetrius was the first to begin to
develop the organization systematically by appointing three other
38. See V. Burch, Journal of Theological Studies 21 (1920): 310-315. [The Coptic
text was edited by E. A. W. Budge, Miscellaneous Coptic Texts (London, 1915),
p. 60 (ET on p. 637). See also Vielhauer in Hennecke-Schneemelcher, 1: 163,
and M. R. James, The Apocryphal New Testament (Oxford: ‘Clarendon, 1924,
19532), p. 8 (with a larger context). “The good Father” seems preferable to
Bauer’s German version “der Vatergott” (the Father God).]
39. See Preisendanz, Papyri Magicae (above, n. 36), vols. 1 (1928) and 2
(1931); e.g. numbers 1 (line 301), 2 (158), 3 (148), 4 (1815, 2356, 2769), 7
(257), 13 (928), and 22b (29-to the great father, Osiris Michael).
40. A. M. Kropp, Ausgewdhlte koptische Zaubertexte, 2 (Brussels, 1931): 267
index
in a the indices to the eds. of Schmidt (above, n. 29): German (GCS), 397
col. 2 [= 413 col. 2 in Till’s revision]; Coptic, 450.
ff.).
42. E, Preuschen, RPTK?, 14 (1904): 474 (lines 30
53
 ORTHODOXY AND HERESY IN EARLIEST CHRISTIANITY

bishops. He played [58] approximately the same role for Egyptian

orthodoxy as that which we have thought should be ascribed to
Bishop Kiné, who lived a century later, in Edessa (above, 33-43).
Demiétrius to achieve success and possessed a con-
lived long enough
sciousness of his own power that was sufficient to take disciplinary
action against even an Origen, when the latter crossed his organi-
zational policies (which aimed at concentrating all power in the
hands of the leader of the Alexandrian church) by accepting ele-
vation to the status of presbyter at the hands of Palestinian bishops.
The fact of presbyterial ordination by itself would hardly suffice
to explain the extraordinarily violent behavior of Demetrius toward
a man of Origen’s importance and reputation. Such a dangerous game
must have offered a correspondingly desirable prize. Obviously
Demetrius felt powerful enough in the years 230-231 to press the
Alexandrian catechetical school into service for himself. Here Origen,
whom he had earlier actually implored not to give up his work (EH
6.14.11) stood in his way. For this reason he now unleashed, as
Origen himself puts it, all the storms of wickedness against him and
attacked him through writings which plainly contradicted the gospel
(Commentary on John 6.[2.]9). Among these undoubtedly belongs
the circular letter 4? by means of which Demetrius apprized Chris-
tendom of the decisions which he directed his Egyptian bishops and
presbyters to reach in two synods—namely, Origen is to be banished
from the city, and further teaching activity is forbidden him as a
representative of unecclesiastical views. His ordination as priest is
invalid.*# In order to justify his action, Demetrius made an issue of
Origen’s act of self-castration which had taken place long since (EH
6.8.5).
In 231, Heraclas became director of the catechetical school in place
of the banished Origen. He was indebted to Origen for the best of
what he was and knew; nevertheless, he abandoned him and took
sides against him. Indeed, when Origen later returned once more to
Egypt, Heraclas excommunicated him anew and repeated the charge
of unecclesiastical teaching. His decisive support for Demetrius had

43, Eusebius EH 6.8.4; Jerome Illustrious Men 54.

44, O. Bardenhewer, Geschichte der altkirchlichen Literatur?, 2 (Freiburg: Her-
der, 1914; repr. Darmstadt, 1962): 109.
54
 EGYPT

borne fruit also in that he had become his successor in the bishop’s
chair at Alexandria.*® [59]
When Julius Africanus takes the opportunity in his Chronicles to
report that he travelled to Alexandria because he was attracted by
Heraclas’ great reputation for learning (EH 6.31.2) {we can see how
quickly after Origen’s removal the catechetical school entered the
service of decidedly “ecclesiastical” efforts with obvious publicity.)
Eusebius took his list of Alexandrian bishops from the Chronicle of
Africanus.*® And from what source can the latter have obtained it
except from the very learned head of the school, Heraclas, and his
bishop, Demetrius? #7 Thus there was being cultivated at that time in
Alexandria that bra ofnch
theological endeavor which fought and
triedtodiscredit theheretics byappealing to an unbroken succession
of ortho ox bishops. We’ also “suspect whence this new incentive to
AsARAL THAT vt
z

scholarly studies derived. We learn from Jerome that while in the

nearby regions of Palestine, Arabia, Phoenicia, and even Achaia, no-
body was concerned about Demetrius’ circular letter, Rome hastened
to support it.*® Origen had been at Rome during the episcopate of
Zephyrinus (198-217), but departed after a short time (EH 6.14.10).
It would seem that little goodwill existed between them. Certainly,
as Jerome rightly remarks (Epistle 33.5), what was of decisive im-
portance for the attitude of Rome as well as for that of Demetrius
was their jealous fear lest they be eclipsed by the incomparable elo-
quence and erudition of Origen and forced into the background. But
this state of mind surely also opened their eyes to those aspects of
Origen’s teaching [60] which must have seemed to them to be inade-
45. EH 6.26. Cf. A. Harnack, RPTK® 7 (1899): 693.
46. Cf. Harnack, Geschichte 2 (Chronologie).1: 123; Schwartz, GCS eds. of
Eusebius’ EH, vol. 3, cexxi.
47. The journey of Africanus to Alexandria is usually dated earlier, around the
year 215 (Harnack, RPTK?, 9 [1901]: 627), probably because the date 221 is
| held with absolute certainty as the year in which the Chronicle was published. I
can see no really convincing evidence for thus fixing either date. That the Chron-
icle of Africanus was intended to run only up to the year 221 does not exclude
the possibility that at a somewhat later time he could have procured material
for the period before 221 and incorporated it. In any event, Eusebius seems to
think that Heraclas was already bishop at the time of the visit (EH 6.31.2). And
even if Africanus obtained the Alexandrian list before 221, it unquestionably came
from the circle of Demetrius.
48. Epistle 33 (ad Paulum).5. Concerning the relations between Rome and “ec-
clesiastical” Alexandria, see also below, p. 60.
55
 ORTHODOXY AND HERESY IN EARLIEST CHRISTIANITY

quate. At all events, Origen took advantage of an opportunity to make

a positive defence of his orthodoxy before the Roman bishop Fabianus
(236-250; EH 6.36.4).
But what sort of Christianity existe_ind Alexandria-Egypt_in the
half century that preceded the victory, backed by Rome, of Demetrius
and his policy? At the end of his life, Demetrius fought Origen most
vehemently and drove him out of his sphere of activity where he had
accomplished enormous things, and even out of his native city. In
contrast, at the beginning of his tenure Demetrius had no ear for
Rome’s wishes in the matter of the Easter controversy; *® nor had
he molested Origen’s predecessor, Clement, although the latter de-
viated from the teaching of the church far more than did his suc-
cessor. It may here suffice to recall the harsh judgment which Photius
passed regarding the Outlines (Hypotyposeis) of Clement: *°

In some passages 5! he appears to teach quite correctly, but in others

he allows himself to be carried away entirely into impious and ficti-
tious assertions. For he holds that matter is eternal, and he seeks to de-
rive something like a doctrine of ideas from certain passages of scrip-
ture, and he reduces the Son to the status of a creation. Moreover, he
drivels on about transmigrations of souls and many worlds before
Adam. And with reference to the origin of Eve from Adam, he does
not agree with the teaching of the church, but expresses his opinion in
disgraceful and outrageous fashion. The angels, he fancies, interbred
with women and begot children by them, and the Logos did not really
become flesh but only appeared so. He also lets himself be trapped
by the fact that he fabricates stories about two Logoi of the Father, of
which only the lesser appeared to men, or rather not even that one. . . .
And all this he seeks to support from certain passages of scripture. . . .
And on and on endlessly he prattles and blasphemes. . . .

Photius is inclined to express his opinion here rather pointedly;

nonetheless, his hostility must have been provoked to a large extent
49, Obviously Egypt, which is not even mentioned by Eusebius in this connec-
tion (EH 5.23.3-4), did not allow itself to be drawn into this quarrel. That is all
the clearer since it had no reason for denying support to Rome on this point
(EH 5.25).
50, Library, codex 109. The text is also included in the GCS edition of Clement
by O, Stihlin, vol. 3 (GCS 17, 1909), p. 202 [now being re-edited by L. Friichtel.
For a convenient ET, see J. H. Freese, The Library of Photius (London: SPCK,
1920), p. 200.]
51. That is, passages dealing with the Old and New Testaments, which are in-
terpreted and discussed in the Outlines.
56
 EGYPT

by the work which he thus discusses. [61] His orthodoxy detected

an abundance of heresy alongside isolated ecclesiastical statements.
Clement never lost his enthusiasm for “gnosis.” To be sure, he makes
a distinction between genuine and heretical gnosis, and feels himself
to be separated from the latter and linked with the former through
the holy apostles Peter, James, John, and Paul (Strom. 1.[1.]11.3).
But this does not keep him from having some central points in com-
mon with heretical gnosticism; and this is even more true of the
earlier work, the Outlines, than of the later Miscellanies (Stroma-
teis).°? We can clearly discern at Alexandria the stages of a develop-
ment that steadily leads away from gnosticism: the Clement of the
Outlines, the Clement of the Miscellanies, Origen, Demetrius. If we
trace the line backward behind the Outlines to the origins, we ob-
viously arrive very quickly at gnosticism proper. One need not be
surprised that even the Clement of the first stage already exhibits
characteristics of ecclesiastical orientation, as Photius himself does not
deny. From the very outset, Clement distinguished himself in a con-
scious and not inconsiderable way from what we have delineated as
Egyptian Christianity prior to his time. After all, he came to Egypt
from abroad in order to place himself under the influence of Pan-
taenus (who was himself from Sicily; Strom. 1.[1.]11.2). Perhaps
Clement was born in Athens; ** in any event, as a Christian he had
been in southern Italy, Syria, and Palestine. Probably Clement first
became acquainted with the Gospel of the Egyptians in his new
home. And it is very characteristic of the intellectual outlook that
he brings with him and cultivates further, that he no more rejects
its contents as false than he rejects the contents of the Gospel of the
Hebrews, although he himself personally prefers our four gospels
which he learned to value in the world abroad, and which he re-
gards as, strictly speaking, the gospels of the church.
Now if Demetrius allowed_a_man_ who thought and taught as
Clement did to operate undisturbed in a most influential position,
and first lashed out against Origen, who was far less offensive from
the viewpointof the church, it seems to me that the most obvious
52. On the relation of the Miscellanies to the Outlines, see Harnack, Geschichte
2 (Chronologie) .2 (1904): 19 f.
53. According to the tradition in Epiphanius Her. 32.6. See further T. Zahn,
Forschungen zur Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons und der altkirchlichen
Literatur 3 (Leipzig, 1884), pp. 161 ff.
on
 ORTHODOXY AND HERESY IN EARLIEST CHRISTIANITY

explanation is that there existed no prospect [62] of successfully as-

sailing ideas like these and the personalities who supported them
one generation earlier in Alexandria. No possibility—and perhaps not
even any serious inclination.
st
There is every reason at leato raise the question whether distinct
boundaries between heretical and ecclesiastical Christendom had
been develope d at less the second
by the, 1endwillofdisregar
Egyptevidence
all incertain d the
century.
Epistle
So as to set aside
of the Apostles, preserved in Coptic and Ethiopic, which C. Schmidt
published with full commentary and supplementary materials in
1919 54 and which he dated shortly before 180, although I am inclined
to accept the opinion of Lietzmann * that it belongs not to Asia Minor
but rather, to Egypt. With its peculiar mixture of gnosticism and
anti-gnosticism, it would relate well to the situation of Clement of
Alexandria. Similarly, we shall leave undecided to what extent the
Preaching (Kerygma) of Peter,®® which was particularly suspect to
Origen (Commentary on John 13.[17.]104) but was used unhesitat-
ingly prior to him by Clement of Alexandria and the gnostic Hera-
cleon, is relevant here.
But the following observations and considerations can surely teach
us something/ When Origen had to find lodging after the martyrdom
of his father and the loss of the confiscated family property, a dis-
tinguished and wealthy Christian woman offered him accommoda-
tions in her household. Now Eusebius informs us that this woman also
had living in her house a very famous man from among the number
of heretics) (hairesiotai) in Alexandria at that time, and that she
treated him like her son. He was named Paul and had come from
Antioch, and in consequence of his great reputation there flocked
to him a “countless host of persons, heretics as well as orthodox be-
lievers” (EH 6.2.13-14). If we leave aside the conviction of the later

54. Gesprache Jesu mit seinen Jiingern (TU 43, 1919). [ET by R. E. Taylor in
Hennecke-Schneemelcher, 1: 189 ff.]
55. ZNW 20 (1921): 175f.
56. Cf. E. Dobschiitz, Das Kerygma Petri kritisch untersucht (TU 11.1, 1893).
The fragments are conveniently collected by E. Klostermann in Apocrypha, 1?
(KT 3, 1908), 13-16. Cf. Hennecke, “Missions predigt des Petrus,” in Hennecke?,
pp. 143-146, although with regard to p. 145 one may question whether it would
not be more accurate to speak of “certain ecclesiastical forms” rather than of
ae gnostical forms.” [For ET, see G. Ogg in Hennecke-Schneemelcher, 2:
94-102.
58
 EGYPT

churchman Eusebius that heretical Christendom and orthodoxy al-

ways must have been clearly distinguished from one another, we ob-
tain the picture [63] of a Christianity which sees nothing amiss in en-
trusting at a most impressionable age so valuable a member as the
seventeen-year-old Origen, already widely recognized because of his
extraordinary gifts, to a woman whose house is the center of a wide-
ranging religious movement that definitely cannot be characterized
as orthodox. In that event we have before us a community whose
intellectually fastidious members do not hesitate to satisfy their hunger
by means of an Antiochene-Alexandrian “heretic.”
A few pages later, Eusebius reports something very similar of
Origen, who for him naturally was a representative of orthodoxy.
To Origen also there flocked “countless heretics” (EH 6.18.2) as well
as orthodox, in order to be instructed by him in all areas of learning,
including the secular. Yet even more instructive than this general
statement about the great popularity that his well-known erudition
enjoyed even among the heretics is the specific notice that his famous
friend and patron, Ambrose, to whom he dedicated many of his
writings, had been a Valentinian who was subsequently converted by
Origen.*” He too, incidentally, came from Antioch.®*
Thus even into the third century, no separation between orthodoxy
and heresy was accomplishedinEgypt and the two types of Chris-
tianity were not yet at all clearly differentiatedfrom eachother.®*
Moreover, until
until ‘Tate
late in
in the second|century, Christianity | in this area
iss decidedly unc
unorthodox. I avoid for the moment the term “heretics”
for the Egyptian Christians of the early period (and the same holds
for the beginnings at Edessa) because, strictly speaking, there can
be heretics only where orthodox Christians stand in contrast to them
or serve as a background for them, but not where such a situation
does not exist because all Christendom, when viewed from a particular
later vantage point, is colored “heretical.” The idea that orthodoxy
had been present in Egypt from the very first can as_ little be proven
57. EH 6.18.1 (cf. also 6.23.1). According to Jerome, Illustrious Men 56, Am-
brose had been a Marcionite. Origen also indicates that Ambrose was later per-
suaded of the correctness of Origen’s position: Commentary on John 5.8 (GCS
ed. Preuschen, p. 105, lines 16 ff.). The passages in our sources concerning Am-
brose are conveniently collected in Harnack, Geschichte, 1.1: 328 ff.
58. E. Preuschen, RPTK3, 14 (1904): 473 (line 30).
59. Cf. also S. Morenz, Die Geschichte von Joseph dem Zimmermann (TU 56,
1951), p. 123.
59
 ORTHODOXY AND HERESY IN EARLIEST CHRISTIANITY

by the church legend of Mark as the [64] founder and first occupant
of the Alexandrian episcopal see ® as can the corresponding proposi-
the -fact that one has to
tion for Edessa by the Abgar legend. Rather,
rely on legends is a fresh and_clear indication that historical recol-
lection did not suppor andt,never was the basis of, such a_view.
There is some reason to suppose that Rome placed at the disposal
of orthodox Alexandria the figure of Mark as founder of the church
and apostolic initiator of the traditional succession of bishops.®t At
all events, it is not easy to imagine from what other source he could
have come.
60. Cf. A. Jiilicher, RPTK, 12 (1903): 290 (lines 16 ff.). [To the older material
letter
should now be added the allusion to this tradition in a newly discovered
,
attributed to Clement of Alexandria, which is being published by its discoverer
(1962):
Morton Smith. See the brief reference by A. A. Ehrhardt in HarvTR 55
Testa-
97, n. 16 (reprinted with corrections in his The Framework of the New
ment Stories [Mancheste r, 1964], p. 175 n. 3); see also below, p. 315 n. 34.]
also
61. Regarding the relation of Rome to Alexandria and to its orthodoxy, see
above, p. 55, and below, pp. 97 and 117.

60
 3
Ignatius of Antioch
and Polycarp of Smyrna;
Macedonia and Crete
Ignatius, the martyr of Antioch, is regarded as the most important
and most successful ecclesiastical representative in the second-cen-
tury struggle against heresy prior to Justin. He is an organization man
whose significance H. Lietzmann recently characterized thus: “In Ig-
natius we already find that the monarchial episcopate is an accom-
plished fact and is applicable to both Syria and western Asia Minor.”
I think that with a man like Ignatius who, in his exuberance, time
and again loses all sense of proportion, one must be especially careful
in evaluating the accuracy of his statements. Indeed, he even speaks
of communities such as Magnesia and Tralles, whose situation he
knows primarily from the descriptions of their “bishops,” who had no
reason to place themselves and their influence in an unfavorable light,
That Ignatius is less concerned with depicting the actual situation
than with portraying the ideal is already suggested by the fact that,
for the most part, his approach takes the form of admonition rather
than of description.
What is it that makes the monarchial episcopacy seem so attractive
to a man like Ignatius? First of all, he does not begin from a position
' in which he sees a plurality of ecclesiastical bodies of officials who
for practical reasons may be governed by one particular office which,
nevertheless, is not necessarily superior. No, for him the first and
foremost figure is the bishop, who is like God or Christ in whose
place he stands.? And [66] just as there can be no second, even

1. Lietzmann, History, 1: 248.

2. See W. Bauer, excursus to Ignatius Eph, 2.2, in Die Briefe des Ignatius von
Antiochia und der Polykarpbrief, HbNT, Erganzungsband: Die apostolischen
Vater, 2 (1920): 201 f.

61
 ORTHODOXY AND HERESY IN EARLIEST CHRISTIANITY

be such
approximately similar position beside them, neither can there
behind him
beside the bishop. At a suitably respectable distance
call and
come the presbyters and deacons, attentive to his beck and
ce. The adminis tration of the par-
obliged to render him due reveren
the hands of this one
ticular community should rest completely in
bishop who sets in motion and supervises all its activities, without
virtue of
whom no ecclesiastical function has validity and who, by
his office, is immune to any criticis m no matter how young in years
has the historic al
‘or deficient in character he might be. At what point
development become ripe for such extremely high esteem for a single
official? It would hardly arise in peaceful times when there is no need
for such an approach. As long as a harmonious spirit pervades the
it
community, a council of those with similar status can take care of
without difficulty—one does this and another does something else,
according to the abilities of each. Only when opposition arises and
conflicting interests confront one another does the picture change.
Even then there is little danger for the one who sides with the ma-
jority, since the majority opinion is, as a rule, reflected in the com-
position of the governing board. But the situation would become pre-
carious for the one who identifies himself with the minority and who
now finds that his wishes no longer, or only seldom, gain a hearing
with the governing powers. Such a man easily arrives at the con-
clusion that his legitimate claims are being neglected by the circle
of leaders and then the desire stirs in him for a dictatorship that
would establish the supremacy of his own party.
Demands like these are typical of minorities which, through their
own strong man who is clothed with a special aura and equipped
with unusual power, endeavor to obtain that overriding importance
which they are unable to gain by virtue of the number of their mem-
_bers. But if they can supply one who is in absolute control of the
a whole group, then the possibility emerges either of bringing those
) who differ to heel within the community, or else, if there is no al-
' ternative, of crowding them out. So long as a council is in control
of the church, it is unavoidable that it will be composed of Christians
of various sorts and that—to move from generalities back to the
specific case of Ignatius—alongside members holding views like those
of Ignatius there would also be representatives of the gnostics and
62
 IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH AND POLYCARP OF SMYRNA

of acknowledged Jewish Christians in it. [67] If, however, the leader-

ship of the community responds to the command of the one bishop,
then orthodoxy can hope to take the helm even where it constitutes
only a minority of the whole group—provided that the others are
disunited. Of course, there is the possibility that Ignatius’ group ac-
tually represented the majority in certain cities. However, in view of
Ignatius’ frantic concern, it hardly seems likely that this was the
general rule. Any conclusion of a more comprehensive sort must be
preceded by a more detailed investigation into this subject.
What is the situation with reference to the monarchial bishop in
those churches with which we are acquainted through the story of
Ignatius? First, what about Antioch itself? Was Ignatius really “bishop”
there, or even in Syria (Rom. 2.2), in his own sense of a monarchial
ruler over all the baptized of that region? For him, orthodoxy and
heresy are not yet so neatly divided that it would be sufficient to
rule over the “church” people because the heretics, however numerous
they might be, are “outside” the church. What was the complexion
of Christianity in Antioch at the time of Ignatius? The last thing that
the sources had reported concerning it prior to Ignatius was the
awkward scene which centered around Peter and Paul (Gal. 2.11 ff.),
and which, it appears, led to a division within the community—most
certainly it greatly disturbed its life. In no other context did Paul
ever speak of Antioch, And the book of Acts limits itself to noting
that later, Paul once again stayed in Antioch “for some time”
(18.22 f.), without recording anything in particular about that visit
—not even that he “strengthened all the disciples,” as is related with
reference to his trip through the “region of Galatia and Phrygia”
that is mentioned next. Quite in harmony with this is the fact, noticed
above (17-20), that during the second part of the second century,
and even long afterward, Antioch played no significant role in the
_ history of the church. The “ecclesiastical” tradition here is so scanty
that Eusebius, and before him Julius Africanus,* were unable to pro-
duce a credible list of bishops from the apostles to the end of the
second century—credible at least because of its uninterrupted com-
prehensiveness.* Eusebius can only make Theophilus, his sixth An-

3. Harnack, Geschichte 2 (Chronologie).1:; 208-213.

4. Cf. the GCS Schwartz edition of EH, vol. 3: p. CCXXI.
63
 ORTHODOXY AND HERESY IN EARLIEST CHRISTIANITY

tiochian bishop, [68] contemporary with the eleventh Roman and the
ninth Alexandrian bishop, in spite of dating him inadmissibly early.®
If one realizes that the actual floruit of Theophilus was around 180,
then in Antioch six bishops must cover the same span of time that is
covered by twelve in Rome and ten in Alexandria (cf. EH 5.pref.1
and 5.9).
This lack of ecclesiastical tradition does not encourage the view
that there was already a bishop worthy of the name in Antioch at
the beginning of the second century. Alexandria and Rome, with their
much richer stock of episcopal personnel, have such a figure only
at a much later time.’ What is concealed behind this title for Ig-
natius is,corresponding to the situation of Palit in Edessa, the leader-
ship of a group that is engaged ina life and death struggle. against
an almost overwhelming adversary. Certainly this title itself implies
the claim to be the authoritative interpreter of the faith for all Chris-
tians of Syria, or at least of Antioch. But the question remains to
what extent this self evaluation was acknowledged by others. It ap-
pears to me that large segments of Antiochian Christianity flatly re-
jected it, in view of the almost frantic efforts of Ignatius to push his
home church in the direction he desired by dispatching to Antioch
delegations of eminent coreligionists from every congregation acces-
sible to him (cf. Philad. 10—bishops, presbyters, deacons) or at least
by sending written messages.§ The apparently quite local and rather
brief persecution in the Syrian capital can hardly be the real reason
for his efforts. After all, the news that the church in Antioch had
regained its peace in no way prompted Ignatius to discontinue his
efforts (Philad. 10; Smyr. 11; Polyc. 7). Polycarp is to exert influence
upon those Asian churches which Ignatius himself had been unable
to reach.2 And the necessity of such a task was impressed upon
Polycarp to such an extent that, regardless of the precarious position
of orthodoxy in Smyrna itself (see below, 69£f.), he would have pre-
ferred [69] to undertake the journey to Antioch in person (Polycarp
Phil. 13.1). In fact, there is even concern to draw the community

5. At the time of the accession of Soter in Rome, in 166 (EH 4.19-20).

6. The GCS Schwartz edition of EH, vol. 3:-p. 26.
7, On Alexandria, see above, 53; on Rome, see the GCS Schwartz edition of EH,
vol. 3: p. CCXXV.
8. R. Knopf, Das nachapostolische Zeitalter (Tiibingen, 1905), p. 51.
9. See Bauer, Ignatius, to Polyc. 8.1.
64
 IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH AND POLYCARP OF SMYRNA

at Philippi in far off Macedonia into the circle of those who send
their good wishes to Syria (Polycarp Phil. 13:1):
This display, which deprived a number of churches that were
themselves experiencing a difficult situation of their leading figures
even to the rank of “bishop’—and which, as far as I know, is un-
paralleled in the history of the ancient church—is only explicable to
me if there is a great deal at stake; that is to say, if orthodoxy in
Antioch, deprived of its champion Ignatius, was in danger of being
driven back, if not routed from the field, by heresy. Indeed, all his
letters to the Asiatic Christians bear eloquent testimony to this acute
danger of heresy. In his homeland, Ignatius learned to know, to hate,
and to fear the “mad dogs,” the “beasts in human form,” as he calls
them (cf. Eph. 7.1, Smyr. 4.1).
It is not necessary to investigate in great detail the religious situa-
tion of non-Christian Antioch in order to discover the soil into which
Christianity was planted there.!° Libanius, in his Antiochikos,. ex-
tols the religious richness of his native city: The foreign gods aspire
to be represented there—thus, during the reign of Seleucius II (246-
226 B.c.E.), Isis forced her image to be transferred from Memphis to
Antioch (§ 114)—and the native daimones do not wish to roam in
foreign lands (§ 117). The impression of a pronounced syncretism
is further deepened when we observe the presence of magic and star
worship, mysteries and alchemy, combined with gross... superstition
and_a _tendency toward Indian. gymnosophistry,. which makes Ig-
natius’fanatical desire for martyrdom somewhat. more explicable. to
us.
is.!2 The observation that in Antioch, Jewish Christianity existed side
by side with gentile Christianity contributes little to an understanding
of the early form of Christianity in that city. We also found that in
Christian [70] Alexandria both groups coexisted at the outset. But if
our impression is accurate, both the gentile and the Jewish were
‘conditioned by the syncretistic-gnostic setting (above, 53).

10. Treatments of this subject include: O. Miiller, Antiquitates Antiochenae (G6t-

tingen, 1839); R. Forster, “Antiochia am Orontes,” Jahrbuch des Archaeologischen
Instituts des Deutschen Reiches, 12 (1897): 103-149; H. Leclercq, “Antioche,”
DACL 1 (1924): 2359-2427; K. Bauer, Antiochia in der dltesten Kirchengeschichte
(Tiibingen: Mohr, 1919); V. Schultze, Antiocheia; C. H. Kraeling, “The Jewish
Community at Antioch,” JBL 51 (1932): 130-160.
11. Oration 11, ed. R. Forster, vol. 1 (Leipzig: Teubner, 1903), pp. 437-535.
12. See Miiller, Antiquitates Antiochenae, pp. 32 ff., and Schultze, Antiocheia, pp.
167 ff.
65
 ORTHODOXY AND HERESY IN EARLIEST CHRISTIANITY

In Antioch, no doubt, the situation was different as long as genuine

apostolic influence prevailed. But had not such influence cancelled
itself out to a large extent? 18 And must that situation which prob-
ably existed in the period until 70 also hold good for a subsequent
time? At any rate, already prior to Ignatius, gnosticism made _itself
felt in Antioch in a serious ‘way. Menander, a countryman and pupil
of Simon Magus (Irenaeus AH 1.23.5 [=1.17], 3.4.3), already was
teaching there in the first century,!* and, according to Justin (who
was also a Samaritan and was informed about conditions in the East),
was winning many followers (Apol. 26.4). One of those, who worked
successfully after him in the same areas, was Saturninus.’? His con-
temporary and coreligionist in these regions was the Syrian gnostic
Cerdo,® whom we later encounter in Rome as a man of such im-
portance that he was even able to exercise some influence over the
already mature Marcion. Another pupil of Menander, Basilides, is
the first of whom we hear that he brought gnostic ideas from Antioch
to Alexandria,}7 and thereby took up, from the Christian side, the
religious interchange between Egypt and Syria that we were able to
observe already in the migration of Isis to Antioch. This exchange
of religious ideas was then continued in a manner that concerns
us through those Antiochian heretics who still played such an im-
portant role in the leading city of Egypt at the time of Origen (see
above, 58 f.). We may leave aside at this point the very clear traces
of heresy that can be found in Antioch during the period between
Basilides and Origen. But it should be recalled in this connection
that Syrian-Antiochian heretics also had access to a gospel which
suited their own approach and for which they claimed the authority
of Peter,!8 [71] just as Basilides asserted that he had received revela-
tions through Glaukias, an interpreter of Peter (Clement of Alex-
andria Strom. 7.[17.]106.4).

13. See Lietzmann, History, 1: 108-111.

14. See Harnack, Geschichte 2 (Chronologie).1: 533.
15. Irenaeus AH 1.24.1 (=1.18); Eusebius EH 4.7.3, claims that he founded
schools of godless heresy throughout Syria.
16. Hippolytus Syntagma (in Epiphanius Her, 41.1; ps.-Tertullian Her. 6; Filaster
Her. 44). See Harnack, Marcion?, 38* [these.and other texts on 31°-34*].
17. Epiphanius Her. 23.1; cf. Irenaeus AH 1.24.1 (=1.18).
18. The Gospel of Peter probably originated in Syria. See A. Stiilcken in Hen-
necke2, p. 60 [and more recently, C. Maurer in Hennecke-Schneemelcher, 1: 180].
66
 IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH AND POLYCARP OF SMYRNA

It should not be objected that gnosticism is much too scantily at-

tested at the beginning of the second century as an influential factor
in the development of Antiochian Christianity. After all, who is it
that actually bears witness to the presence of the ecclesiastical faith
in that region during the same period? Almost exclusively Ignatius; 1°
and he does so in a way that, not simply because of the type of defense,
proves the strength of his opponents. It seems to me that H. Schlier
is correct in his judgment that “in terms of their value for this history
of religions, the seven Ignatian letters display a type of Christianity
localized in Syria and closely related in concepts and ideas to Syrian
gnosticism.” °° In spite of Ignatius’ conscious polemic against this
abominable heresy, he was no more able to free himself from gnos-
ticism than was Clement of Alexandria in a similar situation. Even
to a greater degree than for Alexandria, we gain insight at Antioch
into a process of painstaking disengagement from a religiosity that
in important points can no longer be shared. By no means, however,
do we gain the impression that Ignatius felt he had already won
the victory. His episcopate, to which each baptized person must sub-
mit, is still seed sown in hope. It is also highly significant that pre-
cisely his gnostic contemporaries and countrymen can without hin-
drance call themselves “Christians,” as Eusebius twice complains in
utter disgust (EH 3.26.3 f. 4.7.2 f.; cf. below 109 f. and above, 22-24).
And the situation is not any different with respect to those “bishops”
of the communities in Asia Minor whom we encounter through Ig-
natius. To be sure, he designates as episkopos each of the leaders
of those groups in sympathy with him in the particular Christian
communities: Onesimus of Ephesus (Eph. 1.3), Damas of Magnesia
(Magn. 2), Polybius of Tralles (Trall. 1.1), Polycarp of Smyrna
(Magn. 15; Polyc. salutation )—and he also knows the bishop of Phila-
delphia (Philad., salutation, 1.1, 3.2, 4). But this does not prove that
these men exercised unlimited power over the shaping of Christian
faith and life in those cities. The inherent contradiction [72] of a
monarchial bishop with only partial recognition is no greater than

19. Even if we were to include the Johannine Epistles here, the picture would not
change; see below, 91f.
20. Heinrich Schlier, Religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zu den Ignatius-
briefen (ZNW Beiheft 8, 1929), p. 175.
67
 ORTHODOXY AND HERESY IN EARLIEST CHRISTIANITY

the contradiction of a community which is praised for having rejected

the false teachers (Eph. 9.1) and yet still receives most explicit
warnings against heresy (Eph. 7-9, 13-19) and has to be told that
whoever corrupts the faith with false teaching is on the path to
unquenchable fire together with anyone who listens to such a person
(Eph. 16.2). In both instances the ideal and the actual are far re-
moved from each other.
An even clearer indication of the existence of at least a minority
that does not care about the bishop and his teaching is given when
Ignatius charges the Ephesians: “Do not let yourselves be anointed
with the evil odor of the teaching of the prince of this age, lest he
lead you captive from the life that is set before you. Why are we
not all prudent, since we have received the knowledge of God—that
is, Jesus Christ? Why are we perishing in foolishness, ignoring the
gracious gift that the Lord has truly sent?” (Eph. 17). In his letter
to the Magnesians, Ignatius rejoices that he has beheld the whole
community in the person of the officers delegated to meet him, with
the bishop at the head (6.1; cf. 2.1 and Trall. 1.1). But immediately
thereafter, he utters a warning to maintain the unity and to avoid
false teaching (Magn. 6-11). He knows “certain people” who pay
lip service to the bishop, yet never work in cooperation with him
but hold their own meetings (Magn. 4). And the danger is all the
more pressing in Magnesia since its bishop is still young, and because
of his inexperience is able neither to enforce obedience nor to see
through hypocrisy (Magn. 3).
Also with regard to the community at Tralles, praise of her blame-
lessness (Trall. 1) immediately is cancelled by a summons to submit
to the bishop and to the other church officials (Trall. 2-3) as well
as by reference to all sorts of imperfections, which make her seem
to be particularly susceptible to false teaching (Trall. 6). Notice
how Ignatius exhorts the believers: “Continue in your harmony and
in prayer with one another. For it is fitting for every single one of
you, and particularly for the presbyters, to refresh the bishop, to
the honor of the Father, of Jesus Christ, and of the Apostles. I be-
seech you to listen to me in love that I by my writing may not
become a witness against you” (12.2-3). Clearly the closing words
of this admonition stand in tension with its beginning and indicate
that actually it is not at all a matter of “continuing” but rather of
68
 IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH AND POLYCARP OF SMYRNA

eliminating a situation in which even presbyters are neglecting to

L
“refresh” the bishop. [73]
The situation appears to be even more critical in Philadelphia
where many wolves lie in wait for the sheep (Philad. 2). The assertion
that everything is in good order (2.2, 3.1) alternates in this letter
in an almost embarrassing fashion with the summons to make it better.
Ignatius himself must have been convinced that the power of the
bishop there was decidedly limited. On his trip through Philadelphia
he had a discussion with dissenters in the community gathering, with-
out succeeding to persuade them (Philad. 7 f.); on the contrary, he
had experiences that caused him to complain anxiously that there
were people who consciously avoid the leadership of the bishop
(3.2 f., 8.1). His own co-workers Philo and Rheus Agathopus had
been treated with disrespect in Philadelphia, and the bishop had been
unable to protect them against it (11.1).
In Ephesus, Magnesia, Tralles,.and.Philadelphia (only those four
cities come under consideration at this point, not Asia Minor nor
even its western part as a whole, concerning which see below, 77 ff.),
those persons whom Ignatius addresses as bishops and treats as
monarchs, who thus were the leaders of the ecclesiastically oriented
people, may have gathered larger or smaller majorities of the local
Christians around them. Undoubtedly Ignatius himself did not have
as secure a position in Antioch. And it seems to me that the same
can be said of his friend Polycarp, who also provides us with rele-
vant material for ascertaining more precisely what the concept of
“monarchial bishop” involved in that epoch, His situation was bur-
dened with difficulties resulting from the fact that heretics occupied
high offices within Christianity. Ignatius, in his letter to the church
at Smyrna and in the center of a detailed and vehement attack on
those who dismiss the life and work of the Lord as mere appearance
_(Smyr. 4-7), also turns against a particular person who, by virtue
of his high position (topos), is puffed up (Smyr. 6.1). Topos is the
same word used by Ignatius in his letter to Polycarp to denote the
latter’s rank as bishop (Polyc. 1.2). Evidently this is the same person
who in Smyrna performs “behind the bishop’s back” cultic acts which
are of the devil (Smyr. 9.1). Thus we have here, I believe, something
like a gnostic anti-bishop in Smyrna. Of course, the title itself is
unimportant; what matters is the phenomenon.
69
 ORTHODOXY AND HERESY IN EARLIEST CHRISTIANITY

In his letter to the Philippians, Polycarp himself confirms this situ-

ation [74] insofar as he can be expected to do so. He begins: Poly-
karpos kai hoi syn auto presbyteroi té ekklesia, etc. This does not
p
mean, as I had innacurately translated it in the Handbuch, “Polycar
7?
and the presbyters with him’—as though it included all presbyters
—but rather, “Polycarp and those presbyter s who are with him’—
that is, who are on his side.?? Here the fervor of the demand that
there be but one bishop becomes especially evident to us. But again,
doubts arise as to whether the situation is correctly described in
words such as those of R. Knopf: “The monarchial episcopate is
firmly established in the communities of Asia to which Ignatius
writes.” 28 Not at all! In this respect, his letters bear witness to his
fervent desire, but not to existing reality. At best they attest reality
insofar as the desire to organize themselves along monarchial lines
may have arisen in orthodox circles of particular Christian groups in
Asia. Still, a community-wide separation of the orthodox under their
bishop from the false believers under their leaders has by no means
taken place as yet, but is envisioned at best as a last resort, a final
expedient if the efforts to unite all of the baptized under the one
orthodox bishop should fail.
On the basis of this understanding of the situation, I must disagree
with Harnack’s statement that “Phrygia and Asia were closed to
Marcion” because Papias and Polycarp would have nothing to do with
him.?4 I find here only an impossible exaggeration of the influence
of both men upon the formation of Christianity in their provinces.
/Polycarp, who previously had not even been able to rise to a mo-
‘narchial position in Smyrna, certainly does not hold the key to Asia
\in his hand. And even if in his home town he really had reviled
Marcion as the “firstborn of Satan” (Irenaeus AH 3.3.4; Eusebius
EH 4.14.7), this deterred Marcion just as little there as the same
phrase, which this foe of heretics apparently used quite freely, ob-
structed those people in Philippi to whom it was applied (Polycarp
21. That would be something like Polykarpos syn tois presbyterois. Cf. Luke 20.1,
23.11; Acts 2.14, 14.5; Eph. 3.18; and especially Phil. 1.1.
22. Corresponding to the limited circle of “the brethren who are with them” (hoi
syn autois adelphoi) in Rom. 16.14. Cf. also Rom. 16.15, Gal. 1.2, Phil. 4.21, Mar-
tyrdom of Polycarp 12.3.
23. Knopf, Zeitalter, p. 210.
24, Harnack, “Die iltesten Evangelien-Prologe und die Bildung des Neuen Testa-
ments,” Sb Berlin 24 for 1928, p. 16 (= 335).
70
 IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH AND POLYCARP OF SMYRNA

Phil, 7.1). Surely as soon as Marcion [75] really wanted to, he could
find in Smyrna a suitable point of contact for his teaching among
the docetics.
The reason why Marcion departed from Asia and pressed on to
Rome is not that there was an impregnable wall of defense erected
by the orthodox bishops of Asia for the protection of believers, but
rather, it lies solely in the fact that (Marcion’s farsighted, world-
encompassing plans called him, like so many others, to the capital
of the world.)Only from that place could he hope to realize his
plans. And if, even there, he could hold his own for years within
the church, then certainly he could have done so even more easily
at an earlier time in Smyrna. In spite of his long life,(Polycarp evi-
dently did not see the day in which heresy ceased in Smyrna, or in
which the separation between ecclesiastical Christianity and heresy
took place. \How little he was able to restrain the heretics can prob-
ably be inferred from the letter of Irenaeus to Florinus (EH 5.20.4-8).
For even though Irenaeus need not have seen or heard that Polycarp
vacated his place and fled with his ears stopped upon the appearance
of heretics at community gatherings (EH 5.20.6-7), he still hands
down the customary sigh of Polycarp on such an occasion: “Good
God, to what sort of times have you kept me that I must endure
such things?” (EH 5.20.7). The powerful self-understanding of a mo-
narchial bishop hardly confronts us in such words.
It is therefore not surprising to notice that shortly after Polycarp’s
death, Noétus developed his patripassian doctrine here, causing un-
rest in the community.2° Even a century later, after the “ecclesiastical”
position should have become considerably consolidated, heresy still
is flourishing in Smyrna—especially the spirit of Marcion. The martyr-
dom of Pionius,?° a presbyter of the church of Smyrna at the time
of Decius (249-251), is clearly catholic and pays careful attention
to the fact that after an accused person confessed that he was a
Christian, the presiding official Polemon would confirm that he was
dealing with a catholic Christian by asking the question “To which
church do you belong?” (9.2, 6, 8; 19.4f.). This makes it all the
more significant that none of the like-minded companions of Pionius,
25. [Cf. Hippolytus Ref. 9.7 = 10.27 and Against Noétus 1, but Epiphanius calls
him an Asian from Ephesus (Her. 57.1).] A. Hilgenfeld, Die Ketzergeschichte des
Urchristentums (Leipzig, 1884; reprint Darmstadt, 1963), p. 616.
26. O. von Gebhardt (ed.), Acta martyrum selecta (Berlin: Duncker, 1902),
pp. 96-114.
a1
 ORTHODOXY AND HERESY IN EARLIEST CHRISTIANITY

not even Limnus, “a presbyter of the catholic [76] church” (2.1, 112)y
go to their death at the very side of this great champion of the
faith and in such a distinguished manner as he; rather, this place
if filled by Metrodorus, “a presbyter of the heresy of the Marcionites”
who appears quite unexpectedly (21.5f.). Evidently, as far as the
pagan authorities are concerned, Metrodorus stands together with
Pionius in the foreground of the Christian movement. Euctemon, on
the other hand, the catholic bishop of Smyrna, has committed dis-
graceful apostasy and has ensnared most of the community in his
downfall.27 But among the few fellow-sufferers in prison we also find
Eutychianus, “an adherent of the heresy of the Phrygians” (11.2).
In the reference to the “Phrygians” the key word occurs that
must suffice at this point to substantiate my doubts also with respect
to the other ecclesiastical authority mentioned by Harnack (above,
70 n. 24). Of course, Papias could reject Marcion for himself and
for those like him.28 But this represents neither the view of Christian
Hierapolis, nor that of the whole of Phrygia. Papias was as unable to
stop uncatholic trends and movements in this region, which was
inundated by Montanism immediately after his death, at the latest,
as was Polycarp in Asia.
But to return to Polycarp, it would seem to me that his letter to
the Philippians, a writing contemporaneous with the Ignatian epistles,
is instructive for understanding the situation with respect to the
Christianity of that city, for it suggests that the ecclesiastical influence
is even more restricted there, as compared with Asia. In 7.1, Poly-
carp fights against a docetic gnosticism: “Everyone who does not
confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is an antichrist . . .
and whoever perverts the words of the Lord . . . and says that there
is neither a resurrection nor a judgment, that man is the firstborn
of Satan.” Immediately after this he adds: “Therefore let us abandon
the foolishness of the great majority (mataiotés ton pollén) and the
false teachings, and let us return to the word which was transmitted
to us from the beginning” (7.2). Apart from the conviction, which
is also expressed here, that a heretic must return since he has for-

27. [15.2, 16.1, 18.12.] See H. Achelis, Das Christentum in den ersten drei
Jahrhunderten, 2 (Leipzig, 1912): 270 f.
28. See the “anti-Marcionite” prologue to John connected with Papias’ name:
Hammack, Evangelien-Prologe, 6 and 15 [= 325 and 334]. [For ET and commentary,
see W. R. Schoedel, Polycarp, Martyrdom of Polycarp, Fragments of Papias
(=Grant, AF 5, 1967), pp. 121 f.]
72
 IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH AND POLYCARP OF SMYRNA

saken the true teaching that was present from the beginning, there
still remains the admission which certainly can be trusted that the
majority [77] rejects the ecclesiastical faith. Already in 2.1, Polycarp
had repudiated “the error of the great masses (hé ton pollon plané).”
It is not enough to gather from this, as does Knopf, that “twice he
expressly mentions ‘many’ (polloi) who are the preservers and ad-
herents” of heresy.?® The text does not read merely polloi, but both
times has hoi polloi; and this does not signify simply an indefinitely
large quantity,2° but with the definite article it means “the over-
whelming majority,” “the great mass”—usually with the distinct con-
notation of contempt for “the many,” to whom intelligence normally
is denied.*4
It has often been noted that in his letter to the Philippians, Poly-
carp does not make any reference to a bishop of that community,
although he is a “bishop” himself and he knows Paul’s letter to the
Philippians with its reference to Philippian episcopoi (1.1). In this
he also is in sharp contrast to Ignatius, whom he regarded most
highly along with his letters (Polycarp Phil. 13.2). Neither does Poly-
carp prescribe the office of bishop as a remedy to the problems at
Philippi, nor does he advise them to organize along monarchial lines.
And yet it is precisely in this city that such an overseer would have
been appropriate for more reasons than one. There was a presbyter
by the name of Valens, who apparently was unassailable doctrinally,
but who, with his wife, had gone astray in a serious ethical matter
and because of their conduct had severely damaged the cause of

29. Knopf, Zeitalter, p. 317.

30. As is true with the indefinite use of polloi in EH 6.14.6—“those present,
who were many (tous parontas, pollous ontas).”
31. Cf. W. Dittenberger (ed.), Sylloge inscriptionum Graecarum?, 2 (Leipzig,
1917), no. 672.21 (162/60 B.c.z.), where hoi polloi refers to the common people,
in contrast to the senators; Epictetus 1.2.18, 1.3.4, and passim (see index in H.
Schenkl’s edition, Leipzig, 1894; cf. also LCL ed. and ET by W. A. Oldfather
' [1926-28]); Plutarch, How to Study Poetry, 12 (=33 A; LCL Moralia 1, ed. F.
C. Babbitt [1927], p. 172) and Tranquility of Mind 10 (=470 B; LCL Moralia
6, ed. W. C. Hembold [1939], p. 196); Plotinus Enneads 2.9.9 (ed. and ET by
A. H. Armstrong, LCL 2 [1966]); 2 Macc. 2.27; Philo Who Is the Heir 42;
Josephus Antiquities 3.8.8; Papias according to EH 3.39.3 speaks of the inferior
tastes of the great multitudes; the report of Eusebius on the letter of Dionysus of
Corinth to Pinytus of -Cnossos refers to “the weakness of the many” (hé t6n
pollén astheneia, EH 4.23.7); Justin App. (=2 Apol.) 3.2," accuses Crescens of
playing upon the tastes of the multitudes (hédoné tén pollon) in his accusations
against the Christians; Eusebius EH 2.2.2 claims that immediately after his resur-
rection, Christ was considered to be a God para tois pollois—that is, by the great
majority (of believers).
73
 ORTHODOXY AND HERESY IN EARLIEST CHRISTIANITY

their party (11.1-4). Might not Polycarp’s peculiar approach stem

from the fact that there was, indeed, a “bishop” in Philippi, but in
accord with the majority situation in the community, he was a
heretic? Because of his aversion to heresy, Polycarp cannot turn to
such a bishop for support of his own interests, which coincide with
those of orthodoxy, [78] and thus is restricted to making contact with
those presbyters and deacons (5.3) whom he regards as his allies,
so that through them he can approach the main body of Christianity
there. He challenges them to “bring back those who have erred” (6.1).
Were I not fearful of misusing the argument from silence, I would
now have to raise the question as to why we hear nothing at all
about the community in neighboring Thessalonica in this connection?
One would suppose that this community found itself in a very similar
situation to that of Philippi. It also had been established by Paul,
in a Macedonian city through which Ignatius had passed on his
triumphal procession of suffering. It also had received instructions
from the Apostle to the Gentiles, not only orally, but also by letter.
Nevertheless, as far as we know, Polycarp never wrote to Thessalonica
in spite of the fact that in addition to his letter to the Philippians
he seems also to have sent letters containing instructions to other
communities (EH 5.20.8). This contrasting treatment is not satis-
factorily explained even by pointing out that believers from Philippi
had appealed to Polycarp for help (Polycarp Phil. 3.1 and 13.1-2),
while apparently those of Thessalonica had not. For even in the case
of Philippi, the actual impetus for writing cannot be attributed to the
Christian group there or to its orthodox portion, but to Ignatius
(13.1-2), who came through the city (1.1, 9.1) and invited the Philip-
pians to participate in the demonstration of support for Antioch. We
must therefore raise the question as to why Ignatius did not per-
sonally or by letter, or through a messenger, also approach the com-
munity at Thessalonica with the same request? The suggestion that,
subsequent to the time of Paul, Christianity had disappeared once
again from Thessalonica, although not intrinsically impossible, is in
this instance excluded on the basis of the testimony of Melito of
Sardis.®?
Could it be that what we suspected in Philippi obtained to an even
greater degree in Thessalonica and thus explains this reticence of
32. According to EH 4.26.10; see K. J. Neumann, Der rémische Staat und die
allgemeine Kirche bis auf Diocletian (Leipzig, 1890), p. 28.
74
 IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH AND POLYCARP OF SMYRNA

Ignatius and silence of Polycarp? *? “Demas has left me, being in

love with this present world, and has gone to Thessalonica” (2 Tim.
4.10), says the ecclesiastically oriented “Paul” of the pastoral epis-
tles. [79] To be sure, this is only a conjecture and nothing more! But
2 Thessalonians already shows, whether it is genuinely Pauline or
not,** that prior to Ignatius the impression arises that certain people
were operating in Thessalonica who, by various means, sought to
alienate the Thessalonian Christians from the Apostle to the Gentiles
and from his teaching (2.2, 3.17). And Dionysius of Corinth, who
around the year 170 sent letters for the orthodox cause as far as
Bithynia and Pontus (EH 4.23.4, 6) did not expend effort on any
Macedonian community. Was his reason for not writing the fact that
everything was in the best of order in Macedonia, in contrast to
Lacedaemonia, Athens, and Crete—those neighboring regions in which
he attempted to intervene by writing letters (EH 4.23.2, 5, 7)? Or
was it that there was simply no possibility of gaining a hearing there?
I am inclined to suspect the latter.?> Accordingly, I would also in-
clude post-Pauline Macedonia among those districts reached by Chris-
tianity in which “heresy” predominated, along with Edessa and Egypt
from their very earliest Christian beginnings, and Syria-Antioch from
almost the outset. Is it accidental that all these regions were un-
affected by the passover controversy ** and saw no reason to express
any opinion in this matter? Or is not their silence an indication,
rather, of their lack of interest in questions which were of vital
concern to “the church”?
Dionysius of Corinth views with apprehension another area, not

33. Nor is Thessalonica ever mentioned in the ancient apocryphal Acts.

34. See A. Jiilicher, Einleitung in das Neue Testament? (Tiibingen: Mohr, 1931,
with E. Fascher), pp. 63-67, for whom the spuriousness of the letter seems highly
probable [Jiilicher’s earlier, more positive attitude to Pauline authorship of 2
Thessalonians is reflected in the ET by J. P. Ward from the 1900 German 2d.
ed. (New York: Putnam’s, 1904), pp. 62-68]; also A. Oepke, in his commentary
in Das Neue Testament Deutsch, 8 (Gottingen. Vandenhoeck, 1933): 111, is
aware of many difficulties. [For a recent discussion of the problem, see Feine-
Behm-Kiimmel, Introduction to the New Testament (ET by A. J. Mattill from
1965 German ed. [New York: Abingdon, 1966]), pp. 187 ff.]
35. If Thessalonian Christianity became sharply divided around the year 100,
considerations in favor of the authenticity of 2 Thessalonians, such as those
raised by Harnack, lose their persuasiveness; see Harnack, “Briefsammlung,” pp.
1lf., and even earlier, “Das Problem des zweiten Thessalonicherbriefs,” Sb
Berlin 31 for 1910, pp. 560-578.
36. See the report about the churches affected by this dispute in EH 5.23.3, and
compare above, p. 9 on the Osréene.
75
 ORTHODOXY AND HERESY IN EARLIEST CHRISTIANITY

discussed above, in which Christianity had spread to various places,

namely the island of Crete. He writes to the church in Gortyna
together with the other communities in Crete, commends their bishop
Philip, but at the same time he warns against the seductions of the
heretics (EH 4.23.5). In another letter, to the Cretan Christians of
Cnossus, Dionysius exhorts their bishop, Pinytus, to consider the weak-
ness of “the great mass” (above, 73 n. 31, to EH 4.23.7f.). To be
sure, this “majority” is characterized here as being deficient only [80]
with respect to the demands of chastity. But in the letter to the
church in Amastris in Pontus, which is summarized in the immediately
preceding section of EH (4.23.6), Dionysius recommends that the
same sort of welcome be extended to those who return after erring
in the realm of chastity (hagneia) as to those who had been involved
in heresy (hairetiké plané). At all events, Eusebius takes advantage
of the opportunity expressly to confirm the orthodoxia of Pinytus, the
bishop of Cnossos (EH 4.23.8).
As we move back in time from Dionysius to the letter to Titus,
let us remember that it is only for those who regard the latter as
genuine that it is necessary to associate the establishment of Chris-
tianity in Crete with Paul. If that is not the case, it may be that
here also there existed in the beginning a type of Christianity that
completely lacked the “ecclesiastical” brand, despite all its other va-
rieties. The letter to Titus would then be regarded as an attempt
initially to open the path for ecclesiastical Christianity with the help
of the authority of Paul (who was connected with Crete through a
recollection that is still reflected in Acts 27.7 ff.), as well as through
ecclesiastical organization in general. Even by the time of Diony-
sius of Corinth, this undertaking had succeeded only to a very limited
extent. The “many” (polloi) whom the epistle of Titus reproaches for
combining false teaching with unruliness (1.10) correspond to hoi pol-
loi for whom Pinytus is urged to leave the way open for reconciliation.

76
 4
Asia Minor Prior
to Ignatius
In the preceding chapter (p. 69), we found it to be probable that at
the time of Ignatius, the majority of the faithful
in the churches of
Asia Minor att
Ephesus, Magnesia, Tralles, and Philadelphia held to
a form of Christianity | that allowed Ignatius to consider them to be
his special allies. But at the same time, we advised against hastily
extending this jjudgment to cover the whole of Asia Minor, or even
~ of only its western part. The surviving clues concerning Antioch,
Philippi, and Polycarp’s Smyrna should at least urge us to be cautious,
if not frighten us away from such a generalization. It seems to me
that this warning is reinforced and provided with even greater justi-
. fication by the following considerations.
Approximately two decades prior te Ignatius another geen had

(Rev. 1-3). It would not be easy to uncoverSeomieescommonie

tures that would permit us to group these two authors together as
representatives of the same sort of Christian religious position. What
distinguishes them from one another is, above all, the difference that
separates a Syrian gentile Christian from a Palestinian, or at any rate
“an unmistakably Jewish Christian (cf. 84-87). Moreover, in_this
early period “orthodoxy” is just as much a sort of collective. concept
as is “heresy,” and can clothe itselfin quite different forms according.
to the
th circumstances, There is also room for doubt as to whether the
apocalypticist, with his extremely confused: religious: outlook that: pe-
euliarly mixes Jewish, Christian, and mythological elements and ends
Lith
 ORTHODOXY AND HERESY IN EARLIEST CHRISTIANITY

in chiliasm, can be regarded in any sense as an intellectual and

spiritual leader of an important band of Christians in western Asia
Minor, To what extent was he really an influential figure in the region
to which he addresses himself? [82] To what extent might this have
been only wishful thinking? Did anything else meet with general
approval, other than his stormy outburst, seething with hate, against
the pagan empire, which perhaps found acceptance in those circles
directly affected by the persecution? Unqualified confidence that his
recipients would follow his lead is not exactly the impression left by
the apocalyptic letters, at least when taken as a whole!
-— But a real connection between John and Ignatius does appear in
~) the fact that John’s letters find him in opposition to a false teaching
ofan umistakably gnostic brand*—a_heresy_which_pursues_its_path
not alongside them.’ There is
within the churches themselves, andcontroversy,
lively
no need here to enter into the connected especially
with Ramsay’s notions,’ as to the reasons that prompted John to
select precisely these seven cities. That the number is significant for
Revelation, with its propensity for sevenfold divisions, requires no
proof, The Muratorian Canon already recognized this and thought
that a kind of “catholic” appearance had been achieved thereby (lines
48-59). But why did John select precisely these communities from
the Christianity round about him? What, for example, gave Laodicea
precedence over Colossae and Hierapolis? In view of our earlier
explanations, I think that I am entitled to suppose that John selected
the most prominent communities from those in his area which met
y exerting
: the prerequisite of ‘seeming to afford him the possibilitof
a real influence. Subsequently, Ignatius apparently followed a similar
procedure and in turn made a selection from among those seven com-
munities. The necessity of retaining the number seven resulted less
in pressuring the apocalypticist to exclude communities in great num-
ber, as in compelling him to include one church or another which
only to a very limited degree belonged to the sphere of his influence.
Of the seven communities of Asia Minor mentioned in Revelation,
Ignatius addresses only three—Ephesus, Smyrna, and Philadelphia;
1. Theophilus, a later successor to Ignatius as a leader of Antiochian orthodoxy,
used the Apocalypse in his struggle against the gnostic, Hermogenes (EH 4.24).
2. Knopf, Zeitalter, pp. 291 f.
3. W. M. Ramsay, The Letters to the Seven Churches of Asia (London, 1904),
pp. 171 ff.
78
 ASIA MINOR PRIOR TO IGNATIUS

[83] he does not address those of Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, and

Laodicea. Can it be a coincidence that the churches of Smyrna and
Philadelphia, to which Ignatius turns, are precisely those which fare_
best in the Apocalypse,
appear also tobe especially free ofheresy,!
and later produce the martyrs of the catholic ‘church during the
persecution connected with Polycarp (Martyrdom of Polycarp
19.1-2)? Is it by chance that the communities of Pergamum, Thya-
tira,° Sardis, and Laodicea® are missing from Ignatius’ audience—
communities that the seer vehemently rebukes, in which Balaamites
and Nicolaitans (2.14f.), the prophetess Jezebel and those who
know “the deep things of Satan” (2.20, 24) live undisturbed and are
allowed to mislead the servants of the Son of God (2.20), or which
from the viewpoint of the author are utterly indifferent and lukewarm
(3.15 ff.)P On his final journey, Ignatius passed through Laodicea
and Sardis as well as Philadelphia and Smyrna, and yet neither of the
former names is even mentioned by him, much less are the com- Aan 7»

munities of the respective cities addressed in a letter. In Sardis, how- Sime

ever, there were also a few who had not soiled their garments, accord-
ing to Revelation 3.4. Similarly in Thyatira, which for the travelling
Ignatius was no more difficult to reach nor more remote than Ephesus, |
Magnesia, and Tralles (which likewise had not seen him within their
walls), already in the view of John (Rev. 2.24) the heretics are
opposed by “the rest” (hoi loipoi) in such a way that the latter also
is branded as a minority.
Is it too much to claim if, on the basis of what Ignatius both says
and does not say, and considering the evidence of the Apocalypse,
one concludes eee his attempt to stretch the circle of his influence
as widely as possible for the sake of his constituency there was
i “nothing
e
Ignatius could hope for from the Christian groups represented
/ at Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, and Laodicea, because no points of
contact existed for him there}-no “bishop” was present whom he
4. Cf. Knopf, Zeitalter, p. 290.
5. A few decades after Ignatius, Thyatira was completely lost to Montanism
(Epiphanius Her. 51.33). Cf. Zahn, Forschungen, 5 (1893): 35 f.
6. Cf. the Christian Sibylline Oracle 7.22 f.:
Woe Laodicea, you who not once did see God,
You will deceive yourself, insolent one!
The surge of the Lycus will wash you away.
[For other ETs, see R. McL. Wilson in Hennecke-Schneemelcher, 2: 721; also
M. S. Terry, The Sibylline Oracles? (New York: Eaton and Mains, 1899), p. 150.]
79
 ORTHODOXY AND HERESY IN EARLIEST CHRISTIANITY

~ could press into service, because the heretics had maintained, or had
come to exercise, leadership there? Even Smyrna no longer left Ig-
natius [84] with the same favorable impression as it had the apocalyp-
ticist (see above, 69). It is unfortunate that no gnostic revelation is
extant in answer to the seer, that no heretical community leader
describes the conditions in Asia Minor from his point of view! In
light of the early and abundant literary activity of the heretics in
diverse regions, I do not doubt for a moment that those concerned
would neither meekly swallow the attacks of a John or of Ignatius
and Polycarp, nor limit themselves to oral defense. Surely they sent
out letters and written works of various sorts. But unfortunately
the tradition has been prejudiced against them, and their literary
protests have perished just like the heretical gospels of Egypt and
Antioch, to which reference already has been made (see 50-53, 66 f.).
One further point should not be overlooked in this connection.
While the community of Laodicea to which Paul once had written
(Col. 4.16) makes a very unfavorable impression on the apocalypticist
but still can serve to round out the number seven, two other churches
from the immediate vicinity, well known to the Apostle to the Gen-
tiles, are completely neglected. The community of Hierapolis (Col.
4,13) and that of Colossae are bypassed in icy silence by both John
and Ignatius.’ The latter went right through Hierapolis, and as for
Colossae, if he did not also go through it, he at least passed very
close by. Furthermore, a figure like that of Papias prevents us from
even toying with the idea that there might not have been Christians
at least in Hierapolis at the time of Revelation and of Ignatius.
Indeed, Paul already had testified of his friend Epaphras, that he
had labored much with the people of Colossae, Laodicea, and Hier-
apolis (Col. 4.13).
In Asia Minor, Ignatius appears in approximately the same small
region as does the apocalypticist. This fact, and the way in which
they both conduct themselves, furthers our insight into the extent
of orthodoxy’s authority at the end of the first and the beginning of
the second century. We might learn even more from Ignatius if we
[85] were informed in greater detail about the route of his journey.
Unfortunately, however, we do not know for sure whether he covered
7. Geographical considerations provide no satisfactory explanation. Whoever
treats Laodicea as part of Asia (Rev. 1.4) cannot consider Hierapolis and Colossae
as Phrygian, and thus exclude them.
80
 ASIA MINOR PRIOR TO IGNATIUS

the whole distance from Antioch to Smyrna by the land route, or

whether, as has been conjectured and is surely possible, he made use
of a ship as far as, say, Attalia.8 If he had not done the latter,®
then the yawning gap between Antioch in the east and Philadelphia
in the west in which Ignatius left behind no traces !° would surprise
us even more than his bypassing of Hierapolis, Laodicea, and Colos-
sae, For in that case a district is completely omitted in which nu-
merous Christian communities already must have existed prior to Ig-
natius. Paul traveled through Lycaonia and Pisidia during his first
missionary journey, and later he revisited the communities founded
at that time. Why is it that these regions also, like the Phrygian
area reached by Paul, are so completely thrust aside, while Ignatius’
concern and his attempt to exercise influence are first aroused as
he draws near to the west coast?
~ Does it not provide further food for thought, that we miss here a
reference to the very same sector in southern and eastern Asia Minor
, to which the opening words of 1 Peter fail to refer—a fact that, in
the latter instance, has repeatedly caused astonishment and oc-
casioned all sorts of attempts at explanation? Thus, for example, writes
H. Windisch: “He [i.e. 1 Peter] apparently wanted to include all
the provinces of Asia Minor. That he did not mention Lycia, Pam-
phylia, and Cilicia is indeed surprising; nevertheless, Lycia may still
_ have been without any important congregations, Pamphylia may have
~ been included in Galatia, and Cilicia may have been excluded as
belonging to Syria.” 11 I find this just as unpersuasive as the notion
that the unnamed Phrygia is hidden away in the designation “Asia.”
No doubt that was true for the Roman administration. But the Romans
also united Pontus with Bithynia,!2 which are as clearly separated
as possible in 1 Peter, where the one district is mentioned at the

8. On this problem, cf. Eusebius EH 3.36.3-6, who in any event attests that
Ignatius used a land route through Asia.
9. The land route is supported particularly by T. Zahn, among the older com-
mentators—see his Ignatius von Antioch (Gotha, 1873), pp. 250-295 and especially
264 f. Cf. also J. B. Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers?, 2 (S. Ignatius, S. Polycarp).1
(London: Macmillan, 1889): 33 ff. [and W. M. Ramsay, The Church in the
Roman Empire (London, 1893), p. 318].
10. Philo, the “deacon from Cilicia” (Philad. 11.1; cf. Smyr. 10.1), can scarcely
be viewed as evidence for the land route, any more than can the “nearby (eg-
gista) churches” (Philad. 10.2).
1l. Die katholischen Briefe?, HbNT 15 (1930): 51.
12. J. Weiss, RPTK% 10 (1901): 536,29 i
81
 ORTHODOXY AND HERESY IN EARLIEST CHRISTIANITY

start of the series, while the other, separated by three names, con-
cludes it. The Christians who, in the year 177/78, composed the ac-
count of martyrdoms [86] that occurred in the churches of Vienna
and Lyons still are able to distinguish accurately between Asia and
Phrygia (EH 5.1.3, 5.3.4; cf. 5.14); and from the very beginning,
the Montanists #8 are called Phrygians or Kataphrygians, which shows
that even for a long time after 1 Peter, Phrygia has by no means
been absorbed into Asia from the Christian perspective.1* I should
therefore prefer to explain the blank spot on the map of Asia Minor
in 1 Peter by believing that there simply was nothing to be gained
for “ecclesiastically” oriented Christianity in that area at that time.
In southeastern Asia Minor, from the borders of Syria westward to
Phrygia, “ecclesiastical” intervention was not tolerated at the end of
the first century, and even Rome realized the futility of such an
attempt—the same Rome which at about the same time acted in a
quite different manner with respect to Corinth (see below, chap. 5).
The estimation of the situation in southern and eastern Asia Minor
as proposed above appears to me to receive further support through
an examination of the earliest history of that church which occupies
the first place both for the apocalypticist and for Ignatius, and re-
ceives excellent treatment from both.(Even Ephesus cannot be con-
sidered as a center of orthodoxy, but is rather a particularly instructive
example of how the life of an ancient Christian community, even
one of apostolic origin, could erode when caught in the turbulent
\erosscurrents of orthodoxy and beets had laid the foundation
in Ephesus and built up a church through several years of labor. If
Romans 16 represents a letter to the Ephesians, then, on the basis
of verses 17-20, we must conclude that already during the lifetime
of the apostle, certain people had appeared there whose teaching
caused offense and threatened divisions in the community. To this
would correspond the complaint in 1 Corinthians 16.9, concerning
“many adversaries” in Ephesus, if it refers to those who had been
baptized. In any event, the book of Acts has Paul warning the
Ephesian elders (presbyteroi) in his farewell to them at Miletus that
from their own midst there will arise men speaking perverse things
ret Bonwetsch, RPTK3 13 (1903): 420.25 ff. Achelis, Christentum 2, 45,
14, Cf. the references to “Phrygians” and “Asia” in the anti-Montanist writing
quoted in EH 5.16.9-10.
82
 ASIA MINOR PRIOR TO IGNATIUS

‘to draw away the Christians for themselves (20.30). This prediction
/ actually describes the situation in Ephesus at the time of the com-
| position of Acts.
~ Ignatius also knows of difficulties in Ephesus. But the picture that
[87] he sketches for us obviously is already rather blurred. In clear
/Sontrast to the earlier book of Acts, Ignatius praises the Ephesians
» for having stopped their ears against the strange teachers who had
stealthily slipped into their midst from elsewhere (Eph. 9.1). And
although the book of Acts presupposes that a presbyterate consisting
of several members was leading the church of Ephesus, Ignatius,
faithful to his interests, treats the monarchial episcopate as a deeply-
rooted institution also in this city (see 1.3, 2.1, 6.2—Bishop Onesimus).
To what extent Ignatius was still conscious of the fact that Paul
was the actual father of the community cannot be determined. To be
sure, he calls the Ephesians “fellow initiates with Paul” (Paulou
symmystai, Eph. 12.2). But not only can the one Apostle become
“the apostles” with whom the Ephesians “always agree in the power
of Jesus Christ” (11.2), but the expression in 12.2 is in no way based
upon Paul’s apostolic activity but rather on the fact that the road to
martyrdom, which Paul also travelled, leads past this city, and thus
on the claim that the Apostle mentions the Ephesians in every letter
(12.2). Nevertheless, Ignatius knows 1 Corinthians (see below, chap.
9) and he could have learned from it that Paul actually had labored
in Ephesus.
~ While this last point must remain open, we find as we turn to the
», Apocalypse that in this book the recollection of the Pauline establish-
* ment of the church of Ephesus appears to have been completely lost,
or perhaps even deliberately suppressed. At most one finds a faint
recollection that at an earlier time this community had been better
off, in the statement about having “abandoned the love you had
‘ formerly” (Rev. 2.4). But now it is in danger of slipping into gnos-
/ticism; now it must strive against the false apostles and the Nicolai-
| tans (2.2, 6). The threatening words of the Son of Man (2.5) surely
“do not sound as if the struggle were easy and the victory certain!
And as far as Paul is concerned, in the Apocalypse only the names
of the twelve apostles are found on the foundations of the new
Jerusalem (21.14); there is no room for Paul. And at the very least,
it will be but a short time before the Apostle to the Gentiles will
83
 ORTHODOXY AND HERESY IN EARLIEST CHRISTIANITY

have been totally displaced in the consciousness of the church of

/ Ephesus in favor of one of the twelve apostles, John. [88] In Ephesus,
)Paul had turned out to be too weak to drive the enemies of the
church from the battlefield.
The Apocalypse does not leave us with a particularly impressive
idea of what sought to replace the Pauline gospel in the “ecclesiasti-
‘ cally oriented” circles at Ephesus. Aside from Revelation’s being a
‘book of comfort and faith for threatened and persecuted Christians,
features which are the result of the difficult contemporary situation
and which thus to some degree transcend party lines, there remains
for the most part a Jewish Christianity, presumably of Palestinian
origin.1> This was undoubtedly better suited for the anti-gnostic
struggle than was the Pauline proclamation, but in other respects
it is hardly comparable.
The pastoral Epistles (see below, chap. 9) are chronologically
most recent, compared with Acts, Ignatius, and the Apocalypse. For
(the earliest history of Christianity in Ephesus they yield hardly any-
\thing that originated in actual recollection of the apostolic age. To
the same extent that we are unwilling to concede that the epistle
to Titus conveys actual knowledge about the relationship of Paul to
Christianity in Crete (see above, 76), neither do we grant that 1-2
\ Timothy give us insight into the relations between the Apostle to the
Gentiles and Ephesus. What they report to us concerning the apostolic
period, namely that Paul himself already left one of his helpers there
/in order to check the danger of heresy which was already in full
)bloom (1 Tim. 1.3 ff.) is not correct, and is refuted by the future
tense in Acts 20.30. This merely reveals to us the desire of orthodoxy
to know that the Apostle to the Gentiles, whose activity in Ephesus
is related by 1 Corinthians as well as Acts (which may also have
provided the basis for the relationship between Paul and Crete), also
‘stood on their side in the struggle against heresy. The Paul of the
| pastoral Epistles fights in union with “the church” against the heretics.
Nevertheless, history categorically prohibits ascribing victory to him
on the Ephesian front, from which he and his influence fade rapidly
-in the second century. Even the Pastorals, in agreement with Reve-
lation, have to admit that in the second century, the Apostle [89] had
15. If the apocalypticist is to be identified with the “presbyter John, a disciple
(mathétés) of the Lord” mentioned by Papias (in Eusebius EH 3.39.4).
84
 ASIA MINOR PRIOR TO IGNATIUS

lost the contest in Ephesus. While 2 Timothy 1.18 heaps praise on

—
Onesiphorus for special services performed at Ephesus, it is at the
\
same time admitted that his labors had not borne fruit. All the
/
brethren in Asia, laments the same passage (1.15), have turned their
backs on Paul. And Onesiphorus himself has vacated this futile battle-
field in order to visit the Apostle in Rome (1.17). If we inquire into
the history of heresy in Ephesus as to whence this difficulty may
have arisen, we encounter, without supposing thereby to have found
a complete explanation, the person of Cerinthus,!* whom we can
introduce at this point with all the more justification since not only
his gnostic teaching in general, but also his specific enmity toward
Paul and his letters are clearly attested.17
I can understand this state of affairs, which I have sketched in bold
strokes, only by supposing that in Ephesus a community of apostolic
origin has, through its struggles with external enemies !8 and above
all through internal discord and controversies (see above, 82-84),
suffered such setbacks and transformations that for many, even the
name of its founder became lost. Orthodox Christianity underwent
reorganization and now found an apostolic patron in that member
of the twelve who shared his name with the apocalypticist and who
established close connection with Jesus more securely than had Paul,
which was considered to be the highest trump in the struggle with
heresy. Only the canonization of the book of Acts and of the Pauline
letters, including the Pastorals, once again provided clear insight
into the real situation with respect to Paul.!®
I cannot agree with K. Holl and E. Schwartz in describing what
took place in Ephesus in postapostolic times and resulted in the
transfer of leadership from Paul to John [90] as a taking over of the
province of Asia by the primitive (Palestinian) community.?? Prob-

16. See Polycarp’s story about John and Cerinthus at the bathhouse in Ephesus
(Irenaeus AH 3.3.4 = EH 4.14.6). Cf. Knopf, Zeitalter, pp. 328-330.
17. See Filaster Her. 36 and Epiphanius Her. 28.5.3, which probably reflect the
lost Syntagma of Hippolytus [Hilgenfeld, Ketzergeschichte, pp. 411 ff.; see also
below, 280-282].
18. Even prior to the writing of the Apocalypse, Paul could speak of such problems
—1 Cor. 15.31, 2 Cor. 1.8 ff.; perhaps also Rom. 16.3 f.
19. See Irenaeus AH 3.3.4 (end), and the Acts of Paul.
20. K. Holl, Gesammelte Aufséiitze zur Kirchengeschichte, 2: Der Osten (Tubingen:
Mohr, 1928; repr. Darmstadt, 1964), p. 66; E. Schwartz, ZNW 31 (1932): 191.
Cf, also Lietzmann, History, 1: 189 f.
85
 ORTHODOXY AND HERESY IN EARLIEST CHRISTIANITY

ably a better explanation for what seems to have happened may be

found in the fact that in the wake of the devastating blow that at
first threatened, and then actually struck Jerusalem and Palestine in
the war with the Romans, but under the pressure of other influences,
something occurred that was similar to what had already taken place
after the persecution of Stephen. Just as at that time the primitive
(Palestinian) community did not “take over” Antioch (Acts 11.19 ff.),
neither did it now bring under its dominion the province of Asia.
Rather, now Jewish Christians, who no longer felt safe and secure in
the Holy Land and east of the Jordan, sought a new home in more
distant territory. Philip the evangelist, who had already left Jerusalem
at the occasion of the persecution of Stephen (Acts 8.1 ff.) and had
come to live in the coastal city of Caesarea where we still find him
around the year 60 (Acts 21.8f.), emigrated to Hierapolis together
with his prophesying daughters.2! John the “elder,” the disciple of
the Lord (above, 84 n. 15), probably also exchanged Jerusalem for
Ephesus.
On the other hand, I cannot pass over in silence the fact that, as
far as we can tell, no such migration took place either to Egypt or
to Syria and the adjacent southeastern portion of Asia Minor.” Per-
haps Christianity did not yet exist in Egypt at that time. And we
may presume that in the other regions just mentioned things had
become a bit too hot for a Jewish Christian version of the new religion.
Here gnosticism predominated, with its explicitly anti-Jewish attitude.
Even in not overtly gnostic circles of Christianity located closer to
Palestine, there was little sympathy for Jews and their associates, as
seems to me to be clear from the Gospel of John and the letters
of Ignatius (see below, 88), not to mention writings which are later
in time and cannot be localized with certainty.
In the western part of Asia Minor, the conditions apparently were
more favorable. Here the Jewish Christian element, which from the
very beginning was no more absent than it was in Corinth (see below,
99 f.), gained [91] impetus through the immigration of outstanding
members of Palestinian Christianity, of whom John and Philip are

21. See Polycrates of Ephesus in EH 3.31.3 =5.24.2; also Papias in EH 3.39.9.

22. I am quite aware of how scanty the material on this matter is, and I do
not want to make any fuss about it if this idea does not fit naturally into what
to me is becoming an increasingly clearer picture.
86
 ASIA MINOR PRIOR TO IGNATIUS

examples; an impetus that must have been all the more effective
since, at the very latest, the catastrophe in Palestine forever erased
the demand that the gentile Christians of the diaspora should be
circumcised and should to some extent observe the ceremonial law.
Thus the fence of the law had been pulled down and fellowship
between Jewish and gentile Christians in the outside world became
really possible. The line of demarcation henceforth no longer runs
between Jewish and gentile Christianity, but rather, between ortho-
doxy and heresy. And in Ephesus we find the former embodied in
the alliance between a type of Jewish Christianity which has no
commitment to the ceremonial law and gentile Christians of similar
orientation. Here orthodoxy and heresy struggle over the Pauline heri-
tage, and in the process something is lost; certainly it is not the entire
Pauline inheritance, but something that once existed—the conscious-
ness of him to whom they were indebted.
- The Jewish Christianity that had outgrown its legalistic narrowness
and the “church” found themselves, where they existed, to be united
against gnosticism with respect to their high esteem for the Old
Testament and their mutual preference for a concrete (historical)
interpretation of religious situations and events, especially as they
relate to the life of Jesus and the age to come. The heresy fighter,
Justin, a gentile by birth, who received the decisive stimuli for his
conversion in the city of John and later lived there for some years
as a Christian,2* based his Christian faith upon the Old Testament,
the synoptic gospels, and the book of Revelation (utilizing also cer-
tain suggestions from the hellenistic world of ideas).** And Papias,
who lived in the city where Philip settled and who also struggled
against heretics, wants to ground himself primarily on the apostolic
tradition concerning the life of Jesus; along with it, he taught an
eschatology that is also dependent on the Apocalypse, the coarseness
of which certainly would not have been judged more leniently by
the gnostics than it was by Eusebius! *° In exchange for having sacri-
ficed the law for their orthodox gentile Christian brethren, Asian
Jewish Christianity [92] received in turn the knowledge that hence-

23. See Zahn, Forschungen, 6 (1900): 8, 192.

24. Cf. EH 4.18 and the writings of Justin.
25. EH 3.39.13, “a man of exceedingly small intelligence.” For general informa-
tion on Papias, see EH 3.39, based in part on Irenaeus AH 5.33.3 f,
87.
 ORTHODOXY AND HERESY IN EARLIEST CHRISTIANITY

forth the “church” would be open without hesitation to the Jewish

influence mediated by Christians, coming not only from the apocalyp-
tic traditions, but also from the synagogue with its practices con-
cerning worship, which led to the appropriation of the Jewish passover
~ observance.?¢
Even the observance of the sabbath by Christians appears to have
found some favor in Asia.27 And the aversion of Ignatius, in Mag-
nesia (8-11) and Philadelphia (5-9), toward a Jewish Christianity
that apparently had abandoned its most offensive demands 8 is less
characteristic of ecclesiastically oriented circles in Asia than of that
Syrian gentile Christian for whom the Old Testament itself meant very
little, at least in practice. For him, all such things belong to the realm
of the heretics. Thus the existence of gnosticism side by side with
Jewish Christianity in Ignatius’ picture of the heretics he opposed
in those two cities is, in my opinion, due less to the complicated
nature of the heresy there than to the complex personality of Ig-
natius, who as an ecclesiastical leader rejects gnosticism, and as a
gentile Syrian Christian opposes the Jewish falsification of the gos-
pel wherever he thinks he finds it.
--The fact that 1 Timothy also opposes a gnosticism containing
Jewish features could be regarded as an indication that in Ephesus
and Asia there actually existed a gnosticizing Jewish Christianity
large and powerful enough to evoke opposition, so that one could
not simply classify the Jewish Christianity of this region as being on
the side of ecclesiastical orthodoxy without further examination. Thus
|, Jewish Christianity would be divided, just as gentile Christianity was
* divided, into orthodox and heretical types. But since with reference
to Crete also, the author of the Pastorals opposes the same admixture
of Jewish Christianity and gnosticism, which is hardly natural and

26. Of course, this did not take place without difficulty. Melito of Sardis wrote a
treatise concerning the Passover after the martyrdom of Sagaris, bishop of Laodicea
(ca. 164/166; Neumann, Rémische Staat, p. 66), because a great discussion on
this matter had arisen in the bereaved community (EH 4.26.3). [This is not
the “Pascal Homily” of Melito that has come to light in several manuscripts and
versions since 1940; see below, p. 315 n. 37.] Shortly thereafter, Apollinaris,
bishop of Hierapolis in Phrygia, wrote a work on the same situation (cited in
the coe Chronicle” or Chronicon paschale, pp. 13f., ed. L. Dindorf [Bonn,
1832]).
27. Ignatius Magn. 9.1; cf. Bauer, Ignatius, ad loc.
28. According to Philad. 6.1, it can even include the uncircumcised.
88
 ASIA MINOR PRIOR TO IGNATIUS

certainly not frequent, it appears to me to be more convincing to

| understand the peculiar heresy combatted in the Pastorals from the
perspective of the mentality of the pseudonymous letter writer—as
Paul” [93] he must deal with the “teachers of the law” (1 Tim. 1.7)
and the “circumcision party” (Titus 1.10), but as a second century
‘churchman, he opposes gnosticism.
put Paul's time those communities that he had established or which
developed under his influence and which were situated either in
co or in adjacent Phrygia were almost totally of a gentile Christian
‘type. Evidence of this is the letter to the Colossians, in the case of
‘Phrygia.”® Unfortunately, we do not possess a reliable witness from Paul
himself that would reveal the conditions in Ephesus. But everything
we know of other communities founded by Paul permits us to con-
clude that the congregations of Asia (1 Cor. 16.19) also were com-
posed mainly of gentile Christians. Why do we find that in post-
apostolic times, in the period of the formation of the ecclesiastical
structure, the Jewish Christians in these regions come into prominence
as described above? It would seem to me that the easiest explanation
((for this is found in the assumption already suggested by the Apoca-
Aypse and by Ignatius, that a large segment of the gentile Christians
became less and less suited for “ecclesiastical” fellowship, so that in
the developing church the emphasis would automatically shift sharply
in favor of the Jewish Christian element.
‘We will now briefly survey those New Testament writings of the
postapostolic age which, in addition to the Apocalypse, are engaged
in the struggle with heretics, even though we cannot claim their
origin in Asia Minor with certainty. The epistle of Jude, the polemic
of which is taken up in 2 Peter, shows us that the heretical gnostic
teachers and their followers have not yet withdrawn from the orthodox
oN
group, but still participate in the common love feasts (Jude 12).
Their influence is important and therefore the tone of their orthodox
opponent is quite vehement. He makes the concession to the Chris-
tian group that he addresses that the deception has been brought into
the community from the outside (Jude 4). Yet when we recall that,
contrary to Acts 20.30 (above, 82f.), Ignatius made the same con-
cession to the Ephesian church, it is difficult to suppress the suspicion
that in Jude also the reference merely represents a device of the
29, Jiilicher(-Fascher), Einleitung’, p. 129.
89
 ORTHODOXY AND HERESY IN EARLIEST CHRISTIANITY

“letter writer, or better, an attempt to prove the absolute correctness

of his own group. The faith for which his fellow believers must
fight [94] has been delivered once and for all to the saints (Jude 3);
» therefore that which troubles the faith must come “from without.”
For the church members addressed in Jude, such a view may bring
some consolation, but it does not satisfy the historian. Rather, he sees
a problem in the convenient expression “they secretly sneaked in,”
and asks the question “whence did they come?” Then, if he wants
to attribute credibility to the letterof Jude for the congregations to
which it first came, the historian must assume that the heresy had its
home somewhere else in Christendom, and that it successfully sallied
forth from there in conquest.
The pastoral Epistles have already been of assistance in our in-
vesgitation and description of the earliest history of the church of
Crete (above, 75 f.) and of Ephesus (above, 84 f.). Thus I can bypass
them here without examining them anew from different perspectives.
With regard to the Pastorals and the other primitive Christian writings
under discussion here, I am not interested in renewing the oft-re-
peated attempt of describing the false teachings that are presupposed,
interpreting exactly their meaning, testing their uniformity, and con-
necting them. with names from the history of heresy—or else denying
such a relationship. All this may be presupposed as already known
(see above, xxv). For us, it suffices to observe that the Pastorals also
deal with a situation in which there existed the antithesis between
* ecclesiastically oriented faith of some sort and a many headed heresy
(Titus 1.10, polloi) in one form or another. But when we speak of
orthodoxy and heresy in this way, we must once more guard our-
selves against simply equating these words with the notions of ma-
jority and minority, of original form and deviation (see above, xxii f.).
The confession of Jesus as Lord and heavenly redeemer is a common
foundation for both tendencies, and for a long time sufficed to hold
the differently oriented spirits together in one fellowship.
When it is reported—and that by a non-Christian gentile *°—that
a Christian group like the one in Bithynia sang hymns to Christ as
God, pledged itself to live a holy life, and observed cultic meals, it

30. Pliny the Younger Epistles 10.96.7 [ed. and ET by W. Melmoth, LCL 2
(1915); ET also in Stevenson, New Eusebius, pp. 13-15, and in similar source
books].
90
 ASIA MINOR PRIOR TO IGNATIUS

is by no means clear from such a description whether it refers to

heretics or whether it was a mixed community of heretics and ec-
clesiastically oriented Christians, or finally, whether orthodox belief
predominated there. All too [95] quickly, in my opinion, the final op-
tion is accepted as self-evident.3 But Marcion of Sinope in Pontus ®
proves that. at least very soon after Pliny’s term of office, heresy was
present in that region and the ground must have been somewhat
suitable for the spread of heresy. Already in his homeland, Marcion
had achieved a special status, and when he left he received letters
of recommendation from his followers and friends in Pontus.3? A
couple of decades later, Dionysius of Corinth wrote to Nicomedia
against Marcion (EH 4.23.4) and in another letter to the church of
Amastris in Pontus, he advised them not to make the readmission of
penitent heretics too difficult (EH 4.23.6). There were, moreover,
more martyrs from among the Marcionites,®4 the Montanists,?> and
other heretical groups than orthodoxy would like to admit, and the
church took great pains to divest this fact of its significance and se-
ductive splendor.°* Even from this point of view, we have no reason
to conclude that Pliny was opposing a Christianity of an indubitably
ecclesiastical orientation.
/~ Just as Titus 1.10f. laments about the many deceivers who are
("successful in winning whole families and household churches and
\. therefore counsels to have as little as possible to do with them (3.10 £.),
so also in the Johannine Epistles we find that there are many se-
~ ducers (1 John 2.18, 2 John 7) and the danger is increasing at such
an alarming rate that the antichrist himself appears to have taken
shape in them (1 John 2.18). Boasting of their possession of the spirit,
they deny the identity of the man Jesus with Christ, the Son of God
(1 John 2.22; 4.2 f.; 5.1, 5, 6 ff., 20). “This is the one form of docetism
31. E.g. by Harnack, Marcion?, p. 23.
32. Epiphanius Her. 42.1; cf. Justin Apol. 26.5 and 58.1, Irenaeus AH 1.27.2
(=25.1), Tertullian Against Marcion 1.1.
33. This information is found in an ancient Latin prologue to the Gospel of
John: cf. Harnack, Evangelien-Prologe pp. 6, 15f. [=325 and 334f.]. Also his
Marcion2, pp. 24, 11* ff.
34. See the material in Harnack, Marcion?, pp. 150 (esp. n. 4), 154, n. 1, 315° f.,
340°, 348".
35. See the treatment in K. J. Neumann, Rémische Staat, pp. 66-69.
36. See especially the anonymous anti-Montanist from Asia Minor quoted in EH
> 5.16.20-22: even though there are a great number (pleistoi) of martyrs from the
various sects, and particularly from Marcionites, we still do not admit that they
possess the truth and confess Christ truly (21).
91
 ORTHODOXY AND HERESY IN EARLIEST CHRISTIANITY

that is attested and is conceivable only within gnostic [96] circles; ap-
parently those in question have boasted that with their new and
perfect knowledge (2.3f.) of the true God (e.g. 5.20 f.), which
excludes the idea of an incarnation of the divine, they themselves
are the true bearers of the spirit (4.1-6, “pneumatics”) and promise
eternal life only to their followers (2.25-28 ).” 37
How this particular form of gnosticism is related to that of Ig-
natius’ opponents is open to question. But the author of 1 John re-
sembles his ally against heresy (see above, 88) in that he also
makes practically no use of the Old Testament, except for borrowing
from it the figure of Cain as the monstrous prototype of the heretics
(3.12). This attitude toward “scripture” is not really characteristic of
the ecclesiastical approach of Asia, but would, in my judgment, fit
better in the east, perhaps in Syria, where as I still hold to be ex-
tremely probable, the longer Johannine Epistle and the Gospel of
John originated, around the time of Ignatius.
But be that as it may, it is certain that the separation of the two
parties has already taken place in the Christian situation to which the
author of 1 John carefully addresses himself. We hear that it took
place in such a way that the heretics left the community and made
themselves independent so that they now viewed their orthodox fel-
low Christians with hellish, fratricidal hatred: “If they really had be-
longed to our group, they would have remained with us” (2.19). The
author of 1 John celebrates this as a victory (4.4). But when in the
very next verse we hear his strained admission that “the world” listens
to the others, our confidence that here the “church” represents the
majority and is actually setting the pace evaporates, And it is hardly
a sign of strength when we read the anxious instruction in 2 John,
which originated in similar conditions, that heretics should not be
received into one’s house, nor even be greeted (10f.). Only by
strictest separation from the heretics can salvation be expected; ortho-
doxy here appears to have been pushed completely onto the defensive,
and to be severely restricted in its development. And perhaps we do
more justice to the actual historical situation if we suppose that it
was not the heretics who withdrew, but rather the orthodox who had
retreated [97] in order to preserve what could be protected from en-
tanglement with “the world.”
37. Jiilicher(-Fascher), Einleitung’, p. 227.
92
 ASIA MINOR PRIOR TO IGNATIUS

Insofar as we can hardly ascribe 3 John to a different author from,

at least, 2 John, we ought to interpret the former in terms of the
same background, as an attempt of the “elder” to carry forward the
offensive—an offensive, however, that runs aground on the resistance
of the heretical leader Diotrephes. The latter pays back the elder in
kind °° and sees to it that the elder’s emissaries find no reception in
his group (10). To be sure, 3 John does not contain an explicit warn-
ing against false teachers. Nevertheless, its close connection with 2
John is a sufficient indication of its thrust. And the assurance repeated
no less than five times in this brief writing that the brethren who
support the elder possess the “truth’—that entity which in 2 John
and also in 1 John distinguishes the orthodox believer from the heretic
—renders it very unlikely, to my way of thinking, that we are here
dealing merely with personal frictions between the elder and Dio-
trephes. This situation would seem to be similar to that in Philippi,
where the letter of Polycarp suggests the presence of a heretical
community leader (above, 73 f.). Diotrephes holds the place of leader-
ship (3 John 9)—according to the elder’s opinion he presumptuously
assumed it, but his opinion cannot be decisive for us—rejects the
approaches of the elder, who feels himself unjustly suspected (10),
and summarily excludes from the community those of his members
who are sympathetic to the elder. Since 2 John shows the elder to be
a determined opponent of a docetic interpretation of Christ, we need
not spend time in searching for the real reasons that time and again
prompt him to renew his efforts to maintain contact with the beloved
Gaius through letters like 3 John, and with the church of Diotrephes
through emissaries.
Third John thus becomes especially valuable and instructive for
us in that it represents the attempt of an ecclesiastical leader to gain
influence in other communities in order to give assistance to like-
minded persons within those communities, and if possible, to gain the
upper hand. Polycarp of Smyrna had attempted the very same thing
in Philippi, and Ignatius also tried it in Asia by encouraging those
churches that were accessible to him to join in an effort in behalf of
the orthodox [98] in his home city in Syria (above, chap. 3). Later,
Dionysius of Corinth wrote his letters for the same purpose,*® and

38. That is, corresponding to 2 John 10f. [See further below, pp. 289, 308.]
39. Cf. Harnack, Briefsammlung pp. 36-40,
93
 ORTHODOXY AND HERESY IN EARLIEST CHRISTIANITY

the letters of recommendation for Marcion by the brethren in Pontus

probably should not be regarded as being much different (see
above, 91). Also the writer of the Apocalypse endeavored to influence
a larger circle of communities in his vicinity to exhibit a clearly anti-
heretical position. Contemporary with the Apocalypticist is 1 Clement,
and I am of he opinion that this famous letter of the Roman com-
munity to Corinth can only be understood correctly if it is considered
in this sort of context, even though many particulars concerning
1 Clement may remain obscure.
With 1 Clement we have reached Rome, and have thereby come
to an arena which is to be of unique significance for reaching a
decision in the struggle between orthodoxy and heresy. This is in-
dicated already in that, while the above-mentioned attempts to reach
beyond one’s own community either were completely unsuccessful
or had no noticeable success, Rome was able to achieve a great and
lasting result.

94
 5
Rome and Christianity
outside of Rome
If we take 1 Clement as our starting point for determining the posi-
tion of Rome in the struggle between these outlooks, we immediately
encounter a twofold difficulty. First, we must corroborate for ourselves
the frequent claim that the main body of the letter has little or
nothing to do with its clearly defined purpose. This is certainly the
initial impression. R. Knopf states:
The Romans are extremely verbose in giving a great number of ad-
monitions about the main issues of Christian conduct and life above
and beyond the immediate occasion for the writing, so that one can-
not see precisely what relationship these admonitions have to the real
purpose of the letter; cf. especially the extensive first main section of
the writing (4-38) and the summary in 62.1 f. . . . Over and above
the immediate needs, he has produced a literary work of art which
goes beyond the form of an actual letter and sketches the ideal of
true Christian conduct for life in broad homiletical arguments and
expositions.!
Indeed, it is easy to get the impression that by far the greater part
of the letter serves only to increase its size, in order thereby to en-
hance its importance and forcefulness.
For the person who keeps the question “why?” in view, the ad-
mission that, at least at first glance, he is faced with so much that
is quite unexpected seems to me to make it imperative that he pro-
ceed with special care in attempting to determine the letter’s purpose,
1. R. Knopf, Die Lehre der zwolf Apostel. Die zwei Clemensbriefe, HbNT, Er-
ganzungsband: Die apostolischen Vater 1 (1920): 42, 43.
95
 ORTHODOXY AND HERESY IN EARLIEST CHRISTIANITY

and not limit himself to considering [100] only what appears on the
surface, An author who admittedly presents such a quantity of ma-
terial for which the reader is not prepared, and thereby consciously
or unconsciously obscures his position, correspondingly could have
been incomplete in what he actually says concerning the matter at
hand. Such a suspicion should not be lightly dismissed. It is precisely
with such a person that we have the least assurance that he reveals
exhaustively and plainly his purposes and goals, particularly his basic
motives.
This uncertainty in the evaluation of 1 Clement as a source is all
the more significant since, unfortunately, here again only one of the
sides of the discussion is represented. (This is, for me, the second
matter for concern.) We do not hear what the altera pars has to say
(see above, xxi); and yet, in the interests of fairness, we really need
to know what the members of the Corinthian community who were
so severely attacked could adduce, and no doubt did present, in
support of their position. However, the picture that faces us of the
conditions in Corinth is sketched from the perspective of Rome, which
was doubtless one-sided and based on self-interest—to say the very
least, a biased picture. Just as the modern interpreter would no longer
dare to adopt, without hesitation, Paul’s point of view in evaluating
Paul’s relationship to a community or to a person whom he has re-
buked, since in such cases the Apostle to the Gentiles surely is par-
tisan, such a procedure would seem to me to be equally illegitimate
in the case of one postapostolic church interfering in the life of
another.
What is it, then, that actually happened in Corinth? Youth, it is
said, rebelled against age. “The point in question was solely a matter
of cliques, not of principles.” “The motive that precipitated the
whole situation must therefore have been simply the desire for a re-
alignment of the power structure”; and “at this point the Roman
community, in full consciousness of the unity of the church, felt it-
self obliged to render a service of love, and thus intervened.” * The
ecclesiastical “office” was in danger and Rome assumed the position

2. A. von Harnack, Einfiihrung in die alte Kirchengeschichte (Leipzig: Hinrichs,

1929), p. 92.
3. Lietzmann, History 1: 192.
96
 ROME AND CHRISTIANITY OUTSIDE OF ROME

of a protective shield. But just as surely as Rome felt it important

to appear in an utterly unselfish light, as fulfilling a divine responsi-
bility, I am all the less inclined to believe [101] that we have fully
grasped the real situation by means of that approach. To acknowledge
and accept such a picture, it seems to me, is to forgo an explanation.
And it is just the sort of person who, as Lietzmann recently has
done,‘ correctly views this action of Rome as of extreme importance,
who should not treat the cause of the action so relatively lightly.
Also, at least in later times, Rome shows itself to be controlled and
motivated more by a strong desire for power than by the sense of
brotherly love and by a selfless sense of duty. Rome knows how to
take advantage of the right moment to transform minutiae into major
issues in order to make other churches spiritually subject to Rome
and then to incorporate them organizationally into Rome’s own sphere
of influence.
Consider, for example, the Easter dispute that was conjured up
by Rome less than a century after Clement, and which “was oc-
casioned by an insignificant difference in cultic practice” *—not that
we judge it to be so minor by our standards, but it is evaluated by
Irenaeus in just this way (in Eusebius EH 5.24.12 ff.). By the middle
of the second century Rome had made an attempt to impose its will
upon Asia, but held back from taking the final steps when the elderly
Polycarp came to Rome in person. In 190 Victor, believing that Asia
is isolated and regarding that fortress as easily assailable, advances
with the heavy artillery of exclusion from church fellowship (EH
5.24.9). A little later we see Rome busy with measures designed to
establish its influence in Egypt (see above, 55 f., 60). Then, in the mid-
dle of the third century, North Africa was the scene of a similarly mo-
tivated activity—“the occasion appears to be even more insignificant
and petty than in the case of the Easter disputes.” ®
It seems to me, therefore, that Rome takes action not whenit is
overflowing with loveor when the great concerns of the faith are.
really in jeopardy, but when there is at least the opportunityof en-
4, Lietzmann, History 1: 194 f.
5. So as not to fall victim to the danger of arbitrarily coloring the facts in favor
of my arguments as the occasion demands, I follow here the presentation of
Achelis, Christentum 2: 217-19.
6. Achelis, Christentum 2: 220.
97
 ORTHODOXY AND HERESY IN EARLIEST CHRISTIANITY

larging its own sphere of influence. In this connection it certainly may

be granted that, as far as Rome is concerned, its own interests coincide
with the interests of the true faith and_ of genuine [102] brotherly
love. The earliest such opportunity presented itself to Rome, in my
judgment, toward the end of the first century in Corinth. But what
exactly was it in this congregation that called Rome into action? No
doubt it was the fact that the internal discord greatly reduced_the
power of resistance of the Corinthian church, so that it seemed to
be easy prey. But what were the factors that indicated to Rome what
position to take in the Corinthian arena, in favor of one party and
against the others?
Certainly it was not moral indignation over the irreverence of the
young people and their lack of a brotherly and Christian community
spirit that induced Rome to intervene and produced the voluminous
writing of sixty-five chapters. In that case, Rome’s expenditure of
effort would be disproportionate to the occasion. Even the ecclesiasti-
cal “office” as such is not of a decisive significance for Rome. If the
change in Corinth had turned things in a direction acceptable to
Rome, then 1 Clement also would have embraced the wisdom of
the orthodox Ignatius (see above, 62 f., 68) (that the bishop must be
obeyed even if he is young and inexperienced since what matters
is not his age but only that he functions in the place of God and of
Christ. Itisnot.the.office-that-is-in-danger, but apparently the officers
whom Rome desires, and. that_is why Rome intervenes in favor_of
the principle that the church officer cannot be removed. In such a
situation, one cannot very well intercede for particular persons; it is
much better and more convincing to argue for principles. It appears
to me, therefore, that we ought to search for the specific occasion
that prejudiced Rome so strongly against the turn of events in
Corinth; events that recently received rather clear expression when
the ecclesiastical offices were restaffed. Unfortunately, our letter does
not express itself on this point with the desired clarity.
With reference to 1 Clement 44.6 and the removal of the Corinthian
presbyters mentioned there, Knopf states: “Unfortunately we are not
told why.”7 And Harnack is quite correct when he dismisses without
further ado many things that 1 Clement says in its characterization
of the situation:
7. Knopf, Clemensbriefe, p. 120.
98
 ROME AND CHRISTIANITY OUTSIDE OF ROME
To determine what the occasion and the nature of the quarrel] and
the purposes of the troublemakers were, one must disregard Clement’s
moralizing criticism and condemnation.’ [103] When he warns against
contentiousness and pride, against ambition, conceit and self-glory,
when he characterizes the troublemakers as ‘rash and self-willed in-
dividuals’ (prdsopa propeté kai authadé, 1.1) and calls the schism
‘abominable and unholy’ (miara kai anosios, 1.1), that need not be
taken into consideration, for such reproaches are quite natural in the
face of a definite schism.®

Such a statement acknowledges that we here encounter the all too

familiar tune of the fighter against heresy (hairesis). When jealousy
and envy are designated as the motivating forces, one would think
that he were hearing Tertullian or some other champion in the battle
with heresy. And when 1 Clement bases his position upon the strong
and unshakable foundation of tradition—God, Christ, the apostles,
the leaders of the church 1°—he is employing a weapon that belongs
to the favorite equipment in the same workshop.
In view of the insufficient reasons supplied by the letter itself, it
seems to me not inappropriate also to take into account differences
of doctrine and life, if we wish to understand the origin of the new
order in Corinth which was so painful to Rome. But in order to do
this, it is necessary to pay attention also to the church history of
Corinth during the period before and after Clement. In the capital
city of Achaia, there had been diverse pattersofChristianity..from
the very beginning. Alongside the personal disciples of Paul, who
endeavored to preserve with fidelity the characteristic features of the
proclamation of the Apostle to the Gentiles, stand the followers of
Apollos and two kinds of Jewish Christians: (1) those who identify
themselves with Cephas and, like their hero, hold fast to Jewish
practice
for themselves but do not demand the same from their un-
circumcised brethren; and (2) the “Christ” group, who had the same
requirements even for gentile Christians. Doubtless the latter group
disappeared from Corinth in the postapostolic age (see above, 86 f.).
But as far as the other parties are concerned, a change comparable
to that which we have suspected for the Asia of the postapostolic

8. And thereby also the reasons that could be inferred therefrom.

9. Harnack, Einfiihrung, p. 91.
10. [See 1 Clem. 42-44.] Lietzmann, History 1: 193 f.
99
 ORTHODOXY AND HERESY IN EARLIEST CHRISTIANITY

age (see above, 87 f.) probably took place in Corinth, conditioned by

similar circumstances.
We have all the more reason to assume this, since such a change
makes its appearance already in apostolic times. Already in 1 Corin-
thians, alongside the division which is identified by the names of
the leaders, [104] there appears also another division that coincides
only partly with the first and that bears within itself the seeds of
further development. From the very beginning, there existed in
Corinth conflict between the strong'and the weak, a conflict in which
“gnostic” ideas and attitudes play a role.” The strong proudly believe
that since they possess gnosis and are pneumatics, “everything” is
permissible, including the eating of food sacrificed to idols (1 Cor. 8.
1; 10. 23f.) and the unhesitating satisfaction of sexual desires
(1 Cor. 6. 12 ff.). The Apocalypticist resisted the very same view of
Christian freedom in heretical circles in Pergamum (Rev. 2.14) and
Thyatira (2.20)—the heretics teach the slaves of the Son of Man “to
practice immorality and to enjoy food that has been sacrificed to
idols.” The same thing is characteristic of the Basilidians, according
to Irenaeus (AH 1.24.5 [=19.3]), and of the gnostics in general, ac-
cording to Justin (Dial. 35. 1-6).
With the observation that there were gnostics in Corinth whom
the Apostle time and again rebukes with the argument that although
everything may be permitted, not everything that is permitted is
beneficial, I would now like to establish a connection between this
and a doctrinal deviation that we also encounter in Corinth and for
which Paul assumed just as little responsibility. Certain people there
were maintaining that there is no resurrection of the dead(1 Cor.
15. 12, 16, 29, 32). This too, is a trait which the churchmen of post-
apostolic times never grow tired of branding as a heretical, and es-
pecially a gnostic degeneration: Polycarp (Phil. 7.1), Justin (Dial.
80.4; Resurr. 2) 12 2 Timothy 2.18, 2 Clement 9.1. In the opinion of
many, 2 Clement comes from the area of Rome-Corinth. The apoc-
ryphal correspondence between Paul and the Corinthians in the Acts

11. Cf. H. Lietzmann, An die Korinther I/II, 48, HbNT 9 (1931): 38, 46.
12. [The authenticity of the preserved fragments of Justin’s treatise “On The
Resurrection” (see K. Holl, Fragmente vornicdnischer Kirchenviiter aus den
Sacra Parallela [TU 20.2, 1899], pp. 36-49) has been widely disputed. For a
recent, favorable treatment of the question, see P. Prigent, Justin et Ancien
Testament (Paris: Gabalda, 1964), esp. pp. 50 ff.
100
 ROME AND CHRISTIANITY OUTSIDE OF ROME

of Paul portrays the Apostle to the Gentiles fighting two gnostic

teachers in Corinth, whose preaching included the statement that
there was no resurrection of the flesh. The detailed discussion of the
question in 1 Clement 23.1-27.7 proves to me that the same aberration
ae ust have come to the attention of the author of that document
shortcoming of the Corinthian Christians, )
ow Paul already had rejected the “strong,” with whose approach
(food sacrificed to idols, immorality, denial of the resurrection) the
Jewish Christians in question could sympathize even less than he,
[105] the subsequent development (once again, compare the analogous
situation in Asia; above 86f.) must have taken place in such a way
that the genuine successors of the original Paul and Cephas parties
gradually drew closer to each other, so that finally ‘they would merge
to produce “orthodoxy,” inn_opposition to the gnosticizing Christians in _
whom perhaps the spirit of thesyncretistic ‘Alexandrian .Apollos _ con-
tinued to flourish. It seems quite natural tome that the former group,
which could regard itself jas the embodiment of the apostolic past
of the Corinthian church, and which could lay claim to the reputations
of Paul and Peter, took charge from the very outset. However, it is
equally clear that the longer time went on, the less it could rely upon
the majority of the faithful. Already at the time of Paul, the “strong”
had become an extremely noteworthy factor. And it can hardly be
doubted that they won a much greater number of adherents from
the hellenistic world than the other groups, whose Jewish Christian
wing would increasingly be pushed into the background. Thus it
appears to be a natural consequence of the changed state of affairs
that eventually the minority rule of the “old” became intolerable to
the “young,” so that they, inspired and led by particularly determined
and ambitious persons (1 Clem. 47.6), brought about a fundamental
change and instituted a unified take-over of the church offices in
accord with their own point of view.
This development, however, touched a sensitive spot with reference
to the interests of Rome. Now the community in the metropolis
nearest to Rome—indeed, that important body of Christians with
which, in general, Rome had the closest communications—was about
to break away from Rome completely. But for Rome, this involved

13. ET by R. McL. Wilson in Hennecke-Schneemelcher 2:374 ff.; for the text,

see above 42 n. 99.
101
 ORTHODOXY AND HERESY IN EARLIEST CHRISTIANITY

the danger of total isolation, because the farther one travelled toward
the East, the less Christianity conformed to Rome’s approach. As_
an religion had
far as we can tell, during the first century the Christi..abs
eable orption. of
developed in the world capital_without.any. notic
c” material; for eveifnthe ascetic ideal which was so highly
“gnosti by the “weak” of Rome (Rom. 14.1 ff.) # belongs to this
regarded
the way of life onlyof a minority.
category, that was and remained
nts
The course of evewas gradually moving Corinth farther and farther
of the older generationof
from Rome, and when with the removal become
presbyters,*® the gulf [106] threatened to unbridgeable, Rome
anthat
action
risked making the attempt to turn back the wheel—
held all the more promise ofsuccess_since..there. was_a_powerful_
minority in Corinth upon which Rome. could rely because their_re-
ligious and ecclesiastical aims, and in several cases their personal
desires as well, were completely in line with the Roman efforts.
To some extent, then, 1 Clement describes the situation satisfac-
torily, as seen from Rome’s perspective. (Presbyters of venerable age,
rooted in the apostolic past of their church, actually have been
forced to retire and have been replaced by younger counterparts.
Ambition and other human weaknesses doubtless also played a role.
But this alone would not have caused Rome to intervene. Rather,
we must search after thd actual causes of the disturbances in Corinth,
for these also constitute‘the real grounds for Rome’s position.\And I
cannot find a more satisfactory answer to this question than the one
we attempted above, based on the history of Christian ity in Corinth.
If marked traits of gnosis are passed over in silence by 1 Clement,
one should take into consideration that we are in the extreme Chris-
tian West and in the first century. Another warning that was issued
abroad by Christian Rome around the same time, sameln Peter,
does not show any knowledge of a distinct type of false belief in
the sense of a later time—this is in marked contrast to 2 Pete But
that does not make it any easier for Rome to accept the change in

14. See H. Lietzmann, An die Rémer*, HbNT 8 (1933), pp. 114 ff.
15. According to 1 Clem. 44.6 only “some” elders had been removed. Ap-
parently, then, the flow [106] of events already had reached the point where
representatives of the new line were being inducted into office. These, of course,
would not be affected by the reorganization, and probably should be regarded
as the leaders of the “young.”
102
 ROME AND CHRISTIANITY OUTSIDE OF ROME
Corinth. Rome _feels_that_Corinth
now. will. orient itself officially
toward the East, and inso doing will dissociate itself from the West.
The attempt to use the opposition between orthodoxy and heresy
as a means of understanding 1 Clement and its background finds
support from the earliest users of this document of whom we are
aware. Polycarp, who is thoroughly familiar with 1 Clement,® is an
anti-heretically oriented church leader whose life finds its main ful-
fillment in the struggle against the heretics. The same can be said
about Dionysius of Corinth who refers to 1 Clement in tones of highest
respect (in Eusebius EH 4.23.11). [107] And his contemporary, Hege-
sippus, a churchman and foe of gnosis like the two already men-
tioned, after some remarks about 1 Clement declares happily on the
basis of personal impressions in Corinth and in Rome: “The church
of the Corinthians continued in the true doctrine up to the time
when Primus was bishop of Corinth.!7 When I traveled by ship to
Rome I stayed with them, and had conversations with them for
several days during which we rejoiced together over the true doc-
trine” (in Eusebius EH 4.22.1f.). Here 1 Clement is interpreted
as a call to orthodoxy with which the Corinthians complied for a
long time.
Finally, we have Irenaeus (AH 3.3.3 [=3.3.2]), who first reports
that Clement had seen the apostles and heard their preaching with
his own ears. Irenaeus continues:
When during his [Clement’s] time of office a not insignificant discord
arose among the brethren in Corinth, the church in Rome sent a very
lengthy letter to the Corinthians urgently admonishing them to be at
peace with each other, to renew their faith, and to proclaim the tradi-
tion which they recently received from the apostles: that there is one
almighty God, maker of heaven and earth, creator of man, the one who
brought about the deluge and called Abraham; the one who brought
the people out of the land of Egypt; the one who spoke with Moses,
who ordained the law, and who sent the prophets; and who has pre-
pared fire for the devil and his angels. Those who so desire can learn
from this writing [i.e. 1 Clement] that this is the God proclaimed by
16. Cf. Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers? 1 (S. Clement of Rome).1 (1890): 149-52.
17. This refers to the time at which Hegesippus writes. Concerning subsequent
developments he can say nothing. Thus “abiding in the true doctrine” stands in
contrast to the unpleasant condition of earlier circumstances, in which 1 Clement
successfully intervened.
103
 ORTHODOXY AND HERESY IN EARLIEST CHRISTIANITY

the churches as the father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and thus can gain
insight into the apostolic tradition of the church, for the letter is older
than those present false teachers who deceitfully claim that there is
another God superior to the Demiurge and creator of all things.

Thus the situation with respect to the schism in Corinth has been
corrected through a “renewal of the faith” and reference to the tra-
dition of apostolic teaching of which Rome claims to be the guardian.
Irenaeus sees the anti-heretical thrust of 1 Clement especially in the
frequent use of the Old Testament and in the praise of the almighty
creator God. [108]
If we take to heart the hint which is given here and which comes
from a man who had good Roman connections, then it seems to
me that we can understand the essential content of 1 Clement much
better than before, because we can see it in its proper context. In
its positive exposition of the common faith of the church, markedly
moralistic in approach and based on the Old Testament and the
sayings of the Lord, 1 Clement offers the best refutation of any
gnostic-tainted Christianity—soberly “objective _and free of tthe temp-
tation to probe into the “depths of the godhead.” In any event,
Rome’s intervention had a decisive effect. Rome succeeded in im-
posing its will on Corinth. How completely Rome cast its spell over
Achaia is shown by the letter of bishop Dionysius of
oftal
the capi
Corinth to the Roman Bishop Soter (175-182), in which Dionysius
mentions 1 Clement as well as a letter which was sent by Soter to
the Corinthians, as follows: “Today we celebrated a holy Lord’s day
in which we read your [ie. Soter’s] letter, which we shall always
read for our admonition just as we read the earlier one which came
to us through Clement” (EH 4.23.11). We have no reason to question
that this advantageous turn of events in favor of Rome was brought
about by that action of the Roman church which is connected with
the name of Clement. Not only is Corinth, in the time of Dionysius,
conscious of this: Clement also lives on in the grateful memory of the
Romans as the one who knows how to conduct successful correspon-
dence with the churches abroad (Hermas 8 [= Vis.2.4].3). For them
he is to such a great extent the churchman who is also respected
abroad that we meet the still markedly Roman figure of Clement
also in the Orient where “the church” later receives her orders. The
Apostolic Constitutions, which were produced in the East in the fourth
104
 ROME AND CHRISTIANITY OUTSIDE OF ROME

century, based on older writings, claim to be composed by “Clement,

bishop and citizen of the Romans.” 18 Probably this esteem was ul-
timately based in what Clement actually achieved for his church.
We can also explain the old story about Peter and Clement, known
already to Origen,!® [109] in the light of Rome’s endeavor also to send
eastward that leader who had been victorious in the conquest of
Corinth.°° At any rate, his image was powerful enough that anony-
mous literary productions became attached to it. The so-called Second
Letter of Clement is already considered to be a product of Clement
by the first Christian who mentions it (Eusebius EH 3.38.4).
Just as one should not underestimate the success of Rome which
at that time established toward the dangerous Orient a bulwark that
has never been taken away, neither should one suppose it to have
been greater than it really was. If we have already refused to permit
our conclusions about Smyrna to be applied directly to Asia, or those
concerning Hierapolis to Phrygia (above, 70 f. and 72), we must know
resist the temptation to consider Corinth to be representative of
Achaia. On the contrary, we need to recognize that apart from its
capital city of Corinth, Christian Greece remained hostile toward
Rome. The very proximity of Macedonia (see above, 72-75) should
make this suggestion seem all the more reasonable. Dionysius of
Corinth tries to gain a foothold in the churches of Lacedaemonia and
Athens by means of letters whose subject matter is instruction in
the orthodox doctrine or encouragement to faith and gospel-centered
conduct (EH 4.23.2-3)—and one can imagine what these conceptions
mean in the mouth of the devoted servant of Rome. But the results
can not have been particularly significant. For although very soon
afterward, as a result of the paschal controversies, synods and as-
semblies of bishops convened in Pontus and Gaul, which agreed with
the assembly of bishops which met for the same reason in Rome

18. On Clement as a writer and author of church orders, see Harnack, Geschichte
1.2, 942 f., and Hennecke in Hennecke?, pp. 554 f. and p. 143. [See also Lightfoot,
Apostolic Fathers? 1 (S. Clement of Rome). 1, chap, 2 on Apostolic Constitutions,
see below 244 n. 7.]
19. Commentary on Genesis = Philocalia 23 [at the end; J. A. Robinson expresses
doubt that this material from the ps. Clementine tradition actually was quoted by
Origen—see p. 1 of his ed. of the Philocalia (Cambridge University Press, 1893) ];
Commentary on Matthew, series 77 (to 26.6-13); cf. Hammack, Geschichte 1.1,
219-221.
20. On Rome’s desire to gain influence in the East, see below, 106-109.
105
 ORTHODOXY AND HERESY IN EARLIEST CHRISTIANITY

(EH 5.23.3; see above, 75), we hear of nothing similar for Achaia.
Not that the local bishop, Bacchyllus, had not taken great pains to
bring about a common declaration in favor of Rome; but he was
not successful. At least this is what I must conclude is meant when
Eusebius, after enumerating the provinces which supported Rome,
goes on to say that there is also a personal letter from Bacchyllus,
bishop of Corinth, concerning this matter (EH 5.23.4). Eusebius,
who like his native land Palestine is favorable to Rome, certainly did
not eliminate materials from the tradition to the detriment of that
church. [110]
Furthermore, we know that Achaia, in contrast to Rome, did not
support Demetrius in his action against Origen. Jerome states this
explicitly (see above, 55). Origen had been in Greece shortly before
this (EH 6.23.4), but he did not visit the capital, which was under
Roman influence; instead, he went to Athens (Jerome Illustrious Men
54) where he received a more favorable reception than earlier in
Rome (see above, 55). Although Jerome makes no other claim ex-
cept that Origen used this opportunity to fight against many heresies,
Eusebius knows only of “urgent ecclesiastical affairs” that brought him
there. And that can be taken in quite another sense than pro-Roman
or anti-heretical.

éThe fact that in Greece Rome found its influence limited to Corinth
does not at all mean that it had not made any efforts to gain more
new territory for itself and for its interpretation of Christianity. \To
be sure, around the middle of the second century many serious
difficulties arose for Rome in its own house. It is enough to refer
to the names of Marcion and Valentinus to indicate what it was that
soon restricted considerably Rome’s outward expansion, limited its
powers, and kept Rome within rather definite bounds. Nevertheless,
behind Dionysius of Corinth with his efforts for Greece, Crete and
certain northern areas of Asia Minor, stands ecclesiastical Rome. Gen-
erally speaking, whenever we see fighters of heresy at work in the
time between Clement and Dionysius of Corinth, their connections
with Rome are quite clear and quite close. Papias is perhaps the only
one concerning whom we have no direct evidence from the sources
that he had personal contact with the world capital. In the highly
fragmentary tradition about him and his life, nothing is said about
106
 ROME AND CHRISTIANITY OUTSIDE OF ROME

him ever having left his Phrygian homeland.2! Of course, it would

be hard to imagine that the energetic collector of old traditions
who has consciously evaluated book wisdom as less valuable than
living communication with the bearers of tradition (in Eusebius,
EH 3.39.4) would have been permanently fettered to one spot.
And even if he had not personally been in Rome, he had a clear
connection with Rome in another way. His friend Polycarp (Ire-
naeus AH 5.33.4) stood near enough to the world capital; and both
churchmen held in high regard 1 Peter, that proclamation with which
[111] Rome had made inroads into the major part of Asia Minor.?2
Furthermore, we find among the traditions concerning the gospels
collected by Papias some that are clearly of Roman origin. Although
the name of Rome does not occur in the report of Eusebius about
what Papias relates concerning the “elder’s” account of the origin of
Mark’s gospel (EH 3.39.15), it does appear quite soon in this con-
text in Irenaeus (AH 3.1.1 [=3.1.2]), a theologian dependent upon
Papias, and even more unmistakably in Clement of Alexandria (in
his lost “Outlines”, see EH 6.14.6 f.). Elsewhere, Eusebius makes it
clear that in his judgement Clement of Alexandria is only repeating
the opinion of Papias (EH 2.15, esp. 2). In accord with this is the
fact that the old gospel prologues also claim that Mark, the interpreter
of Peter, wrote his gospel in Italy.28 Not only is the presence of
Mark (Col. 4:10; Philem, 24; cf. 2 Tim. 4:11), like that of Peter,?*
already attested in Rome during the apostolic age, but both person-
alities appear to be so closely associated in Rome already in the first
century that I can hardly doubt that it was here that the origin of
Mark’s gospel was first attributed to the influence of Peter, and that
the “elder” derived from this source what he passed on to Papias.
Hegesippus, who dedicated his life to the fight against heresy,
travelled by way of Corinth to Rome in order to take up residence
there for an extended period of time (EH 4.22.1-3; see above, 103).
Justin spent the major portion of his Christian life in Rome, whence
he attacked the heretics, both at home and abroad, orally and in

21. Cf. Zahn, Forschungen 6: 109. ;

22. Papias’ use of the document is described in EH 3.39.17; for Polycarp’s use,
see his letter to the Philippians, as Eusebius also noted in EH 4.14.9.
23. Harnack, Evangelien-Prologe, pp. 5f. [= 324 f.]. ‘
24, H. Lietzmann, Petrus und Paulus in Rom: Liturgische und archdologis che
Studien? (Berlin/Leipzig, 1927).
107
 ORTHODOXY AND HERESY IN EARLIEST CHRISTIANITY

writing. Rhodon of Asia Minor, who fought Marcion, Apelles, and

Tatian, had been a pupil of Tatian in Rome when the latter was
still considered orthodox (EH 5.13.1,8).2° Perhaps Miltiades also, the
enemy of the Valentinians and Montanists, whom the so-called Little
Labyrinth lists between Justin and Tatian (EH 5.28.4), [112] and
Tertullian places after Justin and before Irenaeus (Against the Valen-
tians 5),2° belonged to the same circle.
(As we see here the lines running from Rome to the East and
from the main representatives of orthodoxy back again to Rome, the
case of Corinth becomes all the more instructive in showing that the
Roman church took a special interest in gaining influence over com-
munities located in the great metropolitan centers.\In Corinth, Rome
was able to do this in an extensive and conclusive way as early as
the year 100; in Alexandria, this only happened in a more limited
manner more than one hundred years later (see above, 55 f., 60), which
is highly significant in relation to the situation in Christian Egypt at
an earlier period. Rome did not wait for such a long time voluntarily
and gladly. In another metropolis of the ancient world she ap-
parently intervened much sooner, in spite of the fact that heresy had
the upper hand there. Nevertheless, the situation in Antioch (see
above, 63-67) was different and more favorable, insofar as here there
was an orthodox minority with which cooperation seemed to be pos-
sible. In the capital of Syria the attempt to refute and to defeat the
heretics becomes apparent to us with Ignatius. But at once, it seems
to me, we also sense the desire of Rome to strengthen the forces
of orthodoxy and ecclesiastical Christianity. A particularly fortunate
circumstance shows it is also at work here, about twenty years after
the Corinthian campaign. We can hardly value highly enough the
fact that in addition to his letters to the Asians, we also possess
from the pen of the Antiochene martyr-bishop a letter to the church
of Rome from which a great deal can be learned for our purposes.
It gives us some insight into the methods used by Rome to open
Antioch to Rome’s influence.
This is why the writings of Ignatius are of such extreme importance

25. I will refrain from attempting to infer from the names of particular heresy
fighters such as Agrippa Castor, Modestus, or Musanus, that they had Roman
connections.
26. O. Bardenhewer, Geschichte? 1: 284.
108
 ROME AND CHRISTIANITY OUTSIDE OF ROME

to us, because the ecclesiastical history of a later time leaves us

almost completely in the dark with regard to the early period at
Antioch. What, strictly speaking, has been included in the work of
Eusebius from the life of the Antiochian church up to the time of
Theophilus, who held office toward the end of the second century?
We must admit that there is practically nothing. And the reserve
which borders on silence on the part of the ecclesiastical historian
[113] in this case is perhaps even more shocking than it was with re-
gard to Mesopotamia (see above, 8 f.) and Egypt (see above, 45 f.).
One should think that when the bishop of Caesarea undertook to
write a church history he would have had the greatest interest in the
past of the church of Antioch, which was founded in earliest apostolic
times and situated in the nearby metropolis. In fact his interest does
appear in the form of his attempt to provide a list of bishops also
for this church, as had been done for Rome, Alexandria and Jeru-
salem. Unfortunately, however, his interest in Antioch’s earliest his-
tory is practically exhausted in this sort of attempt, as far as we can
tell; and if his interest was not exhausted, the material which he
possessed or found worthy of relating was.
We have already discussed what an examination of the bishop lists
reveals—little enough and all quite uncertain (see above, 63f.). All
we need to add here is that the mention of bishop Ignatius leads
to an account about him, his fate and his letters, with quotations from
the latter (EH 3.36). Nevertheless that yields almost nothing about
Antioch itself, and nothing at all that we could not also gather from
the Ignatian writings, which evidently are Eusebius’ only source in
spite of the fact that he calls their author “still highly esteemed by
a great many” (EH 3.36.2). If we take the added assertion that
Ignatius was second in the succession from Peter to hold the bishop's
chair (see below, 115 f.) for what it really is—an untrustworthy fea-
- ture in the growth of ecclesiastical tradition—then we have dealt with
everything that Eusebius has to report about that period of the
earliest church history of Antioch which he examines with the greatest
detail. Apart from this, we find that Acts 11.20-30 is utilized (EH
9.3.3), a passage that is also echoed a couple of other times; we
hear that Luke came from Antioch (EH 3.4.6); 27 and we can read
27, The ancient prologues to the gospels also know this; see Harnack, Evangelien-
Prologe, pp. 5f. [= 324f.].
109
 ORTHODOXY AND HERESY IN EARLIEST CHRISTIANITY

a small section from Justin’s longer Apology (26.4) that refers to

Menander as a successful heretic in Antioch (EH 3.26.3). Then when —
we hear that Saturninus had been an Antiochean (EH 4.7.3), we have
compiled everything that relates to the time before Theophilus—that
is, the first 150 years of Christianity there.
In what other way is it possible to explain this sort of reporting,
except to suppose that the recollections concerning the beginning
[114] have been forced through a narrow sieve which held back the
main item? One need not speak directly of ecclesiastical censorship,
for even before censorship became unilaterally effective the decay
of tradition already had set in and had progressed rapidly. In the
conflict between the two hostile parties, orthodoxy and heresy, the
witnesses to the earliest history often were ground down and have
disappeared. Each movement tried to blot from public memory that
which was unfavorable to itself, to check its further distribution and
propagation; this tendency became a most successful ally to those
circumstances which in themselves already threatened the survival
of a literature that was issued in such very small quantities and in
such a perishable form. We know something of Ignatius because he
wrote his letters in Asia and for (Rome and) Asia, where they were
soon taken over by the faithful hands of Polycarp who supervised
their reproduction and circulation (Polycarp Phil. 13.2). These were
extraordinarily favorable circumstances. If Ignatius had fought the
heretics in Antioch itself by means of some sort of polemical treatise,
I am convinced that this would have perished just as surely as did
so many other documents of antiquity which were issued in the
struggle with heresy.
The fortunate circumstances mentioned above have rescued this
informant for us, and thus a solitary light flashes forth in the darkness
and illuminates a limited area. Within this area we are seeking to
obtain information about those things that we can still more or less
clearly recognize concerning the methods used by Rome to draw
other churches into its sphere of influence. What we are still in a
position to discover concerning the attitude of Rome toward Antioch
is by no means limited to this particular case, but has a general
significance. We would do well, therefore, to incorporate this piece
of information from the primitive Christian history of Antioch into a
larger context (see below, 113 f.).
110
 6
Rome’s Persuasive and
Polemical Tactics

In her struggle with the heretics, a struggle which was also a contest
for the extension of her own influence, Rome employed various tac-
tics which can even better illuminate for us the whole nature of this
controversy and Rome’s significance in it. But the importance of the
controversy must be assessed correctly, and again a great deal hinges
upon our acquiring a true-to-life picture from indications in the
sources, even if some degree of imagination should be necessary in
order that this picture be brought into focus. Concerning Rome’s
achievement with respect to Corinth at the time of Clement, one
could scarcely accord a higher estimate to it than has been given
above. Nevertheless, the words of Dionysius of Corinth in his letter
to Soter (above, 104) would in my opinion be incorrectly interpreted
if one were to deduce from them that Rome had attained and had
permanently insured its goal through the repeated public reading of
1 Clement in the meetings of the Corinthian community. That por-
tentous document hardly crushed and converted the members of a
type of Christianity in which no serious attention was paid even to
Pauline utterances. The “young Turks” of Corinth and their leaders
would more likely feel irritated than put to shame by this act of
foreign intervention. The undoubted Roman success was surely
achieved by the employment of tactics which 1 Clement rather more
conceals from us than reveals. Regrettably we also do not know what
made the influence of Titus in his time so effective that the com-
munity, once almost lost, found its way back to Paul. We can no
111
 ORTHODOXY AND HERESY IN EARLIEST CHRISTIANITY

longer say with certainty who played the role of Titus at the time
of Clement; most probably the three bearers of the letter did—
Claudius Ephebus, Valerius Biton, and Fortunatus (1 Clem. 65.1).
I should be inclined to suppose that they [116] presented the basic
ideas of the Roman position to the Corinthians in a much more
comprehensible and effective form than did the long-winded letter.
Relying upon the authority of those who had sent them, and sup-
ported by the minority at Corinth, they may also have been successful
in forcing upon the unreliable, plural presbyterate an energetic
bishop from the circle of elders. For Hegesippus, in any event, it is
a foregone conclusion that one bishop has long stood at the head of
the Corinthian church and has made its orthodoxy his business.
It is clearer that Rome appealed to the apostles for justification
of her action, and did this with all the more reason if our view has
commended itself that the deposed presbyters in Corinth were the
continuators of the apostolic line in that community. Precisely in
those chapters which most clearly touch upon the controversy does
the discussion turn repeatedly to the apostles (42.1-2) or to our
apostles (44.1), as those who have been instructed by Christ and
through him establish the only possible contact with God. As early
as the fifth chapter, the worthy apostles Peter and Paul are presented
as examples—victims of envy, strife, and jealousy (5.2-7), as now most
recently are the elders of Corinth. Peter and Paul are the only apostles
whom the West has at its disposal. Both had suffered as martyrs in
Rome, and the Roman church was conscious of this distinction from
the outset and also knew from the beginning how to invest this
asset to advantage. When Ignatius, who in all his letters to the
churches again and again refers to “the apostles,” refers only to “Peter
and Paul” as apostles in the letter to Rome (4.3), it is because this
association is of Roman origin. An Antiochian would have been the
very last to gain the impression from the history of his own church
that precisely these two apostles belong in close connection.
Likewise, Dionysius of Corinth is not looking back to the past of
his own church but rather over to Rome when he writes: “By such
a forceful admonition, you [Romans] now have united the communities
of Romans and Corinthians planted by Peter and Paul. For both
planted also in our city of Corinth and instructed us in like manner,
and in like manner also taught together in Italy and suffered martyrdom
112
 ROME’S PERSUASIVE AND POLEMICAL TACTICS

[117] at the same time” (EH 2.25.8). For even if Peter personally had
been in Corinth,1 a supposition which admittedly I consider to be
almost impossible, certainly Dionysius 120 years later does not have
at his disposal a tradition to this effect that is in any way defensible.
I am skeptical not only because the details that he adduces are in-
correct, insofar as the two apostles cannot possibly have appeared
together in Corinth, thence to continue their work in close association
at Rome. But I am even more dubious for another reason. Dionysius
does not learn from history the only thing that history could teach him,
namely, that Paul and Peter visited Corinth and Rome; rather he has
Peter and Paul (in that order) sowing the undivided planting which
consists of the Romans and then only secondarily of the Corinthians.
He pays homage in submissive manner to the Romans and to their
“blessed bishop” Soter (makarios episkopos, EH 4.23.10); is happy
that the Romans, by their intervention at the time of Clement, have, as
he expresses it, bound Rome and Corinth inseparably together; and
suns himself in the splendor of the apostolic celebrities of Rome, who,
as he delights to show, belong also to Corinth.
The basis for the supposition that in Dionysius’ view Peter came
from Rome to Corinth is strengthened for me by a corresponding
observation concerning Antioch. We believe that the slogan “Peter
and Paul” in Ignatius’ letter to the Romans should be understood
as a Roman contribution (above, 112). This becomes even clearer
in view of the further development for which Rome sets the pace,
which is characterized by the harmonization of opposing interests.
Harnack has demonstrated,? with documentary evidence which need
not here be reproduced, how toward the end of the second century
“that momentous transformation of tradition took place in Rome, by
virtue of which Paul was eliminated from any connection with the
Roman episcopate and the office was attached to Peter” (703). The
- latter alone continues to play a role, first as founder of the Roman
episcopate, later as first bishop (704). There is already an intimation
here of what it was that prompted Rome to cut in half the apostolic
foundation of its own church. Until far into the second century there
1. This is the opinion of E. Schwartz, Charakterképfe aus der griechischen
Literatur, 2. Reihe? (Leipzig: Teubner, 1919), p. 137; E. Meyer, Ursprung und
Anfdnge des Christentums 3 (Stuttgart: Cotta, 1923 repr. 1962), p. 441.1; H.
Lietzmann, “Zwei Notizen zu Paulus” Sb Berlin 8 for 1930, 7 [= 155].
2. Harnack, Geschichte, 2 (Chronologie).1: 703-707.
113
 ORTHODOXY AND HERESY IN EARLIEST CHRISTIANITY

has developed here [118], almost undisturbed, a consolidation of

“orthodoxy,” and accordingly Hermas, who has no heresies in view,’
still presupposes a number of leaders at the head of the church.* But
eventually not even Rome was spared controversy with the heretics,
above all with Marcion and Valentinus, and this made even Rome
recognize the advantages of her own use of the monarchial episcopate,
an institution which in Rome is first embodied in Soter (166-174), ac-
cording to a historical view of the matter.® But if an apostolic founder
of the monarchical episcopate was still required, an exigency which
the struggle with heresy did indeed produce, then a decision had to
be made, which, as we have seen, did in fact take place a bit later.
If one asks why the decision went in favor of Peter, I find no answer
in Matthew 16.17-19. But I also do not believe that any important
role in the decision was played by the recollection that Paul actually
had been in Rome only as a prisoner and therefore can hardly have
held the chief office. The real reasons are not forthcoming from history,
but rather must be grounded in the period of time and in the momen-
tum which saw the introduction of the monarchical episcopate in Rome,
and thus made the one apostle dispensable—which is to say in the con-
troversy with heresy. Only Peter provides the close tie to Jesus which
alone guarantees the purity of church teaching.® And Paul, who had
indeed been eminently serviceable against the schismatics in Corinth
(1 Clement 47.1), was no longer of any help in the battle against
Marcion. [119]
At a slightly later date than in Rome, Peter also emerges in An-
tioch as the first of the monarchical bishops. Here too it was certainly
not historical memory that elevated him to the cathedra. Our oldest
tradition, Galatians 2.11 ff., knows of Peter in Antioch only in a situa-

3. See Kirsch, Kirche, p. 218.

4. Cf., e.g., Knopf, Zeitalter, pp. 182-86.
5. Cf. Schwartz, in his GCS edition of EH, vol. 3: p. CCXXV.
6. This point is acknowledged by the Paul who in the Acts of Paul (an ecclesias-
tical and anti-gnostic work coming from the time of Dionysius of Corinth) writes
to the Corinthians: “For I delivered to you in the beginning what I received
from the holy apostles who were before me, who at all times were together
with the Lord Jesus Christ” (“3 Corinthians” 3.4; ET by R. McL. Wilson in
Hennecke-Schneemelcher 2: 375; see above, 42 n. 99). In the Epistola Apos-
tolorum 31-33, a work coming perhaps from the same time and having a similiar
purpose, the twelve initiate Paul into the teachings which they have received
from the Lord (ET by R. E. Taylor in Hennecke-Schneemelcher 1: 213 f.; text
ed. by C. Schmidt in TU 43, pp. 96-102).
114
 ROME’S PERSUASIVE AND POLEMICAL TACTICS

tion that would hardly have qualified him to become leader of the
community; thus one would have to claim that Peter’s position as
leader was confined to the period before the clash with Paul. This
opinion is, in fact, to be found in John Malalas (ca. 540), and there
with reference to “the most learned Chronicles of Clement and Ta-
tian.” 7 But precisely the reference to Clement, who can be none
other than Clement of: Alexandria,’ deprives the Byzantine author’s
notice of even that meager weight it might claim in view of both its
contents and the trustworthiness of Malalas, It is to be remembered
that in the opinion of Clement, the Cephas who had the famous
confrontation with Paul was someone other than the apostle Peter
(Outlines 5, in EH 1.12.2). The book of Acts knows nothing at all
of Peter in Antioch and in fact really excludes such a possibility.
That he did not found the Christian community there is clear from
Acts 11.19 ff. Nor is he sent, in contrast to the case of Samaria (8.14),
from Jerusalem to Antioch for the purpose of inspecting the newly
founded community. This task falls rather to Barnabas (11.22). And
in view of 13.1, the “other place” to which Peter went after being
set free (12.17) really seems more likely to refer to any city but the
one city Antioch.
In the following period, it is true, one or another thread of evi-
dence leads from Antioch to Peter. Ignatius makes reference to an
apocryphal gospel story in which Peter and his companions figure
(Smyr, 3.2). A group of Christians in Greek Syria a bit later tried
through Peter to establish their line of contact with the life of Jesus
(above, 66) and thereby gave occasion for the Antiochian bishop
Serapion to speak about “Peter and the other apostles” (EH 6.12.3).
But certainly the Gospel of Peter did not provide grounds for, of all
people, the “ecclesiastical” circles of Antioch to choose Peter as their
first bishop. How long had this notion been present there? Julius
Africanus plainly does not yet know anything of it, but [120] desig-
nates Euodius as the first Antiochian bishop,® as does Eusebius in
dependence upon him (EH 3.22). In another place, to be sure,

7. Hoi sophotatoi Klémés kai Tatianos hoi chronographoi, ed. L. Dindorf, Chro-
nographie 10 (Bonn, 1831): 242, The passage is also cited in Stahlin’s GCS edition
of Clement of Alexandria, vol. 3: pp. 229f. and p. LXX.
8. See Zahn, Forschungen 3: 56-59.
9. Harnack, Geschichte, 2 (Chronologie).1: 119 ff., 123 ff, 208 ff.
115
 ORTHODOXY AND HERESY IN EARLIEST CHRISTIANITY

Eusebius says the illustrious Ignatius had been the second bishop in
the succession from Peter at Antioch (EH 3.36.2). We hardly have
the right forcibly to insert Euodius here, with the result that Peter
would now not be bishop himself but would be viewed only as having
established the episcopal office at Antioch. In both passages Ignatius
is numbered as “second” (deuteros), and both passages place only
one name before him. Each passage in itself seems to me unequivocal,
and a collector such as Eusebius gives us the very least reason for
forcibly harmonizing contradictory: statements. We have all the more
reason for keeping Euodius out of the picture in EH 3.36.2 insofar
as the succession Peter-Ignatius is found also in Origen, the spiritual
father of Eusebius. Origen calls Ignatius “the second bishop of An-
tioch after the blessed Peter.” 1° Chrysostom and Theodoret also fail
to include Euodius.!!
The chronological impossibility of this arrangement is obvious. No
proof at all is needed for the thesis that for Antioch that form of the
list which places Euodius at the beginning is just as certainly the
earlier as is that for Rome which commences with Linus.!? Not until
later was the attempt made to free Euodius’ place in favor of Peter.
Therefore it is not historical memory that is operative here, but a
specific ecclesiastical requirement. The only question is, who is the
“interested party” here, Rome or Antioch? Harnack supposes it to be
the latter. He speaks of the “Antiochian cathedra Petri’ and the
“Alexandrian cathedra Marci’ as “oriental imitative products,” and of
the “oriental imitations of the tendentious legend” which “followed
hard on the heels of the original fiction.” Although these construc-
tions frequently were to become irksome to Rome at a later time,
Rome nonetheless put up with them “because there was no way to
control these fictions.” 18
Here, it strikes me, Rome is credited with a reserve and moderation
in the use of effective tactics that has little relationship to its genius

10. Origen, Homily on Luke, 6.1: ton meta ton makarion Petron tés Antiocheias
deuteron episkopon. Cf. Harnack, Geschichte 2 (Chronologie).1: 209. [For a
different interpretation, see A. A. T. Ehrhardt, The Apostolic Succession in the
First Two Centuries of the Church (London: Lutterworth, 1953), p. 137 and n. 2.]
11. John Chrysostom Ecomium on Eustathius of Antioch (PG 50: 597 ff.);
Theodoret Epist. 151 (PG 83: 1440).
12. Cf. Harnack, Geschichte, 2 (Chronologie).1: 191 f., 703.
13. Harnack, Geschichte, 2 (Chronologie).1: 707.
116
 ROME’S PERSUASIVE AND POLEMICAL TACTICS

and circumstances. I can well imagine that Antioch and Alexandria

could take over the method, proven in the battle with heresy, [121]
of forming a succession of bishops which derives from the circle of
the twelve. But it is more difficult to understand why they should
latch on to Peter, and still more, if they could not get Peter, why they
should be content with a figure of the second rank [Mark] instead of
choosing someone else from that illustrious band of Jesus’ closest
friends. Actually, the party enthusiastic for Mark is not Alexandria but
Rome; traces of Rome’s influence on his behalf are discernible there
(see above, 60). Through Mark his son and interpreter the Roman
Peter (see above, 107) announces his claims, since he himself is
much too busy in Jerusalem, Antioch, Corinth, and Rome to be able
to go personally in quest of Alexandria also, which is off the beaten
track for him.14
And so, just as I was of the opinion that I should view “Peter and
Paul” in Ignatius as a sign of Roman influence (above, 112), I
should be inclined also to find Roman influence in the assertion of a
later period that Peter originally had been in the position of leadership
at Antioch, an assertion which flies completely in the face of An-
tiochian history. Origen, who has confronted us as the first clear
witness for Peter in his office as Antiochene bishop, also was ac-
quainted with the original document underlying the pseudo-Clem-
entines 1° and in his commentary on Genesis (see above, 105 n. 19)
introduced an excerpt from it with the words: “Clement the Roman,
a disciple of the apostle Peter . . . in Loadicea, says in the ‘Journeys’
(en tais Periodois), ... he says... .” If Syrian Laodicea played a
role in the ancient document, then in all probability so did neigh-
boring Antioch, which is closely tied to Laodicea in the fully de-
veloped form of the pseudo-Clementines. The Homilies, we remem-
14. The Roman, and not Alexandrian, origin of the legend of Mark as founder
of the church at Alexandria would stand out still more clearly if it were still
possible today to accept such a judgment as Harnack’s on the so-called Monarchian
prologues to the Latin gospels (ed. H. Lietzmann, Kleine Texte 1% [1908]: 12-16;
cf. 16.16f.: [Marcus] Alexandriae episcopus fuit): “But they originated in
Rome... . The time... . is the time of Victor and Zephyrinus (ca. 190-217)”
(Geschichte 2 [Chronologie].2: 204f.). But more recent research, with which
Harnack has also agreed (Evangelien-Prologe, p. 3) places the Monarchian pro-
logues in the fourth century and later than Eusebius, so that the latter becomes
the earliest known witness for that legend.
15. On this point see E, Schwartz, “Unzeitgemasse Beobachtungen zu den
Clementinen,” ZNW 31 (1932): 151-199, esp. 159 ff,
117
 ORTHODOXY AND HERESY IN EARLIEST CHRISTIANITY

ber, close with the notice that Peter set out from [122] Laodicea
for Antioch (20.23), where Simon Magus, after some initial and very
large successes, had suffered his decisive defeat (20.11-22).*° And
the Recognitions are in agreement, especially in the concluding nar-
rative (10.53-72), which is only spun out a bit further and concludes
with a description of the founding of the church at Antioch: a certain
Theophilus places his basilica at the disposal of the community for
use as a church, and in it is erected a cathedra for Peter (Rec.
10.71-72).17
How many of these details relative to Antioch already stood in the
original “Journeys” (Periodoi) eludes precise determination. But it
seems certain to me that the close connection with the quite ex-
plicitly Roman figure of Clement, whom the original Clementine
document already calls “Clement the Roman” (Klémés ho Romaios),
also stamps the Peter of the Periodoi as the Roman Peter. He, and
not the head of the primitive community at Jerusalem (Jerusalem
plays no role at all in this literature), claims the leading position in
the founding of the Antiochian church. Of Paul working along with
him, there is just as little said here as is being said in Rome at the
same time. And when Peter ascends the cathedra in the basilica-
turned-church belonging to “a certain Theophilus,” it is not at all
easy to suppress the following suspicion: here is a memory alluding
to the way in which ecclesiastical Antioch under her bishop Theo-
philus (d. after 181), well known as an opponent of Marcion and
other heretics (EH 4.24), marches up to the anti-heretical front led
by Rome, a front which then later gains even firmer unanimity and
stability in the shared conviction that it was established by Peter.
At Antioch, as at Rome and Alexandria, a first step in this direction
was the attempt to build up an unbroken succession of orthodox
bishops reaching back into the time of the church’s founding. That
also on this point Rome led the way is proven by the fact that the
symptomatic efforts toward this end begin at Antioch later than at
Rome and lead to less useful results (see above, 63f.). As the Lord
delayed his return and the necessity arose to preserve contact with
him, [123] Christians had at first tried-to avail themselves of simple
16. On Laodicea and Antioch in the ps.-Clementines see also Hom. 12.1, 2; 13.1;
14.12; Rec. 7.2, 24; 10.53 ff. and 58.
17. One branch of the tradition has Peter before his departure ordain another
bishop and several presbyters.
118
 ROME’S PERSUASIVE AND POLEMICAL TACTICS

means of assistance. They possessed the apostles, and later at least

the disciples of the apostles; and when these died out, certain “elders”
(presbyteroi) continued the succession, men who still personally re-
membered the apostles’ disciples and perhaps even remembered one
or another real apostle. Or there lay at hand in the community an
“ancient one” (archaios anér) 18 a man deriving from the very primi-
tive period—in whom was honored the connective link to the be-
ginning. It is obvious that the terms “apostle’s disciple,” “presbyter-
elder,” and “man of the primitive period” were not subject to sharp
definition nor were clearly distinguished from one another.!® But it
is just as clear that precisely for this reason they were useful only
for a transitional period. Irenaeus believed that he was linked to
Jesus himself with the help of only two intermediaries, Polycarp and
John. And Clement of Alexandria was certain that by such a route
he came quite close to the first successors of the apostles.” His teach-
‘ers, he says, received the “blessed teaching” personally from the
apostles Peter, James, John, and Paul (Strom. 1.[1.]11). But these
long drawn out lines, which after all could not be established without
a darkening of historical memory—how were they to withstand a
serious attack of the enemy? And were not the opponents likewise
able to come up with apostolic traditions? Did not Basilides derive
his wisdom directly from Glaukias, Peter's interpreter (Strom.
7.[17.]106.4), or even from Matthias,?4 [124] and Valentinus his

18. So Papias is called in Irenaeus AH 5.33.4. But Eusebius can rank Irenaeus
himself with the band of the archaioi (EH 4.22.9). And he even gives the same
value to Dionysius of Corinth (EH 3.4.10).
19. Occasionally even the apostles are separated into ranks: the Lord gives
gnosis to James, John, and Peter; these impart it to the remaining apostles, who
in turn give it to the seventy, to whom Barnabas belongs—Clement of Alexandria,
Outlines 7/13 (GCS ed. Stahlin, 3: 199) = EH 2.1.4. Or there occurs the combina-
tion of terms hoi archaioi presbyteroi—Clement of Alexandria On the Passover
(ed. Stihlin 3: 216.5) =EH 6.13.9. Or there appear classifications such as hoi
anekathen presbyteroi =the original presbyters—Clement of Alex., Outlines 6/8
in
(ed. Stahlin, 3: 197) =EH 6.14.5. Or an apostolic tradition is designated
Clement as paradosis ton pro autou phaskon = tradition of his predecessors— Outlines
ho makarios
7/14 (ed. Stahlin, 3: 200) = EH 2.9.2. Elsewhere Clement speaks of
presbyteroi
presbyteros—Outlines ?/22 (ed. Stahlin, 3: 201.26) = EH 6.14.4. Hoi
egraphon hoi
appear in Clement’s Prophetic Excerpts 11.1 and in 27.1, ouk
presbyteroi.
20. In Eusebius EH 6.13.8: peri heautou déloi hés eggista tés ton apostolon
genomenou diadoxés.
21. Strom. 7.[17.]108.1. Also Hippolytus, Ref. 7.20: Matthias [124] dispenses
Jesus.
secret teaching which he received through special instruction from
119
 ORTHODOXY AND HERESY IN EARLIEST CHRISTIANITY

from Theodas the disciple of Paul (Strom. 7.[17.]106.4)? Indeed

Ptolemy the Valentinian hopes that Flora will “be worthy of the
apostolic tradition which we also have received in unbroken suc-
cession, together with the authentication of all our theses by the
teaching of our Saviour.” 7?
In Rome, where the whole environment spurred the Christians
on toward the creation of stable forms for life in the community,
there was evidently a refusal at first to rely on a couple of more
or less doubtful personages for the most important position there was
and for its continuation—personages, moreover, whose brittle chain of
succession offered no security for the immediate future. Then, too,
the apostolic period in Rome had been much too short and had
been broken off too early for there to have grown up any significant
or numerically extensive group of apostles’ disciples and “very an-
cient men.” With Mark one did not get very far. And one can only
guess how extensively the ranks of this very circle were thinned out
by the Neronian and later the Domitian persecutions, and by what-
ever else may have occurred in between. The individuals of whose
activity we hear, a Linus or a Clement (Irenaeus AH 3.3.3), were
in any case already dead by the end of the first century. Irenaeus
made no belated attempt to bring a successor of Clement into per-
sonal acquaintance with the apostles, whereas in Asia Minor “John”
outlived Clement, to say nothing of Papias and Polycarp,”* by means
of whom one was brought up almost to the middle of the second
century and even beyond. Hegesippus, belonging to the company
of those who followed immediately upon the apostles,?+ reached even
farther, The prerequisites for securing the tradition in another manner
probably were already present in Rome well at the beginning of the
second century. That a few decades passed before these measures
began to come into effect is to be explained by the fact that the
22. Epistle to Flora 5.10 (= Epiphanius, Her. 33.3-7; ed. A. von Harnack, Kleine
Texte 92 [1912]: 9f.; [see also Volker, Quellen, pp. 87-93]): axioumené tés apos-
tolikés paradoseés hén ek diadochés kai hémeis pareiléphamen meta kai tou
kanonisai pantas tous logous té tou sdter hémon didaskalia. [ET in Grant, Gnosti-
cism Anthology, pp. 184-190.]
23, Irenaeus, in Eusebius EH 5.20.7 calls Polycarp “the apostolic presbyter” (ho
apostolikos presbyteros).
24, Eusebius EH 2.23.3: “Hegesippus, who belonged to the generation of the first
successors to the apostles” (ho Hégésippos epi tés protés ton apostolon genomenos
diadochés).
120
 ROME’S PERSUASIVE AND POLEMICAL TACTICS

danger of heresy, and thereby the necessity for such measures, was
not experienced in Rome until a comparatively late date (see above,
113 f.). [125] But precisely this fact shows us again that those lo-
calities which experienced the tension between heresy and orthodoxy
much earlier and more incisively than did Rome, but which came to
employ that particular defensive tactic only later and less thoroughly
than Rome, were not acting independently but rather were under
outside, i.e. Roman, influence.
This influence makes itself noticeable also in other ways. Ignatius
praises the Romans as those who have been teachers to other Chris-
tians—“you taught others” (allous edidaxate, Rom. 3.1). The past
tense of the verb prevents us from regarding these words as only a
polite turn of phrase, an interpretation which may well be applicable
to the present tense of Paul’s statement in his letter to the Romans
(15.14). Ignatius is evidently aware of attempts of the Roman com-
munity to exercise a teaching influence upon Christians in other
places. And we know already that his contemporary and coreligionist
Polycarp was thoroughly familiar with 1 Clement (above, 103) and
with 1 Peter (above, 107), those two Roman manifestos addressed
to other Christian churches (see above, 104 on Hermas). In like
manner, Ignatius also may have heard of these letters, although the
ascertainable echoes do not suffice to demonstrate this. Indeed one
need not exclude the possibility that Rome, spurred and encouraged
by its success at Corinth turned its attention to the Christians of
Antioch itself, in which case the latter also would belong to those
“others” whom Ignatius has in mind in the passage cited above.
This supposition would gain probability if we may venture to
interpret the formula which Ignatius applies to the Roman church,
prokathéméné tés agapés (Rom. salutation), in the light of later
statements. The words mean, “endowed with preeminence in love.” ?°
And this phrase calls to mind almost involuntarily the oft-mentioned
letter of Dionysius of Corinth to the Roman church and its bishop
Soter (EH 4.23.10). Full of the highest praise, the letter speaks of
the way in which the Romans from the beginning (ex archés) had
been accustomed to shower benefits in many ways upon all Christians
and to offer aid to many communities in whatever city (kata pasan
25. See Bauer, Ignatius, pp. 242 f.
121
 ORTHODOXY AND HERESY IN EARLIEST CHRISTIANITY

polin). Thus the Romans from the earliest origins occupied them-
selves with preserving their ancestral customs (archéthen patropar-
adoton ethos Rémaién Rémaioi phylattontes). Indeed the activity of
their present bishop, the makarios Soter, represents even an intensi-
fying of the old practice. This is certainly [126] to be seen as ex-
aggeration, the exaggerated style of a churchman subservient to Rome
in the extreme degree. But these accents gain their peculiar quality
and strength surely from the recollection that Corinth, already at
an earlier time, has been the recipient of such assistance from Rome.
Rome hardly supported the “young Turks” whom 1 Clement attacks.
It seems to me all the more probable that among the tactics used
to break their rebellion and their hegemony, even monetary gifts
were placed at the disposal of their opponents, and that such gifts
were not the least reason why their opponents emerged victorious.
In the grateful memory of ecclesiastical Corinth at a later time, Rome’s
assistance appears as a work of love for the benefit of the entire
Corinthian church.
Since we have already become acquainted with Roman influence
at Antioch, which was oriented similarly to Rome’s successful under-
taking at Corinth (see above, 114 ff.), I should like to interpret the
words quoted above from the preface of Ignatius’ letter to the Romans
as signifying that even Antioch—meaning, of course, ecclesiastical An-
tioch—had been privileged to enjoy material support from Rome.
And so as not to leave Alexandria out of the picture, alongside
Corinth and Antioch, on the matter of relations with Rome, let us
now recall the letter of Dionysius of Alexandria to the Roman bishop
Stephen I (254-57; EH 7.5.2). The letter even includes “the whole
of Syria” among the regions privileged to benefit from Roman sacri-
ficial unselfishness, and reveals that Rome’s shipments of aid are ac-
companied by letters. Likewise in the letter of Dionysius of Corinth
the donations for the saints and the instructions to the brethren
coming to Rome are mentioned alongside of one another (EH 4.23.10
end). In similar fashion is it likewise probable that the orthodoxy of
Ignatian Antioch is the orthodoxy not only of those who have been
privileged to experience the charity of Rome, but also of those “others”
whom Rome was accustomed to teach (see above, 121).
If we ask to what degree donations of money could be of im-
portance in the warfare of the spirits, our imagination would have no
122
 ROME’S PERSUASIVE AND POLEMICAL TACTICS

difficulty in suggesting all kinds of ways. In this context it is to the

point to adduce further statements of Ignatius revealing to us needs
and desires on the part of Christians which could be met by material
gifts. In the letter to Polycarp, he turns his attention with pacifying
intent to slaves who wish their freedom to be purchased at the
church’s expense (4.3). [127] If, as is certainly the case, many a slave
joined the church because he hoped for the fulfillment of such a wish
on the basis of the celebrated mutual solidarity of the “brethren,”
one can also imagine how within the Christian world that group which
had at its disposal the more ample resources would draw many slaves
to itself—and indeed, how many others from the poorer classes, who
from anxiety were often scarcely able to contemplate the coming day!
Certainly Dionysius, the outspoken enemy of heresy, cannot intend
that his words, “You relieve the poverty of the needy” (EH 4.23.10),
be understood to mean that Roman abundance indiscriminately
blessed all poverty-stricken souls, provided only they were baptized.
Moreover the Christian communities were at an early date al-
ready making the attempt, often with success, to buy fellow be-
lievers free from prison and from the claws of the judiciary.2° And
Ignatius’ letter to the Romans is filled with expressions of his worry
lest such an eventuality befall him from the side of the Romans.
The encomium of Eusebius upon the Emperor Constantine (3.58)
teaches us that Rome viewed it as an altogether legitimate practice
in religious controversy to tip the scales with golden weights: “In
his beneficient concern that as many as possible be won for the teach-
ing of the gospel, the emperor also made rich donations there [in
Phoenician Heliopolis] for the support of the poor, with the aim of
rousing them even in this way to the acceptance of saving truth.
He too could almost have said with the Apostle: ‘In every way,
whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is to be proclaimed’ [Phil.
1.18].”
He who has sufficient funds at his disposal is in a position to re-
cruit assistants who can devote themselves without distraction to the
tasks for which they are paid. And again it is Rome, so far as I
know, where a Christian official first appears on the scene with a
5.18.9 and also
26. Cf. the anti-Montanist Apollonius (ca. 197) in Eusebius EH
Didascalia 18 (ed. Connolly, 160; see below, 244 n. 7); Cyprian Ep. 62; Apos-
5;
4.9 [see also the story of Peregrinu s in Lucian’s treatise by
tolic Constitutions
that name 12-13; ET in Loeb edition of Lucian].
123
 ORTHODOXY AND HERESY IN EARLIEST CHRISTIANITY

fixed salary. The Little Labyrinth relates how the Monarchians in

Rome, when they were obliged to form their own community, in-
duced the Roman confessor Natalius to become their bishop for a
monthly stipend of 150 denarii (EH 5.28.10). Here the accent falls
upon the word “fixed,” for the principle that the laborer deserves his
wages was familiar to Christians from the beginning [cf. Matt.
10.10||Luke 10.7, 1 Tim. 5.18]. On this there was no substantial differ-
ence between orthodox and heretics. [128] Apollonius, the opponent of
the Montanists, reports already of Montanus himself that he offered
salaria to those who preached Christianity according to his interpre-
tation, and thus paid them for their activity (EH 5.18.2). Very per-
ceptible here is the annoyance of the churchman Apollonius that the
necessary funds flow in to the heresiarch in such ample supply. It
also follows from what he says immediately thereafter about the
heretic Themiso (EH 5.18.5) that he does not need to be en-
lightened as to the great importance that money possesses in the
conflict of religions as everywhere else.
Finally, if we want to know in what way the Roman church raised
the funds necessary for her purposes, even in this regard the sources
are not entirely silent. From Tertullian we hear that Marcion, on the
occasion of his joining the Roman Christian community, handed his
fortune over to the church (Against Marcion 4.4). It was a matter
of the very considerable sum of 200,000 sesterces (Prescription against
Heretics 30). The amount of the gift and the person of the donor
explain the fact that this case was entered into recorded history, but
it will not have been unique. It is much more likely that the Roman
church, for the well being of all, assessed her members according to
each individual’s resources and ability to give. And that among their
ranks were to be found well-to-do people in larger measure than
elsewhere is shown by the writings produced at Rome—1 Peter, 1
Clement, and Hermas2?—and by personalities such as the consul
Titus Flavius Clemens together with his wife Flavia Domitilla the
emperors niece, and Manius Acilius Glabrio the consul of the
year 91.78
If Rome is astute in the use of tactics, it knows also how to take
advantage of every kind of situation. Again I should like to point

27. Knopf, Zeitalter, pp. 74-83.

28. Achelis, Christentum 2: 258.
124
 ROME’S PERSUASIVE AND POLEMICAL TACTICS

to Dionysius, who as the occupant of the Roman outpost of Corinth

is at least as much an informant concerning Roman ecclesiastical
Christianity as a witness to the history of Christian Corinth. Among
the letters by which he seeks to be of influence on behalf of ortho-
doxy is to be found one “to the church of Amastris together with the
other churches throughout Pontus” (EH 4.23.6). The final words hama
tais kata Ponton belong of course to those expressions in Eusebius
which are to be accepted only with caution in that they are regularly
introduced at those places where the intention is to emphasize the
expanse of the church (see below, 190 f.). [129] Here the phrase, which
unites the entire province with the city to which the letter is sent,
is all the more suspect in that immediately before this, Dionysius
is said to have written “to the church of Gortyna together with the
other churches throughout Crete” (EH 4.23.5). But this can hardly
be accurate, since Eusebius himself knows and states that in the
Cretan area, Dionysius wrote not only to Gortyna but also to the Knos-
sians (EH 4.23.7), who therefore fall outside the circle of the “other
churches.” I am of the opinion, therefore, that in regard to Pontus
we can be assured only that Dionysius was writing to Amastris.
But at this very point no ground must be yielded to a recent twist
of interpretation which even outclasses Eusebius and impedes our
access to reality. Harnack characterizes the person and influence of
Dionysius as follows; “Dionysius then was of such high repute in the
churches that advice and edification were solicited of him from far
and wide. I know of no other such example from the whole of the
second century. . . . The area encompassed by the pastoral and
ecclesiastical influence of Dionysius reached from Pontus to Rome.” *°
In my opinion, these words do not give an accurate picture. In
Amastris it is by no means “the church” and its bishop Palmas who
request his advice; rather, he explains that he has written at the
instigation of two Christian brothers, Bacchylides and Elpistos. The
bishop Palmas remains in the background. It is mentioned that his
name occurred in the letter, but unfortunately, we do not know in
what context (EH 4.23.6). For the rest, the letter contains exhorta-
tions to chastity and allusions to heretical error. I should like then to
suppose a state of affairs in which personal contacts have resulted
from the sea traffic between Corinth and Amastris, contacts which
29. Harnack, Briefsammlung, p. 37. The italics are mine.
125
 ORTHODOXY AND HERESY IN EARLIEST CHRISTIANITY

Dionysius seeks to exploit in the interests of orthodoxy. Whether

and to what degree the newly founded relations extended into the
province, remains almost completely uncertain,
It was argued earlier (above, 75f.) that also in Crete Dionysius
was dealing not with “the churches” but at best with orthodox ele-
ments in a Christianity heavily permeated with heresy, That one
certainly cannot speak in superlatives of the success he achieved
there has been intimated [130] and will become even more evident
below. Although in the spirit of Eusebius, who praises “the inspired
diligence” of the bishop (EH 4.23.1), one can say with Harnack that
“advice and edification were solicited of him from far and wide,”
Dionysius himself allows us to surmise what really happened when —
he complains: “At the request of some brethren, I wrote letters. But
the apostles of the devil crammed them full of weeds, deleting one
thing and adding another” (EH 4.3.12). Dionysius, then, writes to
other areas when orthodox brethren request him to do so. But when
they arrive, his letters are exposed to severe hazards on the part of
other Christians, and are by no means treated in “the churches” with
the esteem that, under his leadership, was accorded in Corinth to
1 Clement and the letter of the Roman bishop Soter (EH 423.11).
Wherever Dionysius believes he has found points of contact and
can hope for an audience, he tries to canvass on behalf of Roman-
Corinthian orthodoxy. The results varied. At Amastris the under-
taking was evidently a success. In any case, twenty years kter we
see Palmas, whose name appears in Dionysius’ letter, as the senior
bishop of Pontus and on the side of Rome in the Easter controversy
(EH 5.23.3). The Roman-Corinthian influence had, accordingly, also
gained ground in Pontus outside of Amastris in the course of two
decades. Dionysius accomplished much less at Knossos on Crete. On
the subject of chastity, he had urged the local bishop Pinytus not te
force upon the brethren a burden too severe but rather to consider
the weakness of the great mass of people and had received an answer
that represents a polite refusal (EH 4237-8; see above, 75f.). To
be sure, Eusebius takes pains to detect in the answer from Knossos
something like admiration for the great bishop of Corinth. In truth,
however, there prevails in Knossos only astonishment at how easily
the head of the Corinthian community acquiesces in the imper-
fection of the multitude. Pinytus then expresses candidly to his fellow
126
 ROME’S PERSUASIVE AND POLEMICAL TACTICS

bishop the expectation that “on another occasion he might offer more
solid nourishment and feed the Christian flock with a letter of more
mature substance, so that they do not, by remaining continually at
the level of milkish teachings, imperceptibly grow old under in-
structions fit for children.” At heart, Eusebius is obviously much more
favorably disposed toward the answer than to the letter of Dionysius,
[131] and in viewing the exchange of letters breaks into praise, not of
the latter, but of Pinytus.
In his moderation Dionysius certainly did not feel himself to be in
opposition to Rome. Rome also was not in favor of forcing the issue
and demanding the impossible. It much more favored the gentler
manner, with sinners as with heretics. Official Rome was prepared
to make significant concessions just as much on the question of second
repentence *° as in the controversy over the baptism of heretics. And
so Dionysius, with his advice not to make life too difficult for sinners
within the Catholic church, was probably following a suggestion or
even a directive issuing from Rome. Rome had only recently dis-
covered that in the matter of the relentless demand for chastity one
could not successfully compete with a Marcion. And so the preference
was to stick by “the great multitude,” whom to have on one’s side
was in the long run a guarantee of success.
Rome’s astuteness displayed and proved itself in other respects
also. Rome knows how to call suitable leaders to its helm. Hermas
may be ever so effective in his activity as a prophet, but for leader-
ship of the community his brother Pius is better suited. And, without
filling a church office, Justin turns his rich erudition to good account
in the controversy with pagans, Jews, and heretics. Rome can wait,
and does not hurry the development along, but just as little does it
allow favorable opportunities to escape. Anicetus is a courteous op-
ponent of Polycarp on the matter of the celebration of Easter (EH
5,24.16-17), whereas on the same issue Victor is extremely violent
in his confrontation with Polycrates of Ephesus and those in agree-
ment with him (EH 5.24.7 and 9; see also above 97).

30. Knopf, Zeitalter, p. 433: “Hermas’ preaching of repentence made extraordi-

nary, even extreme concessions to the folk of the community. “Originally the
preaching of repentence was unconditional: to all shall all sins be forgiven.” The
brother of the “bishop” Pius hardly supported views on this point which would
not have been approved in high places. [According to the “Muratorian Canon,
“Hermas” was the brother of Pius.]
127
 ORTHODOXY AND HERESY IN EARLIEST CHRISTIANITY

Roman Christianity, so far as we know, was from the beginning

under the heaviest pressure from external enemies. The persecutions
under Nero and Domitian, which in recorded church history are
counted as the two earliest (EH 3.17 end), were exclusively or at
least predominantly Roman affairs. And Hebrews and 1 Clement,
as also 1 Peter, [132] show us that toward the end of the first century
the believers of the capital city could no longer, feel safe. Even
when the membership of their own community was not directly af-
fected, arrivals such as Paul or Ignatius, sent to Rome to pour out
their blood there as Christians, made repeatedly clear to them how
little they had to expect from the benevolence of the world outside.
Such experiences forced them to develop attributes of shrewdness,
energy, and communal unity. And since the integrity of Roman
Christianity’s faith seems to have been spared severe disturbances
up to a point well into the second century (see above, 113f.), there
grew up here the one church of dependable orthodoxy, whose sound
health repulsed, after a short and violent attack, even the Marcionite
contagion that had invaded.
Marcion presented the greatest danger to which Roman orthodoxy
was exposed. That, of course, does not mean that apart from him
the Christian faith at Rome in the generation from around 135 to
about 170 assumed an entirely uniform shape. Besides Marcion we
know also of personalities and movements that would have been able
in this period to give the development of religious life at Rome a turn
away from orthodoxy if the direction of orthodoxy had not been
already so firmly set. Although it is not entirely certain that Marcion’s
disciple Lucanus was active at Rome,*! Marcion’s precursor Cerdo
lived there under Hyginus (136-140), and according to the account
of Irenaeus (AH 3.4.3), was not on good terms with the majority
of Roman Christians. According to the same authority and passage,
Valentinus also appeared in Rome at that time, flourished under Pius
and continued until Anicetus, i.e. from about 136-160 in all. Tertullian,
who of course allows no opportunity for maligning any heretic to
escape him, reports of Valentinus that he seceded from the church
because he had suffered a defeat in the episcopal election. Out of
vengefulness he set himself henceforth to the task of battling against
the truth (Against Valentinus 4, [Prescription against Heretics 30]).
What measure of veracity there is in Tertullian’s account evades
. 81. Harnack, Marcion?, pp. 172 and 401°-403°%.
128
 ROME’S PERSUASIVE AND POLEMICAL TACTICS

precise determination.** If there should be something in it, it would

indicate that Valentinus’ assets of ability and eloquence, acknowl-
edged even by Tertullian (Against Valentinus 4), were not able to
make up for his lack of followers. [133] That does not exclude the pos-
sibility that the Valentinian movement sustained itself in Rome for
a longer period of time. The “Italian” branch of the school in par-
ticular can certainly claim association with this city, and even at the
end of the second century a presbyter named Florinus attracted un-
favorable attention through writings which show that “he had allowed
himself to become ensnared in the error of Valentinus.” 3%
The “many” Valentinians and Marcionites whom Polycarp won over
to the church in Rome under Anicetus (154-165) are no more sig-
nificant than the “many” disciples who at the same time and place,
and according to the same authority (Irenaeus, AH 3.3.4 and 1.25.6
[= 20.4] ) were won over by the Carpocratian Marcellina—the former
were no great gain, the latter no appreciable danger. Neither did any
danger for Rome emanate from Tatian. After Roman Christianity
had rid itself of the Marcionites (and Valentinians), there still re-
mained, to be sure, the possibility of differing styles of belief within
the church, but not of serious heresy. In his Dialogue, Justin dis-
tinguishes between the orthodox and the “godless and unrighteous
hairesiotai” (80.3-5), in which characterization one detects with little
difficulty the Marcionites. The orthodox, however, fall into two groups
for Justin: those who only in a general way share the “pure and holy
outlook (gnémé) of the Christians” (80.2) and others who are ortho-
gnomones kata panta, i.e. who possess in all particulars the right
gnomé (80.5). The latter share with Justin the belief in the closely
allied ideas of the millennium and the resurrection of the flesh. This
strikes me as characteristic of the situation in Rome as it begins to
take form and to become established in the second half of the second
century. Essentially unanimous in the faith and in the standards of
Christian living, tightly organized and methodically governed by the
monarchical bishop, the Roman church toward the close of the second
century feels inclined and able to extend further the boundaries of
her influence. In Asia, Syria, and Egypt we saw her aiming at con-
quests and replacing by a more resolute procedure the earlier, more
cautious attempts to work her will at Corinth.
32. Cf. E. Preuschen, RPTK3, 20 (1908): 396 f.
33. Irenaeus, Syriac fragment 28 in Harvey’s edition, vol, 2, p. 457.
129
WwW

7
The Confrontation Between
Orthodoxy and Heresy:
General Characteristics
and Operating Procedures
The essential object of our investigation and presentation in the pre-
ceding chapters has been the approximately one hundred years that
follow the conclusion of the apostolic age. In those chapters, the
arrangement of the material has, for the most part, followed geo-
graphical lines. There still remains the additional task of determining
what there is in the association between true and false belief and in
its manifestations that is not necessarily bound to one location, but
has a more general validity—even if, naturally enough, it appears
many times in our sources in connection with definite personalities
and places. When, for example, in the following passage Eusebius
describes the effectiveness of Theophilus of Antioch, as one church
leader among others,! one notices no particularly Syrian coloration
nor any marked peculiarity characterizing the bishop who is men-
tioned by name:

1. It appears as though Eusebius may have inserted the commonplace presenta-

tion of the consecrated activity of “the shepherds” into an already existing list
of the writings of Theophilus. If the whole context were formed in this way by
Eusebius, he would, indeed, not only regard the book against Marcion that stands
at the end of the list as evidence that Theophilus also belongs in the category
of these church leaders, but he would similarly regard the writing mentioned at
the beginning, against the false belief of Hermogenes. On Eusebius’ method of
working, see also below, chap. 8, esp. 154 n. 14.
130
 THE CONFRONTATION BETWEEN ORTHODOXY AND HERESY

Since the heretics, no less at that time, were like tares despoiling the
pure seed of apostolic teaching, the shepherds of the churches every-
where, as though frightening away wild beasts from Christ’s sheep,
sought to hold them back, so that at one time they would resort to
persuasion and exhortations to the brethren, at another they would
oppose them openly and, partly through oral discussions [135] and
refutations, partly through written efforts, expose their opinions as
false by means of the most solid demonstrations (EH. 4.24).

To a certain extent we perceive in this quotation the viewpoint

of a fourth-century churchman. For him the churches are folds in
which the shepherd guards and protects the sheep. The heretics
roam about outside like wolves, intent on gaining prey. But the care-
fully planned measures taken by the “shepherds” have made that very
difficult for the heretics. Nevertheless, according to everything we
have ascertained, the situation in the second century simply was not
that way. It was by no means the rule at that time that heretics were
located “outside.” It is, however, -completely .credible | that already at
that time the leaders of the orthodox were using the tactics men-
tioned by Eusebius, so as to safeguard their own people against con-
tagion. But we
w must quickly add that the party opposing the orthodox
worked in the same way and with corresponding goals. That the
exhortations and repeated warnings were directed against the false
belief of the opposing party is too self-evident to require special
examples. Already in the second century we hear of direct discussions
between the representatives of ecclesiastical Christianity and their
opponents, and can easily find the bridge to an even earlier period.?
The letter of Ignatius to the Philadelphians (chapters 5-8) allows
us to take a look at the clash of opinions within the company of
Christians at the beginning of the second century, when there is no
clearly defined community boundary between opposing circles, but
when all the baptized still remain, at least externally, bound together
as a unity. There is debate pro and con over the right and wrong
of this opinion and that. The opponents of Ignatius are preaching
“Judaism,” with reference to their use of scripture (6.1). Ignatius, who
sees in this an apostasy from the gospel, even if his opponents wish
to remain in the Christian community (7), declares to be impossible
every understanding of scripture that finds in the “charters” some-

2. Cf. W. Bauer, Der Wortgottesdienst der dltesten Christen (1930), pp. 61 f.

131
 ORTHODOXY AND HERESY IN EARLIEST CHRISTIANITY

thing other than that which, according to his view, stands in the
“gospel” (8.2)—a teaching that rests on such a basis is a delusion.
Apparently no agreement was reached on this issue; each party re-
tained its own point of view.
The religious discussion that brought about the split inRome_ be-
tween Marcion and orthodoxy was of a special sort. [136] | Atleast at
the outset, it was not thought of as a struggle for the souls of Roman
Christians fought from already well established positions, but as an
effort to ascertain what the true meaning and content of the Chris-
an religion reallyis, and to ‘that extent it was somewhat ‘comparable
tian
to the apostolic council (Acts 15). After the orthodox and the Mar-
cionites had separated from each other, to be sure, discussions aimed
at persuading others of the truth of one’s own faith also took place.
So we hear from the anti-Marcionite, Rhodon (see above, 108), that
the aged disciple of Marcion, Apelles, started up a discussion with
him, but that Apelles was convicted of many errors and crushingly
defeated. Presumably, Apelles considered himself to be the victor.
We do not feel called to act as arbitrator, but we simply have learned
to recognize here one of the ways employed by each combatant to
establish and disseminate his own position.
The Montanist movement also produced polemical discussions. In-
deed, on this topic we are in a position to gain ‘a colorful picture of
the struggle between different tendencies in Christianity—even though
this struggle is not consummated in actual debates—by the fortunate
circumstance that Eusebius has preserved extensive fragments from
the works of two anti-Montanists from the ninth decade of the second
century. The first is an anonymous writer (EH 5.16-17) and the
second, Apollonius of Asia Minor (EH 5.18). Of course, each heresy
is open to attack in special areas unique to itself, while it, in turn,
finds fault with a particular feature of the “church’—thus the Mon-
tanists differ from gnosis, and Marcion is not the same as the Jewish
Christians—with the result that there are, within certain limits, differ-
ences in the respective polemic and apologetic approaches. And
yet there are many aspects that do not resist the characterization of
being generally valid, especially those that concern the external course
of the controversies. But in dealing with this material, the pattern
3. EH 5.13.5-7. Concerning this discussion, see Harnack, Marcion?, pp. 180 ff. He
places it at the end of the reign of Marcus Aurelius.
132
 THE CONFRONTATION BETWEEN ORTHODOXY AND HERESY

exhibited in polemical literature must be taken into consideration in

order to distinguish correctly between reality and appearance.*
The anonymous author begins his writing with the explanation that
he had [137] first argued against the Montanists orally and refuted
them (EH 5.16.2), but in spite of requests directed to him, he de-
cided not to enter into literary combat with them. Then a visit to
Ancyra in Galatia recently induced him to alter his decision. There
he found the church completely deafened by the “new prophecy,”
which might more correctly be called false prophecy. He had first
repulsed his opponents in discussions that lasted several days and
went into every particular, and then he confirmed the church in the
truth and filled it with joy. Nevertheless, since he himself had not
been completely convinced of the permanence of his success,° he
had promised to send the presbyters,® at their request, a written
recapitulation of his expositions. The treatise that he composed for
this purpose elaborates upon the origin of the new movement in the
unmistakable style of an ecclesiastical polemic against heretics. Mon-
tanus, so we learn, in his boundless desire for preeminence,’ allows
the adversary to enter into him, whereupon he falls into a satanic
ecstasy and begins suddenly to utter peculiar things that are not
compatible with the tradition passed on in the church from the very
beginning (EH 5.16.7). Some people are repelled by him; others
are won over—and he delights the latter with his great promises and
fills them with pride, but occasionally he also reproves them in order
to show that he could also make demands (EH 5.16.8-9).
We have no reason to agree with the anonymous ecclesiastical
author when he claims that the moral demands laid down by Mon-
tanus were a pretence. Tertullian shows us how seriously this teaching
was taken by the Montanists. And when “the anonymous” claims
that the “new prophecy” led only a few Phrygians astray (EH 5.16.9),
we are inclined to believe him just as little—precisely on the basis

4, On what follows, see Zahn, Forschungen 5: 3-57 (concerning the chronolog-

1:
ical problem relating to Montanism); Harnack, Geschichte 2 (Chronologie),
363-371.
(pros
5. EH 5.16.4—he checks the influence of the opposition “for the moment”
to paron).
bishop in
6. There is no reference to a bishop (EH 5.16.5). Is there still no
the year 190, or is he on the side of the opposition ?
Ancyra around
(ho
7. Philoproteia; cf. 3 John 9 concerning Diotrephes, “who loves preeminence”
philopréteuon).
133
 ORTHODOXY AND HERESY IN EARLIEST CHRISTIANITY

of what he himself reports. On the contrary, one has the impression

that the “new prophecy” must have gained a strong hold in its native
land. When “the anonymous,” with unmistakable aim and purpose,
continues immediately with an account of how the faithful came
together “frequently” (pollakis) and “in many places” (pollaché) in
order to investigate the Montanist teaching, which they then [138]
branded as heresy and forbade its adherents to remain in the ecclesi-
astical community (EH 5.16.10), he is no longer speaking of Phrygia
or of Ancyra in Galatia, but of Asia, and he shows that even there,
where ecclesiastically oriented orthodoxy had sunk stronger and
deeper roots, the danger was not minor (see also below, 135).
Eusebius passes over the detailed refutation of the error, which
the first part of the treatise is supposed to have offered next, in order
to turn his attention to the second part. This second part, in the style
of presentations de mortibus persecutorum [on the death of perse-
cutors], discoursed de mortibus haeresiarcharum [on the death of
heretical leaders], and indeed, in a form that clearly betrays that the
particular details have been derived from the gossip of the “right-
minded,” and have no historical value of any kind. A widely dis-
seminated rumor reports that Montanus and his assistant, Maximilla,
driven by a deceiving spirit, had hanged themselves, each acting
independently and under different circumstances (EH 5.16.13). In
the same way, “a frequent report” (polus logos) asserted of Theodotus,
another originator of the false prophecy, that he had wanted to ascend
to heaven in reliance on the deceitful spirit and had thereby perished
in a wretched manner (EH 5.16.14). Just as in the former instance
“the anonymous” is reminded of the end of the traitor Judas (EH
5.16.13), so may we, with respect to Theodotus, think of the legend
of the death of Simon Magus. The author concludes the descriptions
of the demise of the heretics with the words: “At any rate, that is
how it is supposed to have happened. But not having seen it our-
selves, we do not claim to know anything for sure about it... .
Perhaps Montanus and Theodotus and the above mentioned woman
died in this way, but perhaps they did not” (EH 5.16.14°-15). This
section is important chiefly because it permits us to evaluate correctly
a considerable portion of the ever recurring polemical material, es-
pecially to the extent that this material relates to the person and life
of the men who stand in an exposed place within a religious move-
134
 THE CONFRONTATION BETWEEN ORTHODOXY AND HERESY

ment. Indeed, one can scarcely handle the maxim semper aliquid
haeret (“something always sticks” (when mud is being thrown about)]
more cynically than does this ecclesiastical protagonist, who really
does not himself believe the truth of the rumors that he repeats. As
we shall see, Apollonius, his comrade at arms, is in no way inferior
to him in the defamation of opponents.
First of all, however, let us examine further the report of Eusebius
about the work of “the anonymous,” which, as we now learn, [139]
also incorporates references to Montanist literature. Venerable bish-
ops and other approved men—the names of Zotikos from the village
of Cumana® and Julian of Apamea are dropped in passing—try to
“refute” the spirit of error in Maximilla, but are “prevented” by her
followers, among whom Themiso especially distinguishes himself.1°
The account of the incident is not wholly clear. An intellectual ex-
change with a woman who pours herself forth in an ecstatic frenzy
is, indeed, not really thinkable, and a “refutation” in that sense hardly
possible. It seems that the Montanists have prevented the represen-
tatives of orthodoxy from disturbing the sacred event at all with their
profane words, or perhaps they called a halt to an attempt from the
orthodox side to drive the evil spirit out of the prophetess (see below,
143). But be that as it may, the defeat of the churchman is un-
mistakable, and the scene that takes place in Phrygia (Apollonius
even tells us the name of the place—Pepuza; EH 5.18.13) shows
anew how little truth there is to the assertion that only a few Phryg-
ians were ensnared in the false illusion of Montanism (see above,
133-41,
After Eusebius has even given an example of how “the anonymous,”
still in the second book, unmasked the prophecies of Maximilla as
false (EH 5.16.18-19), he moves quickly to the third book, from
which he reproduces the rebuttal of the attempt to argue from the
large number of Montanist martyrs that the divine power of the
living prophetic spirit resides in Montanism (EH 5.16.20-22). He
the say-
8. It mentions the book of an Asterios Orbanos (= Urbanus), in which
have been gathered (EH 5.16.17), and uses, in addi-
ings of Montanist prophets
below, 136.
tion, a Montanist polemical writing against Miltiades (EH 5.17.1). See
German 4th
9. A Phrygian village—Hamack, Mission?, 2: 95 (in the expanded
edition, p. 627).
kéluein (prevent)
10. EH 5.16.16-17. The two words dielegchein (refute) and
from the report of Apolloni us concerning
reappear in the abstract by Eusebius
the same matter (EH 5.18.13). See also below, 143 n. Drie
135
 ORTHODOXY AND HERESY IN EARLIEST CHRISTIANITY

does not contest the initial claim, but rejects the conclusion which
other heretics as well (as, for example, the Marcionites) could draw
to their own advantage. That an ecclesiastical blood-witness never
recognizes a false believer as a fellow believer is demonstrated by a
reference to a story of martyrdom from the very recent past.
Eusebius cites additional material from the work of this unknown
opponent of the Montanists in EH 5.17. “The anonymous” relies here
on the [140] work of his coreligionist, Miltiades, in which the latter
argues that a genuine prophet ought not speak in ecstasy. To be
sure, “the anonymous” seems to know the polemical treatise of Mil-
tiades only from a Montanist reply to it, from which he made an
abridgement of what concerned him (EH 5.17.1). According to this
material, Miltiades—for obviously he is the speaker in the passage
from “the anonymous” (EH 5.17.2-4)—objected against the Montanists
that their kind of inspired speech could not possibly be of divine
origin, because in the whole range of the old and of the new covenant,
no prophet can be named whom the spirit seized in a similar way
in an ecstatic frenzy. Old Testament prophets are not adduced. But
the figures of Agabus, Judas, Silas, and the daughters of Philip, fa-
miliar from Acts (11.28, 15.32, 21.9f.), appear, and this series is
continued without a break into a later period 12 with the names of
Ammia in Philadelphia and of Quadratus (EH 5.17.3). The subse-
quent section shows that the last two served the Montanists in the
capacity of “elders” (see above, 119) for the purpose of bridging
the gap between apostolic times and the appearance of Montanus
(EH 5.17.4). The churchman Miltiades lets that pass, but he ex-
presses the conviction that the prophetic chain had been decisively
broken for Montanus and his women, the last of whom, Maximilla,
had died fourteen years previously. Since “the Apostle” 1° guarantees

11. Cf. Neumann, Rémische Staat, p. 68.

12. On this feature, cf. the open-textured use of the concept “the word of the
new covenant of the gospel” (ho tés tou euaggeliou kainés diathékés logos) by
“the anonymous” in EH 5.16.3.
13. If we take this as referring to Paul (for Eusebius, use of “the Apostle” to
refer to Paul is certain in EH 4.29.6, see below, 149 and 177 n. 61; indeed, it
is already attested in Ptolemy’s letter to Flora 4.5) and to a definite passage, in
his letters, we are reminded of Eph. 4.11 ff; and perhaps also of 1 Cor. 1.7 f.
In the anti-Montanist writing of Apollonius (EH 5.18.5) “the Apostle” admittedly
is not Paul, but probably the author of 1 John. Alternatively, “the anonymous”
may be thinking of the apocalypticist John, whose work plays a helpful role in
the refutation of the Montanists (cf. Rev. 22.6 and 9) according to EH 5.18.14.
136
 THE CONFRONTATION BETWEEN ORTHODOXY AND HERESY

that the charismatic gift of prophecy would remain in the entire

church until the Lord’s return, what Montanism exhibits by way of
that sort of phenomena cannot be acknowledged as a genuine gift
of God.
To a still greater degree than “the anonymous,” the somewhat
younger Apollonius marshalls everything in order to make his op-
ponents appear contemptible. He is not only intent on branding their
prophecies collectively as lies, but he also wants to expose the life
story of the sect’s leaders in [141] all its wretchedness (EH 5.18.1).
“But his works and teachings show who this recent teacher is,” he cries
triumphantly. When it is asked what is so detestable in Montanus’
teaching, we hear only the following: (1) He taught the dissolution
of marriage—thus, if it ever occurred in this exaggerated form, he did
something that the Christian notes with a high degree of edification
as long as it confronts him as a result of the apostolic preaching in the
apocryphal Acts literature. Furthermore, (2) Montanus issued laws
about fasting and (3) he called two small Phrygian cities, Pepuza
and Tymion, by the name “Jerusalem,” in order thereby to make them
the center of his community, which was gathered from every direc-
tion. It relates more to the life of Montanus than to his teachings when
he appoints money collectors -who, under the pretense of collecting
an offering, cleverly organize the receipt of gifts and thus procure
for Montanus the financial means to reimburse those who carry the
Montanist message, “in order that its teaching might be established
through gluttony” (EH 5.17.2). Thus, like the matter of the dissolu-
tion of marriages mentioned above, something is condemned with
language that can scarcely be surpassed and is exhibited in an ugly
caricature, although when it takes place in the context of orthodoxy,
it is worthy of the highest praise (see above, 121-124). For me, the
silence of the older anonymous author indicates that the management
- of money by Montanus and his adherents cannot have taken the
unedifying forms scorned by Apollonius. Another indication is the fact
that many times it was precisely the most serious minded people who
devoted themselves to the prophetic movement. Obviously, Apol-
lonius’ language simply betrays his annoyance at the fact that men
and resources have streamed to the leaders of Montanism at such a
dangerously high rate (EH 5.17.4”). Thus it proves useful to him
that in the forty years since the appearance of Montanus (156/157),
137
 ORTHODOXY AND HERESY IN EARLIEST CHRISTIANITY

the malicious gossip of his enemies has greatly enriched the genuine
data that is remembered.
Indeed, one cannot take such an attack seriously, when it censures
Montanus for issuing laws for fasting, (and takes pleasure four lines
later in the sarcastic observation that Montanus endows his messengers
with goods gained in an underhanded manner i that they serve
the gospel through gluttony; or when it thinks it fraudulent that the
Montanists called Priscilla a virgin, although [142] she really belonged
to those women who under the influence of Montanus had left their
husbands (EH 5.18.3). Then does the custom of the church in
calling certain virgins “widows” (Ignatius Smyr. 13.1) also rest on
insolent mendacity? Or what should one say about an attempt to
offer scriptural proof that has the presumption to assert that “all
scripture” (pasa graphé) forbids a prophet from taking gifts and
money (EH 5.18.4)? Even to get a shaky foundation for this as-
sertion, one would have to go to the Didache (11.12). But Apollonius
probably is talking in vague generalities, unless he already has in
mind a definite interpretation of Matthew 10.9 f. (EH 5.18.7). In any
event, pasa graphé is in no way part of the picture. Our author con-
tinually takes pleasure in exaggeration. He offers “innumerable
proofs” (myrias apodeikseis) that the Montanist prophets take gifts
(EH 5.18.11; see below, n. 15).
His pronounced inability to admit anything good about the here-
tics is even more offensive.) “The anonymous” had recognized the
fact that there were/ Montanist martyrdoms, even if he had con-
tested the idea that death as a martyr demonstrates that the faith
of the heretic is acces) Apollonius knows only of “so-called”
martyrs in the opposing party (see above, n. 14) whom he makes
as ridiculous and contemptible as possible. Themiso, whom we know
from the writings of “the anonymous” as an especially active and
effective advocate of the new trend (see above, 135), appears in
Apollonius in a different light (EH 5.18.5)—he is completely en-
tangled in covetousness, and purchased his release from chains with
a great sum of money, without bearing the sign of a confessor. Now,
instead of being humble, Themiso boasts of himself as a martyr and
14. See also EH 5.18.7—the so-called prophets and martyrs fleece not only the
rich, but also the poor, the orphans, and the widows.
138
 THE CONFRONTATION BETWEEN ORTHODOXY AND HERESY

even carries his impudence so far that he writes a kind of catholic

epistle in imitation of the Apostle (see above, n. 13), so as to instruct
people who have a better faith than he does, to defend his empty
teachings, and to direct his blasphemies against the Lord, the apostles,
and the holy church.
Themiso by no means stands alone as a pseudo-martyr. But rather
than treating the “numerous” others,!® Apollonius wishes to make ex-
plicit mention only of the case of Alexander (EH 5.18.6-9). Alexander
had based his claim to the honored name of a martyr on his con-
demnation in Ephesus by Aemilius Frontinus, who had been the pro-
consul of Asia at the end of the reign of Marcus Aurelius or at the
[143] beginning of the reign of Commodus.!* Apollonius, however,
asserts that Alexander was not condemned on account of his Chris-
tianity, but rather was condemned as a robber. Nevertheless, he
succeeded in deceiving the Ephesian community about the true state
of affairs, so that this community procured the release of the “trans-
gressor” (parabatés). But his own home church, which was better
informed rejected him as a robber. In order to corroborate this inter-
pretation, Apollonius appeals twice within the Eusebian excerpt to
the public archives of Asia (EH 5.18.6” and 9°), which supposedly
gave indisputable information about the crimes of Alexander. Apol-
lonius expects his readers to imagine an Ephesian church that regards
Alexander as an honorable man and is willing to make sacrifices for
his freedom, in spite of the fact that the judicial authorities of the
city are occupied with Alexander because of his numerous crimes
and even his home congregation has been aware of the situation for
a long time. The sarcastic claim that the prophetess was unaware
of the character of her companion in spite of many years of association
appears equally artificial. How could anyone who is so in the dark
really be a “prophet,” 17 and know something about the future? Apol-
lonius’ presentation serves to awaken this insight.
In any event, the reference to the Asiatic archives will make no

15. “But not to speak of many (pleiontes). . . . We can show the same in the
case of many (polloi) . . .-—EH 5.18.6 and 10.
16. Neumann, Rémische Staat, p. 68.
17. It says “the prophet” (male, ho prophétés—EH 5.18.9»), although the con-
text speaks of a prophetess; possibly this is because the passage has to do with
the concept “prophet.”
139
 ORTHODOXY AND HERESY IN EARLIEST CHRISTIANITY

impression on anyone who has investigated the situation with re-

spect to similar appeals.1® Furthermore, the older anonymous author
not only admits that martyrdom has taken place even among the
Montanists, but he even knows a martyr by the name of Alexander
from Phrygian Eumenia (EH 5.16.22), whom one may in all prob-
ability equate with our Alexander.!® It is also sufficiently attested
how strong and how genuine the desire of the Montanists for martyr-
dom was.2° Even though Apollonius cannot see all this, or has no de-
sire to admit it, he cannot demand that one believe the injurious
stories he circulates about his opponents. At best, a single case may
once have been reported which is now transformed into an inad-
missible generalization. [144] Scornfully he speaks about the relations
between the prophetess Priscilla and Alexander, which even he does
not attempt to extend from the table to the bed. Thereby Apollonius
gives one to understand that Alexander stood in great honor in his
circles—i.e. among people with a very strict and serious view of life.
“Many paid him reverence” (proskunousin auto polloi; EH 5.18.6).
To be sure, Apollonius sees in Alexander only the false martyr who
feasts gluttonously with the prophetess, and concerning whose rob-
beries and other crimes there is no need to speak since the court
archives speak loudly enough. Mockingly, he inquires which of the
two dispenses the forgiveness of sins to the other—a matter of great
importance for Montanism; does the prophetess remit the robberies
of the martyr, or does the martyr forgive the covetousness of the
prophetess (EH 5.18.7")? And Apollonius believes that he has de-
livered a series of deadly blows with the following questions: “Does
a prophet use makeup? Does he dye his eyebrows and eyelids? Does
he love ornaments? Does he gamble and play dice? Does he lend
money at interest?” (EH 5.18.11).
Furthermore, Apollonius calculates that Montanus embarked on his
career forty years earlier with his “feigned” prophecy, without any
of it having come true (EH 5.18.12). Since Apollonius plays off the
Revelation of John against Montanus (EH 5.18.14), although it is a

18. Cf. the role that archives and public records play, at least since Justin, in
defending the details of the life of Jesus; W. ‘Bauer, Das Leben Jesu im Zeitalter
der neutestamentlichen Apokryphen (Tiibingen: Mohr, 1909; reprint Darmstadt
1967), pp. 26f., 59, 195 f., 228, 536 f.
19. Neumann, Rémische Staat, p. 68 n. 2, and pp. 283 f.
20. Neumann, Rémische Staat, p. 69.
140
 THE CONFRONTATION BETWEEN ORTHODOXY AND HERESY

book which also tells what “is about to happen soon” (Rev. 1.1), he
appears not to lay such harsh demands on it concerning fulfillment
of prophecies. Rather, he finds its credibility demonstrated by means
of a story, according to which John raised a dead man in Ephesus
“through divine power.” Thus John is a bearer of a genuine divine
spirit, while the Phrygian prophets only have such at their disposal
in their imagination. Besides the book of Revelation, Apollonius also
appealed to a gospel story that concerns the risen Christ and reports
of him that he commanded the apostles to remain at least twelve
years in Jerusalem. The same tradition *! is found in the “Preaching
(Kerygma) of Peter,” which is even older than Apollonius’ story and
perhaps gives us a hint as to how what was reported by Apollonius
could take on an anti-Montanist thrust. In the Preaching of Peter,
the risen Christ, in addition to ordering the disciples not to leave
Jerusalem for twelve years (in Clement of Alexandria Strom.
6.[5.]43.3), also gives them the commission to preach to the world
“what is about to happen” (ta mellonta) after the designated interval
has expired (Strom. 6.[6.]48.1 f.). [145] Thus no concept of the coming
things accords with Jesus unless it has its roots in the circle of the
apostles and, at the latest, already had been in existence twelve years
after the resurrection. Unfortunately, neither with respect to “the
anonymous” nor to Apollonius do we hear whether, and if so, how
they evaluated the gospel of John and its sayings concerning the
paraclete. Nevertheless, Irenaeus apparently already had the anti-
Montanists in mind who, in order not to be deceived by this false
prophecy, throw the baby out with the bath water by rejecting
prophecy altogether, and thereby expressly reject the gospel of John,
in which the Lord promised the sending of the paraclete.””
Taken as a whole, both of the books with which we have become
acquainted here are hardly anything more than abusive satires. That
of Apollonius merits the title to a higher degree than that of “the
anonymous.” One must reject as biased all of the judgments found in
these works, evenif they are delivered in the costume of historical
narrative, and let the facts speak for themselves. When such a pro-
cedure is followed, what is left over? Primarily this (in many cases

21. On this, cf. Bauer, Leben Jesu, pp. 266 f.

e des
99. Irenaeus AH 3.11.9 (= 11.12). In addition, cf. N. Bonwetsch, Geschicht
Montanismus (Erlangen: Deichert, 1881), pp. 22 ff.
141
 ORTHODOXY AND HERESY IN EARLIEST CHRISTIANITY

as an unintentional confession)/the prophetic movement appears to

have caught on strongly, especially in Phrygia, men and funds flowed
into it, and the rigorousness of the view of life prevailing among the
Montanists caused many of them to become martyrs, whose blood
insured an even more magnetic power. )The magnitude of the ec-
clesiastical defense corresponds to, Sih attests to, the amount of
success realized by the movement. This defense produces discussions
in which, to say the least, the church does not always emerge vic-
torious. Alongside this there is the literary feud.(Its prerequisite
was already filled by the fact that Montanism gave ike to a body of
literature. Just as the logia of Jesus once had been collected, so now
one gathered together the sayings and predictions of the original
Montanist prophecy 2? and equated them with older revelation| (cf.
Gaius in EH 6.20.3). Other writings followed: the “catholic epistle”
of Themiso, the defense against Miltiades, to say nothing of Proclus
(in EH 3.31.4) and Tertullian in the third century. The ecclesiastical
perspective found literary representation in the second century
through the persons already known to us—Miltiades, “the anonymous,”
and [146] Apollonius—and around the year 200 through the above-
mentioned Gaius and through Serapion, who immediately followed
him.
To the earliest ecclesiastical warriors on the battlefield belongs
Claudius Apollinaris of Hierapolis, who lived in the reign of Marcus
Aurelius (EH 4.21), Eusebius, who enumerated his writings already
in EH 4.27, again mentions his effectiveness against the Montanists
immediately after the section on Apollonius (EH 5.19), which is jus-
tified chronologically insofar as Eusebius takes his point of departure
from the letter that Serapion of Antioch (190-210) wrote to Caricus
and Pontius for the refutation of Montanism. What Eusebius extracts
from or tells us about Serapion’s letter can be of particular assistance
in our attempt to achieve a suitable attitude toward general state-
ments found in the polemical literature. Thus a word about that is in
order here. To begin with, Euesbius quotes the following words from
the letter of Serapion: “And in order that you may know that the
working of this lying association called the new prophecy is detested
23. The claim of Hippolytus that there are “countless books” (Ref. 8.19) is more
instructive for the language of the polemic than for its factuality. We do know
of the collection of Asterios Orbanos (anonymous in EH 5.16.17; see above,
135 n. 8).
142
 THE CONFRONTATION BETWEEN ORTHODOXY AND HERESY

in the whole brotherhood throughout the world, I have sent you the
writing ** of the most blessed Claudius Apollinaris, the late bishop
of Hierapolis in Asia” (EH 5.19.2). Eusebius further states (EH
5.19.3) that subscriptions by various bishops are found in this letter
of Serapion.2> He reproduces two of these subscriptions verbatim,
and then continues: “The autograph subscriptions of many other
bishops who agree with these are also preserved in the abovemen-
tioned writing” (EH 5.19.4). It seems that there is nothing more to
be said about them except that they are autographoi—i.e. that the
bishops concerned have placed their names (or marks) at the bottom
of the letter in their own writing. That they were all of the same
opinion is apparently only a conclusion drawn by Eusebius. Since
this conclusion could be the product of an ecclesiastical disposition,
it must be tested as to its justification. We have a fixed point of
reference in the two subscriptions that are reproduced literally, with
which, according to Eusebius, the others are in agreement. Of these
two, the second is clearly directed against the Montanists: “Aelius
Publius Julius, Bishop of Debeltum,2* a colony of Thrace. As God
lives in the heavens, the blessed Sotas of Anchialus [see n. 26] [147]
desired to exorcise the demon from Priscilla but the hypocrites would
not permit it.” 27 The other signature, on the other hand, reads simply:
“I, Aurelius Quirinius, a martyr, pray for your welfare.” In this in-
stance, as with the “many others” (alloi pleiones), it is apparently
only from the fact that Serapion (or was it already Apollinaris? see
above, n. 25) permitted them to attach their subscriptions that one

24. The plural grammata refers here, as is often the case, to only one written
treatise, as is clearly evident from EH 5.19.4.
25. Whether they derived from the treatise of Apollinaris, I would not presume
to decide.
26. Both Debeltum and Anchialus (mentioned below) are located on the west
bank of the Black Sea.
of the
27. We recall here what “the anonymous” had told us of Maximilla and
church in Phrygia to refute her (above, 135). It is, of
attempt made by the
it seems
course, quite possible that clashes of a similar sort often occurred. But
cal story
to me just as likely that we are dealing here with a floating ecclesiasti
referred to an actual incident, but then, with the names altered,
that originally
was not suc-
it turns up here and there in order to show why the spirit of God
the hypocrisy
cessful in overcoming the spirit of the devil. The blame is laid on
or incentive
and brutal use of force by the heretics, not on any lack of courage
story turns
by the ecclesiastical warriors. The fact that this ecclesiastically oriented ecclesias-
to me useful for determinin g the degree of
up in various regions, appears
tical success in combatting the Montanist movement.
143
 ORTHODOXY AND HERESY IN EARLIEST CHRISTIANITY

can conclude that they agreed with him in a common anti-Montanist

outlook. All but one of them have missed the opportunity for an
express confession. And it is perhaps no accident that a martyr main-
tains neutrality, Even the martyrs of Lyons favored the prophetic
movement. Yet even in view of the most favorable interpretation,
what weight can a couple of names, which happen to appear in
conjunction, carry in support of the sweeping statement that “the
whole brotherhood throughout the world detests the new prophets”?
On the whole, the witnesses invoked here contradict the above as-
sertion by the paucity of their numbers and the insufficiency of their
statements, even if we limit “the world” around the time of Apol-
linaris to Asia Minor and Thrace, leaving aside Gaul, Rome, and
North Africa.
The statement obviously is not based on real experience, but was
prompted by the apologetic need to offer proof ex consensu omnium
[based on common consensus]. Thus we come to a consideration of
the basic issues that fly back and forth, both orally and in written
form, in the fight with Montanism. Once again our sources are more
communicative with regard to the arguments of the church than with
reference to the case of its opponents. The latter probably appealed
primarily to the spirit, which has dwelt among favored Christians
since the time of the apostles, as it becomes manifest in the words
of the prophets and enables men [148] to meet the high requirements
laid on them, including martyrdom. That such a spirit is actually
still at work follows from the fact that still other forms of charismatic
gifts have by no means disappeared from Christianity (EH 5.3.4).
Furthermore, the Montanists have appealed to the imminent end of
the world and the glory of the heavenly Jerusalem, and have de-
manded that one obtain these by means of a rigorous life in the spirit
in conformity with the instructions of the paraclete. But we know
scarcely anything at all about how the Montanists protected their
faith against the attacks of the church and sought in turn to refute
its preaching in the second century. And Tertullian is much too
idiosyncratic a person for us to be able to attribute some sort of gen-
eral validity to his polemic. Tertullian is only able to teach us that
even “the church” has become the object of violent and unjust at-
tacks. From an earlier time, we learn that the Montanists applied to
themselves and to their rejection by the church such a saying of the
144
 THE CONFRONTATION BETWEEN ORTHODOXY AND HERESY

Lord as Matthew 23.34, concerning those who murder the prophets,

and their victims (EH 5.16.12). Also Paul, the pneumatic, and the
paraclete of the fourth gospel are appealed to for assistance.
With respect to this form of false belief, the church first of all had
the desire to show that the spirit at work there is a spirit of error.
Neither in the sphere of the old nor of the new covenant have
prophets behaved the way its servants act (see above, 136). The
vessels of this spirit are completely vessels of dishonor; the life and
the death of the heretics are equally unedifying, and their moral
pretensions are only a show (above, 133 f., 136-140). The spirit from
hell, which has already seduced Montanus into apostasy (above, 133)
could open neither his eyes nor the eyes of a single one of his disciples.
They are blind, allow themselves to be duped, and make prophecies
that never come true (above, 135 f., 140 f.). Experience teaches us this,
as does a comparison with the genuine book of revelation, the Apoc-
alypse, the content of which is beyond suspicion since the seer has
demonstrated his godly connections by raising someone from the dead
(above, 141). The gospel story also shows that a genuine look into
the future is possible only in the circle of the apostles of Jesus (above,
141); thus there is no other alternative but to rely on the authorities
of the church. [149] The unbreakable chain of all revelation is forged
with the links Lord, apostles, holy church (above, 141), The way
in which “history” came to be used in the service of orthodoxy is
shown not only by the postcanonical stories about Jesus and the
apostles, but also in a rather distressing manner by the way in which
one speaks about the outstanding adherents of the new movement,
about their life and death, without even excepting their martyrs from
such treatment, Defamation of the enemy perhaps plays a greater
role in these circles than proof from scripture. Later, when the New
Testament was accepted as a collection of scriptural writings, when
knowledge of the Old Testament was expanded, and when the anti-
heretical use of both was developed to some extent, the situation
would become healthier. Then, with the increased production of
Christian literature and the ever growing distance from the actual
events, the controversy will also become more highly literary. The
way is already being paved for that in the period under considera-
tion. It seems that “the anonymous” knew the work of his coreligionist
Miltiades only from the reply of their common opponents—i.e. from
145
 ORTHODOXY AND HERESY IN EARLIEST CHRISTIANITY

the literature (see above, 136). And Serapion relied on the work of
the already deceased Claudius Apollinaris of Hierapolis. Evidently
he was not successful in obtaining other literary works of a similar
outlook. Otherwise he certainly would have used them also, in his
ambition to demonstrate that aversion to the false prophecy permeated
all of Christianity. And Eusebius, who is filled with the same desire,
would hardly have withheld that information from his readers.

146
 8
The Use of Literature in the Conflict

The Montanist controversy of the second century has, to a certain

extent, given us a glimpse of the actual causes, the forces at work,
the tactics employed and the forms used in the ideological conflict
within Christendom at that time. This sketchy picture can now be
filled in or even supplemented and enriched through material which
other controversies supply, or through such materials as provide the
answer to questions we must raise in the context of our present
discussion.
Literary activity, as one would expect, has left the clearest traces
in the sources. However, these traces, when compared with the
impressions such activity originally made, have become very faint
and blurred so that frequently they are hardly legible or cannot be
read with any confidence. Of many of the books which arose at that
time, whose titles we still know but which are otherwise lost, we are
no longer in a position to say whether the subject matter treated in}
them was designed to oppose other Christians, or was intended for!
purposes of teaching unbelievers, or whether the author only had al
general interest in the subject. We are quite aware that the question
of the resurrection of the dead was often raised in controversies with
heretics (see above, 100). But the apologist Athenagoras deals with
resurrection in the eighth decade of the second century without any
acknowledgement of that situation. Does that mark him as an Athe-
nian (see above, 105f.), or is it simply characteristic of his personal
intellectual disposition? Or how else can this be understood?
Another favorite theme was the six days of creation (“Hexameron’”).
Yet we cannot tell to what extent its treatment in ecclesiastical circles
147
 ORTHODOXY AND HERESY IN EARLIEST CHRISTIANITY

was determined by an anti-heretical concern. One can only speculate

about the matter. Even the predilection of 1 Clement [151] for God
the creator appears to us to have an anti-heretical thrust (above,
104). And around the year 180, Celsus expressly says in his “True
Word” (logos aléthés) that the members of the “great church” (ie.
other than Gnostics and Marcionites) took over the Jewish teaching
about the origin of the world including the teaching about the six
days of creation and the seventh day on which God drew back in
order to take his rest (in Origen Against Celsus 5.59"). About the
same time Rhodon of Asia Minor, whom we know as an active
enemy of heretics, especially of Marcion and Apelles, wrote his
“Memoir on the Hexameron” (hypomnéma eis tén hexaémeron; EH
5.13.8). The treatise of Melito “On Creation” (peri plaséos; EH 4.26.2)
may also be mentioned here. The church sensed that it had the task
of validating its faith in the God and father of Jesus Christ as creator
of the world not only against the demiurge or any other such angelic
power, but also against the devil; in this context also belongs the
question concerning the origin of man and his special character.
Gnostics also treated this matter with specific reference to the be-
ginning of the Old Testament—Valentinus in a letter’; Preaching of
the Naasenes 1 ff.2; the Book of Baruch of the gnostic Justin.*

1. Clement of Alexandria Strom. 2.(8.)36.2-4; cf. also the references to a Valen-

tinian “homily” in 4.(13.)89.1 and 4.(13.)90.2-4. [For an ET, see Grant, Gnos-
ticism Anthology, pp. 143f.; the Greek texts are collected in Volker, Quellen,
pp. 57 ff.]
9. Ed. R. Reitzenstein (—H. H. Schaeder), Studien zum antiken Syncretismus aus
Iran und Griechenland 1 (Leipzig, 1926; repr. Darmstadt, 1965): 161 ff. [from
Hippolytus Ref. 5.7-9. Greek text also in Volker, Quellen, pp. 11-26; partial ET
in Grant, Gnosticism Anthology, pp. 105-114].
3. In Hippolytus Ref. 5.25-27 [Greek text also in Volker, Quellen, pp. 27-33; ET
in Grant, Gnosticism Anthology, pp. 94-100]. In a somewhat distorted way a pas-
sage out of Anastasius of Sinai’s Hexameron, book 1 (J. B. Pitra, Analecta sacra
spicilegio salesmensi parata 2 [Paris, 1884]: 160) gives evidence of the predilec-
tion of the ancient church to concern itself with the six days of creation: “Taking
a cue [that is, the occasion for the opinion concerning the millennial kingdom]
from Papias the illustrious one of Hierapolis, a disciple of the beloved disciple,
and from Clement and Pantaenus, the priest of the Alexandrians, and Ammonius
the most-wise—from the ancients and the expositors who lived prior to the councils
(ton archaidn kai pro ton sunodon exégetén) [or, “and earliest (prdtén) exposi-
tors who were in agreement”] and understood ‘that the entire Hexameron referred
to Christ and the Church.” For the Greek text, see K. Bihlmeyer, Die apostolischen
Vdter 1 (Tiibingen: Mohr, 1924; ed. W. Schneemelcher, 19562): 137, no. 6. [For
a eye of the text and its interpretation, with an ET, see Schoedel, Polycarp,
pp. 114 f,
148
 THE USE OF LITERATURE IN THE CONFLICT

For the end of the second century Eusebiusdenumerates some books

by author and title—a small sampling out of a great wealth, if one
may believe him 4—which he characterizes as monuments of the de-
voted zeal of good churchmen (EH 5.27). Maximus deals with “the
question which is discussed so extensively by heretics, the origin of
evil, and that matter was created.” Therefore, his writing is [152]
clearly a witness to the battle against heresy. For this reason we can
perhaps view the others listed here in a similar way. Directly after
Maximus are mentioned Candidus “On the Hexameron” and Apion
on the same topic. Then follows Sextus “On the Resurrection.” First
on the list is “The (Memoirs) of Heraclitus on the Apostle” (ta
Herakleitou eis ton apostolon). One can hardly doubt that by “the
apostle” Paul must be understood here (see above 136 n. 13), and
thus we are possibly dealing with an apologetic writing in defence
of the Apostle to the Gentiles, which attempts to defend him against
misunderstanding or even abuse on the part of heretics.®
This list of literary works which gives us the painful impression
of an exceptionally tiny body of information, is placed in the frame-
work of some comments that indicate to us what attitudeissupposed
to be called forth or strengthened by each particular
item. The pas-
sage (5.27) begins with these words: “A great many memoirs = |
admirable industry by churchmen of the ancient past are still pre-
served by many to this day. Among those, the writings of which we
have personal knowledge (diegndmen) are .. .” (the list follows).
But how can we believe that Eusebius actually has read these books,
in view of the fact that of the one mentioned last, by Arabianus, he
only knows enough to report that he authored “a certain other work”
(allé tis hypothesis), after which Eusebius continues: “And [there
are books] of countless others, for whom our lack of any reference
point leaves us in no position either to write about the times in which
they lived or to provide a historical reminiscence. And writings of
very many others of whom we cannot recount even the names, have ae a

reached us. They are orthodox, ecclesiastically oriented persons, as _eee

ie
ae

4. This will be discussed in its proper context; see below, 158 ff.
5. One thinks perhaps of Marcion. The hatred of Paul by the Jewish Christians
or by Cerinthus (see my discussion in Hennecke2, 127 ff.) would hardly still have
called for opposition at that time. Nevertheless, Eusebius mentions people with
encratite tendencies from the time of Tatian who “slander” Paul and who reject
his letters together with the Acts of the Apostles (EH 4.29.5, also 6).
149
 ORTHODOXY AND HERESY IN EARLIEST CHRISTIANITY

their respective interpretations of the divine scripture show, but they

are nevertheless unknown to us, because the works do not bear the
names of their authors.” What Eusebius intends by this piling up of
—superlatives is quite clear. It is a matter of concern to him_to.assert_
that there isinexistence.a. [153] body of ecclesiastical literature, old
as
as; possible and as.extensive..as. possible, but also_treasured_as much
as possible” in“the: present, and. just..as widely. dispersed,..He--wants.

from earliest times in Christian literature. For this reasonn the“writings

whose'titlé’and author are known to Eusebius and whose contents
qualified for him as orthodox (one would like to know whether with
justification )were dated as early as possible; in the two cases in 5.27
~ and 28 which we are able to check they were dated too early.* Thus
we encounter here what we already noticed in the case of the An-
\ tiochian bishops (above, 63f.). And the motivating factor on that
occasion also had been the necessity of such a move for ecclesiastical
historiography.
Even if, in his generalizations in 5.27, Eusebius was telling things
as they actually were, the riddle still remains—wholly apart from his
enormous lack of knowledge 7 concerning this literature—how is it

the second to the fourth century (see > below, 159 £.) and circulated
~ widely within Christendom in numerous fragments, only to disappear
in the period after Eusebius when Christianity, mainly in its orthodox
form, had established itself so that no danger existed any longer? Be
thatasit may, I fear that we have here the same kind of approach
that Serapion used when he wanted to demonstrate the aversion of
all Christianity to Montanism, but in his appeal to witnesses, he
actually breaks off after the second name (see above, 142f.). The
statements in support and praise of orthodoxy that we meet in ec-
clesiastical authors without being able to test their contents and find
verification, we do well to set aside and to distrust as tendentious.

6. Cf. Harnack, Geschichte, 1.2: 758.

7. It can hardly be more than a way of speaking when Eusebius claims that all
these churchmen demonstrated their orthodoxy by their scriptural interpretation
AN (above, 149 f.). At the time of Eusebius that may have been an important char-
acteristic. But in the second century, scriptural interpretation was. not-so_widely
| breckces (sée-below, 195 n. 1):
150
 THE USE OF LITERATURE IN THE CONFLICT

It is part of the style of the “ecclesiastical” historiography of Euse-

bius, when he is adding one member after another to the episcopal
lists, also to exercise concern for the orthodox theological tradition so
that it flows in as rich as possible a stream, and not in a trickle. [154]
The conclusion of the fourth book of the Ecclesiastical History
appears to me to be very characteristic, especially the order of the
tiny excerpts in 4.19-21. There we read:

(19) In the eighth year of the reign of which we are presently speak-
ing [i.e. of Marcus Aurelius], Soter succeeded Anicetus, who had oc-
cupied the episcopate of the Roman church for eleven years in all.
After Celadion had presided over the church of Alexandria for fourteen
years, Agrippinus became his successor. (20) And in the church of
the Antiochians, Theophilus was the sixth bishop, numbered from the
apostles. Cornelius, who succeeded Heron, had been the fourth there.
After him, Eros followed as bishop in the fifth place. (21) Now there
flourished in the church in those days Hegesippus, whom we know
from the previous account [i.e. 4.8.1], Dionysius the bishop of the
Corinthians, Pinytus, bishop of Crete, and besides them, Philip, Apolli-
naris, Melito, Musanus and Modestus, and finally Irenaeus; from whom
the orthodoxy of the authentic teaching, as it was transmitted from the
apostles, has come down in writing even to us.

Then follow three longer chapters which have to do with the activity
of various individuals among the persons mentioned—Hegesippus (22),
Dionysius of Corinth (23), Theophilus of Antioch (24). The last of
these sections call attention to the fact that, in addition to writing
various other books, Theophilus also wrote an admirable work against
Marcion which just happens, like his other works mentioned by name,
to have been preserved to the present time.
After a brief remark at the end of section 24 concerning the epis-
copal successor of Theophilus, EH 4.25 adds a fragment of the same
scope and character as the series in 4.19-21, but also similar to the
sections 22-24, since it reviews briefly the activity of some of the
ecclesiastical theologians enumerated in 4.21. But Eusebius again
wanders into generalizations. EH 4.25 reads: “Philip, who, as we
learned from the letter of Dionysius [in 4.23.5] was bishop of the
community at Gortyna, also composed a most weighty writing against
Marcion, as did Irenaeus and Modestus, who was more successful
151
 ORTHODOXY AND HERESY IN EARLIEST CHRISTIANITY

than the others in unmasking the man’s error with complete clarity,
and many others, whose works are still preserved to this day by a
great many of the brethren.” [155]
EH 4.26 is devoted to the Melito mentioned in 4.21. Eusebius
refers to approximately ® twenty titles of works by this theologian
and indicates by the expression, they had “come to his attention”
(4.26.2), that the list is not exhaustive. In fact there are still a few
additional titles which appear in the tradition.? But, except for a
few citations everything is lost.° If we ask of which of Melito’s
writings that had “come to his attention” does Eusebius actually di-
vulge information beyond that given in the title, it seems to me that
the following situation emerges. Immediately prior to the list itself
we learn from 26.1 that “At this time [still the reign of Marcus
Aurelius], Melito, bishop of the church of Sardis, and Apollinaris,
bishop of the church of Hierapolis, flourished with distinction; and
they addressed writings in defence of the faith to the aforesaid Roman
emperor at that time, each respectively producing an Apology.” Then
26.2 continues with the words already mentioned above—“Of these
writers there have come to our attention the works [first] of Melito.”
Then follows an extensive enumeration of bare titles,1! beginning
with “two books on the Passover” (ta peri tou pascha duo) and con-
cluding with “The Petition to Antoninus” (to pros A. biblidion). The
beginning of 26.3 seems to hold greater promise. Eusebius begins to
speak about the book mentioned first, that concerning the paschal
observance, and we expect that he would briefly characterize its
contents as well as at least some other writings from the catalogue
and thus give proof that they actually were in his possession. But we
find that we deceive ourselves. We hear almost exclusively about
the book on Easter. This would be the one exception that we could
understand, since we have already learned that Eusebius was in-
terested in the Easter controversies (EH 5.23-25) and in treating

8. The titles are not all entirely clear, and thus the number cannot be established
with full certainty; see also below, n. 11.
9. On Melito, see Harnack, Geschichte, 1.1: 246-255; E. Preuschen, RPTK? 12
(1903): 564-567.
10. [See below, p. 315 n. 37, on the more recently recovered Paschal Homily of
Melito.]
11. According to the GCS edition of Schwartz, it includes fourteen items; Har-
nack, Geschichte, 1.1: 247f., counts eighteen. [The ET of EH by H. J. Lawlor
and J. E, Oulton has sixteen, while that of K. Lake in LCL has nineteen.]
152
 THE USE OF LITERATURE IN THE CONFLICT

them had mentioned Melito (5.24.5). While he observes in the present

context that Clement of Alexandria referred to Melito’s work in his
book on the paschal observance (4.26.4), the point is repeated in
6.13.9 where he considers Clement again. [156] Otherwise Eusebius
only shares with us the opening words of the book, in which Melito
expresses himself as follows: “When Servilius Paulus was proconsul
in Asia, at the time when Sagaris died as a martyr, there developed
in Laodicea a vigorous dispute about the paschal festival, which fell
in those days, and these things (tauta) were written” (4.26.3).
But here doubt arises, for I cannot hide the suspicion that in my
opinion these words, especially their conclusion, could hardly have
stood in Melito’s work. Normally it is not the author himself, but a
third person who reports concerning “these things” (tauta). Further,
the portrayal of the situation strikes me as so artificial that I should
at least regard it as greatly abridged. What is one supposed to think
about such a situation, in which Christianity is subjected to such
persecution that its bishop must become a blood offering, but be-
cause of the fact that his martyrdom fell at Easter time, becomes
involved in a heated controversy over the proper celebration of the
passover, instead of standing shoulder to shoulder against the com-
mon foe! In the writing by Melito, the contemporary of Sagaris, that
probably would not have been expressed so crassly. Thus it seems
to me that there is no certainty that Eusebius had actually seen
Melito’s work on the passover. And I would extend that judgment
to almost all the other items on Eusebius’ list (26.2). Not a single
word remains from hardly any of them. Eusebius refers in detail
only to the Apology (4.26.5-11) and mentions thereafter a writing
which is not in the catalogue (26.12-14). He reproduces the opening
of this work apparently without alteration: “Melito greets his brother
Onesimus.” So began the six books of Eklogai—i.e. excerpts from the
writings of the Palestinian Old Testament.” The intention of the
that
12. Melito made no distinction between the Old Testament of Palestine and
crucial
of the Greek diaspora. Rather, he speaks about “the old books” whose
had to
contents he wants to make available to his friends. In his opinion, one
26.14)
take a trip to Palestine in order to have access to more accurate (akribés;
“the books of the old covenant” (ta tés palaias diathékés biblia).
information about
was aware,
This shows that neither the Church in Sardis, nor, as far as Melito
Old
any other Christian Church accessible to him had at its disposal a complete
still content
Testament. Apparently, in the area represented by Melito, one was
(75)418,
with Eklogai. Cf. Bauer, Wortgottesdienst, 45 f.; also Josephus, Life
(Titus).
where Josephus receives the Old Testament as a gift from a prince
153
 ORTHODOXY AND HERESY IN EARLIEST CHRISTIANITY

work is to provide Onesimus with materials from the law and prophets
that pertain to “our savior and our whole [157] faith” (4.26.13). Thus
its purpose is to lay the foundation for the scriptural proof in support
of the Christian proclamation.
Of the two books of Melito which Eusebius apparently has seen,
the Apology (see also 4.13.8 and the Chronicle 1*) and the Extracts,
the latter is missing from the list while the Apology instead of
heading the list immediately after 26.1, stands at the end. This situa-
tion shows that he did not put the catalogue together on the basis
of actual material from Melito which was available to him. He re-
ceived the catalogue from tradition and it served the purpose of
supplementing his own knowledge. He inserted it into his report on
the Apology, which begins at 26.1 and resumes at 26.5, and appended
two passages to it (26.3 and 4) which contain all that he has been
able to learn about the only other writing on the list (apart from
the Apology) about which he knew more than the title.4* Harnack
says: “Melito was very quickly forgotten in the Greek church, and
this can be explained only by the fact that his writings were no longer
suited to the later dogmatic taste.” 1° I am more thoroughly convinced
of Harnack’s conclusion than of his reasons. I am not persuaded by
Harnack’s opinion that Eusebius “found in the library at Caesarea”
a rich deposit of Melito’s works, namely the specific items on the
list.16 I fear that Melito already had disappeared from the scene be-
fore the “later dogmatic taste” became dominant—it could hardly
have done any more damage, even if Melito’s corpus had been kept
intact up to the time of Eusebius. What actually caused him difficulty
was his outspoken position in the controversies of his time, whether
in the paschal controversy or in the prophetic movement?" or in his
opposition to Marcion and other heretics.1* That which served the
general interest of Christendom and stood above the parties, as for

13. Cf. Harnack, Geschichte, 1.1: 247.

14. Eusebius’ approach here is also similar to what we previously observed, 130
Tews
15. Harnack, Geschichte, 1.1: 248.
16. Harnack, Geschichte, 1.1: 247.
17. Tertullian ridiculed Melito, the “prophet” of the psychikoi (Jerome Illustrious
Men 24),
18. Examples are given in Harnack, Geschichte, 1.1: 249 f.
154
 THE USE OF LITERATURE IN THE CONFLICT

example his apologetic writing and the collection of biblical proof

texts, proved to be more capable of enduring opposition.® [158]
We have found that the book against the Montanists by Miltiades
(ca. 160-170) was no longer available to his anonymous coreligionist
writing only a couple of decades later (above, 136 and 145 f.). Har-
nack adds the observation: “Thus Eusebius did not actually have a
copy of the anti-Gnostic work [of Miltiades]; but he did have [ac-
cording to EH 5.17.5] 1. two books of Miltiades against the Greeks
(pros Hellénas), 2. two books against the Jews (pros Ioudaious),
3. an Apology to the emperor.” 2°
Is it not striking to notice in this connection that also in the case
of Justin, Theophilus, and Tatian, those books that were involved in
the contemporary controversies within Christianity were lost, while
the apologies directed to unbelievers were preserved? For a state-
ment of what Eusebius still knew of Justin’s literary activity, let me
appeal briefly to Harnack: “Thus Eusebius here [ie. EH 4.18.1 ff.]
enumerates eight works of Justin known to him; a ninth, against
Marcion (pros Markidna), he knows only from Irenaeus; and\a tenth,
the Syntagma against all heresies, only from Justin’s Apology (chap.
26; cf. EH 4.11.10). But he himself has only taken notes on the
Apology 21 and the Dialogue; although it seems as if he is quoting
from Justin’s treatise against Marcion in EH 4.11.8, even here he is
drawing from the Apology.” ?? Harnack’s closing words are a very
gentle way of calling attention to the fact that Eusebius refers to
Justin’s book against Marcion, the title of which (but nothing more)
he knows from Irenaeus, but after the introductory statement that “he
wrote a treatise against Marcion . . . and expressed himself as follows,”
Eusebius reproduces material that could only come from Justin’s
Apology (Apol. 26.5-6 in EH 4.11.9). Even if one could persuade

19. That the author of the Little Labyrinth knew dogmatic writings [in contrast
to apologetic or biblical excerpts] of Melito is hardly demonstrated by the exag-
gerated outburst in which he is mentioned: “For who does not know the books
of Irenaeus and of Melito as well as the others, which proclaim Christ as God
and man! And how many psalms and hymns have been written from the begin-
ning,” etc. (EH 5.28.5).
90. Harnack, Geschichte, 1.1: 256.
21. For Eusebius, the “Apology” includes what for us is divided into the “first”
and the “second” Apology [or “Appendix”].
22. Harnack, Geschichte, 1.1: 102.
155
 ORTHODOXY AND HERESY IN EARLIEST CHRISTIANITY

himself, with great effort, that the exact passage also could have been
found in Justin’s treatise against Marcion, this solution breaks down
in light of the quotation’s continuation, which is subjoined by means
of the expression: “to these words he adds” (EH 4.11.10, citing Apol.
26.8). But since the emperor is addressed specifically in this ma-
terial (“we will give you [the book] if you want to read it”), it is
simply impossible that this quotation came from Justin’s treatise
against Marcion. [159]
What occurs here can easily rest upon a misunderstanding, such
as an incorrect use of notices and excerpts; but one will have to
admit that an author in whom such confusions occur—and that re-
peatedly 2—elicits only our conditional confidence. Nor do we find
any consolation in the fact that also with respect to Justin, Eusebius
tosses off the kind of statement with which we are already familiar
in one form or another—“But many other writings from his hand are
still found among many brethren” (4.18.8); that he refers his con-
temporaries who are eager to learn to the “very many” books of Justin
(4.18.1); and that as documentation for the claim that Justin’s works
already had enjoyed high esteem among the ancients, we are pro-
vided with only a reference to Irenaeus (EH 4.18.9). Does it not
make us rather suspicious when we find again and again that a very
slight acquaintance with the materials on the part of Eusebius is
juxtaposed with the assurance that these literary works of the second
century which are under discussion still enjoyed the widest circula-
tion in his time?
As we turn to Theophilus of Antioch, we note that the Apology to
Autolycus survived, while the writings against the heretics Hermog-
enes and Marcion have been lost. Indeed, Eusebius here claims once
more that all these “have been preserved until now” (4.24b). Indeed,
this time he also withholds any evidence for his assertion, except the
quotation of a single line.
We have already discussed EH 4.25 and 26 (cf. 151-154). The next
section (4.27) takes up Apollinaris, who was mentioned in 26.1 (see
above, 152), and makes the characteristic claim, by now somewhat
embarrassing and suspicious, that “many writings of Apollinaris have
23. See above, 153, the “citation” from Melito’s book on the passover. From the
beginning of this investigation (Abgar legend) we have had occasion to refer to
other inadequacies in Eusebius’ approach, and there will continue to be such
occasions in what follows [e.g. below, n. 33].
156
 THE USE OF LITERATURE IN THE CONFLICT

been preserved by many.” But in spite of the fact that Eusebius was
in a better position than almost anyone else accurately to know the
extent of available literature, in this instance also he knows only a
few titles. He has the most to say about the last book he mentions,
the one against the Montanists. But it is unlikely that he saw or read
even that. Probably he is indebted for what he does know to the
letter of Serapion [160] (EH 5.19; see above 142 f.), just as by his own
admission he was acquainted with the work of Philip of Gortyna
through reading the letter of Dionysius of Corinth (4.25).
In 4.28, Eusebius selects Musanus from the list of ecclesiastical
authors presented in 4.21, so as to provide a transition to 4.29, which
is concerned with Tatian. Musanus wrote a “very impressive book”
against the heresy of the encratites, whose founder had been Tatian.
Ths work also is still in existence. Chapters 29 and 30 bring book
four of the Ecclesiastical History to a close with a treatment of Tatian
and Bardesanes, neither of whom could lay any claim to orthodoxy.
However, Tatian did have an orthodox past when he was under the
influence of Justin (4.29.3) and gave favorable testimony about his
teacher (4.16.7; 4.29.1). Tatian also bequeathed to Christendom
“many memoirs in writing” (pleista en suggrammasin mnémeia,
4.16.7), or “a very large number of writings” (polu ti pléthos sug-
grammaton, 4.29.7). But again, apparently only the apology “Against
the Greeks” (pros Hellénas) reached Eusebius or lasted until his time,
from which he quotes (EH 4.16.7-9). He did not know first hand
the Diatessaron or Tatian’s reworking of the Pauline texts, as he him-
self admits (4.29.6), nor did he mention any other books of Tatian
in the section devoted to him. He had not yet worked through his
own material well enough to have available the information that ap-
pears later in 5.13.8, in connection with Rhodon the disciple of Tatian,
where Eusebius says that Tatian wrote a book called “Problems,” in
which he undertook to demonstrate the contradictions in the sacred
Scriptures.
It may be added that Quadratus also, who concerned himself solely
with apologetics (under Hadrian), survived, with his Apology, until
the time of Eusebius. We would not give credence to Eusebius if
he were only able to repeat once again that “The writing still exists
at present among very many brethren and among us as well” (4.3.1).
But fortunately he adds a quotation (4.3.2). The lack of such a quo-
157
 ORTHODOXY AND HERESY IN EARLIEST CHRISTIANITY

tation, however, justifies us in doubting somewhat the unqualified

correctness of the subsequent claim that the apologetic work of Aris-
tides, the contemporary of Quadratus, also is still preserved among
very many (4.3.3).
The criticism in the preceding paragraphs is directed against the
position which Eusebius deliberately cultivated for obvious reasons
(above, 149, 151, 156f.), [161] namely that during the first two cen-
turies of our era an abundance of orthodox literature already existed in
the Christian church (see also below, 171); that this literature enjoyed
wide circulation, faithful preservation, and a long and flourishing life;
and that it grew up and spread so vigorously that it was in a position
to suppress the heretics and their approaches to life, or at least to
push them into a corner.
Eusebius’ phrase “still extant at the present time” is suspicious
because of its monotonous repetition, and an expression which speaks
of “being preserved” ([dia-]sdzesthai, 4.3.3, 4.24, 4.27, 5.27) or
guarded (diaphullattesthai, 4.25) until today rather clearly suggests
that it was more normal for books to perish. The papyrus book was
a very unreliable tool for buttressing a position in the second and
third century. And what is true of its deficiencies in general, applies
two or three times as much to the Christian writings of that time.
Certainly many pieces of early Christian literature found their way
into libraries and there received competent treatment. And probably
the most important of them were recopied when deterioration made
that necessary, and thus were “saved” from destruction. Nevertheless
in pre-Constantinian times there were, in every respect, definite limi-
tations to such careful treatment.
What must the situation have been like in the library of Caesarea
at the time of Eusebius! No sooner had he died than the library was
carefully scrutinized so as to transcribe its most important treasures
from papyrus to parchment in order to preserve them. It was high
time. Of this library Jerome reports that “as much of it as was in bad
condition, Acacius and then also Euzoius, priests of the same church,
undertook to preserve on parchment.” 2 Without further ado we be-
lieve Eusebius when he says that there were also books lying around
in the library of his episcopal city of which no one knew the author,
24, Jerome Epistle 141 (to Marcellus): quam ex parte corruptam Acacius dehinc
et Euzoius eiusdem ecclesiae sacerdotes in membranis instaurare conati sunt.

158
 THE USE OF LITERATURE IN THE CONFLICT

audience, or purpose (see above, 149f.). But we cannot agree with

him in so quickly attributing these remains to the ecclesiastical liter-
ature of the second century, and thus increasing the scope of such
literature.
Just what we may expect from this period can be learned from
a particular case which fortunately has become known to us. [162]
Sextus Julius Africanus wrote a work called Kestoi (“Embroiderings”),
which can hardly be dated earlier than the year 225, since it is
dedicated to the emperor Alexander Severus; but it could have been
published as late as 235 (the year of the emperor’s death) because
Africanus did not die until 240, as his correspondence with Origen
shows. On the front (recto) side of a recently discovered papyrus
leaf (Oxyrhynchus Papyrus 412) we now are in possession of the
conclusion of the eighteenth book of the Kestoi, in columns 35 and 36
of a scroll, whose contents are unmistakably identified by the sub-
scription. What makes the papyrus so important for our purposes is
the reverse side, on which there is a document dated from the reign
of the emperor Claudius Tacitus, ie. in 275-76. This use of the verso
for different purposes presupposes that the final leaf of Africanus’
work had been previously detached from the body of the original
manuscript, thus making it available for reuse. From this we deduce
that it was possible for a manuscript to be separated into its com-
ponent parts within a generation of its original production, and so
disappear. The process of disintegration also could have taken place
much more quickly. Nothing compels us to accept the maximal limits
required between the production of the Kestoi manuscript (= 225
at earliest) and the separation of the leaves (= 276 at latest) as
representing the actual span of time. Even if the leaf had belonged
to the autograph copy of the Kestoi, the interval between the time
of issuance and the reuse of the leaf is short enough to cause us to
wonder whether, at that time, the ink must not have been better
than the glue.
Furthermore, it should be noted that in the case of Africanus we
are not dealing with the literary product of some poor fellow who
has to be satisfied with the very cheapest material, and is, in fact,
happy to have his efforts published at all, but with the work of an
the
eminent and prosperous man. How then can we imagine that
literary creations of the average Christians could have survived from

159
 ORTHODOXY AND HERESY IN EARLIEST CHRISTIANITY

the second to the fourth century in “many” or even “innumerable”

copies, and in the private houses of the brethren at that? Furthermore,
Africanus enjoyed an advantage over many other Christian authors
in that his book, which had a rich content, free from religious bias,
must have awakened considerable interest but would not have evoked
any opposition or counter-measures to speak of. Its only enemy was
the passage of time, but that took its toll quite rapidly. On the other
hand, no one outside the circle of Christianity was interested in the
anti-heretical writings of the ecclesiastical authors, [163] so that their
editions suffered from the paucity of funds and remained extraordi-
narily limited. Worse still, the few available texts, in addition to being
naturally frail, were threatened by such believers as would be aided
if the texts disappeared as soon as possible and who thus helped
them along, thereby repaying their opponents in kind. Christian
writings which were useful in the discussion with the unbaptized
were naturally in less danger, and the evidence from the literary
history as presented above (see 154-158 on Melito, Miltiades, Justin,
Theophilus, Tatian, Quadratus )tends to support this consideration.
The struggle between orthodox and_heretics, insofar_as_it was
fought in the literary arena, took the form of an effort to weaken
the weaponry of the enemy as much as possible. What could not
be completely eliminated was at least rendered useless, or was suit-
ably altered and then put to one’s own use. In plain language, the
writings of the opponent were falsified. What could be done by way
of ‘ “editing” existing writings in ancient Christianity can be seen from
the aforementioned fragment of the eighteenth book of the Kestoi
of Julius Africanus, even though it was not a part of intra-Christian
polemics. Column one of the papyrus leaf (which was column thirty-
five of the original scroll; see above, 159) begins in the middle of
a passage from the Odyssey 11, on conjuring up the dead. It deals
with Odyssey 11.34-50 but omits lines 44-47. This is no mistake. In
the latter verses Odysseus calls upon his companions to pray to the
gods of the underworld. But it is not that way in the Kestoi; rather
Odysseus himself invokes the demons and then recites his conjura-
tion verbatim. In preparation for this, the manuscript (lines 15-17)
attaches Iliad 3.278-80 to Odyssey 11.50; for Homer, these lines from
the Iliad contained a speech of Agamemnon, who calls certain di-
vine beings as witnesses prior to the duel between Paris and Mene-
laus, but Africanus puts the words into the mouth of Odysseus, who
160
 THE USE OF LITERATURE IN THE CONFLICT

is depicted as the speaker throughout. Then follow three verses made

up of Homeric expressions (lines 18-20) which eventually refer to
Odysseus’ son Telemachus, and as an actual transition, have the
father say: “‘My son’; for the conjuration was that powerful” (teknon
emon: toié gar aristé én epaoidé). These words are intended to mark
what immediately follows as the strongest conceivable conjuration.
The train of thought in lines 15-20 offers no further difficulty. The
souls of the dead will submit to human interrogation [164] only when
they are under compulsion. Odysseus sees to this in the most thorough
fashion. First he entreats some supernatural beings which the Iliad,
and therefore Homer himself, supplied, but then he wanders off, in
lines 22-36, into a completely different world. I give these lines ac-
cording to the recent reconstruction of the text by Karl Preisendanz,
and from his [German] translation: °°
Listen to me, propitious one, overseer, noble-born Anubis! [And you
listen], wily one, secret consort, savior of Osiris! [Come] Hermes, rapa-
cious one! Come, fair haired Zeus of the nether world! Give your deci-
sion and bring this spell to pass! [Come, Hades], and you Earth, im-
perishable fire, Helios Titan, come you also Iaa 7° and Phthas and
Phre, preserver of the law, and you, highly honored Nephtho, and
you, most wealthy Ablanatho, girt with fiery serpents, tearing up the
earth, haughty goddess; [Abraxas], daemon, well known through your
cosmic name, who hold sway over the world axis and the astral dance
and the frosty light of the Bear constellations, come you also, Phren,
most beloved of all to me for your restraint; I summon you, Briareus
and Phrasios, and you, Ixion, you origin and decline, and you, beauti-
fully flaming fire; and come, underworldly and heavenly, you guardian
goddess of dreams, and Sirius, shulavey ile ovale

With line 37 the manuscript returns to the context of Odyssey 11,

although with spurious verses, and continues to line 43, where finally
a link with Odyssey 11.51 is actually achieved.
In the second column Africanus claims that these verses were
ancient and genuine, and had been either omitted subsequently by
Homer himself or excised by the Pisistratidae as incompatible with
hy. [The
25. Papyri Graecae Magicae, 2: 150f., which also includes bibliograp
has been made also with an eye to the Greek text.] Cf. also
ET of this material
F. Granger,
W. Kroll, “Julius Africanus,” in Paulys Realencyklopddie, 11 (1917).
Theological Studies,
“Julius Africanus and the Library of the Pantheon,” Journal of
34 (1933): 157-161, does not discuss the questions of interest to us. [For ed. and
Iliad and Odyssey, see the LCL volumes by A. T. Murray (1924-
ET of Homer's
25 and 1919 respectively ).]
26. Iaa = Yahweh, as Preisendanz renders it.
161
 ORTHODOXY AND HERESY IN EARLIEST CHRISTIANITY

the structure of the poem. Nevertheless Africanus included them

here as “a most noteworthy production” (kyéma polytelesteron). He
felt that he was all the more justified in doing so because the archives
of Jerusalem and of Nysa in Caria [southwestern Asia Minor] had
them. The library of the Pantheon in Rome, by the baths of Alex-
ander, also had them as far as “verse 13.” He was well acquainted
with this library because he himself had built and furnished it for
the emperor Alexander Severus. [165] Of course, the “thirteen” verses
preserved there cannot be reckoned on the basis of the quite acci-
dental beginning of the Homeric text in our fragment. Nothing is more
certain than that the preceding column of the original scroll (col. 34,
now lost to us) also had contained a number of verses from Homer.
The enumeration has to begin where the actual addition begins. There-
fore the Roman copy also attested the expanded text, with little
deviation.
How is this situation to be assessed? That is, who is responsible
for the “enrichment” of Homer? Was it Africanus himself, or an earlier
redactor by whom he was led astray? If one supposes that Africanus
-was deceived, the question immediately arises as to how he had such
unsuspecting confidence in the falsified Homer, in view of the sharp
critical sense he showed with respect to the story of Susanna.?* In
that case, (1) his linguistic sensivity led him to conclude that it must
have been written originally in Greek, and could not be a trans-
lation; (2) a number of pertinent considerations suggested to him
that the oppressed conditions of the Jews during the Babylonian
exile hardly were consistent with the way that they appear in the
Susanna pericope; (3) he referred back to the history of the tra-
dition, which shows that the Susanna material did not originally be-
long to the book of Daniel.
The same sort of approach would have required him to raise de-
cisive objections against attributing that syncretistic conjuration to
Homer—assuming that it had come to Africanus from some earlier
source. But instead he is completely blind to the problems and is
satisfied to have come across that ancient and genuine passage in
two or three libraries. Is this plausible, or is it suspicious? The li-

27. In his letter to Origen. Cf. W. Reichardt, Die Briefe des Sextus Julius Afri-
canus an Aristides wnd Origenes (TU 34.3, 1909).
162
 THE USE OF LITERATURE IN THE CONFLICT

braries in Jerusalem °* and Rome, in any event, were for him easily
reached at will, while the one in Carian Nysa was hardly accessible
for many. What makes the whole matter particularly suspect is the
fact that no mention is made of the region in which such an addition
to Homer most likely [166] would have appeared—a region, moreover,
in which Africanus had demonstrably succumbed to syncretistic tend-
encies—namely, Alexandria-Egypt. Surely the process for which Afri-
canus wants to gain recognition is nothing more than a parasitic
enlargement of Homer by means of an Egyptian magical text. It
reflects the desire to make Homer, like Hermes Trismegistos, Moses,
and Democritus,”® into a patron of the magical arts which flourished
predominantly along the Nile. The markedly Egyptian color of the
inserted passage must be obvious to everyone. What might seem to
indicate a Greek orientation, such as the reference to “Helios,” had
general currency at that time—Helios is none other than the Egyptian
Re. Or when we encounter the “fair haired Zeus of the nether world,”
we find that he is enthroned also in Alexandria.*® But Osiris, Isis,
Anubis, Phtha, Phre, and Nephto are expressly Egyptian; and in
the land of the Nile again and again we meet in their society Jaa,
as well as Abraxas and Ablanatho, and also the Bear constellations
and the guardian of the world axis and ruler of the people, if it is
permitted to refer to the so-called Mithras liturgy in the great Paris
magical papyrus.*}
And it all was supposed to have been preserved expressly and
almost exclusively at Nysa in Caria! There was not much time for
these interests to be transplanted from Egypt to the western part

28. W. Kroll (see above, n. 25) concluded from lines 58 ff. of the fragment that
Jerusalem was the home of Africanus. At any rate, in later life he lived for some
time in Emmaus on the Philistine plain, six hours from Jerusalem,
29. Manuscript 299 of the library of St. Mark in Venice (tenth century) includes
Africanus as seventh in the list of “names of the philosophers of divine knowl-
edge and art” (onomata ton philosophon tés theias epistémés kai technés), which
begins with Moses and Democritus (M. Berthelot, Collection des anciens alche-
mistes grecs 1 [Paris, 1887]: 110). The content of the thirty-second chapter of this
codex derives from Hermes, Zosimus, Nilus, and Africanus (Berthelot 1, 175 B).
30. Cf. R. Wiinsch, “Deisidaimoniaka,” Archiv fiir Religionswissenschaft 12
(1909): 19.
31. Cf. A. Dieterich, Eine Mithrasliturgie (Leipzig: Teubner, 1903; repr. of
19233 ed., Darmstadt, 1966), pp. 12f., 14f., 70, 72f. [See also the Greek text
with German translation in Preisendanz, Papyri Graecae Magicae, 1: 94 ff. =no.
).]
IV.639 ff. (especially lines 681 and 700 f. for the above-mentioned titles
163
 ORTHODOXY AND HERESY IN EARLIEST CHRISTIANITY

of Asia Minor. Africanus flourished at the beginning of the third

century, while the magical texts of the kind we have described are
characteristic of the second century c.z. Thus it seems to me that the
question posed here points back to the two possibilities: (1) either
Africanus himself revised Homer—Africanus, whose taste for Egyp-
tian magic will be discussed shortly, and’ who undoubtedly had the
libraries of Jerusalem and Rome at his disposal—(2) or someone else
with essentially the same interests who was at home in the same
libraries did it some fifty years earlier, and Africanus allowed himself
to be completely hoodwinked, in spite of his capacity for literary
criticism which was so well displayed in the handling of Susanna.
[167] For my part, I see no reason to attribute to an unknown person
the deed for which Africanus is such a prime suspect.
The connections of Africanus with Egypt and with magic remain
to be demonstrated. The former is suggested already by his exchange
of ideas with Origen (see above, 162 n. 27; Origen replied to the
letter of Africanus), and is, moreover, clearly attested by Africanus
himself since, as we have already noted (above, 55), he mentions
a trip to Alexandria. He indicates some of the things he did there in
his Chronicle. In one passage, he gives an excerpt from Manetho,
the Egyptian high priest in Heliopolis (ca. 300 B.c.e.) who in his
work called Aiguptiaka (“Things pertaining to the Egyptians”) un-
dertook to instruct the Greeks about the history and religion of the
Egyptians. Africanus, following Manetho, mentions King Suphis of
the fourth dynasty, then adds that he had composed “the sacred
book” (tén hieran biblon sunegrapse) and comments further: “which
I acquired for myself as a great treasure (mega chréma) when I
was in Egypt.” Thus the Christian Africanus, who traveled to Egypt
because of his interest in the Christian catechetical school, takes this
opportunity to buy a sacred writing of the pagan Egyptians and
values it highly as a cherished possession. We can see from the magi-
cal papyri in Greek—for the manuscripts purchased by Africanus must
have been in that language—what usually was included in the “holy
scriptures” in Egypt at the beginning of the third century. Evidently
someone in Egypt had palmed off on him such a papyrus as an
ancient book by Suphis. His critical acumen was inadequate to deal
with this kind of situation. Here the mysterious and irrational be-
32. Quoted in George Syncellus Chronicles, 1: 105 f., where Africanus is men-
tioned expressly.
164
 THE USE OF LITERATURE IN THE CONFLICT

came the criterion of genuineness. This Egyptian acquisition, I

believe, supplied Africanus with the material for his reworking of
Homer.** [168]
In view of this lack of restraint by an educated Christian and
intellectual leader as soon as certain interests are aroused, it is hardly
surprising when Origen, writing at the same time, complains bit-

33. A book such as the present study, which is so critical of Eusebius (very much
against the original inclination and intention of its author) may be allowed to
justify its claim by referring to the wider context of the passage in which Afri-
canus speaks of purchasing the Suphis book. The excerpt from Africanus quoted
by George Syncellus literally reads as follows: “Suphis 63 years. He built the
greatest pyramid, which Herodotus claims came from Cheops. But he was also
one who scorned the gods (hyperoptés eis theous). And he wrote the sacred
book, which I acquired for myself in Egypt as a great treasure.” [168] Shortly
thereafter (106 f.), Syncellus repeats essentially the same thing, but this time
depends on Eusebius as his source, just as he had previously used Africanus. This
is not surprising in itself. Eusebius himself drew on Africanus in writing his
Chronicle. Syncellus thus used Africanus, directly at first and then indirectly by
way of Eusebius. This circumstance provides us with an insight into the way
Eusebius evaluated and employed his sources. The quotation which Syncellus
drew directly from Africanus, given above, is quite remarkable. It prompts the
question, how did one who scorned the gods come to write a sacred book? Some-
thing seems out of line here. But if we go back to Herodotus, we find that the
scoring of the gods was done by Cheops (Herodotus 2.124 says Cheops closed
all the temples and prevented the people from sacrificing; [ed. and ET by A. D.
Godley, LCL (1920)]). It is possible that Africanus understood it in the same
way. If so, the words “he was one who scorned the gods” were a digression re-
ferring to Cheops, in connection with the allusion to Herodotus. But what fol-
lows concerning the sacred book applies to the person who is the subject of the
paragraph as a whole, namely Suphis. Linguistically, however, it is also possible
to refer it all to Suphis, except Herodotus’ statement that Cheops, and not Suphis,
was the builder of the greatest pyramid.
This latter interpretation is what Eusebius drew from the words of Africanus.
Whereupon he felt obliged to offer an explanation of how Suphis, the scorner
of the gods, came to occupy himself with sacred literature. He accomplished this
by appending to the statement “he was a scorner of the gods” the clause “then
however he repented” (hos metanoésanta auton) and wrote the sacred book. But
Eusebius had another problem. How could the learned and pious Christian Afri-
canus, from whom he borrowed so much, have acquired the pagan book of magic
by Suphis and have cherished it as a great treasure? Something also must have
been wrong at this point with the text as transmitted. So Eusebius made an at-
tempt to correct it; thus instead of “the sacred book which I acquired for my-
self as a great treasure” we now read in his text “the sacred book which the
Egyptians guard (Aigyptioi periepousi) as a great treasure.” Thus by inserting
and changing only four words, Eusebius radically alters, indeed distorts, the sense
in two directions, and all for reasons that could not be more clear. There is no
doubt that Eusebius was operating here with a clean conscience; he unquestion-
ably felt it was his duty to restore a corrupt text. But the urgent question must
be raised as to how much one should accept from a historian found to be oper-
ating in such a manner? Is not one obligated to entertain reservations in all in-
stances where there is no possibility of verification and where a purpose becomes
clearly discernible on the other side?
165
 ORTHODOXY AND HERESY IN EARLIEST CHRISTIANITY

terly about the Valentianian Candidus.** Origen had disputed with

him before a large [169] audience, and a transcript of it was made.
Candidus reworked this: “he added what he wished, and deleted
what he wished, and changed whatever he wanted” (quae voluit
addidit et quae voluit abstulit et quod ei visum est permutavit). In
this process he did not limit himself to the opinions he himself had
expressed, but tampered extensively with the statements of Origen.
He secured a wide circulation among Christians for the record thus
edited, and when Origen took him to task for it, he responded “I
wanted to embellish the disputation more, and also to clean it up”
(quoniam magis ornare volui disputationem illam atque purgare). Of
course, both the ornare and the purgare worked to the disadvantage
of the opponent. Indeed, another heretic prepared a report of a dis-
putation with Origen which had never taken place.** Origen was
aware of the existence of the forgery in Ephesus, Rome, and Antioch,
and had no doubt that it was circulated even more widely.
When we move back into the second century, we find Irenaeus
expressing the greatest apprehension that his writings against heretics
would be altered—naturally, by the heretics (in EH 5.20.2). Likewise
Dionysius of Corinth complained about the falsifying of his letters:
“I have written letters at the request of the brethren. But the apostles
of the devil have filled them with tares, removing many things and
adding others. Woe is reserved for them. Since certain people have
dared to tamper even with the dominical scriptures, it is not sur-
prising that they have made attacks on less important writings” (in
EH 4.23.12). If it was possible for the heretics to falsify writings of
an orthodox “bishop” without having their project spoiled by opposi-
tion from the Christian public, then it must have been even easier
for them to withdraw from circulation considerable amounts of “ec-
clesiastical” literature, which was disturbing and uncomfortable to
them. As for the literature that remained, the heretics could optimisti-
cally rely on their good luck.
34, In a letter “to certain close acquaintances at Alexandria” (ad quosdam caros
suos Alexandriam) preserved by Rufinus, “On the falsifying of the books of Ori-
gen” 7 (De adulteratione librorum Origenis, ed. M. Simonetti in CC 20 [1961];
ET by W. H. Freemantle in NPNF 3, series 2 [1892], 423 f.). The relevant pas-
sage is reproduced by Harnack, Geschichte 1.1, 182 (= Simonetti, lines 23-37).
35. In the same létter mentioned above (ed. Simonetti, lines 46 ff.; Harnack, p.
405 f.).
166
 THE USE OF LITERATURE IN THE CONFLICT

When we pursue the investigation back behind Dionysius to the

beginnings of Christian literature, we find that the apocalypticist
John had similar anxieties in his conflict with the heretics. He levelled
a curse on anyone who would alter his prophetic book by additions
or deletions (Rev. 22.18 f.). Although such language reflects to some
degree stylistic conventions, it is nevertheless motivated by John’s
actual situation (see above, 77 ff.). He had no need to feel threatened
by those whose positions were close to his, [170] but rather by those
to whom he had so expressed his unblunted antipathy in the letters
to the churches (Rev. 1-2) and who, as we have seen, commanded a
majority in many communities. How easily they could there lay hands
on his work and alter it to their liking. In that way they knocked a
major weapon from their opponents’ hand, or took away its cutting
edge.
It was by no means always necessary to “falsify” in order to ad-
minister a telling blow to one’s opponent. It was also effective, if there
were some evidence of his weakness and inadequacy, not to conceal
it behind a cloak of kindness and thus consign it to oblivion, but
rather, to drag it into the public spotlight and proclaim it in the
marketplace. Perhaps this provides an explanation for the peculiar
situation relating to the collected letters of Dionysius of Corinth. We
have already noted (above, 126f.) that along with letters of the Co-
rinthian bishop, the collection also included a reply by Pinytus of
Cnossus, which amounted to a harsh rejection of Dionysius. Harnack
thinks that Dionysius himself added this rejoinder to the collection
of his letters which he had made—“otherwise, how could the letter of
Pinytus been included?” ** To me, that appears doubtful for more
than one reason. First, because the contents are hardly complimentary.
Further, if Dionysius himself had incorporated pronouncements from
the other side along with his own letters, then he surely would have
_ given primary consideration to what the Romans and their Bishop
Soter wrote to Corinth, to which he replied by his letter to Rome.
But that is not the case.37 Thus Harnack’s question, “Otherwise how
could the letter of Pinytus have been included?” hardly decides the
issue in his favor, for the letter of Pinytus was as little an actual

36. Harnack, Briefsammlung, p. 37.

37, See also Harnack, Briefsammlung, p. 79 n. 3.
167
 ORTHODOXY AND HERESY IN EARLIEST CHRISTIANITY

private letter in the special possession of Dionysius, as was the writing

to which Pinytus was responding, which admonished Bishop Pinytus
but was addressed to the Cnossians as a whole (EH 4.23.7). Similarly,
the letter to Soter was directed to the Romans as well (EH 4.23.9).
It seems to me much more probable that Dionysius could not let
the letter of Pinytus disappear, odious though it was to him, because
its [171] contents were common knowledge. Not he, but his opponents
were interested in circulating it more widely by including it in the
collection—as a weapon against orthodoxy. How useful sharp rejection
of a well-known ecclesiastical bishop and leader must have been to
the Marcionites or encratites, even if Pinytus himself were not closely
related to such circles. That heretical tampering actually constituted
a threat to the collection of letters is proved by the complaint of
Dionysius that his letters were falsified by them (see above, 166).
Indeed, I can imagine that his cry of rage over the audacity of the
heretics was evoked by the unhappy discovery that Pinytus’ letter
of reply had been inserted into the collection of his letters, strongly
detracting from the beneficial effect it was intended to have.
If our view of the early Christian polemical literature and its
vicissitudes is at all accurate, then one would have to say that the
significance of literature in the ideological conflict of that early period”
was in some respects greater, and yet in other respects. more limited
than usually is‘supposed. Its significance was more weighty in so far
as there were numerous writings of all sorts ** which have disap-
peared without a trace; but it was also smaller in that the writings
known to us led more of a defensive type of existence and were not
capable ofholding their own ground for very long. The theologian
was aware of this writing or that; but, for example, what influence
did the literary exchange between the church and Montanism have
prior to the time of “the anonymous,” or Serapion (see above, 133-137,
142 f.)? All this bypassed the average Christian. And what chanced to
reach him by this or that route made little impression. These works
hardly overflowed with persuasive power. I am firmly of the opinion
that a Tatian had as little success in convincing Greeks that their
religion and culture was inferior—his “Exhortation” served primarily
as a form of easing his own tensions—as the libellous anti-Montanist
38. On this matter, cf. Bauer, Wortgottesdienst, p. 47 £.
168
 THE USE OF LITERATURE IN THE CONFLICT

writings (see above, 141 f.)succeeded in convicting the Montanists of

their error. Basically, such literature wasinfluential only in its own
circle ofsympathizers, and_ this_effect.was_ itself. narrowly limited
in time asBees as inn space. [172]

The use to which the literature of the century or so after the

close of the apostolic age was put, in one way or another, in the dis-
putes within Christianity, may still be subjected to an examination
that will provide information in a different direction. Of course, we
cannot treat the subject exhaustively. We must always remain con-
scious of the fact that a very importantmt and instructive portionof
the relevant writings of this périod no doubt has disappeared without
‘atrace, while of another portion we only know ‘the titles—titles ‘that
no longer reveal to us whether, or to what extent, the works to which
they belonged were polemical. Furthermore, the“church” is clearly
in a privileged position insofar as it became authoritative bearer and
custodian of the tradition. Although we are in a position to name a
great number of pronouncedly anti-heretical writers—we are con-
stantly encountering such—we can hardly demonstrate the fact (which
cannot seriously be doubted) that heretics also took pen in hand to
refute the ecclesiastical teaching, although their literary output also was
quite prolific. At one point we do, indeed, hear of a Montanist
writing against orthodoxy (see above, 136). But it was occasioned
by a publication of the apologist Miltiades. And the ecclesiastical
tradition in Eusebius saw to it that orthodoxy also had the last word.
“The anonymous” promptly took care of the Montanists once again.
We also hear of literary feuding between Bardesanes and the Mar-
cionites (see above, 29), But in contrast to orthodoxy, according
to its professional guardians, heresy always seems to be on. the defen-
onlyafutile.resistance at that, Itis only occasionally
sive, and capable of 01
_ that wé are in the fortunate1 position of being able to read between
the lines, such as in the struggle between ecclesiastical Christianity
and the Montanist movement (see above, 141-146). Gnosticism, the
tradition would have us believe, swallowed the rebukes and “refu-
tations” of the church in silence and essentially confined itself to
developing its own views. This attitude attributed to the heterodox
is, indeed, not just a false illusion conveyed by the ecclesiastical re-
169
 ORTHODOXY AND HERESY IN EARLIEST CHRISTIANITY

ports, but has some truth to it insofar as for large areas during the
period under investigation heresy constituted Christianity to such a
degree that a confrontation with [173] the ecclesiastical faith was not
necessary and was scarcely even possible. Had that not been the case,
it would be impossible to explain the fact that among the rather num-
erous titles of gnostic writings of which we are still aware,* scarcely
a single one arouses even a suspicion of an anti-ecclesiastical attitude.
What reason would someone like Basilides have had to fight against
the “church” in Alexandria at the time of Hadrian (see above, 48-53)?
It seems to have satisfied him to rally his believers around the Gospel
of Basilides; ** by means of a commentary to provide the firm founda-
tion and the correct interpretation of this gospel,*’ in contrast to
the other gospels current in Egypt—Gospel of the Hebrews and Gos-
pel of the Egyptians—and to enrich the liturgical life of his com-
munities through psalms and hymns. Isidore, his “true son and dis-
ciple” (Hippolytus Ref. 7.20) added an ethical treatise as well as
some other things.4? It was up to orthodoxy to take the initiative in
the struggle, because it needed first of all to gain a foothold in the
area where Basilides was firmly entrenched. So Agrippa Castor com-
posed a polemical writing against Basilides, which Eusebius calls a
“devastating refutation by a highly renowned author” (EH 4.7.6).
Whether he had personally seen it or had only heard of it in some
roundabout way is an open question. He does not quote it verbatim,
39. Cf. Harnack, Geschichte, 1.1: 152 ff.; and 2.1: 536-541.-[For a convenient
and up-to-date catalogue of the “Coptic Gnostic Library” recently discovered
near Nag Hammadi in Middle Egypt, see J. M. Robinson, “The Coptic Gnostic
Library Today,” NTS 14 (1967/68): 383 ff,, and. 16 (1969/70): 185-190. Thus
far nothing in this collection, which is not yet fully published, seems to require
modification of the above observation by Bauer; see also below, p. 314 n. 32,
and p. 310.]
40. Mentioned by Origen Homily 1 on Luke. [For additional information, see the
discussion by H.-C. Puech in Hennecke-Schneemelcher, 1: 346 ff.]
Al. The so-called Exégética (in twenty-four books) mentioned by Agrippa Cas-
tor in EH 4.7.7 and by Clement of Alexandria Strom. 4.(12.)81-83; see also
below, 190. [In addition, see Puech in Hennecke-Schneemelcher, 1: 347 f. The
Greek text of this material is conveniently reproduced in Vélker, Quellen, pp.
40£.; for an ET, see Grant, Gnosticism Anthology, pp. 136 f.]
42. Origen In Job 21.11f. (Pitra, Analecta Sacra, 2: 368). Cf. the Mura-
torian Canon, lines 83f.; [and Irenaeus AH 1.24.5 (=1.19.3), on Basilidean
“incantationes.” |
43. Isidore’s “Ethics” is quoted by Clement of Alexandria Strom. 3.(1.)1-3 (cf.
Epiphanius Her. 32.2). [For a convenient collection of this and other fragments,
see Volker, Quellen, pp. 42f.; ET in Grant, Gnosticism Anthology, pp. 138 ff.
See also below, 179.]
170
 THE USE OF LITERATURE IN THE CONFLICT

but uses the formula: Agrippa Castor says that Basilides did or
taught such and such (EH 4.7.7). Thereby he deals with the subject
in an extremely superficial manner and also damages his presentation
by presuming to claim the following already for the reign of Hadrian:
“Now at this time very many churchmen fought for the truth and
triumphantly defended the apostolic and ecclesiastical teaching with
great acumen...” (EH 4.7.5; see above, 149-158).
The orthodox tirade against Marcion was concentrated in the
West.*# Justin and the Muratorian fragment derive from Italy; east
of there, Dionysius of Corinth [174] and Philip of Gortyna in Crete
follow along. Orthodoxy was most fiercely locked in battle with this
enemy in western Asia Minor—we know of Polycarp of Smyrna, of the
Asiatic presbyter mentioned by Irenaeus as well as of Irenaeus him-
self (since this is the farthest east that he could be considered to
represent), of Melito of Sardis and Rhodon from Asia. And Modestus
also, because of his very name, should not be located any farther
east; Eusebius (EH 4.25) lists him along with Philip of Gortyna and
Irenaeus. Hierapolis (Papias), then, is the easternmost place where
there was ecclesiastical opposition to Marcion in Asia Minor. Nico-
media (to which Dionysius of Corinth wrote; EH 4.23.4) takes us
only to the northern coast and thus within range of Marcion’s home
territory.*® The noise of strife dies away as soon as we turn to the
regions of Asia Minor in which we have previously been unable to
discover any active signs of “ecclesiastical” life (see above, 81 f.).
Otherwise, we learn of (1) an attempt by Theophilus of Antioch,
who was beleaguered by heretics and under the ecclesiastical in-
fluence of the West, to protect himself and his “ecclesiastical” group
from this danger. This undertaking was hardly more skillful or
successful than was his refutation of the heathen addressed to Auto-
lycus (Ad Autolycum; see above, 18). (2) There are also state-
ments by Clement, who at the end of the second century brought
into play for the first time and in a subdued manner something like
of
orthodoxy in Alexandria. (3) And finally, there is the attempt
monop-
Bardesanes at a somewhat later time to diminish the previous
44. The material may be found in Hammack, Marcion?, 314°-327* (“Die Polemiker
vor Tertullian” = Beilage 6.1).
45. Hegesippus (in EH 4.22.4-7), with his polemic against the heretics, belongs
thoroughly to the West, close to Justin, even though both were originally from
the East.
Lee
 ORTHODOXY AND HERESY IN EARLIEST CHRISTIANITY

oly of the Marcionites in Edessa, which was as yet quite devoid of all
orthodoxy (see above, 29). One gets the impression that in the
second century the church posed no real threat to the Marcionite
movement from around Hierapolis eastward, while in the West, to the
very gates of Rome, the church was its most dangerous enemy.
The Valentinians, whose founder had been active in Rome and
Egypt, spread in various forms over the whole empire from the middle
of the second century, and still had communities in the East and in
Egypt after the middle of the fourth century.*® [175] In the Marcosian
sect, they advanced as far as Gaul already in the second century.*?
The western branch of the Valentinians settled there and in Italy,
while the eastern branch was active particularly in Egypt and Syria,
and even beyond.*® The church vehemently opposed this heresy. But
when we survey the situation in the second century, as far it can still
be determined, we find the same situation with respect to anti-
Valentinian writings *® as was observed in the case of Marcion—such
expressions of opposition are not found any farther east than western
Asia Minor.*°
The observations made above concerning the heresies of Marcion
and Valentinus and the “ecclesiastical” confrontation with them per-
mit a generalization. Apart from the tempest-tossed island of ec-
clesiastical orthodoxy within the Christianity of Antioch,54 and the
timid attempt to assist orthodoxy in Egypt to achieve a united exis-
tence (see above, 53 ff. and also 170£.), the Ecclesiastical History of
Eusebius shows no knowledge at all of “ecclesiastical” life and war-
fare east of Phrygian Hierapolis until the third century. The greater
part of Asia Minor contributed as little to the refutation of the here-
tics as did Syria, Palestine,®°? and Mesopotamia. And we have seen
above (160-165) how necessary it is to give a person like Sextus Julius
Africanus every benefit of the doubt in order to certify his ecclesiasti-

46. See Harnack, Geschichte, 1.1: 174.

47. E. Preuschen, RPTK3, 20 (1908): 411.
48. Cf. C. Schmidt, RGG?2, 5 (1931): 1436.
49. Clement of Alexandria, of whose ideological life-setting in Egypt we are
aware, can be omitted from consideration at present.
50. Cf. Harnack, Geschichte, 1.1: 174, where the opponents are enumerated.
51. On this situation, see above, 63-67, 75, 108-110, and passim (Ignatius, Theo-
philus, Serapion).
52. Whether the agreement of Palestinian church leaders with Roman Easter prac-
tice (EH 5.23.3) also extended to matters of doctrine, we do not know. In any
event, we hear nothing of the participation of Palestine in the battle with the
heretics.
172
 THE USE OF LITERATURE IN THE CONFLICT

cal orientation. It is just as illegitimate to suppose that in those

regions where Christianity was not threatened by heresy it would
have developed a unified orthodox position as it is to infer that no
Christian communities had existed there at all at that time, thus
providing a quite natural explanation for the silence. After all, this
problem relates to the areas of Paul’s missionary activity in Ly-
caonia, Pisidia, and Galatia, to his home province, Cilicia, and to
the territories stretching from there to the cradle of Christianity, as
well as to Palestine itself. The [176] relevant material in Harnack’s
Mission and Expansion of Christianity also suffices to render the
above supposition completely impossible.®*
But surely, if it is possible to deduce from something like the letter
of Pliny as much as Harnack does concerning the spread of Chris-
tianity in Asia Minor (pp. 331 [=737f.]; cf. also p. 347 [=754]),
or if the material cited by Ramsay is assessed from a similar stand-
point,®* the silence of Eusebius about ecclesiastical life in central and
eastern Asia Minor is doubly surprising. It is no longer satisfactory
merely to express regret and say with Harnack, “our information about
the history of the church in Cilicia until the council of Nicaea is
quite limited” (p. 324 [= 730 in German *]). At the risk of tiring the
reader, we must ask once again, why are things this way? Why do so
many manifestations of ecclesiastical Christianity reach Eusebius from
the western districts, while the East, his own home territory, is silent?
In view of what has been ascertained about Edessa, Egypt, and other
regions, only one answer is possible, namely, that there was no dis-
cernible “ecclesiastical” life in central and eastern Asia Minor in the
second century. Christianity there was entirely, or predominately, of
a different sort. The “heretics” kept to themselves for a long time. But
since their own peaceful existence could not be the subject matter
of an ecclesiastically oriented attempt at writing history, for which
they would only be relevant as objects of rejection, we sense that the
silence of Eusebius consistently represents the appropriate style for
composing the historia ecclesiastica. He did not consider it to be his
duty to transmit what he might have learned about the success of
the missionary activity of the heretics if it was not repulsed im-
mediately by some counter-attack of orthodoxy. It was not his busi-
53. Harnack, Mission®, 2: 324 ff. (expanded discussion in 4th German edition,
pp. 730 ff.)
perti-
54, Harnack, Mission®, 2: 358 ff. (expanded in German#, 766 ff.); the most
nent works by Ramsay are listed on p. 766 n. 3 of 4th German edition.
173
 ORTHODOXY AND HERESY IN EARLIEST CHRISTIANITY

ness to fix in the memory of Christianity reference to unchecked

errors. And we cannot expect him to include in his account informa-
tion from ‘the heretical books to which he could not immediately
attach the ecclesiastical refutation and rebuttal they deserved.
Consequently, there would be no other way of which I am aware
to secure recognition throughout the whole of Christendom at that
time for a point of view that was hemmed in by ecclesiastical Chris-
tianity, than to suppose that in the regions in which the battle raged,
the “heretics” [177] used, to a considerable extent, the same offensive
and defensive tactics as were also employed by the “church.” Here
and there such a hypothesis finds support in occasional references
in the sources. I will not repeat what has already been stated in this
regard (see above, 132-146, 166-169; cf. also chap. 6). But we should
remind ourselves at this point that the books of the churchmen di-
rected against heresy sometimes take the form of polemics against
_ individual heresiarchs or heresies, and sometimes concentrate on cer-
tain particularly important controversial issues (see above, 147 f., 170-
172). Alongside the doctrinal writing and the polemical writing was
the letter. With the writings from churches or church leaders to other
churches (see above, 77-81, 93 f., 95 ff., 121 f.) there is also the letter
from one individual to another. Concerning the letter from Dionysius of
Corinth to the Christian lady Chrysophora, Eusebius tells us nothing
more than that he “presented her with the suitable spiritual food”
(EH 4.23.13). And the more precise purposes of the letters of Valen-
tinus *° also elude our grasp because we are not sufficiently informed
about their recipients. On the other hand, the aim of the Valentinian
Ptolemy in his famous letter (see above, 120) is quite clear. He
desired to win the distinguished Christian lady Flora to a gnostic
view of Christianity and in so doing discloses how even in Italy
toward the end of the second century Gnostics and “ecclesiastically”
oriented Christians still could maintain a close personal relationship.*®
Letters of recommendation, such as already plagued the life of the
Apostle Paul (2 Cor. 3:1), play their role. “Take special care,” says
55. Preserved by Clement of Alexandria Strom. 2.(8.)36, 2.(20.)114, 3.(7.)59
(to Agathopus). [For a convenient collection of the Greek texts, see Vélker,
Quellen, pp. 57 f.; for ET see Grant, Gnosticism Anthology, pp. 143 f.]
56. Cf. G. Heinrici, Die valentinianische Gnosis und die heilige Schrift (Berlin,
1871), pp. 76f., 81 f.
174
 THE USE OF LITERATURE IN THE CONFLICT

the Peter of the pseudo-Clementine materials, “not to believe any

teacher who does not bring a recommendation (testimonium) from
Jerusalem, from James the brother of the Lord or from his successor,
For whoever has not gone there and been endorsed there as a qualified
and faithful teacher for the proclamation of the word of Christ—I
mean, whoever has not obtained a recommendation (testimonium)
from there—should not be accepted at all. You are not to hope for
any prophet or apostle at this time other than us” (Rec, 4.35.1-2;
similarly Hom. 11.35). [178] We have already noticed that Marcion
also launched himself into the world equipped with letters of recom-
mendation from his coreligionists in Pontus (see above, 91).
Apparently, a collection of the above-mentioned letters of Valen-
tinus already existed by the time of Clement of Alexandria, who
quotes from three of them in the passages listed. Valentinus’ ad-
herents chose this method to preserve the important pronouncements
of the master and to exploit them to the full for strengthening the
inner and outer life of their community. Ecclesiastically oriented
groups acted no differently and for analogous purposes gathered the
available letters of Ignatius, for example, or of Dionysius of Corinth.®
Unfortunately we are no longer able to determine whether the col-
lection of Valentinian writings stood in noticeable opposition to a
Christianity of a divergent character, as was true of the two ec-
clesiastical collections. At Philippi, orthodoxy had requested the letters
of Ignatius as a weapon in its struggle against docetism (Polycarp
Philippians 13.2). The anti-heretical attitude of the letters of Diony-
sius is just as evident, but perhaps because of a counter-move by
those under attack (see above, 167 f.) they did not realize their full
potential.
Both orthodox and heretic alike seek, by means of literature of all
kinds, by letters and collections of letters, and of course also by
personal contacts, to extend their influence at home and abroad and
to obstruct the path of their opponents wherever they meet. So also,
both parties make use of the sermon and the homily, delivered orally
as well as circulated in writing; both produce religious poetry,°®
57. On this point, cf. Harnack, Briefsammlung.
a “divinely favored
58. In AH 1.15.6 (=1.8.17), Irenaeus quotes the words of
gnostic Marcus in
elder” (ho theophilés presbytés), who polemicized against the
verse.

175
 ORTHODOXY AND HERESY IN EARLIEST CHRISTIANITY

psalms, odes, and other songs; or by means of the apocryphal acts,

both introduce an abundance of popular works so as to win the
masses. If someone was lacking in creativity, he could always “edit”
a work that originated with the other side, thus making it useful for
his own cause. In the account of the communities of Vienna and
Lyons we find a revelation of the martyr Attalus employed against
encratitic tendencies. Alcibiades, another victim of the persecution,
led an [179] austere life that allowed him to partake only of bread
and water. Attalus, on the strength of divine instruction, forbade
Alcibiades to continue this while he was imprisoned and thenceforth
he partook of everything without distinction.*® “The Holy Spirit was
their counselor” (EH 5.3.1-3). In heretical gospels (Gospel of the
Egyptians, Marcion, Tatian) and acts (Acts of Thomas 20 and 29),
of course, abstinence with respect to food also is preached with
reference to Jesus and his inner circle. Here “bread and water” is
the motto of the Christian way of life.
It is not clear how the Holy Spirit manifested himself to Attalus.
He felt that he was being instructed from heaven in some way thought
to be supernatural. If he saw a vision, he was not alone in this,
neither within orthodoxy nor with respect to the heretics. Valentinus
attributed his teaching to a vision in which he saw a newborn child,
which in answer to his question identified himself as the Logos (Hip-
polytus Ref. 6.43). Doubtless the “tragic myth” (tragikon tina
mython) that was added and that forms the foundation and source
for the religious concepts of Valentinus also derives from this vision.
Similarly, the fragment of a Valentinian psalm displays a visionary
nature.© The Valentianian Marcus likewise claimed direct heavenly
illumination: “The supreme tetrad,” he explained, “descended to him
from the invisible and ineffable places in female form—since the
world, he says, would not have been able to endure its male form—
and revealed to him its own nature and explained the origin of the
‘Al? (tén ton pantdn genesin), which it had never before disclosed

59. Whether an ancient dungeon was really the best place to change one’s diet
from bread and water to elegant cuisine is, of course, open to question.
60. Hippolytus Ref. 6.37 [Volker, Quellen, pp. 59f.; ET in Grant, Gnosticism
Anthology, p. 145]. Cf. also Tertullian Against the Valentinians 4: “If they shall
have added anything new, they immediately call their presumption a revelation
and their ingenuity a gift of grace” (si aliquid novi adstruxerint, revelationem
statim appellant praesumptionem et charisma ingenium).
176
 THE USE OF LITERATURE IN THE CONFLICT

to any of the gods or men, to him alone in the following words . .”

(Irenaeus AH 1.14.1[= 1.8.1]).
Here, moreover, we have one of the isolated instances in which
we hear something to the effect that heretics responded to the re-
proofs of the church. Hippolytus, before his report of the vision of
Valentinus, says about Marcus that the blessed “elder” Irenaeus had
been [180] very frank in his refutation and described the baptisms and
other practices intended to bring salvation. When this came to the
attention of some of the adherents of Marcus, they denied that they
had any such practices at all—“they are always encouraged to deny.”
For this reason Hippolytus went into everything with the greatest
care and even investigated the most carefully guarded secrets (all’
oude to arréton autén elathen hémas), Hippolytus seized the op-
portunity to declare that the vision of Marcus was a deliberate
fraud—in order to make a name for himself Marcus imitated his
teacher Valentinus, and claimed that he himself also experienced in-
timate communication with heaven (Ref. 6.43*). Incidentally, from
what the churchman Hippolytus says in this passage it seems that
the Valentinians were not at all in agreement with what Hippolytus
thought he had uncovered as their most secret mysteries.
Outstanding personalities among the Montanists were likewise
granted divine visions and gained new knowledge or confirmation
of previous opinions therefrom. “The gospel is preached in such a
manner *! by the holy prophetess Prisca [Priscilla],” says Tertullian,
“that only a holy servant would be qualified to serve holiness, “For
purity,’ she says, ‘is the unifying bond; and they [i.e. the holy] see
visions, and when they incline their face downward, they then hear
distinct voices, which are as salutary as they are secret’” (Exhorta-
tion to Chastity 10). Epiphanius gives an account of the experience
of a prominent Montanist prophetess ® in her own words: “In the
to
form of a woman, adorned with a shining garment, Christ came
me and implanted wisdom within me and revealed to me that this
place [ie. Pepuza] is holy and that it is here that the heavenly
the
Jerusalem will come down” (Her. 49.1). The Montanist acts of
“prophetic oracle
61. The “gospel” preaching of Prisca is intentionally joined to a 8.6; see above,
a word “of the Apostle” (Paul = Rom.
of the Old Testament” and
136 n. 13) and is apparently considered to be equally valid.
but in any
62. He is not exactly sure whether it had been Quintilla or Priscilla,
event she was apatémen é (deceived ).
177
 ORTHODOXY AND HERESY IN EARLIEST CHRISTIANITY

martyr Perpetua from the time of Tertullian tell of several visions

of Perpetua (chapters 4, 7, 8, 10) and of one of Saturus (chapters
11-13), through which the martyrs learned what lay ahead of them
and what they could expect after their death. [181] In these cases
the divine communication was mediated by dreams, since we always
hear that those who received it awoke later.
Finally, the attempt by the Montanist Tertullian to utilize the ut-
terances of a “sister” with visionary powers as a source of knowledge
is well known. He can present his view on the corporeality of the
soul with such confidence because he knew that it had been con-
firmed by a revelation.** The gift of prophecy and the capacity for
receiving supernatural visions had by no means ceased with John
and his Apocalypse. There is, in fact, a woman endowed with the
“gifts of revelation” (charismata revelationum) in Tertullian’s own
community. During the Sunday services she experiences Spirit-in-
duced ecstasies. She converses with the angels and sometimes with
the Lord himself, sees and hears mysteries, discerns what is in people’s
hearts, and leads the sick onto the path of healing. Whether there are
scriptures being read, psalms sung, addresses delivered, or prayers
offered, she obtains from them the material for her visions. “Once I
happened to say something about the soul—I no longer recall what
it was—when the Spirit came upon this sister.” After the service she
disclosed what she had seen; how the soul had appeared to her in
bodily form, almost tangible, yet at the same time delicate, luminous,
and the color of air, and thoroughly human in form (forma per
omnia humana), Tertullian knows how difficult it is to gain credence
for such a phenomenon. Thus he emphatically states that he has
recorded everything with the utmost care so as to make verification
possible. He invokes God as witness that he is telling the plain truth
and appeals to the Apostle as surety for the fact that even in the
church of later times there would still be charismata (see 1 Cor.
63. [For the text, see C. J. M. J. van Beek, Passio Sanctarum Perpetuae et Feli-
citatis, latine et graece, Florilegium Patristicum, 43 (Bonn, 1938). ET by W. H.
Shewring, The Passion of SS. Perpetua and Felicity: New edition and translation
of the Latin text . . . (London, 1931); partial ET also in H. A. Musurillo, The
Fathers of the Primitive Church (New York; New American Library, Mentor-
Omega paperback, 1966), pp. 161-172.]
64. On the Soul 9. [For a convenient ET of most of the passage referred to here,
see Stevenson, New Eusebius, p. 187.]
178
 THE USE OF LITERATURE IN THE CONFLICT

12.1 ff.). Yet for all that he angrily goes on to say, “Do you actually
refuse to believe, even though the fact itself speaks so convincingly!”
Since the mysteries of the supernal world were being disclosed to
the heretic as well as to the orthodox at times of supremely heightened
blessedness, we should not be surprised to find both sides cultivating
that type of literature which depends on such visions and takes its
departure from them, namely apocalyptic. There were revelations
of both ecclesiastical as well as heretical orientation, and others that
cannot be assigned to either side, if one feels compelled to make
hard and fast distinctions. [182]
Alongside the seer, but not always sharply distinguished from him,
stood the prophet, who also was in direct contact with heaven and a
mediator of divine knowledge, and thus was in a position to offer
strong support for the accepted teaching by means of his prophetic
declarations. We have already taken note of the orthodox seer and
prophet John as he contended with heresy. He violently rejects his
opponent Jezebel, who falsely called herself a prophetess (Rev. 2.20).
The attitude of “Jezebel” toward John surely was no different.®* The
Acts of Paul, which stem from the same region, depict the Corinthians
as complaining to the Apostle Paul about the false teachers Simon
and Cleobius, who firmly repudiate the Old Testament prophets,
but giving credence, on the other hand, to the revelations granted
to Theonoe.®? Basilides appealed to the prophets Barcabbas and
Barcoph, as well as to some others who in the opinion of his ec-
clesiastical opponents Agrippa Castor and Eusebius never existed
(EH 4.7.7). And Isidore, his “true son and disciple,” wrote Exégétika
“of the prophet Parchor” (Clement of Alexandria Strom. 6.[6.]53.2;
see also 170 n. 43, 190). The Ophite sect of Archontics boasted of the
prophets Martiades and Marsianus (Epiphanius Her. 40.7) while the
Gnostic Apelles placed great value in the revelations and prophecies
of the prophetess Philumene, who furnished him with the material
in
65. In this connection, see H. Weinel, “Die Apokalyptik des Urchristentums,”
Hennecke?, pp. 298-302.
Paul,
66. The distinction drawn by Hermas and the Didache, as well as earlier by
and false prophets, does not fully coincide with that between
between genuine
true and deceitful doctrine.
For the
67. Cf. Hennecke-Schneemelcher, 2: 374 (= “3 Corinthians” 1.8 ff.).
99.
Latin version and the recently discovered Greek text, see above, 42 n.
179
 ORTHODOXY AND HERESY IN EARLIEST CHRISTIANITY

for his work, “Phaneroseis.” 6° Of course, the churchman Rhodon of

Asia thought that this virgin was possessed by a demon (EH 5.13.2).
For Montanism, prophecy is something so characteristic that Ter-
tullian calls the movement “the new prophecy,” ® and prophets of
both sexes play an outstanding role in it. The Spirit, or Paraclete,
governs life and teaching through these his instruments in such a
way that human resistance is excluded. That is how the founder
describes the overwhelming power of the Spirit on the basis of his
own experience,”° and Maximilla avers that [183] whether she wanted
to or not, she was forced by the Lord to receive the knowledge of
God (Epiphanius Her. 48.13). Under such influence, she predicted
the coming of wars and revolts (according to the “anonymous” EH
5.16.18) and declared that with her the prophetic period was at an
end, so that now all that remained to be expected was the end of
the world (Epiphanius Her. 48.2). The Paraclete expressly forbade
flight in time of persecution (Tertullian On Flight During Perse-
cution 11) and limited marriage by prohibiting it a second time
(Tertullian Against Marcion 1.29; cf. On Monogamy 104). Concern-
ing the procession of the Logos from God (Against Praxeas 8), the
mystery of the trinity (Against Praxeas 30), and the heavenly Jeru-
salem (Against Marcion 3.24), Tertullian felt that he was enlightened
by the Paraclete or by sayings of the new prophecy. His work On
the Soul concludes with the words: “And the Paraclete most fre-
quently recommended this also, if one shall have received his words
by recognizing them as promised spiritual gifts.” “1 The book On the
Resurrection of the Flesh ends much.the same way (63). In the
opinion of Tertullian certain ambiguous passages of Holy Scripture
have provided a foothold for heretics. But that is no longer the case,
and the heretics are in a hopeless position. For the Holy Spirit has
now eliminated all the obscurities and alleged parables that previously
68. Cf. Harnack, Marcion?, pp. 177 f., 321°, 371°.
69. Against Praxeas 30; Against Marcion 3.24; On the Resurrection of the Flesh 63.
70. Epiphanius Her, 48.4. [For ET of this and some other Montanist utterances,
see Grant, Second Century, pp. 95f., and Stevenson, New Eusebius, p. 113.
The texts are conveniently collected by Bonwetsch, Montanismus (and later in
KT 129 [1914]) and Hilgenfeld, Ketzergeschichte, pp. 591-595.] Cf. also the ex-
planation of the Montanists, that the prophet*has no control over himself [183]
when the Spirit takes hold of him, in Didymus of Alexandria (fragments from his
Exposition on Acts, PG 39, 1677.)
71. On the Soul 58.8: hoc etiam paracletus frequentissime commendavit, si qui
sermones eius ex agnitione promissorum charismatum admiserit.
180
 THE USE OF LITERATURE IN THE CONFLICT

existed by means of a more clear and penetrating proclamation of

the entire mystery in the new prophecy that flows forth from the
Paraclete. “Draw from his spring, and you will never thirst for any
other teaching.”
Of course, Tertullian himself realized just how much this kind of
argument depended on the receptivity of the person to be instructed.
This is the reason for his angry cry, “Do you actually refuse to be-
lieve, even though the fact itself speaks so convincingly!” (above,
179). The Paraclete had come so much later than Jesus. His task is
to secure the revelation of Jesus against misinterpretation, but also
to complete it by supplementation, without thereby coming into con-
tradiction with Jesus. This makes argumentation difficult and puts it
at a disadvantage by comparison with the straight line which in the
church runs from Jesus through the apostles to the present time. The
Montanists [184] believe in the disclosures of their prophets. But the
validity of such a conviction is not, like the validity of belief in
the apostolic tradition for the others, self-evident; it needs support.
The Montanists complained about their opponents: “You do not
believe that there could still be prophets after the appearance of the
Lord; but the Savior himself said, ‘Behold, I am sending prophets
to you’ [Matthew 23.23]” (Didymus of Alexandria On the Trinity
3.41.3 = PG 39, 984).
The attempt to rely for support on contemporary prophetic phenom-
ena or on a prophetism of the quite recent past was beset with many
difficulties which made it impossible to conquer the scepticism of
which Tertullian was so keenly aware. We know what the opponents
replied. The prophets, to whom the heretics appeal, never existed
or else they were victims of demonic possession (see above, 177 n. 62,
180). And it is impossible that a discourse delivered in a state of
frenzy could be induced by the spirit of God (see above, 136).
Thus it also follows that the predictions spoken by such persons are
not fulfilled, and so disclose the putrid fount from which they come
(see above, 139f.). And if one adds to this their moral inferiority
and the way in which God evidently turns his back on them by the
type of death imposed upon them (see above, 134), then anyone
with understanding is sufficiently informed.
The appeal to prophecy and the contention of the prophets and
their associates concerning the source and reliability of the revelation
181
 ORTHODOXY AND HERESY IN EARLIEST CHRISTIANITY

they proclaim is ancient. We have already spoken about the apoc-

alypticist John and his prophetic adversaries (above, 179). Nearly
contemporary with him may be the “Paul” of 2 Thessalonians, who
enjoins his readers not to be shaken in their faith, “Either by spirit,
or by word, or by letter purporting to be from us” (2.2, méte dia
pneumatos méte dia logou méte di’ epistolés hds di hémén). No
matter how one interprets the details of the passage, it is clear that
the author considers the teaching which he presents as Pauline-
apostolic to be threatened by a view that relies, among other things,
on manifestations of the Spirit (pnewma)—i.e. on utterances of a
prophetic nature. Moreover, he reckons with the possibility that some-
one might attack him by appealing to the authority of Pauline state-
ments—indeed even bringing forth a letter which claims to be written
by the Apostle to the Gentiles. [185] We can thus observe how, along-
side the utterances of Christian prophets, use is also made in the
conflict of ideas first of the recollection of Paul’s oral preaching and
then of letters written by him which did not enjoy general acceptance
in Christendom. For the one side, both are taken to be authentic
and therefore decisive, but for the other they are considered forged
and therefore misleading.
We know that the anxiety over pseudo-apostolic writings and the
effects they produced was no chimera, but was thoroughly justified.
The Muratorian fragment (lines 63-67) mentions letters to the Laodi-
ceans 7? and to the Alexandrians forged in the name of Paul in the
interest of the heresy of Marcion, and “many other” of the same
sort which the Catholic church rejects.™* For its own part, orthodoxy
enriched the deposit of apostolic epistolary literature in the interest
of opposing heresy through the pastoral Epistles, the so-called third
epistle to the Corinthians, and the second epistle of Peter."* To this
category also belongs the attempt of those heretics who did not rely
on apostles for support, but appealed to their own spiritual fathers
72. In this connection see A. von Harnack, “Der apokryphe Brief des Apostels
Paulus an die Laodicener, eine marcionitische Falschung aus der 2. Halfte des 2.
Jahrhunderts,” Sb Berlin 27 for 1923; also Marcion?, pp. 134* ff.
73. Since the fragment subsequently speaks about the Catholic Epistles, the “many
others” must have reference to pseudo-Pauline writings; of course, this hardly
proves that the author actually knew more than the two named. But his concern
about a brisk heretical activity in this area of pseudonymous literature is hardly
artificial.
74, Concerning literary works of apostles on the boundary line between correct
and false belief, see above, 58.
182
 THE USE OF LITERATURE IN THE CONFLICT

and attributed writings to the latter that were useful for their own
interests. Thus Hippolytus knew and used a book with the title
“Great Proclamation” (Apophasis megalé), which purports to be a
work of Simon Magus, but doubtless is forged (Ref. 6.9.4-6.18.7).
Of course there were also genuine fragments of the primitive
tradition which were zealously collected to use for support and con-
firmation of the teaching as well as for defense and offense in the
ideological controversy. We have already spoken of the letters of
Valentinus (above, 175). Similarly we already are aware of
the Montanist collection of those prophetic utterances essential to
their movement (above, 142). From the beginning, the Marcionites
[186] treasured the Antitheses of their master as a basic confessional
document and placed it alongside the gospel restored by him to its
pristine splendor and the unadulterated Paul as the bases for all
authentic Christianity. Of course, with respect to Marcion not only
does his treatment of the transmitted text easily give the impression
of being arbitrary, but the yawning chasm between the activity of
the Apostle to the Gentiles and the appearance of his reviver also
stands unbridged.
In this respect the “church” was in a better position. For it, there
were no places at which the linkage back to the beginning appeared
to be broken, whereby doubts could arise. Even before the church’s
tradition had achieved complete continuity and strength, the attempt
had been made to reach back by means of the “elders” (see above,
119) into the apostolic period and even behind it to Jesus. Even
so, not everything that could be desired was achieved thereby. For
it was now no longer sufficient, as perhaps it had still been in the
apostolic epoch, simply to guard and hand on, or by grouping the
materials appropriately, to make useful for the life of the community
what one learned either from written or oral sources of the life and
teaching of Jesus—i.e. concerning the most important thing of all, that
which is absolutely basic. In the course of time, the traditional ma-
terial had not only swollen greatly, but it provided quite diverse
pictures. Alongside the synoptic type of picture, there came John;
alongside the canonical gospels were the many apocryphal gospels
which were often pronouncedly heretical. One had to contend with
error even with respect to the correct understanding of the earthly
Lord and of the revelation provided by him.
183
 ORTHODOXY AND HERESY IN EARLIEST CHRISTIANITY

Irenaeus is not the only one to say of the heretics in the introduction
to his great polemical work that “they deal recklessly with the sayings
of the Lord, becoming evil interpreters of the good things which have
been spoken.” 7 Dionysius of Corinth also complains about certain
people who falsify the “dominical writings” (kyriakai graphai; EH
4.23.12), and his contemporary who expresses himself in the Epistle
of the Apostles calls down eternal judgment on those who corrupt
the teaching and falsify the word.’® Polycarp already laments that
heretics [187] twist the “sayings of the Lord” (logia tou kuriou) and
draw from them what suits their own sinful desires. The Paul of the
apocryphal correspondence with Corinth is thinking of the false teach-
ers there when he writes: “My Lord Jesus Christ will come quickly,
since he can no longer endure the error of those who falsify his
word.” 77 Similarly, the letter of Peter to James at the beginning of
the pseudo-Clementine Homilies*® unmistakably betrays concern
for maintaining the purity of the apostolic memory of Jesus in op-
position to heretical misinterpretation. Peter complains:
Certain people have already during my lifetime attempted to alter my
words to teach the dissolution of the law through all sorts of tricks
of interpretation as though I held such a view but did not have the
courage to proclaim it openly. Not in the least! This would be to work
against the law of God, which was proclaimed through Moses and
confirmed as eternally valid by our Lord. For he said, ‘Heaven and
earth will pass away, but not even a single jot or tittle of the law will
ever pass away’ [cf. Matt. 5.18 and 24.35] (2.4-5).
Thus it is an important task of the ecclesiastical teacher not only
to collect and to classify the gospel material, but also to assist in
the correct understanding of that which is approved so as to protect
it against false interpretations. That was the goal that Papias set for
himself and for which he strove in his five books of Explanations
of the Sayings of the Lord (Logién kuriakon exégéseds suggrammata
pente; EH 3.39.1). He appears to have spoken so disapprovingly
75. AH 1. preface: rhadiourgountes ta logia kuriou, exégétai kakoi ton kalon
eireémen6n genomenoi. Cf. also Tertullian Prescription against Heretics 38: the
heretics practice falsification of the scriptures as well as of their interpretations.
76, Epistula Apostolorum 50 [ET by R. E. Taylor in Hennecke-Schneemelcher,
1: 227, from the German of H. Duensing (see also pp. 189-191 for introductory
discussion by Duensing) ].
77. “3 Corinthians,” verse 3 [=3.3 in Hennecke-Schneemelcher, 2: 375].
78. te) by G. Ogg in Hennecke-Schneemelcher, 2: 111f. See further below,
198-199].
184
 THE USE OF LITERATURE IN THE CONFLICT

about Luke, the gospel of Marcion (if he took notice of it at all), that
Eusebius hesitated to include his judgment in the Ecclesiastical His-
tory.’® In fact the two other synoptics do not appear to have satisfied
him completely either. Yet he sees their deficiencies only in certain
gaps in the account and structural weakness in Mark, and in the way
the Greek language is handled in Matthew (EH 3.39.15-16). He
had no doubt about the apostolic origin [188] of the contents. Indeed,
the Markan apostolic material, which derives from the teachings of
Peter, stands forth all the more clearly when the outward form of
Mark’s gospel is abandoned. Objections of the opponents, who wish
to argue that what is true of the form applies also to the content,
can be countered successfully by this approach. In a similar way, the
Alexandrians sought to rescue the epistle to the Hebrews for Paul
(cf. EH 6.14.2, 6.25.11-14).
But if the criticism of Mark and Matthew has its basis in the con-
troversy with heretics and the gospel writings they supported, we
no longer need to explain it by appealing to the hypothesis that Papias
evaluated the two synoptic gospels by using the Fourth Gospel as
the standard ®° and thereby became aware of their inadequacies.*
A standard gospel by which one evaluates apostolic gospels and tra-
ditions must without qualification derive from the same origin it-
self. That Papias had such an attitude toward the Fourth Gospel, how-
ever, is no longer as clear to me as when I prepared the third edition
of my commentary on John.*? The only evidence in support of the
supposition that Papias considered the Fourth Gospel to be a work
of the apostle John is provided by the ancient gospel prologues
recently treated by D. de Bruyne and A. von Harnack, which may
belong to the period around the year 180.8* According to the prologue
to John, Papias of Hierapolis, the beloved disciple of John, claimed

79. Cf. in this connection Jiilicher-Fascher, Einleitung’, p. 312. One should also
keep in mind here the position of Papias with respect to Paul (see below, 214 f.).
On the other hand, it should be noted that Eusebius also has suppressed the
favorable judgment of Papias concerning the Johannine Apocalypse (cf. W. Bous-
set, Die Offenbarung des Johannes?, Meyer Kommentar 16® [1906], pp. 19f.).
80. Jiilicher-Fascher, Einleitung’, pp. 283, 396.
81. What Papias says about Matthew, especially as regards its content, can hardly
be the result of a comparison with the gospel of John.
82. W. Bauer, Das Johannesevangelium®, HbNT 6 (1933): 241 f.
83. Donatien de Bruyne, “Les plus anciens prologues latins des Evangiles,” Revue
Bénédictine, 40 (1928): 193-214, Harnack, Evangelien-Prologe. [For ET and dis-
cussion, see Schoedel, Polycarp . . . Papias, pp. 121-123.]
185
 ORTHODOXY AND HERESY IN EARLIEST CHRISTIANITY

to have transcribed the Fourth Gospel correctly at the dictation of

his teacher; and he appended to this the remark that the heretic
Marcion had been rejected by him because of his false teaching and
then also by John. But on chronological grounds alone, the latter
claim cannot have come from the works of Papias. It assumes not
that Papias, as a rather young man, put himself at the disposal of
the aged apostle in Asia,** but that [189] he, as leader of the church
in Hierapolis, can repudiate heretics just as John does in Ephesus.
Thus the most that could be applied to Papias is the assertion that
he had been a personal disciple of John, the son of Zebedee, and in
turn, that this John was the author of the Fourth Gospel.
This, however, is nothing but the ecclesiastical point of view, as
represented by Irenaeus at the time of the origin of the prologue
when he defends the apostolic origin of the Fourth Gospel and also
pictures Papias as a personal disciple of John of Zebedee (AH 5.33.4).
It has been shown often enough that the latter is not true, on the
basis of the criticism which Eusebius, relying on Papias himself, levels
against Irenaeus with regard to this passage.** But then the other
item claiming that the Fourth Gospel had been written by the apostle
John,®* which appears to be intimately bound to this in the Papias
material of the prologue, hardly could have come from Papias himself.
Only on the basis of such a hypothesis is it possible also to account
for the attitude of Eusebius, who withholds from us any indication
of Papias’ opinion concerning the origin of the Fourth Gospel. The
idea that Papias, the diligent collector of ancient traditions of the
Lord, was unfamiliar with the Fourth Gospel is as unlikely as the
suggestion that Eusebius, who was jubilant to have found 1 John used
by Papias (EH 3.39.17), would have suppressed a viewpoint of
Papias that was in agreement with the later outlook of orthodoxy.
Thus the situation with regard to the Fourth Gospel must have been
much the same as with the third. Either Papias expressed himself
84. According to the conclusion of the prologue to Luke, the Fourth Gospel is
supposed to have been written “in Asia.” [This reading appears in the Latin ver-
sion, but not in the preserved Greek manuscript of the prologue to Luke; cf. e.g.
K. Aland (ed.), Synopsis Quattuor Evangeliorum (Stuttgart: Wiirttembergische
Bibelanstalt, 1964), p. 533. For ET, see Grant, Second Century, p. 93: “John the
apostle, one of the twelve, wrote the Apocalypse on the island of Patmos, and
after that the gospel.”]
85. EH 3.39.1-7. See for example, Bauer, Johannesevangelium3, p. 242.
86. This John is clearly meant; see the end of the prologue to Luke (above, n. 84).
186
 THE USE OF LITERATURE IN THE CONFLICT

in an unfavorable manner, or he kept silent also with respect to this

gospel, a silence sufficiently significant to one who has understanding.
For Papias, the contents of the Fourth Gospel apparently belonged to
the long-winded prattle in which the great masses took pleasure, to
the “foreign commandments,” but not to the truth as it was given
by the Lord to the believers and is contained in the uniform tradi-
tion of the church and which is rooted in the circle of the twelve
(EH 3.39.3-4).
As long as one is not bound to the dogma of the fourfold gospel,
infallible because it is inspired, one can scarcely conceal the de-
viations of the last canonical gospel from the others. And whoever,
with Papias, rediscovers the attitude of the twelve apostles con-
cerning the life and teaching of Jesus in the books of [190] Matthew
and Mark/Peter, will not easily free himself from serious reservations
about the presentation in the Fourth Gospel. It is even more difficult
for him to attribute this gospel, which like that of Luke is being used
by heretics, to one of the closest friends of Jesus and even to value and
treat it as Holy Scripture, especially when he is not forced to do so
by any authority. In the gospels of Matthew and Mark Papias con-
sidered himself to be in contact with the apostolic-ecclesiastical
tradition on the life and teaching of Jesus; the other two gospels
are at least suspect to him—the gospel of Luke because of misuse,
since the worst of the heretics of his day made use of it, and the.
Fourth Gospel, no doubt, because of its content, origin, and the
friends it had made. After all, the preference of the Montanists and
Valentinians for the Fourth Gospel shows us that ecclesiastical circles
were not the first in which it was recognized as a canonical ex-
pression of a particular religious persuasion. And this deficiency was
in no way compensated for by its particular suitability as a weapon
in the battle against Marcion.§?
It would seem to me, as we attempt to understand the place Papias
occupies with respect to the gospels of Luke and of John, and within
the history of early Christian literature in general,®* that we do well
to keep in mind that he found himself in a particularly exposed out-
post. He was situated, so we have discovered, at the easternmost

87. See W. Bauer, review of Harnack’s Marcion! (1921), in the Géttinger Gelehrte
Anzeigen 183 (1923): 12 n. 1.
88. Concerning his relation to Paul and to the Apostle’s letters, see below, 214 f.
187
 ORTHODOXY AND HERESY IN EARLIEST CHRISTIANITY

point that the church in opposition to heretics succeeded in occupying

in Asia Minor, or indeed anywhere (see above, 171£.). He offered
resistance there with the realization that he was dealing with a
superior force. At least, he explains that his anti-heretically con-
ditioned perspective with reference to the materials of the gospel
tradition set before him the task of excising everything that delights
the “great majority” (hoi polloi). He is convinced that to carry out
this plan means to sacrifice the bulk (ta polla) of the material. But
it is also clear to him that what he rejects has nothing to do with
the truth, nor with the commandments which the Lord gave to the
believers, but it is foreign in origin and nature (EH 3.39.3). Since
he therefore knows that he is limited in his influence to the minority
of Christians in Hierapolis, [191] he quite consciously withdraws to
that which he, from his ecclesiastical standpoint, judges to be an
authentic apostolic heritage.
In his literary endeavors:on behalf of orthodoxy, moreover, Papias
did not think that he had to limit himself in any way to the four
gospels of the New Testament or to that material in them which he
considered valid. He also collected all sorts of other material from
written as well as oral sources (see EH 3.39.4,11). In addition to
the highly treasured accounts stemming from the twelve, he also
referred to an Explanation of the Words of the Lord (ton tou kuriou
logén diégéseis) by a certain Aristion of the postapostolic generation,
and to certain “traditions” (paradoseis) by a contemporary of Aristion,
“John the elder” (EH 3.39.14; cf. 3.39.4). In terms of content, the
material dealt with “strange parables of the savior and teachings from
him,” and indeed with some matters that Eusebius would like to
relegate immediately to the realm of the mythological, namely
all sorts of phantasies concerning the millennial kingdom (EH
3.39.11-12").Of course, even here Papias could appeal to the apostles,
as Eusebius reluctantly admits; but Papias had not grasped the mysti-
cal symbolic sense of the expressions (EH 3.39.12°). Thus Papias,
who wanted to smite the heretics by means of exegesis of the Lord’s
words, is himself opposed by the same means and judged to be in
error.
The statements of Jesus concerning the glories of the new kingdom
fit well into the context of a gospel and are found inserted into a
conversation of Jesus with the unbelieving traitor Judas in an ac-
188
 THE USE OF LITERATURE IN THE CONFLICT

count of Irenaeus concerning Papias.®® Nevertheless, other references

could give rise to the supposition that Papias, in the only work he
composed (so EH 3.39.1, depending on Irenaeus), did not confine
himself to the life of Jesus but went beyond that into the subsequent
period. He deals not only with the death of the traitor Judas—and
that in a way which really denies the account a place in a written
gospel—but also with the martyrdom of the Zebedees; with a
peculiar experience of Justus Barsabbas, who first gained significance
for the community after the departure of Jesus (Acts 1.23); and with
a resuscitation of a corpse, attested by the daughters of Philip (EH
3.39.3 f.). Nevertheless, it does not seem impossible that even this
material could have been included in a collection and interpretation
of gospel traditions; the account about the death of the Zebedees
perhaps as an exegesis of Mark 10.38 f. = Matt. 20.22 f. [192]
The book of Hegesippus indeed bore the title “Memoirs” (Hypom-
némata, EH 4.22.1), but it summed up “the unadulterated tradition
of the apostolic preaching in simplest form” (EH 4.8.2) in opposition
to gnosticism. Thus, he also drew together for ecclesiastical use remi-
niscences from earliest times. Above all, Hegesippus appealed to~
primitive Christian history in support of the view that during the / 4f
}

lifetime of the apostles there had as yet been no heretics. At that}

time the church had been a holy and unstained virgin, and if there
were already any people who intended to falsify the life-giving proc-
lamation, they kept themselves concealed in darkness. Only when the}
holy choir of apostles died and that generation passed away which
was privileged to hear with its own ears the divine wisdom, did the /
conspiracy of godless error begin through seduction by the false.
teachers. Henceforth, the gnosis falsely so-called (cf. 1 Tim. 6.20)
sought to rebel against the apostolic preaching of truth (EH 3.32.7-8).
It can be imagined that such a reconstruction was possible only by
means of thoroughgoing “exegesis.” Among other things this sort of
89. Irenaeus AH 5.33.3 f. [ET and discussion in Schoedel, Polycarp . . . Papias,
pp. 94-96.] Cf. Bauer, Leben Jesu, pp. 174 f.; also pp. 244 n. 1, 294 n. 1, 367,
403f.
90. [The Judas story is from “A oollinads? (probably of Laodicaea; fourth cen-
tury), as preserved in catenae and commentaries; see Schoedel, Polycarp .
Papias, pp. 111f. for ET and discussion. Papias’ accounts of the martyrdoms of
James and John are referred to by Philip of Side (fifth century) and George
Syncellus (ninth century); see Schoedel, pp. 117-121. In the same passage, Philip
of Side also alludes to the next two accounts mentioned above.]
189
 ORTHODOXY AND HERESY IN EARLIEST CHRISTIANITY

“exegesis” finds that the heretics had manifested their moral de-
generation by causing Simeon to suffer martyrdom as a result of their
informing against him (EH 3.32.6 and 2; cf. 3.19-20.1).
The heretics seized on the same means in order to give the primi-
tive tradition a twist in their direction. Basilides not only made use
of a gospel of his own, but he sought to secure its contents through
a commentary in twenty-four books which bore the title “Interpre-
tations” (Exégétika; see above, 170 n. 41). The gnostic found justi-
fication for pursuing his own exegesis of the words of the Lord from
the conviction that Jesus spoke to the general public only in parables,
but that he unravelled these to his disciples in secret (Theodotus
in Clement of Alexandria Excerpts from Theod. 66). Thus, the mean-
ing of his proclamation was not at all self-evident. But the exegetical
effort was in no way restricted to the gospel material. Wherever a
source of revelation bubbled forth, it required a suitable container.
Isidore interpreted the proclamations of Parchor, a Basilidean
“prophet,” in his “Interpretations of the prophet Parchor” (Exégé-
tika tou prophétou Parchor; see above, 179). The accepted approach
to interpreting such prophets was also suitable for interpreting the
Old Testament, where the latter was acknowledged and thus used.
Julius Cassianus appears [193] to have dealt even with Old Testament
material in his “Interpretations” (Exégétika; Clement of Alexandria
Strom. 1.[21.]101.2). And from the orthodox perspective, Dionysius
of Corinth appended to his instructions “interpretations of divine
scriptures” (Graphon Theion Exégéseis, EH 4.23.6). Similarly Irenaeus
passed on the interpretations of divine Scriptures by an “apostolic
elder” (EH 5.8.8). At this juncture we are faced with the question,
{ what is the general significance of this literature which exegesis so
. energetically seeks to master? |

Before we turn to this subject in the next chapter, however, we

should attempt to add a word about the relative sizes of orthodoxy
and heresy to what was said at the beginning of the section on the
geographical distribution of the two outlooks (see, e.g. 172f.). As
a point of departure, let me refer back. to what has been said earlier
(173£.) concerning Eusebius’ silence about the success of heresy—a
silence to which he isentitled from his perspective as an “ecclesiasti-
cal” historian. But although the tone with which he speaks of ortho-
190
 THE USE OF LITERATURE IN THE CONFLICT

doxy may be permissible from his point of view, it is no less in need

of correction for a historical approach. He tries to make the best of
everything, and manifests a tendency to move churchmen as close
as possible to the generation of the apostles (see above, 63f. and
150) and to push their writings as far back as he can into the
apostolic age, while he obscures the chronology of the heretics ae
that they appear to be more recent.®! He also shows, as we have\ ”
already noticed (see above, e.g. 156-158 n. 2), an interest in displaying
a very rich and universal anti-heretical literature already in the second |
century—a claim that immediately provokes scepticism. In the same”
vein Eusebius is guilty of a serious misuse of the superlative :
(myrioi = “countless,” pleistoi = “very many,” pantes = “all,” etc.) when
he deals with the church, its size, its influence, its success, its cham-
pions, its sacrifices, and the like, even in cases where the particular |
J
piece of evidence he reports actually should have made him more
moderate in his claims.
What an incredible outburst of faith, worlds away from all reality,
characterizes the situation in the apostolic era in this presentation!
In connection with Psalm 18.5, EH 2.3.2 comments: “And truly in
every city and village (“of the whole world” [194] according to 2.3.1), Wiea

like a filled threshing floor, arose communities with countless mem-

bers and a huge multitude crowded together.” ®* The apostles en-
dure “countless” (myria) mortal dangers in Judea (3.5.2), Paul knows
“countless” (myria) mysteries (3.24.4), and he has “countless co-
workers” (myrioi synergoi, 3.4.4). In the apostolic age the followers
of Jesus consist of “twelve apostles, seventy disciples, and countless
others as well” (dédeka men apostoloi, hebdomékonta de mathétai,
alloi te epi toutois myrioi, 3.24.5). Even in the postapostolic period
“very many marvelous wonders” (pleistai paradoxoi dunameis) are oc-
curring and close-packed hordes of unbelievers come over to Chris-
tianity on the first hearing of the gospel (3.37.3). At the time of
Basilides (around the year 130) “very many churchmen” (pleistoi
ekklésiastikoi andres) contend for the apostolic and ecclesiastical
doctrine. But only “some” took pen in hand (4.7.5)—thus Eusebius
91. See the Schwartz (GCS) edition of EH, 3: 24 ff.
92. It is difficult to reproduce so much exuberance in a translation: ana _pasas
poleis te kai komas .. . myriandroi kai pampleétheis athroés ekklésiai sunestékesan.
Cf. also EH 2.13.1 [with its reference to how the faith was being spread abroad
“among all men” at the time of Simon Magus].
191
 ORTHODOXY AND HERESY IN EARLIEST CHRISTIANITY

restricts his treatment and thereby relegates the matter to an area no

longer subject to verification. Then only a single one is named,
Agrippa Castor (4.7.6). Hegesippus, who is associated with Agrippa
Castor in 4.8.1 (a convenient arrangement for Eusebius’ purposes),
has been borrowed from the succeeding generation. This Hegesippus,
so we hear, met with “very many bishops” (pleistoi episkopoi) on
his trip to Rome, all of whom advocated the same teaching. But be-
sides Rome, specific mention is limited to Corinth (4.22.1 ff.). Thus
in no way can we consider Hegesippus as providing evidence for the
presence of a widespread orthodox church which flourished even in
the East. Dionysius of Corinth puts himself at the service of all the
churches (4.23.1). Polycarp is snatched away through very great
persecutions (megistoi didgmoi, 4.15.1), but according to 4.15.45 the
total of those martyred from Smyrna and Philadelphia is twelve.
Myriads (myriades) of martyrs under Marcus Aurelius are men-
tioned in 5.preface.1. However this number is arrived at by treating
the multitude of martyrs among one group (i.e. in Gaul) as though
it represented a general average for the whole world (see also 5.2.1).
I will forego continuing this easy task of assembling even more
evidence of this sort from Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History. The above
is sufficient to remove any inclination I might have to take such
assertions seriously. Except where he is quoting from earlier authors,
only the individual pieces of information presented by Eusebius,
examined with the necessary critical attitude, are of value. [195] If
we cannot establish any firm foothold on the basis of what Eusebius
himself contributes, we must proceed on the basis of what we have
_already been able to ascertain by inference. It seemed to us that
orthodoxy, as seen from Rome’s vantage point, in general reached
' only to western Asia Minor, approximately to Hierapolis, during the
L ; second century (above, 171-173). Beyond this there was an orthodox
|“minority. in Antioch (above, 172 and 91-93 on the Johannine Epistles).
' But this in no way means that orthodoxy gave its stamp to the Chris-
tianity that existed everywhere up to Hierapolis. On the contrary,
even in Hierapolis orthodoxy evidently is a rear-guard movement
(above, 187f.). Similarly, certain of the letters in the Apocalypse
indicate that heterodoxy is in the majority in their area—namely,
those addressed to Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, and Laodicea (above,
79f.)—while in Colossae, viewed from the perspective of the
192
 THE USE OF LITERATURE IN THE CONFLICT

“church,” the situation may be even more unfavorable (above, 80 f.).

In Smyrna, the scales are evenly balanced (above, 69f.). Possibly
other locales in western Asia Minor allow a more favorable judgment
(above, 69); besides Magnesia, Tralles, and Philadelphia, there is
Ephesus—the defeat that Paul suffered there, even though heretics
certainly were involved in it, in no way signifies the breakdown of
orthodoxy as such (above, 82 ff.).
As in Pauline Phrygia, so also in Pauline Macedonia (above, 72-75),
Christianity developed along the path leading to heresy, so that ~}
orthodoxy sees itself forced to take second place. Hoi polloi, “the
great majority,” were in thec camp of the church’s enemies in Hier- |
apolis (above, 187f.), as in Philippi (above, 72f.), and finally also |
in Crete (above, 75f.). Only_in the case of Rome can we state
confidently that orthodoxy possessed the upper hand. And the dis-
tinctive character that marked Rome from the outset _passed_over to
Corinth around the year one hundred, where it remained.
A-féw Observations may serve toconfirm the conclusions we have
reached in our assessment of the two opposing forces. Quite fre-
quently we hear the churchmen bewail the extent of the danger from
heresy, but nowhere do we find [196] them attempting to adduce nu-
merical evidence of the success of their own position concerning the
outcome. We would look in vain for phraseology such as: “only a
couple of fools, beguiled by the devil, are in the opposition.” To some
extent, the quantity of literature found here and there also is indicative
of the size of the group that it represents, although we must always
keep in mind that we are undoubtedly better informed about ec-

neatly to divide the Christian writings known to us down to the year

200 between orthodoxy and heresy. Too many uncertainties remain. =
Where should we classify Tatian (see below, 207) and his books?
{
clesiastical literature than about that of the heretics. It is impossible

Or the productive Melito, and Clement of Alexandria? Or even the

Fourth Gospel (see below, 204-212) and the apostle Paul (see below,
212-228 and 233)?
Nevertheless, no one can avoid the impression produced by the
abundance of forms of heresy already evident in the second century
and the mass of literary works produced by them. Hippolytus knows
of “innumerable books” that Montanus and his prophetesses had
authored (Ref. 8.19). In his section on the Gndstikoi, Epiphanius
193
 ORTHODOXY AND HERESY IN EARLIEST CHRISTIANITY

speaks of “countless writings produced by them” (alla myria par

autois plasthenta grapheia, Her. 26.12) after mentioning their literary
efforts in specific cases. Papias already considered the major part of
the available traditional material to be suspicious (above, 187 f.), and
thus consciously turned from literature to oral tradition. And who-
ever has to deal with heretics censures their fruitful literary activity
—Hegesippus (EH 4.22.9), Gaius (EH 6.20.3); Irenaeus (AH Sle
and 9, 3.12.12[=3.11.10 and 12, 3.12.15]), and others. It is easy to
see that we are not dealing here with the customary accusations of
an established polemical pattern when we recall the number of
heretical writings from that time, which we know mostly only by
title and many not even that well. Harnack identifies fifty-five differ-
ent writings from the ‘Ophites (or “Gnostics” in the narrow sense of
the term) alone, of which the overwhelming majority were written
by them, while they appropriated others for their own use.** If one
adds to this what else we know about heretical literature until around
the year 200, of which one may also learn from Harnack (cf. also
above, 170 n. 39), we are forced to conclude [197] that in this camp
a far more extensive literary activity had been developed than in
the ecclesiastical circles. And thereby a new foothold is established
to substantiate the view that the heretics considerably outnumbered
the orthodox.
& One final point. The reckless speed with which, from the very
beginning, the doctrine and ideology of Marcion spread ** can only
‘be explained if it had found the ground already prepared. Apparently
a great number of the baptized, especially in the East, inclined toward
this view of Christianity and joined Marcion without hesitation as
soon as he appeared, finding in him the classic embodiment of their
own belief. What had dwelt in their inner consciousness in a more
or less undefined form until then, acquired through Marcion the
definite form that satisfied head and heart. No one can call that a
falling away from orthodoxy to heresy.
93. Harnack, Geschichte, 1.1: 171 and 2 (Chronologie).1: 538-540.
94, Cf. Harnack, Marcion?, p. 28.

194
 9
The Old Testament, the Lord,
and the Apostles !
It is one thing to use the Old Testament (and the same holds true
for sayings of the Lord or writings of the apostles) for the purposes
of supporting or even refuting a view which is already in existence,
and thus to regard it as a weapon. It is quite another thing when
those writings become contributing factors in the formation of a par-
ticular brand of Christianity, whether in a positive manner or be-
cause they arouse opposition. It is not always easy, however, to
differentiate between these usages in the period of origins with which
our investigation is concerned. The two can blend together and one
can be transformed into the other. The possibility also exists of em-
ploying scripture in support of a doctrine, even though it had no
special importance for the establishment of that position, at least in
the consciousness of those who produced it and who represent it.
As a point of departure, we move from the end of the second cen-
tury, prior to the stage of development represented by Irenaeus,
Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian which shows the church to be
in possession of the two testaments, willing and able to use them in
every respect in support of orthodoxy, and proceed backward toward
the beginnings. What significance does the Old Testament have in
the interplay of forces within Christianity? 1 [199]
~

1. That is the only thing of concern to us here. We leave aside the question of z /
}

that use of the Old Testament which does not clearly relate to the disagreement |
within Christianity. So far as we can tell, Christians had not written commentaries : 7
on Old Testament books in the period with which we are dealing. Such activity |
N

first commences in a modest way with the Hypotyposes (“Outlines”) of Clement |

of Alexandria. The prior stage in the lectures of Pantaenus and other of Clement's |
“elders” who have not left behind any written traces (Strom. 1. [1.] 11; Prophetic !
195
 ORTHODOXY AND HERESY IN EARLIEST CHRISTIANITY

Perhaps Hegesippus could give us an impression of the ecclesiastical

situation at the end of our period. But as a witness he is not fully
satisfactory. He claims to have found, on his journey to Rome, that
“in every succession and in every city,”? the basis of faith had been
“the Law and the Prophets and the Lord” (EH 4.22.3)—that is, the
Old Testament and the Lord.’ Eusebius immediately draws the con-
clusion from the words of Hegesippus that the latter has had con-
tact with a great many “bishops” (EH 4.22.1; see above 190 ff. on
Eusebius’ use of superlatives) in the course of his journey to Rome.
Hegesippus himself, in the portion reported in Eusebius, speaks only
of contact with the heads of the Christian communities in Corinth
and in Rome (EH 4.22.2-3). And even when we take into considera-
tion everything else reported about him, we hear nothing at all about
orthodox bishops with whom he had been in accord apart from
James and his successor in Jerusalem (EH 4.22.4). Even Polycarp
and Papias, who usually like to appear on [200] such occasions, are not
present in the account. But as far as Corinth and Rome are concerned,

Excerpts 27.1) is no longer available to us. [199] Perhaps at that time Theophilus
of Antioch also wrote an interpretation of the Proverbs of Solomon, although the
'ed only evidence for it comes from Jerome Illustrious Men 25. This is by no means
outside the realm of possibility. Indeed, Eusebius reports that Hegesippus, Irena-
eus, “and the whole company of the ancients” (kai ho pas ton archaion choros;
EH 4.22.9) had called the Proverbs of Solomon a work of excellent wisdom, and
Ignatius of Antioch really referred only to this Old Testament book in a clear
manner [Eph. 5.3]. Nevertheless, we cannot appeal here to this commentary,
assuming that it really existed, any more than we can to Melito’s “Excerpts from
the Law and the Prophets concerning our Savior and our Whole Faith” in six
books (EH 4.26.12-14), because we do not know whether they were used in the
battle of Christian against Christian. In the Preaching of Peter, the “books of the
prophets,” which contained material about the whole activity of the earthly Jesus,
were used in instructing the gentiles (Clement of Alexandria Strom. 6.[15.]128;
[ET by G. Ogg in Hennecke-Schneemelcher, 2: 101f.]). The Old Testament
served Ariston of Pella in winning Jews, and Justin used it in the same way in
the Dialogue. We also refer only in passing here to the attempts of the epistles
to the Hebrews and of Barnabas to find a positive significance for the Old Testa-
ment, despite everything that stands in the way; it is not clear whether and in
what way they were used as instruments in a disputation within Christianity.
2. En hekasté diadoché kai en hekasté polei. Diadoché is a term used to designate
official succession around the end of the second century. Ptolemy uses the word
with reference to the apostolic tradition (Epistle to Flora 5.10 = Epiphanius 33.7.9;
see above 120 n. 22). Ecclesiastical authors like to use it for the succession of
bishops (Irenaeus AH 1.27.1 [= 1.24]). Thus Hegesippus wants what he describes
to be regarded as the state of the apostolic, bishop-led churches, no doubt as
opposed to heresy, in accord with his entire outlook. [See also below, 275 n. 95.]
3. Ho nomos kai hoi prophétai kai ho kyrios. According to Stephan Gobarus,
Hegesippus refers to “the divine scriptures and the Lord” (below, 214 n. 33).
196
 THE OLD TESTAMENT, THE LORD, AND THE APOSTLES

Hegesippus’ formula is no longer adequate for the churches of his

day since for them, the Apostle Paul with his collection of letters has
undoubtedly already assumed a regular place alongside the Old Testa-
ment and the Lord around the year 180. The formula “Old Testament
and the Lord” apparently applies more satisfactorily to the Jewish
Christian communities of Palestine, whence Hegesippus came (EH
4.29.8), or preserves an expression which to some extent adequately
described the ecclesiastical outlook of a Justin? and a Papias a
generation earlier. What we learn from Hegesippus concerning the
state of affairs in all orthodox churches of his time can therefore
only to a very limited degree be regarded as a result of his in-
vestigations on a journey to the West in which the current situation
was recorded impartially. But for our present purposes (see further_
below, 213 f.) it suffices to note that wherever Hegesippus went, he :|
found the Old Testament acknowledged to be holy scripture in the |
ecclesiastical brotherhoods. That is certainly correct. That there were |
orthodox Christians at that time who denied the Old Testament ,
;

is extremely unlikely since its rejection was one of the chief char-—
acteristics of abominable heresy.
According to the view of the Basilidians, the Old Testament de-
rived from the creators of the world, and the law in particular came
from their chief (a principe ipsorum) who had led the people out
of Egypt (Irenaeus AH 1.24.5 [ =1.19.3]). Among the Valentinians,
Ptolemy was the first® to go beyond the position of complete re-
jection of the Old Testament, a position held by the founder himself
as wellas by Heracleon, and which surely also characterized Marcus.
Ptolemy differentiated between various parts of the law, and traced |
oneof them back to God. The “pure legislation” was fulfilled, not |
destroyed, by the Savior although he did abolish the “law which was f
intertwined with evil.” Finally,.athird group of regulations, the actual”
ceremonial law, should be understood in a typological and symbolic |
way, as an image of the higher, spiritual world. Since the law as a f
whole is imperfect, it could not have come from God, but derives~
from the “demiurge.” ® [201] In this way, Ptolemy not only expressly

4. Cf. Dial. 48.4: “Christ has commanded us not to follow human teachings but
rather the proclamation of the blessed prophets and the teaching of Christ himself.”
5. Perhaps the same is true of the Valentinian Theotimus; cf. above, 48.
6. Epistle to Flora (in Epiphanius Her. 33.3-7); see above, 120 n. 22.
197
 ORTHODOXY AND HERESY IN EARLIEST CHRISTIANITY

rejected the teaching of the church, according to which “the God and
Father” had given the law, but also rejected a view which regarded
the devil as the actual legislator (1.2=Epiphanius 33.3.2). The
people with whom the Paul of the Acts of Paul contends in “3
Corinthians” forbid appealing to the prophets (1.10; see above 42
n. 99), and the false teachers mentioned in the epistle of Jude
similarly reject the Old Testament revelation.? The “elder” who was
instructed by those who had seen and heard the apostles and their
disciples, and from whom derive the examples of the correct use of
scripture cited by Irenaeus (AH 4.27.1-32.1 [= 4.42-49]), strongly
opposes a use of the Old Testament which separates it from God,
connects it with that inferior being the demiurge (AH 4.27.4
[=4.43.1]), and thus depreciates its content for the Christians. In
this connection we need not even mention the name of Marcion,
while Apelles, who was influenced by him, in many treatises uttered
“countless blasphemies against Moses and the divine words, according
to Eusebius (EH 5.13.9).
The mode and manner by which the heretics discharged their
obligations with regard to the Old Testament varied, and sometimes
exegetical devices played a part. Such skills made possible the as-
sertion that the prophets contradict themselves and thereby betray
their complete unreliability (Apelles in EH 5.13.6; méden holds
aléthes eirékenai). Or the Lord is said to show that the ancient writ-
ings are wrong: “The followers of Valentinus and of certain other
heresies suppose that the Savior said things that had not been said
in the ancient writings,” etc.8 Even apostles, and by no means only
Paul, are brought into play against the old covenant. In his letter to
James (in the ps.-Clementine Homilies; see above, 184), Peter com-
plains bitterly that certain of the gentiles have rejected the lawful
proclamation which he preached and not only that, but they have
twisted the meaning of his own words so as to make it seem as though
he says the same thing as they do. “But those people who, I know
not how, claim to understand my thoughts, attempt [202] to explain
words they have heard from me more accurately than I who spoke
7. Jiilicher-Fascher, Einleitung’, p. 214.
8. Hoi apo Oualentinou kai tindn heterén haireseén, oiomenoi ton sdtéra legein
ta mé eirémena en tois palaiois grammasin. . . . From the Exposition of the Psalms
by Origen (Pitra, Analecta Sacra, 2: 335 ff., no. 3). Cf. Hammack, Geschichte, 1.1:
295.
198
 THE OLD TESTAMENT, THE LORD, AND THE APOSTLES

them, and they tell their disciples that this is my opinion, although
I had never thought of it at all. If they dare to produce such lies
already during my lifetime, how much more will those who come
after me dare to do it after I am gone!” (2.6-7).
With that, the line is already established along which the ecclesias-
tical valuation of the Old Testament proceeds. It contains no con-
tradications, and neither Jesus nor the apostles stand in opposition to
it. The cleft which, for example, Marcion in his Antitheses, or others
in similar ways, opened between the God of the old and the God of
the new covenants, is immediately filled in again by the presbyter
of Irenaeus—whatever fault the heretics find with the God of the
Old Testament holds true no less for the Lord (AH 4.28.3-32.1
[= 4.44.3-49.2"]). This section concludes with the triumphant as-
sertion: “In this way the elder (senior), the disciple of the apostles,
discoursed about both Testaments and showed that both derive from
one and the same God” (4.32.1 [=4.49.1]). And when Tatian was
industriously at work on a writing entitled Problems in which he
promised to show the obscure and hidden approach of the scriptures,
the churchman Rhodon announced at once a refutation which would
offer the Solutions for Tatian’s problems (EH 5.13.8).
The Old Testament was only of limited usefulness in opposing the
heretics. This was not simply because it is not possible to use it for
convincing people who do not acknowledge it. It was not very much
different with those who did accept it, since they read it also from
their own perspective and did not allow themselves to be influenced
by the opposing viewpoint; they had their “own interpretation”
(epilusis, 2 Pet. 1.19-21). But in addition to that, a primary con-
sideration was the fact that the controversy focused primarily on
t productive
very.
christological issues, and the Old Testament.was_no
for ‘that. To be sure, occasionally someone disputed with the heretics
evenat that level. Thus, Hermogenes believed that he could use
Psalm 19.4f. (= 18.6 LXX) as a support for his position that Christ,
at the time of his return to his home above, left his body behind
and
in the sun. The orthodox interpreted the passage differently,
Pantaenus also challenged the interpretation of the heretic on lin-
guistic grounds.®
Second Century,
9. Clement of Alexandria Prophetic Excerpts 56 [ET in Grant,
his ideas, see also Hippolyt us Ref. 8.17.
pp. 54 £.]. On Hermogenes and
199
 ORTHODOXY AND HERESY IN EARLIEST CHRISTIANITY

Nevertheless, such instances are only sporadic in the period under

discussion. [203] It seems to be more typical when Polycarp, who
hates the heretics as much as he values scripture (Phil. 12.1), still
does not attempt to use the latter polemically any more than does
Ignatius. And it is not possible to determine whether Justin appealed
to the Old Testament against the heretics to any significant degree.
Certainly it could be employed in opposition to the immorality of
the heretics, and also in opposition to the impossible notion of proph-
ecy which Montanism cherished (see above, 136 and 145). Other-
wise, with respect to error, we see the orthodox restricting themselves
to the use of Old Testament threats of judgment (2 Tim. 4.14) or
to the consolation that the Lord already knows his own (2 Tim. 2.19,
following Num. 16.5). And this is done by a person who cherishes
the conviction that it is precisely a knowledge of scripture that equips
the leader of the community both in and for this struggle (2 Tim.
3.14-16). More than a few times, the assertion is made that the Old
Testament had already alluded to the fact that heretics would arise.
The wise man whom Clement of Alexandria had heard speaking,
probably Pantaenus, discovered the heretics in those “who sit in the
seat of the scornful” (Ps. 1.1 in Strom. 2.[15.]67.4). And where par-
ticularly grevious sinners appear in the Old Testament, they are
viewed as types of the new godlessness, and comfort is derived from
contemplating the fate which overtook them. The epistle of Jude,
and likewise 2 Peter (2.1-22), which follows it for the most part,
depicts the false believers as the counterparts of the unfaithful Isra-
elites, of the fallen angels, of the men of Sodom and Gomorrah, of
a Cain, Balaam, and Korah (Jude 5-13)—as the impious people of
the last times who are announced by the prophet Enoch (Jude 14-16).
Second Timothy complains that the heretics rebel against the truth
as Jannes and Jambres did against Moses (3.8) and the only ma-
terial that 1 John has taken from the Old Testament is the reference
to Cain, as the opposite of the Christian that is genuine, because
orthodox (3.12).
As we have already seen with respect to 1 Clement (above, 104),
the chief value of the Old Testament for the church, in its opposition
to. gnosticism, Jay in the fact that by beginning with God as the
creator, it made it more difficult to slip into a conceptual framework —
in which subordinate beings, or even the devil himself, chad created
200
 THE OLD TESTAMENT, THE LORD, AND THE APOSTLES

the world. In that way, the connection between creation and re-
demption was preserved, and it was impossible to construe redemp-
tion as meaning redemption from creation. [204]
On this point (cf. Irenaeus AH 1.26.2 [=1.22]), and on the whole
in the acknowledgment of the Old Testament as the record of divine
revelation, orthodoxy could easily come to an understanding with
Jewish Christianity. But as soon as one began to deal with particular
details, there became evident even here disagreement that separated
the known. Jewish Christians from that portion of the gentile Christians
who had not renounced the old covenant. To be sure, both groups
consciously subjected themselves to the guidance of the Old Testa-
ment and the gospel. But it made a great deal of difference whether
one attempted to understand the latter on the basis of the former,
or whether one approached the former from the viewpoint of a gentile
Christian interpretation of faith in Christ. The inevitable controversy
died out only with the demise of Jewish Christianity itself. As long
as Jewish Christianity existed, gentile Christians who came into con-
tact with it were offended by what they regarded as a Judaizing per-
version of the Christian heritage, and were accused in return of Se

having deprived the Old Testament—and therefore a major portion |

of the divine revelation—of its true meaning just as the arch-heretic
Paul had done. We are no longer able to determine whether the lost
writing of Clement of Alexandria entitled “Ecclesiastical Canon, or
Against (or ‘To’) the Judaizers” (kanon ekklésiastikos € pros tous
ioudaizontas, EH 6.13.3) relates to this situation. After all, Egypt
would have provided a particularly appropriate stage for that sort of
conflict, Irenaeus accuses the “Ebionities” of suppor their
tingpeculiar
and thoroughly heretical teaching with a most curious interpretation
of the prophetic writings (AH 1.26.2 [= 1.22]). They regarded. Jesus
as merely human,!° denied the virgin birth, and were not startled
by the reference to Isa. 7:14 (Matt. 1.23). They simply followed
Theodotion and Aquila, who found there a “young woman” (neanis)
instead of the “virgin” (parthenos) of the Septuagint (Irenaeus, AH
3.21.1 [= 3.23]; cf. EH 5.8.10). Thus textual criticism and interpreta-
tion of the Old Testament go hand in hand, whether to provide the
basis for a non-ecclesiastical opinion, or to help ecclesiastical doctrine
to be victorious.
10. Cf, Bauer, Leben Jesu, pp. 30f.
201
 ORTHODOXY AND HERESY IN EARLIEST CHRISTIANITY

Justin plays off the orthodox understanding of the Old Testament

and the gospel against the “human” convictions of the Jewish Chris-
tians (Dial. 48.4). Concerning Ignatius, we have already heard
(above, 131 f.) that he acknowledges the law and the prophets (Smyr.
5.1)—the [205] “beloved prophets” (Philad. 9.2)—but wishes to under-
stand them soley on the basis of the gospel, and he sharply rejects the
representatives of the opinion he is opposing, who want to establish
their perspective on the basis of the Old Testament. Indeed, the
Judaizers in Philadelphia have proved themselves to be unenlight-
ened, and to the assertion of Ignatius that the gospel, as he under-
stands it, is written in the sacred “charters” (archeioi) they stub-
bornly answered: “That is just the question” (Philad. 8.2). Since the
prophets had already gained entrance to the Father through Christ
(Philad. 9.1) and had accordingly lived after the manner of Christ
Jesus (Magn. 8.2), awaiting him in the spirit as his disciples awaiting
their teacher (Magn. 9.2) and even having oriented their proclama-
tion toward the gospel (Philad. 5.2), Ignatius could in no way con-
ceive of any possibility that the prophets could have declared any-
thing that was not also contained in the gospel. This gospel, together
with the law and the prophets, constitutes a unity (Smyr. 5.1), but
it is a unity in which the gospel takes the lead, and the others must
follow. More than what is presented in the gospel, the chief content
of which is outlined briefly in Philad. 8.2, cannot be found in the
“charters’—thus Judaism loses all justification and the possibility is
thereby opened for Ignatius to limit himself for all practical pur-
poses to the gospel, and to be satisfied with a more theoretical ap-
preciation of the prophets, whose statements are no longer put to use.

At the center of the gospel stands the Lord, the other authority
for that Christianity of which we learned above—an authority superior
to the “scriptures” not only because it dictates the way to understand
them, but also because all the believers agree in respect for it. But
even at this point there is great diversity. Each individual and each
special group is fighting for its Christ and against the Christ of the
others, and is endeavoring to enlist tradition and theological inference
in his service. Here one attempts to produce what is considered to
be the most authentic possible tradition of the life and teaching of
Jesus—attributed to the eyewitnesses themselves—primarily by dress-
202
 THE OLD TESTAMENT, THE LORD, AND THE APOSTLES

ing up the tradition and supplying an appropriate interpretation. In

my earlier work dealing with traditions about Jesus (Leben Jesu), I
attempted to describe how the mode of viewing the Lord, both
inside and outside the “church,” takes the form of historical narrative,
and as such demands unconditional belief, [206] and I will refer to that
work for the postcanonical portion of the period we are discussing
in the present book. At that time there probably was no version of
Christianity worthy of note that did not have at its disposal at least
one written gospel, in which Jesus appears as the bearer and guarantor
of that particular view, and (if only with a silent gesture) repulses
those who think differently. Each one found in the differing presenta-
tion of his opponent a falsification of the tradition concerning the
Lord (see above, 183 ff.).
Jewish Christianity, in accord
with the diversity it spawned, has at
its disposal several gospels: the Gospel of the Nazarenes and of the
Ebionites, as well as the Gospel of the Hebrews (see above,51 f. )r=
Alongside the last-named gospel, there” appear Gospel” of
the” ed”
the Egyptians (above, 50-53) as the corresponding book of the Egyp-
tian gentile-Christians. The Gospel of Peter of the Syrian heretics
already has come to our attention also (above, 66, 115), as well as
the Gospel of Basilides (above, 170) and the Apocryphon of John
of the Barbelo Gnostics (above, 49). Also attested from this period
are the Gospel of Truth, which the Valentinians used and which
differed completely from the canonical gospels,"* the Gospel of
Judas,2 and certain items from the Coptic gospel literature (see
below, 314 n. 32)(In order to prove that the peculiar content of these
books was divine™truth, the gnostics asserted that the Savior had
communicated the truth to the common people only in an incomplete
fashion, but reserved the most profound material for a few of his
11. Irenaeus AH 3.11.9 (=3.11.12). [A Coptic version of a Gospel of Truth was
found among the Nag Hammadi (Chenoboskion) materials (see. above, 170 n.
39), and probably is to be identified with this Valentinian work. For ET with
introduction and commentary, see K. Grobel, The Gospel of Truth (London:
Black, 1960); the Coptic text may be found, with another ET, in M. Malinine,
and
H.-C. Puech, G. Quispel, Evangelium Veritatis (Ziirich: Rascher, 1956),
Supplementum (1961). See also Hennecke-Schneemelcher, 1: 523-531 (extracts);
Grant, Gnosticism Anthology, pp. 146-161 (ET by W. W. Isenberg ).]
1.31.1f. (=1.28.9) . [See Hennecke- Schneemel cher, 1: 313 f.
12. Irenaeus AH
rela-
Whether this gospel, attributed to the “traitor” Judas by Irenaeus, has any
longer
tion to the recently discovered (Coptic) Gospel of (Judas) Thomas can no
be determined.]
203
 ORTHODOXY AND HERESY IN EARLIEST CHRISTIANITY

disciples who were capable of comprehending it )(Irenaeus AH 2.27.2

[= 2.40.3]). Sometimes it is the pre-crucifixion, sometimes the post-
resurrection Christ who imparts this material; sometimes the recipi-
ents are identified simply as the apostles, sometimes individual dis-
ciples, male and female, are named.1* /
re On this matter, it is scarcely possible to make any distinction
between a Clement of Alexandria or an Origen and the heretical
| gnostics. The former also assume that in his teaching, Jesus acted
_-differently toward those whom he trusted than toward the common
people, and that [207] with reference to the apostles, he made a further
distinction between the time before and the time after his resur-
ection (cf. Leben Jesu, pp. 376f.). The Epistle of the Apostles
(above, 184) also provides evidence that ecclesiastical circles by
no means rejected the idea of extensive special instructions to the
| disciples by the Lord.1* But where the “church” was in competition
\_ with heresy, the close agreement with heresy in this respect soon
became distressing. Important as it was to secure the ecclesiastical
interpretation of generally acknowledged tradition by means of exeget-
ical effort, it was at least as important to establish firm boundaries
between that which really could qualify as gospel tradition, and the
great mass of heretical forgeries. We have already become acquainted
with the efforts of Papias in this context, and have noted their hostility
toward heresy (above, 185-188).
Papias’ conclusion was that apostolic tradition about the life and
teaching of Jesus is to be found in the Gospels of Mark/Peter
and of Matthew, and also here and there where his perception and
probably even more, his particular preference had come across ma-
terial that was agreeable and thereby proved itself to be genuine.
We have suspected that he ignored the Third and Fourth Gospels be-
cause their usefulness had been called into question by the esteem
with which they were held by the heretics. To be sure, Matthew and

13. E.g. the Carpocratians and the “Gnostics” according to Irenaeus AH 1.25.5
[= 1.20.3] and 1.30.14 [=1.28.7]; Ptolemy To Flora 4.15 [=Epiphanius 33.7.9; .
above, 120 n. 22]; Pistis Sophia and the Books of Jeti [see Hennecke-Scheemel-
cher, 1: 250-262]; Acts of John 88-102. [For‘a more detailed discussion of this
material, see Bauer, Leben Jesu, pp. 374-376.] See also above, 119 f.; on John as
the informant in the Apocryphon of John, see 49; on Salome, 50.
14, Cf. my detailed arguments in Hennecke?, pp. 114 f.
204
 THE OLD TESTAMENT, THE LORD, AND THE APOSTLES

Mark also were used by heretics,1®> but apparently not in so blatant

a fashion as the other two. In addition, the place which Matthew
and Mark occupied within the “church” was already so secure at the
time of Papias, and the two gospels, especially the first, had be-
come so indispensible, that there could no longer be any question of
abandoning them. The encroachment by the heretics had to be
countered in another way, namely, through exégéseis. One example
of such a procedure will suffice. The Montanists referred Matthew 23.34
to their prophets, and thus called the churchmen, by whom those
prophets were rejected, “murderers of the prophets” (Matt. 23.31).
[208] “Ecclesiastical” theology preferred, on the contrary, another in-
terpretation, and emphasized that the prophets about whom Jesus
was speaking had been persecuted by the Jews, something which
did not apply at all to the Montanists (the anonymous anti-montanist
in EH 5.16.12). Since exegesis offered almost unlimited possibilities,
it would be a mistake if one were to conclude from the mere use of
one of the gospels, concerning which the church subsequently made
a favorable decision, that already in our period the orthodox position
of the one who used it was established without further discussion.
Such an argument is inadequate in itself, just as the later ecclesiasti-
cal view was in no position to give the last word on the origin and
nature of the canonical gospels. For this reason alone we could not
expect to receive conclusive information from these sources, since we
know that the concept of what is “ecclesiastical” developed gradually
and involved transformations that were not unaffected by stimuli
and limitations from the side of the heretics.
Papias felt that he could acknowledge only two of our biblical
gospels. Perhaps this was because his particularly vulnerable situa-
tion made it advisable for him to limit himself only to what was
completely reliable. It was somewhat different for his contemporary
and coreligionist Justin. Justin did not shrink from using Luke as a
source for the earthly life of Jesus, in addition to the other synoptics,
and because he considered all three of these gospels to be written
by apostles or their companions (Dial. 103.8), he acknowledged for

15. Mark, for example, by Cerinthus (Irenaeus AH 3.11.7 [=3.11.10]). We need

as by
not list the evidence for Matthew—it was used by Jewish Christians as well
gnostics (e.g. Ptolemy, Heracleon) and Montanists.
205
 ORTHODOXY AND HERESY IN EARLIEST CHRISTIANITY

them the same claim to credibility as for the Old Testament, with
which they could alternate in the Sunday readings (Apol. 67.3). Thus
sayings taken from the synoptic gospels are introduced with the
solemn formula “it is written” (Dial. 49.5; 100.1; 101.3; 103.8; 104;
105.6; 106.4; 107.1).
Perhaps Justin knew the gospel of John, but even if he did, his
outlook is intrinsically foreign to it. It is basically so foreign that
we can scarcely silence the voice that would bid us to give up al-
Goes any thought of such an acquaintance. Justin_ _completely
follows the narrative sequence..of-the synoptics, even where they
4 conflict “with John. “Like John, Justin is possessed with the idea of
| existence of Christ as the Logos prior to the creation of the world,
/ but he does not derive his proof from the Fourth Gospel, neither
from the prologue nor any other portion; moreover he does not even
derive it from the letters of Paul, [209] but seeks laboriously to
a the synoptics into the service of such ideas. The miraculous
birth or the confession of Peter must bear the brunt of providing a
proof which John could have given with no difficulty. Whenever
we feel certain that John can no longer remain silent, we find our-
selves disappointed.17 That becomes all the more striking when we
observe, in contrast, how Justin is able unreservedly to take advantage
of his sympathies with the Apocalypse, where he has such. The least
|that we can say is that the gospel of John has left no noticeable
“7 impression on Justin. But in this respect, Justin represents the position
hs) _ of ecclesiastically oriented Rome in the middle of the second century.
This is all the more evident insofar as the old Roman confession
|assumes the same stance toward the canonical gospels as does Justin,
( and like him follows the synoptic line.
Can it be a coincidence that immediately after Justin, the enemy
of heretics who also took aim at the Valentinians (Dial. 35.6), w
note the appearance in Italy-Rome of two representatives of this
latter school who especially treasure the Fourth Gospel—namely
Ptolemy and Heracleon (Hippolytus Ref. 6.35)? To be sure, Justin’s

16. So Jiilicher-Fascher, Einleitung’, p. 474.

17. Cf. W. Bousset, Die Evangeliencitate Justins des Martyrers (Gottingen, 1891),
pp. 115-121. More recently W. v. Loewenich has dealt with this problem in Das
Johannes-Versténdnis im zweiten Jahrhundert, ZNW Beiheft 13 (1932): 39-50;
[also A. J. Bellinzoni, The Sayings of Jesus in the Writings of Justin Martyr, Sup-
plements to Novum Testamentum 17 (Leiden: Brill 1967): 134-138, 140].
206
 THE OLD TESTAMENT, THE LORD, AND THE APOSTLES

disciple Tatian placed the gospel of John on the same level as the
synoptics, but he also broke with the church on account of profound
differences in faith—poisoned, so Irenaeus thought, by the Valen-
tinians and Marcion (AH 1.28.1 [= 1.26.1])—and he left the world
capital to move once again toward the East. Thus Tatian cannot
provide us with a satisfactory testimony concerning the moods and
conditions within the “church” at Rome. The silence of a Dionysius
of Corinth, of a Hegesippus, of a Rhodon, and of others whose enmity
toward heresy goes hand in hand with their alliance with Rome, as
we have already heard (above, 106-108), is regrettable, and should
not be used to draw inferences in either direction. When an ecclesi-
astically oriented Roman again expressed himself with respect to our
problem, it is for the purpose of vigorously rejecting the Fourth
Gospel.
I am convinced that the Roman presbyter Gaius, whom Hippolytus
also thought he should refute explicitly, is closely connected with
those people whom Epiphanius [210] opposes as “alogoi” on the basis
of statements made against them by the Roman Hippolytus.'® Their
view conceming the Fourth Gospel is already present by the year
175, as the opposition of Irenaeus indicates (above, 141); and even
if Gaius had not been active before the end of the century, he never-
theless appropriated for himself many of the views of that group.
But he did not thereby fall under the charge of heresy on the part
of his catholic opponents. They were, on the contrary, in complete
agreement with his unrelenting condemnation of gnostics and Mon-
tanists. It was thus permissible for a Roman Christian from these
circles, and an officeholder as well, to consider not only the Apoca-
lypse but even the gospel of John as a forgery of the gnostic Cerin-
thus.!® He reproaches it for its contradictions with the other gospels,
plays Mark off against John (Epiphanius Her. 51.6), and betrays in
“On the Gospel
18. Her. 51. The attacks by Hippolytus include a work entitled
apokalypseds).
and Apocalypse of John” (hyper tou kata Ioanén euaggeliou kai
Abhandlun-
On the “alogoi,” cf. E. Schwartz, Uber den Tod der Séhne Zebedaei, Jiilicher-
Géttinger Gesellsch aft der Wissensc haften (1904), pp. 29 ff.;
gen der
pp. 257, 485; M. Meinertz, Einleitun g in das NT* (Pader-
Fascher, Einleitung?,
Gaius).
born, 1933), p. 256 (the Roman alogoi, the Roman presbyter he agrees
19. Epiphanius Her. 51.3. If Gaius excludes 1 John from the charge,
distingui shing the gospel from the epistle with the churchman
in this judgment
with 1 John is cer-
Papias and probably also with Polycarp, whose acquaintance
Gospel.
tain, while it is at least not demonstrable that he knew the Fourth
207
 ORTHODOXY AND HERESY IN EARLIEST CHRISTIANITY

general an extraordinary sympathy for the earthly life of Jesus as

presented by the synoptics. Of course, the reasons thus advanced
are not the true cause for his rejection of John. Rather, he sensed
in the gospel of John a spirit of heresy with which his Roman-
ecclesiastical attitude could not be reconciled.
If we listen to the sources without prejudice, it seems to me that
this is the result: a current of caution with regard to the gospel of
John runs continuously through ecclesiastical Rome, that center of
orthodoxy, right up to almost the end of the second century—a mood
that manifests itself through silence and through explicit rejection.
Even the silence becomes eloquent if one notices that people such as
Ptolemy, Heracleon and Tatian, who are sharply attacked by the
church, can treasure the gospel for similar reasons. Gaius in his own
way gives expression to a feeling which dominated Roman orthodoxy
[211] ever since the Fourth Gospel appeared on its horizon and which
doubtless accounts for Justin’s attitude when he consciously appeals
to the synoptics for support, just as do the alogoi. Apparently the
gospel of John was introduced into the world capital by personalities
whose recommendation could not be accepted by the “church” there.
Up until the end of the epoch with which we are dealing, it had
still not overcome such reservations. To around the close of the second
century, history is unable to name a single orthodox Roman for whom
the Fourth Gospel had been of any significance. The line of orthodox
admirers is first attested in Rome with the Muratorian Canon at the
beginning of the third century, for the Roman origin of the ancient
Sas is not certain.2° That there were, however, at the
time the prologues were composed (around 180), already orthodox
theologians in the West who acknowledged the gospel of John as
} apostolic and valued it accordingly, is adequately attested by Iren-
_. aeus. But he reveals no Roman influence thereby. Apparently it was
the close relationship between Gaul and Asia (cf. EH 5.1.3 and 17)
that permitted the Asian Irenaeus, who even in his old age was
proud of having been in contact, through Polycarp, with “John and
the others who had seen the Lord” (EH 5.20.5-7), to accept a gospel
attributed to the apostle John more unreservedly than was possible
for Rome with its consciousness of responsibility as champion in the
battle against heresy--and without any special preference for the
apostle of Asia.
20. Cf. Harnack, Evangelien-Prologe, pp. 16 f.
208
 THE OLD TESTAMENT, THE LORD, AND THE APOSTLES

If we go back to the period prior to Justin, I still remain convinced

that it is impossible to demonstrate that any of the apostolic fathers
used the Fourth Gospel.?! That is particularly noteworthy in the case
of Polycarp, of whose bond with Rome based on a common enmity
toward heresy we already are aware (above, 107). A survey of
the gospel-like material 2? seems to me to suggest that the situation
with respect to Polycarp is quite similar to that of the Roman Clement,
with whom he is so intimately familiar.
The first letter of Clement (about 95/96) as well as the letter of
Polycarp (about twenty years later) make no use of the Fourth Gos-
pel. And [212] just as, in my opinion, the hypothesis is fully justified
that the former, like its contemporaries the first and third evangelists,
knew the gospel of Mark and also a sort of “sayings-source,” so
also with regard to Polycarp we need not suppose anything different.
Nor has C. Taylor been able to convince me that Hermas offers
more concrete evidence here.2? Furthermore, I am particularly in-
debted to 2 Clement for strengthening the conviction that even for
the later part of the period of the apostolic fathers, the question
concerning which of the canonical gospels was, or were, in use by
Christians, is justified only to a very limited degree.”
This awareness should also guide us as we investigate whence Ig-_
natius, who lived quite a bit earlier, came to know something of the
“life of Jesus. Many think he had access to the Fourth Gospel. But
the oft-cited “reminiscences” are ambiguous and do not lead to a
firm conviction of dependence; on the contrary, they make the ab-
sence of any actual quotations appear to be be all the more curious.”5
In any event, he does not appeal to that gospel for his great con-
fessional statements concerning Christ in which to some extent he is
in harmony with the gospel of John—for Christ’s pre-existence, deity,

21. See Bauer, Johannesevangelium®, p. 244.

by a
22, Conveniently collected in The New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers,
of the Oxford Society of Historical Theology (Oxford, 1905). [For a
committee
apos-
more recent investigation, see H. Késter, Synoptische Uberlieferung bei den
tolischen Vatern, TU 65 (1957). On 1 Clement and the epistle of Polycarp in
and
particular, see R. M. Grant, 1 Clement (=Grant, AF 2, 1965), p. 103;
Schoedel, Polycarp . . . Papias, p. 5.]
[For a recent
23. C. Taylor, The Witness of Hermas to the Four Gospels (1892).
Shepherd
survey of Hermas’ relation to the New Testament, see G. F. Snyder, The
of Hermas (=Grant, AF 6, 1968), pp. 14-16.]
Clement (= Grant,
24, [For a recent survey of the material, see H. H. Graham, 2
AF 2, 1965), pp. 133f.]
24.]
25, [See now R. M. Grant, Ignatius (= Grant, AF 4, 1966), p.
209
 ORTHODOXY AND HERESY IN EARLIEST CHRISTIANITY

and status as “Logos.” And for many things that seem to us to be

“gospel’-like in nature and might have come directly or even in-
directly from a written gospel, John simply does not enter the picture.
The Fourth Gospel knows nothing of the claim that Mary:was a
descendent of David,?* or that the Tetrarch Herod took part in the
crucifixion (Smyr. 1.2). The birth from a virgin (Eph. 19.1; Smyr.
1.1) and the conception by the Spirit (Eph. 18.2; cf. 7.2) are also
foreign to John, just as is the whole concept of the great mystery
which occured at that time (Eph. 19.1). In the same context, we also
read nothing in John about the colossal appearance of a star which
emphasized the importance of this moment of world history (Eph.
19.2), nor similarly that at the end of the life of Jesus the heavenly,
earthly and subterranean powers were witnesses of the crucifixion
~(Trall. 9.1). The only passage that Ignatius really quotes from a
| written gospel—containing the famous saying of the risen Lord that he
_ is no “bodiless demon” (Smyr. 3.2)—likewise does not belong to the
| [213] gospel of John, nor for that matter to any of the canonical gos-
\_ pels, and none of the church fathers ever claimed to find it in them.??
The situation with Ignatius is basically the same as with Justin
(above, 205 f.). Both believe in the heavenly pre-existence of Christ,
and yet the gospel writings which both of them use begin only with
(~ the miraculous conception of Jesus. In Trallians 9.1, Ignatius sets before
\ his readers the decisive main points concerning the earthly life of
j Jesus, as he knows it from the gospel traditions, in express opposition
to his docetically oriented opponents. But despite his enthusiastic
emphasis on Christ’s flesh and blood (8.1), he does not follow the
pattern of the Johannine prologue by beginning with the entry of the
heavenly being into our sphere; and while echoing the phrase “he
became flesh” (sarx egeneto, John 1.14) which so fully conforms to
his own faith (Eph. 7.2), he requires the confession of “Jesus Christ,
who was of the family of David, who came from Mary, who was
truly born, both ate and drank, was truly persecuted under Pontius
Pilate, was truly crucified and died, . . . was truly raised from the

26. Ignatius Eph. 18.2, Smyr. 1.1, Trall. 9.1; cf; W. Bauer, Leben Jesu, p. 15.
27. Origen traces the story back to the “Teaching of Peter’ (On First Principles
l.preface.8), Jerome to the Gospel of the Hebrews (Illustrious Men 16), while
Eusebius admits that he does not know whence Ignatius derived this information
(EH 3.36.11). [See also Grant, Ignatius, pp. 115 f.]
210
 THE OLD TESTAMENT, THE LORD, AND THE APOSTLES

dead . . .” (9.1f.). Thus Ignatius apparently is as little aware of »)i

being dependent upon the Fourth Gospel for his conviction that {< : ry
i “> Le
Christ the divine being assumed flesh as is Justin. The same con-
viction also is expressed by 2 Clement (9.5) and Hermas (59 [= Sim.—
5.6].5), but neither is in any way indebted to John.
Rather, the hypothesis that Ignatius used the gospel of Matthew ||
might seem more appealing; 28 but no really convincing evidence
can be adduced even for this. Nevertheless it is certain that this
'

gospel, if it does play some role, by no means exhausts what Ig-

natius thinks he knows about the life of Jesus. What was especially
valuable for Ignatius in the tradition concerning Jesus was that which
revealed the divine glory of the Lord,?* and what further [214] ap-
peared to be appropriate for proving, in opposition to the view of
the docetics, that Jesus had been a real human with flesh and blood
throughout his entire life, as well as after his resurrection (cf. es-
pecially Trall. 9.1). I have no doubt that his opponents also had at
their disposal gospel writings that vouched for the correctness of their
teaching, and that they also knew sayings of the Lord to which they
could appeal. Unfortunately, the gospels of both parties elude re-
liable descriptions today.
On the other hand, it appears to me to some extent demonstrated
that the Gospel of John had a difficult time gaining recognition in
the “church.” But it succeeded. In Asia, the “apostolic” protector of
the indigenous orthodox church took it under his wing.*° And neither
the Asian Irenaeus, nor the “gnostic” Clement in Alexandria, nor the tg,

Montanist Tertullian in North Africa (whose inclinations in that di-

rection were much older than his break with the church) were in a
position to doubt or even to challenge the tradition that was thus
Macmillan,
28. In the opinion of B. H. Streeter, The Four Gospels (London:
ff., with which, e.g., F. C. Grant agrees in The Growth of the
1924), pp. 500
orig-
Gospels (New York: Abingdon, 1933), pp. 14, 233, the gospel of Matthew
inated in Antioch.
and origin
29. He proved this, however, with gospel material of a different type
the fourth evangelist , for whom this was also a concern of ut-
than was used by
most importance.
relationship with
30. Even if the Fourth Gospel had already been brought into
the church, that
the apostle John before it came into the sphere of influence of
any difficultie s. Peter also is claimed to be the author of the
does not produce
as well as being the patron of the ecclesias-
heretical gospel that bears his name,
of the gnostic
tical gospel of Mark. And John the son of Zebedee was also the hero
Acts of John.
211
 ORTHODOXY AND HERESY IN EARLIEST CHRISTIANITY

produced. When the gospel canon was defined, which was to be

valid for the entire church, Rome found itself overruled, to put it
rather crudely. The resistance offered previously, and perhaps more
instinctively than consciously, was abandoned all the more willingly
since the reasons which had caused Rome to view the Fourth Gospel
in a suspicious light no longer retained their old force around the
year 200. At that earlier time, the danger of heresy was a burden
to Rome, but now the gospel of John could perform a valuable
service in the construction and establishment of the ecclesiastical
proclamation of Christ, as it had developed, without fear of un-
desirable side effects.
If we have correctly understood and described the position of the
“church” with respect to the biblical gospels, then the peculiar order
which they assume in its canon becomes self-explanatory. Irenaeus
(AH 3.1.1 [=3.1.2]) and the Muratorian list already attest the order
Matthew, Mark, Luke, John. At first, [215] if we may begin after

above, 209), the church made use of only the first two gospels, and
probably arranged them according to size, following a principle that
prevailed also with respect to the collection of Pauline epistles. After
some delay, and not without encountering resistance, Luke followed,
and only at the very last was John included. The idea that the
chronological sequence of composition determined their order is
merely an attempt to come to terms with an arrangement that origi-
__nally had been established for different reasons.

Alongside the scriptures of the Old Testament and the Lord in the
gospels, appear the apostles as the third authority of Christianity (see
already the New Testament reference in Eph. 2.20). Their incom-
parable significance for the faithful does not need to be verified once
more from the statements of the latter. Nor is it necessary to demon-
strate that the apostles, by whom the tradition from the earliest
Christian times is supported (as we already know), possessed enor-
mous value for the ideological struggle. The apostles are introduced
explicitly into the fight against the heretics by the epistle of Jude
(17-19), which is paralleled in 2 Peter (3.2ff.), or by Polycarp
(Phil. 6.3); these passages neatly link the prophets, the Lord, and the
apostles into a firmly knit order of battle. As the Jesus of the church
212
 THE OLD TESTAMENT, THE LORD, AND THE APOSTLES

already has not only pointedly uprooted the opinions of the heretics,
but also has precluded the possibility of their having any authority
among the right-minded by providing an accurate picture of their
coming for the future (Justin Dial. 35.3 ff., using Matt. 7.15; 24.11,
24 = Mark 13.22), so the apostles after him do the same thing to the
same end (Jude 17-19; 2 Pet. 2.1 ff; 3.2, 17). By means of gospels,
which are said to derive directly or indirectly from them (or from
their circle), they produce the traditional basis for the view of Christ
represented at any given time. And even apart from this aspect of
literary activity, the apostles stand as the focus of a voluminous
literature—letters by an apostolic author, acts of apostles, apocalypses
—which frequently is intended to do battle against quite clearly di-
vergent views and doctrines, sometimes in service of the “church,”
sometimes of its opponents.
The apostle Paul holds claim to a special place. It may be even
more necessary here than elsewhere to approach the evidence with-
out prejudice. What is the significance [216] of the Apostle to the Gen-
tiles in the ideological struggle? Where do we encounter his influence?
Where is there a sense of obligation to him? Once again we will
proceed by moving back from the end toward the beginning. At the
same time, we would do well to remember what we have already
discovered to be the probable history of many a community founded
by Paul. We need to be clear about the fact that the Apostle did not
always succeed in maintaining a firm hold over what he possessed,
Even outside the circle of the Jewish Christians,?1 with their bitter
hatred of Paul and the resulting blunt rejection of everything in-
fluenced by him, we hear him disparaged.*°
Hegesippus took his stand as a follower of the Old Testament and
the Lord, but aroused our doubts (above, 196f.) as to whether he
really had listed completely, as he apparently intended, the funda-
mental basic authorities for all orthodox churches of his time. We
have denied that this was the case for those at Corinth and Rome,
where the apostle Paul with his collection of letters must have stood
in
31. On the attitude of the Jewish Christians toward Paul, see my treatment
Hennecke?, pp. 127 f., [and in Hennecke-Schneemelcher, 2: 71. See also below,
236, 262 f.).
as evi-
32. See above, 149 n. 5. Appeal may also be made to James 2.14-26
Apostle
dence of how difficult it was to retain an undistorted recollection of the
to the Gentiles.
213
 ORTHODOXY AND HERESY IN EARLIEST CHRISTIANITY

alongside the Old Testament and the Lord around the year 180. But
for Hegesippus himself that does not yet seem to have been the case,
so that for him™“the law and the prophets and the Lord” were, in
fact, ill disposed toward this supplementation by means of Paul. This
follows not only because in the other relevant passage he also simply
refers to “the divine scriptures and the Lord” (above, 196 n. 3).
It Hs much more significant that he was acquainted with the first

Corinthians. Rather, in the second ai ticecatedtioned above (196

n. ayn in a manner expressing complete ignorance, he immediately
plays off against it “the divine scriptures and the Lord,” particularly
the saying of the Lord “Blessed are your eyes, since they see, and
_ your ears, since they hear” (according to Matt. 13.16). In 1 Corinthians
2.9, however, quite the opposite is said—“The good things “prepared
for the just no eye has seen nor ear heard,” etc. Now in the fifth
| book of his Memoirs Hegesippus declares that this saying [217] is
ee nee and only deception and opposition to Scripture could
express itself in this manner (above, n. 33). But even if 1 Corinthians
is unknown, then, as we shall also see, Paul is thereby completely
removed from the picture. In view of everything we know about who
showed preference for the content of 1 Corinthians 2.9,3* there can be no
doubt who those people were who conducted themselves with such
enmity toward truth—they were the gnostics, with whom Hegesippus
also crosses swords elsewhere (EH 4.22.5).
When we move back from Hegesippus to one of similar stripe,
Papias, and ask what this bishop of a community that belonged to the
regions reached by the Apostle to the Gentiles and was already in
existence during Paul’s lifetime (Col. 4.13) thought of Paul, it appears
to me that again only one answer is possible—nothing. We are already
to some extent prepared for this since we fittingly connected Euse-
bius’ failure to record any expression of opinion by Papias concerning

33. Stephen Gobarus, according to Photius, Library, codex 232. [To clarify the
argument, the context is reproduced here: ““The good things prepared for the
just (ta hétoimasmena tois dikaiois agatha) no eye has seen nor ear heard nor
have they ascended to the human heart’ (cf. 1.Cor. 2.9). Hegesippus, an ancient
and apostolic man, says in the fifth book of his Memoirs—I do not know quite
what he meant—that these words were spoken vainly, and those who said them
lied against both the divine scriptures and the Lord who said “Blessed are your
eyes...
34, See Bauer, Johannesevangelium’, pp. 4 f.
214
 THE OLD TESTAMENT, THE LORD, AND THE APOSTLES

the Gospel of Luke with the fact that the Third Gospel was the gospel
used by the heretic Marcion (see above, 184f., 187). When EH
3.39.12-17 informs us that Papias valued the Apocalypse quite highly,
that he used the apostolic gospels of Matthew and of Mark/Peter
along with other traditional materials from the circle of the twelve
and. finally that he also cites from 1 John and 1 Peter, while in the
same context various persons of the apostolic age to whom Papias
appealed are mentioned by name (EH 3.39.2-10), its silence about
Paul and his letters is completely clear, and cannot be interpreted any
differently from the corresponding approach toward the gospels of
Luke and John. Papias must have assumed a negative attitude here
as well, even if it also may have manifested itself only through silence.
That, in fact, the remains of the literary activity of Papias never
show anything even vaguely resembling Pauline coloration is only
mentioned in passing, since if this observation had to stand alone,
it would prove precious little in view of the paucity of the remnants
of Papias. Taking everything together, however, we find in Papias a
churchman who, in addition to the Apocalypse and the genuine gos-
pel tradition emanating from the bosom of Palestine, holds those two
writings in highest regard which indicate their ecclesiastical orienta-
tion in a particularly clear way, the one [218] by its origin in Rome and
its Petrine authorship [1 Peter], the other by its explicitly anti-gnostic
thrust [1 John]. The letters of Paul (so long as we still must disre-
gard the pastoral Epistles) could in no way compete with such
writings, especially since they were compromised through the patron-
age of people like Marcion.
Justin, the contemporary and coreligionist of Papias, was no i |a
successful than the latter in acquiring anything from the Apostle to
the Gentiles. That is even more peculiar in his case since he carried+
on his activity in Rome, where “Peter and Paul” was the watchword, |
and at least Romans and 1 Corinthians were available. But in the
case of Justin also, one must sharply minimize the claims of Pauline
reminiscences in order to arrive at an acceptable result. Such al-
lusions are of no help to me, since at best they spring up occasionally
from the subconscious but evidence no kind of living relationship
with Paul. Or what is one to think of this matter in view of the fact
that it does not occur to the apologist to mention Romans 13 when
121-123.
35. On this matter, cf. Bousset, Evangeliencitate Justins, pp.
215
 ORTHODOXY AND HERESY IN EARLIEST CHRISTIANITY

he argues that the Christians have always patriotically paid their

taxes (Apol. 17)—Theophilus of Antioch refers to this chapter (Autol-
ycus 1.11,3.14); or that 1 Corinthians 15 in no way plays a role in
Justin’s treatise On The Resurrection—Athenagoras calls the apostle
to.mind in his treatment (On the Resurrection 18)? Rather, for
Justin everything is based on the gospel tradition. And if a third
question may be allowed, how is one to explain the fact that in the
discussion of the conversion of the gentiles and the rejection of the
} Jews (Apol. 49) any congruence with Romans 9-11 is omitted, de-
' spite the fact that they both, apologist and apostle, appeal to Isaiah
5 65.2? In this light, the fact that the name of Paul is nowhere men-
tioned by Justin acquires a special significance that can hardly be
diminished by the observation that the names of the other apostles
also are absent. In one passage we hear of John, the apostle of Christ,
‘as the author of Revelation (Dial. 81.4); and even though the names
of the apostles are not mentioned on other occasions, there are re-
peated references to their “Memoirs.” With respect to Paul, not only is
his name lacking, but also any congruence..with_his letters. But for a
learned churchman who carried on his work in Rome around the
middle of the second century to act thus can only [219] be understood
as quite deliberate conduct.*® And if pressed to suggest a reason
for this, it would seem to me that the most obvious possibility here
would also be the reference to Marcion.
(~~The fact that in Rome, unlike Hierapolis, the gospel of Luke did
| not experience a temporary rejection together with the letters of Paul
_-is surely due to geographical considerations. Perhaps one might wish
to explain in a similar manner the fact that another churchman, who
stood in the forefront of the battle with heresy and whom we know
especially as an opponent of Marcion, Polycarp of Smyrna, has a
much more positive relationship to the letters of Paul than did Justin.

36. It is fitting also to be reminded of Celsus, who could hardly have gained his
insight that orthodoxy represented the “great” church over against the heretics
(Origen Against Celsus 5.59; cf. 5.61 where the ecclesiastically oriented Chris-
tians are hoi apo tou pléthous, “those of the multitude”) anywhere but in Rome,
and thus it was apparently there that he pursued his basic studies of the religion
he combatted. For him also, the gospels are overwhelmingly of the synoptic type,
and he also surely knows certain Pauline ideas, but not letters of the Apostle to
the Gentiles. Cf. K. J. Neumann, RPTK?, 3 (1897): 774.42 ff.; H. J. Holtzmann,
Lehrbuch der historisch-kritischen Einleitung in das Neue Testament? (Freiburg
im B., 1892), p. 111.
216
 THE OLD TESTAMENT, THE LORD, AND THE APOSTLES

Still, it is more accurate to find the reason for this in chronological

rather than geographical limitations, and to remind ourselves that
Polycarp wrote his epistle to the Philippians a good while before
Marcion appeared. Thus he needed to feel no reservations about using
Paul for support as he attempted to strengthen the backbone of the
ecclesiastical minority in a Christian community that the Apostle to
the Gentiles had founded and to which he had sent epistolary in-
structions (see above, 71-74). For him the blessed and illustrious Paul,
with his wisdom, was a most valuable ally—Polycarp knew full well
that the Apostle to the Gentiles had instructed the Philippians not
only orally, but also by means of letters.?7 And although Polycarp ap-
parently was not even exactly clear as to the number of such letters, and
does not avoid the kind of language illustrated by the matter-of-fact
way in which his ecclesiastical consciousness associates “the other
apostles” with Paul (9.1), this is insufficient reason to doubt that he
was acquainted with the canonical epistle to the Philippians. Con-
cerning the other Pauline epistles, it seems to me that there are clear
indications only for his having read 1 Corinthians and probably also
Romans. Galatians and Ephesians also might have belonged to his
collection, but I cannot free myself from doubts concerning the pas-
toral [220] Epistles.?# Polycarp clearly agrees with Papias, however, in
the use of 1 Peter, which Eusebius had already noted (EH 4.14.9),
and of 1 John (Polycarp Phil. 7.1).
We have already heard of the sympathy which the Antiochian
churchman Ignatius, probably stimulated by Rome, showed toward |
the apostles Peter and Paul (above, 112, 117). In contrast to Polycarp,
Ignatius does not betray any knowledge (as yet) of 1 Peter, nor of
1 John. But when we then inquire further as to the influence of Paul
and his epistles, the result also is not very impressive. To be sure,—
alongside obvious deviations Ignatius advocates ideas, or perhaps
better, attitudes that we similarly observe in the Apostle to the Gen-
4
tiles who, like Ignatius, was facing martyrdom, and here and there
Ignatius comes-close to Paul with regard to external form. But a di-
rect, fully conscious ¢dependencé on the letters of Paul still does
(p.
37. Polycarp Phil. 3.2. On the plural “letters,” see Bauer, Ignatius, ad loc.
287), [and also Schoedel, Polycarp . . . Papias, pp. 14f.].
(1931) on 1
38. Cf. M. Dibelius, Die Pastoralbriefe, Handbuch zum NT 132
6.7 and 10 [this commenta ry subsequen tly has been revised by H. Conzel-
Tim.
mann, 19553 and 19644]. See also below, 222-225 and 226 f.
217
 ORTHODOXY AND HERESY IN EARLIEST CHRISTIANITY

not occur. In the single letter of Polycarp, who can be called a

spiritual disciple of Paul only in a very limited way, the latter is
mentioned >dby.name three times (3.2, 9.1, 11. 2-3), and once a Pauline
saying ‘is“explicitly quoted (11.2 =1 Cor. 6.2). But in the seven letters
of Ignatius, with the exception of the Roman watchword concerning
Peter and Paul (Rom. 4.3), Paul appears only in Eph. 12.2 in a
passage which does not exactly attest an extensive knowledge “of the
content of a relatively large number of Paul’s letters. There Ignatius
explains that Paul mentions the Ephesians “ in every letter.” “That this is
not true for our collection is generally acknowlédged, and I regard
as wasted effort all-attempts to prove that it is at least approximately
correct. As a matter of fact, if we exclude the pastoral epistles and
the inscription of Ephesians, the city of Ephesus is mentioned by
Paul only in 1 Corinthians (15.32, 16.By And it is precisely that
letter of the Apostle to the Gentiles, and indeed only that letter,
which Ignatius assuredly had read. As for other letters of Paul [221]
only a possibility exists 39_this “may be sufficient for those who are
sympathetically disposed, but it cannot be forced upon anyone.
The reason I will have nothing to do with the question of indirect
influence is the futility of an argumentation based on only halfway
satisfactory evidence. Although such an influence cannot be denied
for Paul in those decades in general, we are in no position to define
and delimit it with precision in this particular instance any more than
in others. My awareness of the extremely fragmentary nature of our
knowledge also prevents me from speaking on this matter even with
limited confidence. I cannot possibly adopt a procedure which draws
straight lines between the few more or less sure points that can still
be ascertained, and thus manages to make connections between rela-
tively remote items—connections the possibility and nature of which
remain completely obscure. Paul and Ignatius are separated by a full
half century that was quite rich in events of great significance for the

39. If Ignatius also knew Ephesians (compare the inscription to his Ephesian
letter with the Pauline Eph. 1.3 ff.; this has the best claim after 1 Corinthians),
and already knew it as a letter to Ephesus (which is unlikely on account of
Marcion [who seems to call it “Laodiceans”]), then the plural implied in the
words “every letter” would be explained. [Grant, Ignatius, p. 43, accepts an older
interpretation that takes the phrase en pasé epistola to mean “in an entire letter,”
referring to Ephesians alone.] Of course, it would be explained almost equally
well if it were conceded that the passage refers to Romans (16.5) and 2 Corin-
thians (1.8) with their references to Asia (see below, 221).
218
 THE OLD TESTAMENT, THE LORD, AND THE APOSTLES

Christian cause, and within which the development of Chris-

tianity in Antioch is almost completely unknown to me. The history
of Paul has not encouraged me to expect that this city, where the
Christian community did not belong to his circle during his lifetime
and which received no letter from him, should suddenly open itself
to him and to his writings (see above, 63). The period after Paul’s
death would seem to us to have been much more a time of diminu- _,
tion of the Pauline sphere of influence, rather than expansion. And
what we may still have been in a position to ascertain concerning
the shape of Christian life in Antioch to the time of Ignatius (above,
65-67) indicates that influences other than that of Paul were at work
there and connects Ignatius to them, despite all his resistance.
Of course, all doubt would fade away if in the essentials of his~
teaching Ignatius were perceptibly dependent on statements from the |
Pauline epistles. But that is not the case. The only letter that could ~y
with certainty be ascribed to Ignatius’ use was, as we saw above,_|
1 Corinthians—that unit among the major Pauline letters which yields
stfor our understanding of the Pauline faith. And it is
least
the very le
not even a “dogmatic” passage such as 1 Corinthians 15 that had
bewitched Ignatius. But the Pauline proclamation certainly can not
overflow into the postapostolic age through the channel of 1 Co-
rinthians. [222] If the preservation and promulgation of the Apostle’s
preaching really had been the intention behind the original CieG

neglected_second letter to the Corinthians, which completely sank

into oblivion alongside “the first, would have had to provide the
source to a much greater extent that actually took place. But in our
investigation of the impact of the Pauline mS, whenever we
come from the marshy ground of “reminiscences” and “allusions” to ) 9M
firmer territory, again and again we confront 1 Corinthians. This was
true for Polycarp (see above, 217), is true for Ignatius, and will
also be true for 1 Clement. It seems to me that the last named,
1 Clement, holds the solution to the riddle of why 1 Corinthians,
which is so meager in didactic content, should have preference—
an esteem that accorded first place to it in the oldest collection of
Pauline letters of which we are still aware.*°
Canon. Marcion also attests this attitude, even if he
40. In the Muratorian
546 f.
himself inserts Galatians before it. Cf. Jiilicher-Fascher, Einleitung’, pp.
219
 ORTHODOXY AND HERESY IN EARLIEST CHRISTIANITY

We already know what made 1 Corinthians so valuable to the

author of 1 Clement. He was not at all concerned with the Pauline
gospel; in that case he would have put Romans, which also was
available to him, to a different use than he actually does.*! 1 Co-
rinthians was an extremely important weapon for him in the conflict
against Corinth (see above, 114), and perhaps it had been passed
along to him by his allies there. Since the most obvious interpretation
of 1 Clement 47.1 indicates that at the beginning of the controversy
the author knew only one letter of Paul to Corinth, it seems that the
entire Corinthian heritage from Paul had not already made its way
to Rome during peaceful times for purposes of edification.4? What-
ever Clement appropriates from 1 Corinthians makes a point against
the adversaries in Corinth-1 Cor. 1.11-13=1 Clem. 47.3; 1 Cor.
12.12 ff. = 1 Clem. 37.5-38.1; and even a portion of the [223] hymn con-
cerning love, 1 Cor. 13.4-7 = 1 Clem. 49.5. And from that time on, the
purpose of 1 Corinthians was firmly established for the church: “First
of all, to the Corinthians, censuring the heresies of schism” (primum
omnium Corinthiis schismae haereses interdicens, Muratorian Canon,
lines 42 f.). But it is really rather peculiar and in need of an explana-
tion that this extensive and multifaceted epistle is supposed to have
had only this purpose.**
If we are not content to believe that it was by an accident of fate
that, in the course of scarcely twenty years, precisely 1 Corinthians
came to be firmly established and given special honor within the
churches of Rome, Smyrna, and Antioch, then it must have been
that church in which 1 Corinthians first came to be prized so highly—
indeed, the only church that had a discernible reason for such an
attitude—it must have been Rome that took the initiative. Rome did
not want to withhold such an approved weapon from its allies in
. the fight against heresy. On this occasion Smyrna also may have re-

41. Strictly speaking, he uses it only for the purpose of moral admonition—1 Clem.
35.5-6, following Rom. 1.29-32; 1 Clem. 33.1, following Rom. 6.1.
42. It also seems that the letter to the Philippians was not yet used in Clement’s
Roman church. Otherwise he surely also would have remembered Phil. 2.1-12
when he refers to the example of the humble Christ (16.17) and when he matched
Paul against the Corinthians (47.1).
43, Indeed, the Muratorian Canon is so greatly under ‘the influence of this
attitude, which has been transmitted to it, concerning the purpose of the epistle,
ay even 2 Corinthians is pictured as not having any different aim (lines 42 and
54 f.).
220
 THE OLD TESTAMENT, THE LORD, AND THE APOSTLES

ceived the epistle to the Romans, the use of which cannot be es-
tablished for contemporary Antioch, although that possibility is not
thereby excluded. Perhaps at that time both communities also ob-
tained 2 Corinthians from the world capital, a document that Rome
surely brought home as valuable booty from its Corinthian campaign.
Some sort of compelling evidence of such possession, to be sure, can
be offered at present neither for Smyrna nor even for Antioch. But
such considerations may be left aside, even though they might throw
a ray of light, albeit a woefully weak one, on the lengthy and ob-
scure history of the collection of Pauline epistles.44 [224] It appears
to me to be to some degree probable that 1 Corinthians was put at
the disposal of the orthodox communities in Symrna and Antioch by
Rome, about the year 100. That it at that time may also have re-
ceived the widely discussed “ecumenical” stamp (1.2) # is a sug-
gestion that may be excusable in a book that is forced to rely so
heavily on conjectures.
The small collections of Pauline letters, which were cherished at
the beginning of the second century in the “churches” of Rome— ,
doubtless just as in similarly oriented Corinth, in Antioch and|
}
Smyrna **—were then surpassed and replaced by Marcion’s more. :
complete collection. I would regard him as the first systematic col-
lector of the Pauline heritage. He who ruthlessly rejected the Old

44, The situation with regard to the collection of the Pauline epistles is entirely
different from that of the letters of Ignatius. The latter were written one after an-
other and then were immediately brought together. With Paul, those letters which
are surely genuine cover a period of a decade, and were sent to at least six dif-
ferent, in part widely separated localities (Galatia, Colossae, Philippi, Thessalo-
nica, Corinth, Rome). Further decades were required to establish the prerequi-
sites according to which pseudo-Pauline letters could be added (Ephesians,
2 Thessalonians; prior to the year 110 according to Jiilicher-Fascher, Einleitung’,
p. 67), and last of all the pastoral Epistles. That in a period when Pauline influence
was declining, extant collections of his letters had been systematically completed
everywhere at once is doubtful to me, and I can hardly regard it as really
proven that Polycarp possessed a collection of ten, to say nothing of thirteen,
Pauline writings [—regardless of what he had of the letters of Ignatius].
45. Cf, Harnack, Briefsammlung, p. 9; Jiilicher-Fascher, Einleitung’, p. 472;
Lietzmann, “Zwei Notizen zu Paulus,” pp. 3-5 [= 151-153]. In this way, Lietz-
mann’s question in his commentary An die Korinther, ad loc., also would be
answered: “Why should the redactor have dealt only with 1 Corinthians in that
manner, while sparing all the other epistles?”
46. Here the development flourished most extensively, since Polycarp possessed
especially wide-ranging connections. He was an Asiatic, but also was in touch
with Antioch and Rome, and even had contacts in Macedonia.
221
 ORTHODOXY AND HERESY IN EARLIEST CHRISTIANITY

Testament and everything of primitive Christian tradition that

stemmed from Palestine, was plainly bent on giving his teaching as
broad a Pauline foundation as possible, while on the other hand, he
was in a position to realize his aspirations since he was a well-
traveled, educated, affluent person with numerous connections. It
would not surprise me if we owed to his perception the short com-
munication of Paul to Philemon, this purely private letter that hardly
would have been read in communities prior to Marcion. And who-

} preserved for us at all” 47 “perhaps ‘may also feel himself indebted

; too Marcion, since prior to his activity sure traces of Galatians are
lacking, while the uncertain traces are sharply limited to Polycarp.
It is well established that Marcion came from Pontus, the neighbor
of Galatia, and as he travelled out into the world, he could not have
avoided the communities to which Paul had addressed his com-
munication. Possibly he had already become acquainted with this
letter in his native land. In any event, it is certain that it was from
Galatians 48 [225] and not, say, from Romans with its concise explana-
tion that Christ was the end of the law (10.4), that Marcion got the
idea about how he could break the back of the Old Testament,
so highly treasured by so many Christians, and drive the Jewish
apostles of Jerusalem from the field. Then on his journey through Asia
Minor, and as he went further westward until he reached Rome, he
may have collected everything that anyone here or there in the Chris-
tian communities possessed from Paul. Perhaps, together with the note
to Philemon, he also brought to the West at that time the epistle to
the Colossians, of which we are unable to detect even the faintest
trace prior to Marcion.*®
In line with this approach, it is difficult for me to believe that
Marcion had already known the pastoral Epistles, which are not in-
cluded in his canon. He who with utmost passion was in hot pursuit
of every line from Paul—he had to be!l—and who because of the
paucity of traditional material would hardly permit any large scale
wastefulness, also would have pressed these three epistles into his
47, Harnack, Briefsammlung, p. 72.
48. That is the only way to explain the fact that in Marcion’s holy scriptures,
Galatians stands first in the collection of Paul’s letters.
49, With the exception of Ephesians, if it is spurious; but we do not know when
and where it made use of Colossians.
222
 THE OLD TESTAMENT, THE LORD, AND THE APOSTLES

service by reworking them. There would have been even less reason
to reject all of them together insofar as the epistle to Titus, which
from Marcion’s perspective would not be wedded for better or worse
to the epistles to Timothy,®° offered very little of offense to him.
But if this assumption is correct and is taken seriously, the further
hypothesis seems to me valid that the pastoral Epistles still were not
in existence at the time that Marcion made his decision as to the
extent of the Pauline material. I see no way to accept Harnack’s view:

Around the year 140, Marcion knew a collection of only ten letters;
in all probability he did not reject the pastoral Epistles, but simply
did not know them. But we are in the fortunate position of being able
to trace back to around the year 100 not only the collection of the
ten letters, but even that of the thirteen letters, for Polycarp’s letter to
the Philippians at the time of Trajan shows us through its quotations
and allusions that [226] our present collection, including the pastoral
epistles, was already in use both in Smyrna and in Philippi. The
Pastorals thus had been added to the collection of ten letters already
prior to Marcion, and the older collection was supplanted immediately
in almost all the churches. Not only the original collection but also that
containing 13 letters take us back to the end of the first century as
the terminus ad quem! *1

Thus there is portrayed for us here a Marcion who comes through

Asia to Rome, but the pastoral Epistles elude him despite the fact
that they have been in use—and indeed not sporadically here and
there, but as parts of a collection in official use—for more than a gen-
eration, and even right in Smyrna, a city with which Marcion was in
contact during his journey.®? Such a Marcion seems to me to be an
impossibility, and for that reason the observations that led Harnack
to his conclusions should be assessed differently. The basic reason
for assigning an early date to the Pastorals is, for Harnack and many
others, the notion that Polycarp reproduces “three passages from the
pastoral Epistles in his letter.” °* Whoever agrees with me in con-
50. Just as little as it was for those heretics who, according to Clement of
Alexandria, rejected only the two epistles to Timothy (Strom. 2.[11.]52), while
we hear of Tatian that he recognized just the epistle to Titus (Jerome Preface
to the Commentary on Titus 7 = Vallarsi ed. p. 686; Migne PL 26).
51. Hamnack, Briefsammlung, p. 6. ;
52. Harnack, Marcion2, p. 28° [referring to Polycarp’s rebuke of Marcion; above,
70).
53. Harnack, Briefsammlung, p. 72.
223
 ORTHODOXY AND HERESY IN EARLIEST CHRISTIANITY

cluding from the negative stance of Marcion toward the Pastorals

that prior to him (to say nothing of the time of Trajan) they cannot
already have received recognition as letters of Paul (to choose a very
guarded form of expression), will explain those “quotations” either
(1) by denying that they reflect any direct dependence ** but in-
stead derive from the common use of an established stock of ideas
(as in the corresponding case of the contacts between Ignatius and
the Fourth Gospel; see above, 209 f.), recalling that such connections
also exist between the Pastorals and 1 Clement, and to close the
triangle, even between 1 Clement and Polycarp—connections that re-
flect a standardized way of speaking common in ecclesiastical circles;
or, (2) if the citations appear quite unambiguous to him, he will
have to conclude that it is the Pastorals that are derivative, and their
author was dependent on Polycarp.** That author doubtless comes
from the same circle of orthodoxy as Polycarp. All the arguments
against such an order of dependence do not in the least neutralize
the force with which Marcion resists the assumption [227] that the
pastoral Epistles had already been regarded with veneration within
Christendom prior to the beginning of his activity.*®
“Tf we want to understand the origin of the pastoral Epistles, we
~) must remember that just as the gospel of John began its existence
as a heretical gospel, so Paul also enjoyed the favor of the heretics to
| a great extent. Marcion simply represents a high point, and is by
no means a unique case. Zahn thoroughly demonstrated the close
relationships of Valentinus and his school to the Apostle to the Gen-
tiles; 57 according to Clement of Alexandria Strom. 7.(17.)106, Val-
entinus is supposed to have listened to Theodas, an acquaintance of
Paul. The Valentinians “maintain that Paul has made use of the basic
concepts of their system in his letters in a manner sufficiently clear
to anyone who can read” (Zahn, 751). “The manner in which they
cite the Pauline letters is just as respectful as the manner we find

54. Cf. M. Dibelius, Pastoralbriefe, pp. 6, 53, 55.

55. [H. F. von Campenhausen has even argued that Polycarp was the author
of the Pastorals; see below, 307. On the problem in general, see also Schoedel,
Polycarp . . . Papias, pp. 5, 16, etc.]
56. Moreover, even the Muratorian Canon preserves the recollection that the
pastoral Epistles were added at first as a supplement to a collection that had ended
with the letter to Philemon (lines 59 ff.).
57. Zahn, Geschichte, 1.2 (1889): 751-758.
224
 THE OLD TESTAMENT, THE LORD, AND THE APOSTLES

used by the teachers of the church of the following ®8 decades and

centuries” (756). “The teaching of Valentinus is just as inconceivable
without the letters of Paul as without the prologue to the Fourth
Gospel, and it is no accident that Paul is preferred by all Valentinians
as the preacher of the hidden wisdom who speaks out most clearly”
(758), It is demonstrable that Basilides also made use of Romans and
1 Corinthians, and there may be some truth to Jerome’s claim that
Basilides treated the pastoral Epistles in the same way as Marcion (in
the passage cited above, 223 n. 50). I need not continue naming
other gnostics who appreciated Paul.®® Second Peter 3.16 will have
occurred to everyone in this connection. And for the Montanists, Paul
was just as indispensible as a witness to the activity of the spirit in
primitive Christianity as was the gospel of John with its Paraclete.
Even the Muratorian Canon (lines 63-68) complains that heretics
are producing false letters of Paul in order to make propaganda for
their false teachings by using the stolen prestige of the Apostle to
the Gentiles. [228]
In this light, the reluctance with which the representatives of the
_ church made use of the Apostle to the Gentiles around the middle of
) the second century (Papias, Justin, Hegesippus; above, 213-215) seems
to me to be explicable. Perhaps, as the situation developed, some
would have preferred henceforth to exclude Paul completely and to
rely exclusively on the twelve apostles. But it was already too late
for that. Rome (together with the “church,” which it led) had already
accepted too much from the Apostle to the Gentiles, had appealed
to him too often, suddenly to recognize him no longer. He had be-
come a martyr-apostle of Rome—had helped it to develop the popular
slogan “Peter and Paul’; and even if Rome did not really know how
to begin to put to use Paul’s letter to the Romans, 1 Corinthians
had proved itself to be extremely productive for purposes of church
politics in the hands of Rome. By that means, Paul and his letter
came to have permanent claims on the “church.” There were other
cases as well where Christianity subsequently had to come to terms
with all sorts of things that it had originally accepted without ques-
58. Italics mine. However, I reject Zahn’s continuation as an unproved prejudice;
“That was precisely the phraseology that Valentinius found to be dominant in
the church and that his school appropriated.”
59. Cf. R. Liechtenhan, Die Offenbarung im Gnostizismus (Gottingen, 1901),
pg:
225
 ORTHODOXY AND HERESY IN EARLIEST CHRISTIANITY

tion and from which it could not simply retreat as circumstances

changed. Thus initially one spoke without embarrassment, in ac-
cordance with the facts (and it is easy enough to find additional
examples) about how Jesus also had been baptized; he was happy
to be able thus to anchor the Christian practice to the life of Jesus.
But then, in the struggle with evil or contrary antagonists, he took
great pains to make a convincing case for the superiority of Jesus
over John, or to explain just what Jesus could have expected to gain
by being baptized for the forgiveness of sins.
~~ Thus, despite all heretical misuse, Paul had to be retained as the
-\“church’s” apostle. But it was, of course, desirable henceforth to mark
‘him unequivocally with the ecclesiastical and anti-heretical stamp.
5
‘i
wi ‘In the light of this, I am inclined to see the pastoral Epistles as an
iy ; j attempt on the part of the church unambiguously to enlist Paul as
| part of its anti-heretical front and to eliminate the lack of confidence
{in him in ecclesiastical circles. As its answer to the heretical Apostle
f

| \_of the epistles to Laodicea and Alexandria, “forged in the name of

e

Paul” (Pauli nomine finctae, Muratorian Canon, lines 64 ff.) the

church raised up the Paul of orthodoxy by using the same means.
Such a need may have been felt even prior to Marcion. But since
it [229] is difficult to find satisfactory evidence that the pastoral Epis-
tles already were in existence prior to him (see above, 222-224),
there is really no reason why it could not have been his appearance
that gave the church the decisive impulse for their production. In-
deed, if Polycarp cannot serve as the terminus ad quem for the
¢ pastoral Epistles, explicit attestation requiring knowledge of them
) occurs first with the churchman Irenaeus, who begins his great work
Against Heresies with the words “of the apostle” from 1 Timothy 1.4
\. (AH 1. preface).
However unpopular this view currently may be and however little
I myself shared it a short time ago, it no longer seems to me today
to be improbable that 1 Timothy 6.20 refers to Marcion’s Antitheses
—perhaps even before they were put into written form.
I cannot accept the outlook which rejects such a late origin for.
the Pastorals because “in that case a reference to the great gnostic

60. This sort of analysis of the purpose of the Pastorals does not, of course,
exclude the other view which sees them as a weapon in the conflict with the
heretics. Cf. above, 76.
226
 THE OLD TESTAMENT, THE LORD, AND THE APOSTLES

systems would be expected.” ® We do, in fact, know of an orthodox

author who doubtless flourished subsequent to Basilides, Valentinus,
and Marcion, and yet makes no clear reference to these teachings;
but in spite of this he wants to draw the Apostle to the Gentiles
into the ecclesiastical phalanx of heresy fighters in much the same way
_as we have suspected of the author of the pastoral Epistles. I am re-
- ferring to that presbyter in Asia who produced the Acts of Paul at
about the same time that the Asian Irenaeus, motivated by the same
| ecclesiastical spirit, opposed the gnostics with the help of the Pas-
_ torals. These Acts speak in language “clearly saturated with reminis-
cences of the pastoral Epistles.” ° Their author also has Paul advo-
cating, by means of a letter (so-called 3 Corinthians; see above, 42
n. 99), the ecclesiastical viewpoint in opposition to a gnostic aberration
that cannot be clearly identified. C
The price the Apostle to the Gentiles had to pay to be allowed|}} A
) to remain in the church was the complete surrender of his personality ij
and historical particularity. If already in the pastoral Epistles he has”
strayed far from his origins, in the Acts of Paul and the Epistle of the
Apostles he has become merely the docile disciple of the twelve
from whom he receives his instructions.®? [230] But even this sacri-
fice did not really help him. Wherever the “church” becomes power-
ful, the bottom drops out from under him and he must immediately
give way to the celebrities from the circle of the twelve apostles.
We have seen this same process taking place in Ephesus, in Corinth,
in Rome and Antioch, with variations only on account of the differing
locations and their respective histories (see above, 83 f., 112-118). And
we soon reach the point where the church no longer needs the apostle \.—/
to the nations for any mission, but divides up the entire world among
the twelve. To some extent, Paul becomes influential only as part of
the holy scriptures acknowledged in the church—not the personality
of the Apostle to the Gentiles and his proclamation, but the word
of Paul [or, the word “Paul’] whenever it is useful for the develop-
ment and preservation of ecclesiastical teaching. But that involves

61. As in Dibelius, Pastoralbriefe, p. 6.

62. Rolffs in Hennecke2, pp. 196f. [See now also Schneemelcher in Hennecke-
Schneemelcher, 2: 348.]
63. See above, 114 n. 6, and cf. C. Schmidt “Ein Berliner Fragment der alten
Praxeis Paulou,” Sb Berlin 6 for 1931, pp. 5f. [= 39 f.].
227
 ORTHODOXY AND HERESY IN EARLIEST CHRISTIANITY

I
looking beyond the limits of the period presently under discussion.
In our period we observe how the introduction of the pastoral Epistles
actually made the collection of Paul’s letters ecclesiastically viable
for the very first time. Perhaps 1 John, which has a pronounced
anti-heretical tone and came to be valued quite early in the church
(Polycarp, Papias), performed a similar service for the heretical
gospel of John.

228
 N)

10
The Beginnings
Let us sketch once more the state of affairs that had developed at
the beginning of the second century. Orthodoxy, so it appeared to us,
represented the form of Christianity supported by the majority in
Rome—a Christianity which, to be sure, still had to contend stren-
uously with the heretics throughout the entire second century and
even longer. Indeed, in the middle of the second century the contro- NT
i
anni

versy rose to the intensity of a life and death struggle, the outcome of
which has been of decisive significance not only for Rome but for
Christianity in general. Already around the year 100 the Roman
church had extended its influence_to_ Corinth. In the course of the
following decades the majority came to ‘agree with Rome in some of
the churches in Asia Minor, and a minority in some others—as also
elsewhere, in Philippi and Antioch. However, east of Phrygian
Hierapolis we could hardly discern any traces of orthodoxy, Chris-
tianity and heresy were essentially synonymous there (see above,
80 f., 171-173). r'eiink.
Rome: on the other hand, was from the very beginning the center
and chief source of power for the “orthodox”. movement within Chris- [7
tianity. At the beginning of the second century, Christianity ace
a whole still is called the “catholic-church” by Ignatius (Smyr. 8.2;
cf. Martyrdom of Polycarp inscription, 8.1, 19.2), but by the end of
that century it has become divided, as far as the Roman or Roman
influenced outlook is concerned, into two distinct parts, the catholic
(Muratorian Canon, lines 66, 69, 61f.) or (“great”) (see above, 216
n. 36) church on the one hand and the massa perditionis [con-
demned multitude] of the heretics on the other. As a matter of course,
229
 ORTHODOXY AND HERESY IN EARLIEST CHRISTIANITY

[Rome possessed the most tightly knit, perhaps the only more or less
reliable anti-heretical majority, because it [232] was farthest removed
from the oriental danger zone and in addition was by nature and
or able to yield to seemingly fantastic oriental
Leastanis least inclined
‘ways of thinking and oriental emotions that becloud clear thought.
“The sober sense of the Roman was not the proper seed-bed for
N ’ Syrian or Egyptian syncretism. To be sure, his church also had to
undergo the experience that all ungodliness flows together at the
center of the world. But the _ appreciation for rules and regulations,
/ law and order, asserted itself alltthe |more “and| gained the upper hand.
This extremely powerful organism, “although under great stress, knew
how to rid itself even of the highly dangerous poison of Marcionism
in the middle of the second century. In view of the actual circum-
stances, the Roman did not demand the impossible;? he was by
nature fitted to be an organizer, and this gave him a sharp weapon
pl
for the battle against heresy. This weapon would prove to be all the
more effective since, as we already know, from very early times
Rome did not lack the necessary material means for carrying out its
far-reaching plans.
Relying on the above and supported by theconviction that Rome
: [233] constituted the church founded in|theworld capital by the
1. Iama well aware that there were many Orentals among the Roman Christians of
the most ancient period, and will not invoke the Latin names in the list of
greetings in Rom. 16 against that fact. But the easterners Paul, and even more
so Peter, the man of the Old Testament and of the synoptic tradition respectively
(see below, 238f.), and Ignatius (just in case he also was heard in Rome)
instituted their towering personalities in Rome not on behalf of a pronounced
syncretism, but on the contrary, provided considerable obstacles to it. Notwith-
standing the Greek language of 1 Clement, directed to the Corinthians, a person
like Clement is pronouncedly Roman and demonstrates what Roman leadership
was striving for and what it hoped to avoid. And Justin, with his enthusiastic predi-
lection for the millennial kingdom, is not Roman but oriental, and seems to me
to leave the impression that his inclinations are by no means shared in general
in his environment. He does distinguish between “godless and impious hairesidtai”
and the orthodox (Dial. 80.3-5). But the latter are further subdivided by him
into those who share the “pure and pious outlook (gnédme) of the Christians”
only in a general way (80.2), and others who are “entirely correct in outlook”
(orthognoémones kata panta; 80.5)—i.e. who possess the correct gndéme in all
particulars, The last named share his chiliastic persuasions, while the others will
have nothing to do with such a notion. That-these others constituted a majority
in Rome can be seen from the somewhat earlier Hermas, who makes apocalypticism
subservient to practical ecclesiastical aims; [on Hermas and apocalyptic, see
further Grant, Introduction to the Apostolic Fathers (=Grant, AF 1 [1964]),
pp. 113f., and Snyder, Hermas, pp. 9 f.].
2. On this and on what follows, cf. chap. 6 above.
230
 THE BEGINNINGS

greatest apostles, Rome confidently. .extends...itself..eastward,* tries

to break down resistance and stretches a helping hand.to those who
are like- minded, drawing everything within reach into the well-knit
structure of ecclesiastical organization. Heresy, with its different
brands and peculiar configurations that scarcely even permitted ‘it to
be united in a loose association reflecting common _purpose, had
nothing corresponding to this by way of a similar offensive and de-
fensive force with which to counter. Only a few heresiarchs such as~ w,
Marcion’ were able to draw together their followers throughout the | “ {

world into an ecclesiastical structure. But Marcion himself, themost ~

dangerous of all, to a large measure paralyzed his own cause in-
sofar as he excised with his own hand the source of natural increase £
for his community by his inexorable rejection_of procreation.* In the
long run he simply had to drop out of |the pi picture—all the more since
the organization and the concept of church offices which he advo-
cated also ultimately failed to produce the same tight and efficient
structure as developed in the church.®
A united front composed of Marcionites and Jewish Christians, |
Valentinians and Montanists, is inconceivable, Thus it was the destiny
of the heresies after th
hey had lost their connection with the orthodox
Christianity that_ remained, to stay divide
divided and even to fight among |
themselves,* and thus to be routed one after another by orthodoxy.
ie

The form of Christian belief and life which was successful was that
supported by the strongest organization—the form which was the most
uniform and best suited for mass _consumption—in spite of the.fact
that, in my judgment, for a long. time after_ the_ close of the€ post- |
‘apostolic age the sum total of consciously ‘orthodox
A and
-tdorteata anti- heretical | if
Christians was “numerically_in
inferior to_that_of the “heretics.” It was
only natural that the compact ecclesiastical outlook with its con-
centrated energy would more and more draw to itself the great mass
of those who at first, unclear and undecided, had stood in the middle
resigned to a general sort of Christianity, and who under different
circumstances could even have turned in the opposite direction. And

8. There is no “west” for Christian Rome in the earliest period.

4, Harnack, Marcion?, pp. 148 f.
5. Cf. Harnack, Marcion?, pp. 146 f.
6. As an example of this, it suffices to refer to the conflict between the followers
of Marcion and of Bardesanes in Edessa; see above, 29.
231
 ORTHODOXY AND HERESY IN EARLIEST CHRISTIANITY

it appears to be no less self-evident [234] that the Roman government

finally came to recognize that the Christianity ecclesiastically orga-
nized from Rome was flesh of its flesh, came to unite with it, and
thereby actually enabled it to achieve ultimate victory over unbe-
lievers and heretics.
Something further must be taken into consideration in order to
understand the victory of this kind of orthodoxy. The course of
Christianity was directed toward the West from the very beginning.
One could almost say that it was driven straight into the arms of
Rome by its development. Many a crucial matter might have been
different if the actual Orient had not simply excluded the new religion
for a long time, thus making it impossible for marked and undiluted
eastern influences to become operative. In Edessa, Christianity is
more recent than Marcion, and in Egypt its first certain traces are
found in the person of the gnostic Basilides during the reign of
Hadrian. The Palestinian Jewish Christians were not able to make
inroads into Babylonia, with its heavy Jewish concentration, nor was
Paul able to gain a firm foothold in Nabataean Arabia. As far as we
can see, Damascus, the city of Paul’s conversion, no longer plays a
role in his later life,7 not to mention the fact that he also had
included the other eastern areas only in his final plans. This was not
because the Orient was under control and Paul would not work in
what was not his own territory,/but because these regions at first
simply rejected Christianity, Samaria was closed, because even at the
time of the Samaritan Justin everybody there worshipped the god
Simon, not the god [235] Jesus (Dial. 120.6, Apol. 26.2-3); and trans-

7. For a long time we hear nothing about Christianity in Damascus. The sugges-
tion in the Chronicle of Arbela that Christians might have been there around
the year 200 (ed. with German translation by E. Sachau, Abhandlungen der preus-
sischen Akademie der Wissenschaft, 6 for 1915: 59), is more than balanced by
the silence of Eusebius, even where he speaks of the conversion of Paul (EH
2.1.9 and 14). I cannot agree at all with the favorable assessment of the historical
worth of the most ancient parts of the Chronicle of Arbela, which belongs to the
sixth century, by such people as Sachau, Harnack (in the 4th German ed. of
Mission, pp. 683-689, especially 684 [this material is lacking in the ET, at
p. 146]), and others. I find it impossible to reconcile the claim that there could
have been Christianity—and that of an ecclesiastical sort—east of the Tigris
already around the year 100 with the picture that I have constructed on the
basis of older and better sources. If the beginnings here go back to the apostle
Addai, as is claimed for Edessa by the Doctrine of Addai, extreme caution seems
to me to be necessary (see above, 20). I have no fear that Arbela represents
the fixed point from which my world could be turned upside down.
232
 THE BEGINNINGS

Jordania also was closed together with the adjacent areas, perhaps
because of competing groups such as the baptist sects, which were
still of grave concern to Mani,’ but above all because of the presence
of an extremely vigorous paganism.® Prevented by superior forces
from turning aside toward the East, Christianity moved northward,
clinging close to the hellenized coast of Phoenicia and Syria, and
taking a sharp turn westward burst forth over Asia Minor toward
Rome and Europe.
It was in Asia Minor (and more precisely primarily in its western \—,
part), in Macedonia, and in Greece that Paul engaged in successful
activity. He established nothing in his homeland of Cilicia and Tarsus
itself; despite extensive efforts (Gal. 1.21). What he held together
by virtue of his own personality fell to pieces, was fought over, and
was divided up after his death. Lycaonia and Pisidia soon disappear
from the tradition. Of Galatia we learn that the capital, Ancyra,
which is still a notoriously heretical city for Jerome (Commentary
on Galatians 3.8 f.), might have been completely lost to Montanism
(the anti-Montanist in EH 5.16.4). Corinth comes completely under
Roman influence, and in the second century the “church” sought also
to appropriate Ephesus by means of John as one of the twelve apostles.
In this, of course, it meets with resistance from the heretics. And we
observe the same struggle in the Pauline communities of Phrygia,
which for the most part reject “right” belief (above, 81 f.)—and where
they do accept it, in the person of Papias of Hierapolis, they deny
any connections with Paul (see above, 214f.). If our analysis was
correct, Philippi, for the most part, soon embraced gnosticism, and
perhaps one must conclude the same concerning Thessalonica (see
above, 73-75).
This need not imply any deliberate defection from the Apostle to
the Gentiles. After all, we noted that\in Phrygia it was precisely
orthodoxy that rejected Paul (above, 214 f.). Perhaps the Macedonian
gnostics were just as self-conscious of being the genuine disciples of
Paul as was Marcion. [236] In the long run almost any gentile Chris-
tian could attach himself to the Apostle to the Gentiles so as to re-
8. Schmidt and Polotsky, Mani-Fund, 62.1. [On the baptizing sects, see J.
Thomas, Le mouvement baptiste en Palestine et Syrie (Gembloux, 1935).]
9. One thinks, e.g. of the position of Emesa or of Heliopolis-Baalbek with respect
to Christianity. Cf. Harnack, Mission?, 2: 123, 125 (= 4th German ed., pp. 658,
660).
233
 ORTHODOXY AND HERESY IN EARLIEST CHRISTIANITY

ceive legitimization from him—the author of 2 Peter already com-

plains about this (3.16). One such Paulinist could, unencumbered
by the weight of a Jewish heritage, develop Paul's extreme pessimism
with respect to the material world into a doctrine of the demiurge,
while another could omit this last step, as the Apostle himself had
done. This one might put the whole Old Testament behind him,
because “Christ is the end of the law” (Rom. 10.4), while that one
might find the same sort of justification for continuing to revere it
as “holy, just, and good” (Rom. 7.12). The “strong” as well as the
“weak” (those who practice abstinence) stood equally close to him.
His christology bordered on docetism with its repeated statements
about the Christ who was to be considered as a man (homoidma;
Rom. 8.3, Phil. 2.7) abetted by his silence about the Lord’s career on
earth, while his talk about the “Christ in the flesh” (e.g. Rom. 1.3,
9.5) “born of woman” (Gal. 4.4) also permitted the complete hu-
manity to be maintained firmly. Paul supported a belief in bodily
resurrection—nevertheless, this involves neither flesh nor blood (1
Cor. 15.42-50). He was a pneumatic like none other (cf. 1 Cor. 14.18,
2 Cor. 12.1-4), but was also the advocate of ecclesiastical order (e.g.
1 Cor. 14.26-36). And although it is true that orthodoxy exulted in
the high regard for church and apostles shown in Ephesians, and
that the connections between Ephesians and certain churchmen (1
Peter, Ignatius, Polycarp, and even Hermas) can hardly be ignored
because of their frequency (even though the decisive argument for
proof of literary dependence is lacking), it is also true that the
| gnostics attributed their speculation about the aeons to this epistle
| and to Colossians.*°
But the elasticity of the Pauline outlook did not become important
only for those who came after him; it possessed significance already
for Paul himself and for his epoch. Paul’s as yet quite rudimentary
organization of thought patterns, in combination with his apostolic
openness that leads him to become everything to everyone so as to
win all (1 Cor. 9.22), allows him to display a spirit of toleration that
scarcely knows what a heretic might be—that is, “heretic” in the sense
of a fellow Christian concerning whom one is convinced that his
10. Cf. Heinrici, Valentinianische Gnosis, pp. 184f., 192; Zahn, Geschichte,
1.2: 751.
234
 THE BEGINNINGS

divergent stance with regard to the faith bars him from the path of
salvation. Paul is far from being under the illusion that even in his
own communities everyone believes and thinks exactly ashe does. 5
Nevertheless, it is instructive to observe ‘theposition he takes. with
regard to divergencies, especially by comparison to the view of later

in Corinth are not heretics, ahiikerepresent legitimate -varieties of the

new religion, | as also do- the" ‘teachings |of the. ‘other independent
apostles ‘such
has a Barnabas ¢or a Titus. (It is unfortunate that we
know so veryry little about the last named and his position, and can
only suspect that he was of extraordinary significance; in any event,
Titus was not, like Timothy, satisfied simply to enlist in the service
of the Pauline proclamation.) The faith as it was cultivated in the
house church of Aquila and Priscilla and in similar conventicles—
how would it have looked? Through detailed explanations the Apostle
endeavors to persuade the Corinthian Christians who reject bodily
resurrection (1 Cor. 15.12)—perhaps the Alexandrianism of Apollos
is at work here. For Justin, such people are only “so-called Chris-
tians” (Dial. 80.3), and Polycarp does not hesitate to use the ex-
pression “firstborn of satan” (Phil. 7.1). It is only with reference to a
most serious moral deviation that the Apostle proposes exclusion from
the community by handing the offender over to the devil (1 Cor.
5.1-5). In the pastoral Epistles the same sentence is levelled against
Hymenaeus and Alexander because they have “made shipwreck of
the faith” (1 Tim. 1.19f.).
Furthermore, the religious outlook of the Pauline circle may have
picked up additional traits through men who, like Epaphras in
Colossae (Col. 1.7), and perhaps also in Laodicea and Hierapolis,
proclaimed abroad the Pauline gospel to the extent that they under-
stood it and elaborated upon it. Possibly the aforementioned Epa-
phras is not entirely blameless for the fact that in the community he
established at Colossae, peculiar syncretistic ideas were introduced
such as the worship of the cosmic elements—or perhaps it would be
more accurate to suggest that such ideas already were present from
the very beginning in Colossae but that Epaphras did not take the
trouble to eliminate them. Paul receives news about how things stand.
But instead of reacting by attacking with a club, he develops his
235
 ORTHODOXY AND HERESY IN EARLIEST CHRISTIANITY

view in the calm confidence that the Christian religion will again
eliminate from itself whatever is alien to it, and thus not compatible
with it.
On one occasion,!! to be sure, we see him flare up indignantly
and hear him hurl his anathema against a divergent view—[238] this is
in Galatians, where it is a matter of preventing a gentile Christian
community from falling back into Judaism. But even here it is not
the overt Jewish Christianity as advocated, for example, by the “pillar”
James that is considered heresy and the object of Paul’s wrath. Breth-
ren are transformed into false brethren only at that moment in which,
in defiance of the agreement reached in Jerusalem, an attempt is
made to fasten the yoke of legalism on the necks of liberated gentile
Christians.
The Judaists, for their part, thought and felt differently, and demon-
strated this again and again by the fact that they were unable to
admit that the Pauline gospel could be adequate even for gentiles.
Rather, they were fully convinced that this: proclamation as such,
because of its inadequacy, separated men from the messianic salva-
tion. Thus, if one may be allowed to speak rather pointedly, the
apostle Paul was the only heresiarch known to the apostolic age—
the only one who was so considered in that period, at least from one
particular perspective.1* It could be said that the Jewish Christians
in their opposition to Paul introduced the notion of ‘“heresy” into the
Christian consciousness, The arrow quickly flew back at the archer.
Because of their inability to relate to a development that took place
on hellenized gentile soil, the Judaists soon became a heresy, 1rejected
with conviction by_ the rood Christians. Basically, they probably
had remained what they had_been in the time of James the Just,
but the majority of the faithful ultimately came to deviate so much
from them that the connection had to break. Thus_the Judaists be-
come an instructive example of how even one who preserves the old
position can become a “heretic” if the development moves sufficiently
far beyond him.. iyi Teena i= a a
11. The thrust of the polemic in Phil. 3 and in Rom. 16.17-20 is not entirely clear
—or in any event, can be interpreted in different ways—and may be left aside at
this point.
12. I am restricting myself here to what is attested. Whether the Judaists also
came into conflict with others who preached Christ apart from the law, and how
they dealt with such, is not reported to us.
236
 THE BEGINNINGS

That Jewish Christianity wasrepulsedin no way implies that the>

gentile Christians at first had constituted a religious entity of their
own, apart from their rejection of excessive Judaistic_demands—and
their confession of Jesus as Lord. On the contrary we must suppose- her,
that the variety of|
types was quite considerable; 1° and the location
where, in any given case, Christianity became indigenous was of
great significance. [239]
In Egypt the environmental cond
foritio
the new religion
nswere
such that itsinitial development basically took a form that appeared
to the later churchto‘be heresy. In Asia Minor and further to the
west Paulinism was in operation. But not only did this Paulinism bear
within itself various possibilities, but alongside it there were other
forms of the religion of Christ—compatible with it, alienated from it,
or wholly independent of it. To the extent that the Apostle to the
Gentiles took a stand with respect to them, even when he felt them
to be defective, he still did not detest and condemn them as heretical.
It is not until the postapostolic era that the tensions increase and
press for a solution. The explanation for this lies at first in the de-
cline of the eschatological expectation, which made the faithful in-

13. In this regard, there is no change during the entire period treated in this
book. [239] What was so particularly striking about the new religion for Celsus,
who attentively observed and thoroughly studied the Christianity that he attacked
(Neumann, RPTK3, 3: 772-775), is a rather disconcerting wealth of ideas, out-
looks, and practices that mill about in confusion without achieving any arrange-
ment or unity (Origen Against Celsus 5.61-63). Celsus finds as the sole point of
agreement within Christianity, which in other respects is disintegrated into frag-
ments, the statement that “the world is crucified to me and I to the world”
(5.64 £., citing Gal. 4.14). Indeed, at one point he mentions in passing that part
of the Christians have knit themselves together into the “great church” (5.59;
see above, 216 n. 36), and finds these people to be peculiar for their close
relationship to Judaism from which they had derived the story of creation, the
genealogy of mankind, and some other things. But the picture is hardly brought
into clearer focus thereby; in any event, the overriding impression remains one
of extreme diversity. In a bewildering way, the lines cross one another. And from
our perspective, the model according to which Celsus constructed his picture of
Christendom is sometimes the orthodox Christian, but at other times the heretic
or an undefinable mixture of the two. Surely actual heretics provide the pattern
when Celsus says that the Christians boasted of their sorcery and magic, and
made use of foreign names and various magical formulas (6.38-40). Indeed,
he has seen barbaric books full of names of demons and other abominations in
the possession of certain Christian “presbyters” (6.40). Obviously the accusation
of sorcery by the pagan civil authorities against the new religion also renders
feasible or even encourages the idea that Christianity actually presented such
an image when considered from one point of view. Is there anything that did
not have its place alongside everything else in primitive Christianity!
237
 ORTHODOXY AND HERESY IN EARLIEST CHRISTIANITY

creasingly unable and unwilling to tolerate disturbances and difficul-

ties as defects of a brief transitional period. If one has to prepare
for a lengthy stay, he longs for orderliness and harmony in the house.
Thereafter, the respective contending forces reinforced their positions
during this period. [240] The advances that Christianity makes in the
pagan world have to be purchased by means of conscious and un-
conscious compromise with the syncretistic spirit of the times. And
on the other side, the two factors that above all represent a counter
balance to the syncretistic-gnostic religiosity acquire increased sig-
nificance for the faithful-the Old Testament and the primitive tra-
dition, rooted in Palestine, of the life and teachings of the earthly
Jesus.
It seems to me tthat down to the year 70, and_ _especially where
Christians who vwere-free e from the law attempted to win gentiles to
their religion, ‘Christianity disengaged itself asclearly as
apossiblefrom
Judaism and its approach because of an instinct for self-preservation
that is as understandable as it is legitimate. 14 After the failure of
the Jewish revolt,
olt, this was no) longer a danger and the new faith could
without apprehension appropriate resources. and procedures from its
surviving competitor—above all, it could abandon any reservations
it might have had toward the Old Testament. Surely this book
was of incalculable importance for the proof from prophecy, and for
other needs of an apologetic sort and of Christian theology in general,
and also for the structure and the enriched content of the worship
service. But then the dangers inherent in such a relationship were
dissipated insofar as the destruction of the temple had removed the
relevance of a significant portion of the law and there was no longer
any prospect_of forcing circumcision and Mosaic observances on the
believers from the gentile world. iFig
With -regard. to the other major item mentioned above, the authentic
tradition
of the life of Jesus, it is unfortunate that wehave such a
depressing paucity of information concerning its significance for the
gentile preaching and the gentile Christians of the apostolic age. But
we do know that Paul made little use of it in his preaching.‘* He
14. I have sought to demonstrate this from a different point of view in Wort-
gottesdienst, pp. 19 ff.
15. Nevertheless, this reticence toward the Old Testament continues to persist
in certain areas where the proximity of a strong Jewish influence is considered
doubtful (cf. 1 John, gospel of John, Ignatius).
16. On this, see Bauer, Johannesevangelium®, pp. 245 f.
238
 THE BEGINNINGS

proclaimed the pre-existent Lord Christ, who descended from above,

died on the cross, and after the resurrection was ‘exalted _again to
heaven, whom he had encountered near Damascus, ‘And since Paul
Pelisarateherenacla to approach the gentiles as a Jew, but in his
dealings with them [241] exercised remarkable self-restraint in his use
of the Old Testament,!7 his converts were especially susceptible to
sliding over to the gnostic side. Marcion was not the first to turn
in this direction under Paul’s influence. Something similar had sug-
gested itself for Philippi and the Pauline communities in Phrygia.
We must look to the circle of the twelve apostles to find the guard-
ians of the most primitive information about the life and preaching
of the Lord, that tradition in which Jesus of
ofNazareth
Nazareth shows
shows hi
himself
to bealiveso as effectively to stand in theway “of those
those »who, pre-
occupied with their -syncretistic_ conception of thee
heavenlyredeemer
and filled with a.
a dualistic. contempt for matter, deprive his earthly
life of its main
r content. This treasure lies hidden in the synoptic
gospels, and wewe must once again lament that we know so little about
their place of origin and their influence on the outside world, even.
in their earliest stages. Similarly, we have scarcely any trustworthy
information about any activity of the personal witnesses of the life
of Jesus outside of Palestine. The only sure trail once more leads
back, in the person of Peter, to Rome. Here Mark stands beside
Peter already it in the first century (1 Pet.5.13). And it was here,
according ‘to the ancientitgospel prologues,?® 18 that_ thegospelof Mark
originated. For I” Clement it is “quite sufficient to assume that its
author was acquainted with the gospel of Mark and with a form of
the logia collection which, judging from the gospels of Matthew and
Luke, still must have been in existence in his day. In Rome, the
synoptic gospels
SAE Sd Nec later emerge
ot tl for the first time
bai as ecclesiastical
A NR ID
cal books
used liturgically, with the claim that. they |are memoirs |of thet , apostles,

heresies.
Likewise, the Roman confession springs from a synoptic foundation
and makes the presence of Jesus commence with his being begotten
through the Holy Spirit and his birth from the Virgin.

17. Cf. Bauer, Wortgottesdienst, pp. 39-46.

18. Harnack, Evangelien- Prologe, pp. 5f. (=324f.), on the prologues to Mark
and Luke. [For the texts, see also Aland, Synopsis, pp. 532f.; ET in Grant,
Second Century, pp. 92f. See also above, 186 (n. 84).]
239
 ORTHODOXY AND HERESY IN EARLIEST CHRISTIANITY

»-“ We may further deduce from 1 Clement that in Rome, at least

| the leading circles which were authoritative in ecclesiastical and
theological matters were in exceptionally close contact with the Old
~, Testament. Finally; we also notice that among all of the Pauline letters,
it is Romans thatis most noticeably colored by the Old Testament,
and also that those New Testament authors who in other respects
display clear [242] connections with Rome, the authors of 1 Peter and
Hebrews, live, as it were, in the Old Testament. By means of such
observations, we suggest additional reasons that must have made
Rome an opponent of gnosticism from the very beginning, and the
headquarters of a Christianity that was ecclesiastical in that sense.
' “It is indeed a curious quirk of history that western Rome was
destined to begin to exert the determinative influence upon a re-
_ ligion which had its cradle in the Orient, so as to give it that form
in which it was to achieve worldwide recognition. But as an other-
worldly religion that despises this world and inflexibly orders life
in accord with a superhuman standard that has descended from
heaven, or as a complicated mystery cult for religious and intellectual
connoisseurs, or as a tide of fanatical enthusiasm that swells today
' and ebbs tomorrow, Christianity never could have achieved such
™ recognition.

240
 Appendix 1
On the Problem of Jewish Christianity
by Georg Strecker

In the preceding investigation, Walter Bauer posed for himself the

task Or
of examining
ex critically
in
amcritic the g he
the widely
allyin held view that “for the period
of Christian origins, ecclesiastical doctrine... already represents
what is primary, while heresies, on the other hand, somehow are a
deviation from the genuine” (above, xxiv). He concluded that this
understanding of history which has dominated ecclesiastical histori-
ography since Eusebius is not correct, but that for broad areas the
heresieson were “primary.” It is_surprising that he did not_buttress
this conclusion in extenso with reference to the problem_of Jewish
we

Christianity. This is especially remarkable because here the general-

ization drawn by the ecclesiastically approved view of history would
be most clearly open torefutation—Jewish Christianity, according to
the witness of the New Testament, stands at the beginning of the
development of church history, so that ‘it is not the “gentile Chris-
what isprimary, but
tian “ecclesiastical doctrine” that represents
rather a_ Jewish Christian_theology.? This fact was forgotten quite
early in the ecclesiastical heresiological tradition. The Jewish Chris-
tians usually were classified as “Ebionites’® in the ecclesiastical cata-
logues of sects or else, in a highly one-sided presentatio n, they were
deprecated as an insignificant minority by comparison with the “great
1. Cf. already above, 236; also H. Koch’s review of Bauer (see below, p. 287)
with reference to the “most ancient Jewish Christianity in Palestine”: “Here also
the dogmatically determined historiography of the heresiarchs accused the
merely
‘Ebionites’ of apostasy or of relapse into Judaism while in reality they were
ves’ who did not go along with the Pauline-hel lenistic developmen ts”
the ‘conservati
(345).
241
 APPENDIX 1

church.” Thus implicitly the idea of apostasy from the ecclesiastical _

doctrine also was applied [246] to them.? The more recent treatments
have for the most part followed the older pattern of ecclesiastical
historiography without contradiction.’ Fromtthe fact that there is only
a sparse tradition ofJewish Christian witnesses they |incorrectly con-
clude that. Jewish ‘Christianity was actually insignificant,“without tak-
ing into‘0consideration that our Knowledge. isdetermined_bby the ec-
clesiastical tradition and that even the various titlesof‘Jewish. Christian
literature *seem ‘to“demand some. critical Teservations with respect
2. Cf. among others Jerome Epistle 112.13: “As long as the Nazoreans want to
be both Jews and Christians, they are neither Jews nor Christians.” See also
below, 272 ff.
3. Cf. for example A. von Harnack, History of Dogma, 1 (ET by N. Buchanan
from German 18943 ed.; London: Williams and Norgate, 1894; repr. New York:
Dover, 1961): 290f.; [=4th German ed. of 1909, p. 313; but in this appendix
on Jewish Christianity, Harnack does not point specifically to the year 70 as a
watershed; see also p. 330=ET 308 £.] cf. also H. Lietzman, History, 1: 183:
after the destruction of Jerusalem “Jewish Christianity lacked not only a racial,
but also a religious basis for its former claims, and thus was forgotten in the
mainstream church. It sank into oblivion in the lonely deserts of east Jordan”;
also O. Cullmann, “Ebioniten,” RGG3, 2 (1958): 297 f., speaks of a “process of _
retardation into a heretical sect”; M. Simon, Verus Israel: Etude sur les relations
“entre Chrétiens ét Juifs dans rEmpire Romain (135-145) (Paris: Boccard, 1948;
supplemented reprint 1964), p. 313, claims that “Jewish Christianity outside of
Palestine, in view of its initial Israelite recruitment, represents only a rather
sporadic phenomenon without much extent. In Palestine itself, the Ebionites are
a minority in relation to the mainstream church, in uninterrupted regression and
condemned by their position itself to disappear sooner or later.” It is inexplicable
that L. E. Elliott-Binns quotes this with approval (Galilean Christianity, Studies
in Biblical Theology 16 [Chatham: SCM, 1956], p. 77 n. 4), even though he
correctly recognizes the disparity between actual Jewish Christianity and the uni-
form characterization of it in the heresiological tradition (78; cf. also 50). The
| year 70 is usually regarded as the time of transition into the “sectarian situation”
|
| —e.g. A. von Harnack, Mission?, 1: 63; H.-J. Schoeps, Theologie und Geschichte
des Judenchristentums (Tiibingen: Mohr, 1949), p. 7; J. Munck, “Jewish Chris-
~-tianity--in_post-Apostolic-Times,” NTS 6 (1959-60): 103-116, The influence’of
the destruction of..the Jerusalem temple on Judaism and.on Jewish Christianity
_is “quite “ofteti overestimated. Such influence was small wherever Jewish Chris-
tianity, like diaspora Judaism, had come to be largely independent of the temple
cult. Naturally, Jewish Christianity like “official” Judaism, was capable of adapt-
ing itself to the new situation. It has been demonstrated elsewhere that the
tradition of the flight of the primitive Jerusalem community to Pella during the
Jewish war is-a-legend without historical value and therefore may -not be used
in-this connection; see G. Strecker, Das Judenchristentum in den Pseudoklemen-
tinen, TU 70 (1958), pp. 229 ff. The defense. by Elliott-Binns of the historicity
of that event (Galilean Christianity, pp. 65-71; in opposition to S. G. F. Bran-
don) cannot remove the fundamental doubts about the quality of the tradition.
His thesis about a unification of the Jerusalem and Galilean communities in Pella
(pp. 68 f.) is pure speculation.
4. Cf. G. Strecker, “Ebioniten,” RAC 4 (1959), pp. 492 ff.
242
 ON THE PROBLEM OF JEWISH CHRISTIANITY

to the judgment of the mainstream church. Therefore no further

justification is required for [247] the attempt to apply Bauer’s con-
ception of history to Jewish Christianity as well.
/ Jewish Christianity is, to be sure, a complex thing. It is found both
in a Palestinian as well as a hellenistic environment and it was
subjected to various influences. Hellenistic Jewish Christianity does
not represent a closed unity, but the transition from Jewish Chris-
tianityto gentile Christianity is fluid, as is shown on the one hand
by the adoption of gentile Christian forms by Jewish Christians and
on the other by the Judaizing of Christians from the gentile sphere.
The latter process is not only to be assumed for the earliest period—
as a result of the direct effects of the Jewish synagogue upon the
development of gentile Christianity—but is also attested for the later
period.® And to what extent can a boundary be drawn with precision ‘;
between Palestinian and hellenistic Jewish Christianity? Further, there ¢
is the problem of genetic definition: if the Christians of Jewish descent
are designated “Jewish Christians,” it must be asked what criteria /
there are for so doing. Relationships at the level of the history of}
tradition should also be explored—as, for example, between the later
Jewish Christians and the primitive Jerusalem community or the
Jewish Christianity of the New Testament. And is it possible to re-
gard the Jewish Christianity of the New Testament as a unity? The
testimony of the Pauline letters as well as the statements (admittedly
questionable in particular instances) of the other New Testament
writings suggest the opposite already in the early period.® A multi-
5. Cf. John Chrysostom. Adversus Judaeos (PG 48, 844 and 849f.); Simon,
Verus Israel, 379f. The large-scale work of J. Daniélou, Theology of Jewish
Christianity (ET by J. A. Baker from the 1958 French; Chicago: Regnery, 1964)
has a misleading title. That sort of Jewish Christianity, the theology of which
it attempts to present, never existed as an entity that can be identified in terms
of the history of religions. Actually, this book is an undoubtedly worthwhile
presentation of Semitic (Jewish) forms of life and thought within Christian
theology. But even in this respect the book is incomplete and has not taken into
consideration hellenistic analogies nor the problem of the history of tradition.
For a critical evaluation, see the valuable review by A. Orbe, “Une théologie du
judéo-christianisme,” Recherches de science religieuse 47 (1959): 544-549; in
addition, Munck, “Jewish Christianity,” 108 ff,
6. In taking up the thesis proposed by W. Liitgert, W. Schmithals has indeed
argued that besides Pauline Christianity, there existed a comprehensive counter-
church of Jewish Christian gnosticism; see the bibliography given below, p. 307
[the shorter studies on Galatians, Philippians, and Romans have now appeared
in revised form in Paulus und die Gnostiker, Theologische Forschung 35 (Ham-
burg: Evangelisher Verlag, 1965), along with an article on “Die historische
243
 APPENDIX 1

tude of problems that go far beyond the [248] restricted range of an

“appendix” arise. Thus some limitations must be set. We shall deal
with the legalistic Jewish Christianity situated in Greek-speaking
( Syria, and will examine from the perspective of this investigation
(1) the indirect witness of the Didascalia and then (2) the Jewish
Christian Kérygmata Petrou (“Proclamations” or “Sermons of Peter’;
abbreviated KP) source of the pseudo-Clementines, and compare our
results with (3) the so-called ecclesiastical position, which in this
instance means with the statements about Ebionitism made by the
ecclesiastical heresiologists.
1. The Didascalia. The.author who, around the first |half of the
__ third. century, wrote the Didascalia iin Syria? claims that ‘he‘is setting
forth the “catholic doctrine” (title; 24 [204.8 f.=6.12.1], etc.) and

Situation der Thessalonicherbriefe”]—on 1 Thessalonians, see also p. 64 n. 123

of the article on Galatians. [248] On the problem of Philippians, cf. also the
investigation by H. Koester listed below, p. 308, which modifies the conclusions
of Schmithals somewhat.
7. On this matter, see the following: P. Galtier, “La date de la Didascalie des
Apétres,” Revue d'Histoire Ecclésiastique 42 (1947): 315-351; B. Altaner,
Patrology (ET by H. C. Graef from the German 1958° ed.; London: Nelson,
1960), p. 56 (see German 19606 ed. with A. Stuiber, p. 48); J. Quasten,
Patrology 2: The Ante-Nicene Literature after Irenaeus (Utrecht: Spectrum,
1953), 147; G. Bardie, “Didascalie des Apdtres,” Dictionnaire de Spiritualité,
3 (Paris, 1955): 863-865; Harnack, Geschichte, 2 (Chronologie).2: 488 ff. (his
suggestion of post-Novatian interpolations is not convincing). [In what follows,
references to Didascalia are given. according to its normal (broad) chapter divi-
sions, with page and line from Connolly's ET (see below) and the equivalent
passage from the Apostolic Constitutions (by book, section, and paragraph, fol-
lowing Funk’s ed., listed below) appended in that order—e.g. Didasc. 8
(80.21 = 2.27.7) means chapter 8 of Didascalia, material found on p. 80 line 21
of Connolly's ET, which parallels Apostolic Constitutions 2.27.7. The standard
German translation by (H. Achelis and) J. Flemming, which is referred to by
page and line in the original form of this appendix, has also been consulted at
every point.] For the text of the Didascalia, reference has been made to the
following editions and studies: P. Bétticher (P. de Lagarde), Didascalia apostolo-
rum syriace (Leipzig, 1854); M. D. Gibson, The Didascalia Apostolorum in
Syriac, Horae Semiticae 1 (London, 1903); H. Achelis and J. Flemming, Die
syrische Didaskalia, TU 10.2 (1904), with variant Syriac readings on pp. 225-235
[Achelis is responsible for the commentary on pp. 257-387; Flemming for the
text, German translation, notes, and pp. 243-247]; F. X. Funk, Didascalia et
Constitutiones Apostolorum (in two volumes, Paderborn, 1905; reprint 1960), a
reconstruction of the text in Latin according to the Latin and Syriac evidence,
and a comparison with the Apostolic Constitutions; R. H. Connolly, Didascalia
Apostolorum: the Syriac version translated and accompanied by the Verona Latin
fragments (Oxford: Clarendon, 1929), an ET of the Syriac text and comparison
with the Latin fragments. Cf. also E. Tidner, Didascaliae Apostolorum Canonum
Ecclesiasticorum Traditionis Apostolicae versiones Latinae, TU 75 (1963). [For an
ET of the Ethiopic version, see J. M. Harden, The Ethiopic Didascalia (London:
SPCK, 1920).]
244
 ON THE PROBLEM OF JEWISH CHRISTIANITY

that he represents the “catholic church, holy and perfect” (9

[86.1 = 2.26.1]; cf. 8 [80.21 =2.25.7], etc.). The consciousness of
catholicity appears to permeate the church of his time—in any event
it presents itself as such when the recommended practice of fasting
is defended by reference to the custom “of all the faithful throughout
the world” (21 [180.19 f. = 5.12.5]), and becomes concrete in the dis-
pute with the heretics, “who have erred by thinking that there are
other churches” (23 [199.1 f.=6.5.5]) and “who with evil words
blaspheme the catholic church which is the receptacle of the holy
spirit” (25 [212.30 =6.14(18).7]). In opposition to them, it is nec-
essary to preserve the catholicity of the church by making a clear
reak with them (25 [210.24 ff. = 6.14(18).1-2]) and to deal with the
believers who have fallen away to their side either by [249] excluding
them from the church’s fellowship or by converting them from their
error (25 [210.20 ff.= 6.14(18).1; and 214.14 ff.= 6.14(18).10]). The
author supports the “catholic doctrine” which he represents through
the apostolic claim made by his work in its title and in the fiction
of apostolic authorship that it maintains throughout. Thereby he gains
a legitimation that could not be achieved on the basis of his own
authority, and at the same time his work acquires a universality
corresponding to the presupposed missionary activity of the apostles
(25 [214.24 ff.=6.14(18).11]). On the surface, it seems that the
catholic ideal has been widely realized. In opposition to the dangers
of heresy, a firmly established episcopal office guarantees the purity
of the church.’ The reference to the “holy scriptures” is a polemical
thrust at the heresies—it is a familiar indication of a “catholic” self-
understanding.® Even the triadic structure of the credo fits into this
framework.!°
| Thus in the Didascalia the claim of catholicity and the claim of
orthodoxy go hand in hand. But are we dealing with anything more
| than a claim? It is true that when the author speaks about traveling
is
8. Cf. the instructions for the office of bishop in chapter 4 (28 ff. = 2.1-6). It
significant that the admonition which is characteristic for the Didascalia, to use
that
church discipline with moderation, is justified by reference to the dangers
threaten the outsiders from the side of the heresies (7 [64,28 ff. = 2.21.2]).
=5.7.14),
9. Didasc. 20 (172. =6.12.2),
12 24 (204. .39 ,
=6.14[18].7)
12 25 (212
26 (242.13 f. and 244.7 ff. = 6.21[27].1 and 2); cf. Bauer, above, 195 ff.
10. Didasc. 19 (167.3 ff.=5.6.10), 24 (204.10 ff,=6.12.1), 26 (258.13 f.=
the codices! )—in pointed confrontation with the heretics; cf. es-
6.23[30].8—cf.
attached
pecially the passage. listed from 24, where the short form of the credo is
to an implicit warning against the heresies.
245
 APPENDIX 1

Christians he makes a distinction between adherents of the church

and heretics (12 [120.28 ff. = 2.58.1] ), but the question remains com-
pletely open as to how extensive is the ecclesiastical background
referred to here. Considering the forms in which the “catholic doc-
trine” of the Didascalia appears, it is striking that it diverges signifi-
cantly from the character of “orthodoxy” with which we are familiar.
5a
a To be sure a monarchial episcopate is presupposed, but the concept
of succession that was for the most part simply taken for granted in
the mainstream church of the third century is not mentioned. This
is all the more surprising since the apostolic fiction maintained by
the book plainly requires such a basis for the episcopal office.1! [250]
The use of the New Testament scriptures also is striking. The stereo-
typed reference to the “holy scriptures” is expanded as an exhor-
tation to read “the holy scriptures and the gospel of God”
(2 [20.4f.=1.7.17]), or “the law, the book of the kings and the

1l. Cf. Achelis(-Flemming), Didaskalia, p. 270. The more or less contemporary

“basic writing” that underlies the ps.-Clementines (see below, 258), on the
other hand, reports the installation of Clement or of Zachaeus by the apostle
Peter on the basis of a supposed order for the episcopal consecration—ps.-Clemen-
tine Epistle of Clement to James (ET in ANF 8: 218-222), Hom. 3.60 ff., Rec.
3.65 f. (cf. Strecker, Judenchristentum, pp. 97 ff.). On this problem, see also W.
[250] Ullmann, “The Significance of the Epistula Clementis in the Pseudo-Clem-
entines,” Journal of Theological Studies 11 (1960): 295-317; this is an expansion
of the presentation, “Some Remarks on the Significance of the Epistula Clem-
entis in the Pseudo-Clementines,” Studia Patristica 4, TU 79 (1961): 330-337.
According to Ullmann the Epistle of Clement to James, which is in the form
of a testament of Peter to Clement, endeavors to establish the legal basis for the
transmission of Peter’s authority to the papacy (“Remarks,” 334 and elsewhere).
Ullmann correctly recognizes that the Epistle of Clement to James presupposes
the concept of apostolic succession, but he is wrong in his contention that the
reference to the Roman community determines the character of the letter. From
the viewpoint of literary analysis, the Epistle derives from the author of the
“basic writing” behind the ps.-Clementines. Correspondingly, its content relates
directly to the ps.-Clementine story. As an introduction to the work, this epistle
was fashioned in connection with the other introductory writing, the Epistle of
Peter to James (below, 260 n. 57), and attempts to prepare for the significance
of the speeches of Peter that are referred to in what follows, and at the same
time to indicate that the journeys of Peter and Clement ended in Rome. Herein
lies the purpose of the Epistle of Clement to James, not in the establishing of a
foundation for the Roman claim, of which no indications are found elsewhere
in the Clementine romance. How little the Roman claim lies in the background
is disclosed through a comparison with the episcopal installation of Zachaeus in
Caesarea; Zachaeus is also the successor of Peter (Hom. 3.60.1, ant’ emou!), and
is even legitimated through being an eyewitness (Hom. 3.63.1).
246
 ON THE PROBLEM OF JEWISH CHRISTIANITY

prophets, and the gospel” (2 [14.12 ff. = 1.5.2]), or even “law, proph-
ets, and gospel” (4 [34.21 ff. =2.5.3]). The designation “gospel” ap-
parently means the gospel literature, which is the most important
part of the New Testament canon for the author.!2 The gospel of
Matthew is preferred.1* But acquaintance with the gospel of Mark
is not to be ruled out, and knowledge of Luke [251] and of John is
highly probable.!* Thus caution is in order with respect to the con-
12. Achelis(-Flemming), Didaskalia, p. 333. In Didascalia 8 (81.29 f. = 2.25.1)
the introductory formula [“in David and in all the prophets and in the gospel
also, our savior prays for our sins . . .”] alludes to an episode from the story of
Jesus (cf. Luke 23.34 [and the similar “gospel” material about how “our savior
made intercession for sinners before his father,’ found in Didasc. 6 (52.14 ff.=
2.16.1); cf. also 24 (212.10 f.=6.14[18].4)]), just as elsewhere the “gospel”
introduces only synoptic material, and not quotations from the canonical epistles
(the “apostolos”). [But see n. 14 below on possible “gospel” material from John.]
13. Cf. Achelis(-Flemming), Didaskalia, pp. 318 ff. [and Connolly, Didascalia,
Ixx ff.]. Matthew is the only gospel cited by name (21 [182.11 =5.14.11]—“but
in the gospel of Matthew it is written thus. . .”). This introductory formula can
hardly be the result of an interpolation as was suggested by Connolly (ad loc.
and p. Ixxi); rather, it is confirmed by the content of the quotation. Reference
is made to Matt. 28.1 f., which is part of the material peculiar to Matthew, and
the quotation from Matt. 12.40 that follows has been shown to belong to the
Matthean redactional material (see G. Strecker, Der Weg der Gerechtigkeit:
Untersuchungen zur Theologie des Matthéus, FRLANT 82 [1962]: 103f.).
14. Achelis(-Flemming), Didaskalia, pp. 319 ff. [and Connolly, Ixx f.]. According
to Harnack, Geschichte, 2 (Chronologie).2: 492f., the gospel of John was “not
used as an evangelical platform,” but the testimonies adduced by Achelis (pp.
241 and 320) should not be belittled. With a high degree of probability John
6.38 f. (in 11 [118.3 ff.=2.55.2]), 7.24 (in 11 [114.23 f.=2.51.1]), and 12.25
(in combination with Matt 10.39, in 19 [166.16 f.=5.6.7]) are cited. Therefore
one also will have to favorably evaluate allusions to John 13.4f. and 14f. in
Didasc. 16 (150.10 ff. and 16=3.13.4f. [“in the gospel’!]). To be sure, the
Syriac manuscript Harrisianus does not contain a translation of this passage. How-
ever, this omission includes the larger context and is insignificant in view of the
numerous omissions in this manuscript. Finally, the possibility also must be left
open that the pericope concerning the adulteress in Didasc. 8 (76.16 ff, = 2.24.3)
was accessible to the author because it was included in his copy of the Fourth
Gospel (cf. certain manuscripts of John 7.53 ff.)—contrary to Achelis(-Flemming),
319, and Connolly, Ixxif. Even though Papias and the Gospel of the Hebrews
transmitted a similar narrative, according to the report of Eusebius (EH 3.39.17),
there is still no proof that the Didascalia is dependent on them. The fact that the
notice of Eusebius and the Didascalia agree in avoiding the word “adulteress” is
not a sufficient argument. Against this hypothesis it can be argued (1) that no
other connections can be established between the Didascalia on the one hand
and Papias and/or the Gospel of the Hebrews on the other—for the latter, such
connections are not to be expected since the Gospel of the Hebrews is native to
Egypt and not to Syria; and (2) that the content of the pericope as it was
known to Papias and to the Gospel of the Hebrews cannot be determined any
longer, but verbal agreements exist in part between Didascalia and John 7.53 ff.
247
 APPENDIX 1

jecture that the author made use of a harmony of the gospels —

in view of the freedom of the manner of quotation and the citation
of mixed texts from Old and New Testament writings, the use of such
a harmony can hardly be established. This holds true with one ex-
ception. It is almost universally recognized that the author either
directly or indirectly used the so-called Gospel of Peter,*® a com-
pilation based on the canonical gospels. The surprising agreements
in the account of Jesus’ passion can hardly be explained otherwise,
particularly the statement that it was Herod, not the procurator
Pilate, who had Jesus crucified (21 [190.4=5.19.5]), but also in a
more general way the exoneration of Pilate that immediately pre-
cedes this passage, the dating of the resurrection of Jesus in the
night [252] preceding Sunday (21 [190.10 f. = 5.19.6] ), and the empha-
sis upon fasting during holy week.17 The casual manner in which this
gospel is used (formulas of citation do not occur 1*) is all the more
significant since we are dealing with the gospel of “Syrian-Antiochian
heretics” (see above, 66) and Serapion of Antioch already devoted
an official refutation to the book.!® As the Didascalia shows, Sera-
pion’s judgment was not able to prevail very quickly throughout the
area of the Syrian church. The outlook of its author with respect
to what may be considered “catholic doctrine” is rather different from
that of the occupant of the bishop’s throne in Antioch.?°

15. Harnack, Geschichte, 2 (Chronologie).2: 494.

16. Cf. [Connolly, Didascalia, xxv ff.;] C. Maurer in Hennecke-Schneemelcher,
1: 179 ff.; L. Vaganay, L’évangile de Pierre? (Paris: Gabalda, 1930), pp. 167-169;
Harnack, Bruchstiicke des Evangeliums und der Apokalypse des Petrus, TU 9.2
(18932). Harnack also attempts, without much success, to trace John 7.53 ff. back
to the Gospel of Peter; cf. on the contrary Vaganay, pp. 186 f.
17. Compare Didasc. 21 (190.6 ff.=5.19.6), “thus it is fitting for you to fast on
Friday and Saturday and also to take your vigil and watch on Saturday,” and
Gospel of Peter 5.27, “on account of all these things we fasted and sat there and
cried night and day until Sabbath.” See also below, 250 n. 26.
18. With the possible exception of 21 (183.4 ff. =5.14.14-15), where the relation-
ship to the Gospel of Peter is not entirely clear [“and he said to us, teaching us,
‘Are you fasting. . . ?’” These words are spoken in the presence of Levi after the
resurrection—cf. Gospel of Peter 14.60 and n. 25 below].
19. EH 6.12 (see above, 115); Zahn, Geschichte, 1.1:177-179, and 2: 743 f£.;
Harnack, Geschichte, 1.1: 11.
20. Eusebius, on the other hand, later included the Gospel of Peter among the
heretical writings; EH 3.3.2 and 3.25.6 ff.
248
 ON THE PROBLEM OF JEWISH CHRISTIANITY

We will bypass the question of Didascalia’s relation to the rest of

the canon *! and also the problem of its use of so-called agrapha,
in which it does not go beyond the bounds of what is common in
patristic literature of the third [253] century.?? But in connection with
what has been said, we must refer to the relation of the author of
the Didascalia to Judaism.”* Of course, one should not overestimate

21. The number of canonical New Testament writings presupposed by Didascalia

is not as extensive as Achelis had affirmed (Didaskalia, pp. 321 ff.). In addition
to the four gospels, the Gospel of Peter, and the book of Acts, there is clear
acquaintance with some Pauline epistles, especially the Pastorals (Achelis, pp.
322 f.; [cf. Connolly, lxxii]). But in regard to the remaining canonical “works,
judgment must be reserved. The idea that the author knew Hebrews is not
supported by any real evidence. Nor is it demonstrable that his Pauline corpus
comprised fourteen letters, as Achelis supposed (323; [cf. Connolly, Ixxii]).
Knowledge of the catholic Epistles is also questionable. The parallel between
Didascalia 12 (122.29 ff.=2.58.4) and James 2.2f. does not prove that James
is being cited because, as Achelis himself acknowledged (322), it is precisely
the colorful statements of the version in James that are absent from Didascalia.
It is self-evident that use of 1 John cannot be inferred from the fact that the
Johannine gospel is quoted. Only for a knowledge of 1 Peter is there some basis:
Didascalia 1 (2.6=1. introduction) seems to refer to 1 Pet. 1.2, Didasc. 4
(32.26=2.3.3) to 1 Pet. 4.8, and Didasc. 9 (86.1{.=2.26.1) to 1 Pet. 2.9
(Achelis, 322; [Connolly, Ixxii]). There is no denying the existence of these
parallels. Moreover, the material in Didasc. 4 is presented as a direct quotation.
But surprisingly, the quotation is said to be spoken by the “Lord,” so that one
must ask whether this logion was actually transmitted to the author of the Didas-
calia as part of 1 Peter, or whether it may not have been independent of that
document. This supposed evidence also is compromised by the discovery that the
passage ultimately derives from an Old Testament text (Prov. 10.12) even though
the wording in Didasc. 4 is closer to the text of 1 Peter [253] than to that of
the Old Testament. The same applies to the material in Didasc. 9, where the text
that supposedly is cited (1 Pet. 2.9) actually is an indirect quotation of Exod.
19.6 and 23.22 (LXX). As was true in the case of Didasc. 4, the wording of
Didasc. 9 is closer to the New Testament text than to the Old Testament. But this
is hardly decisive. The text in question appears in a series of ecclesiological pred-
ications which were well known and probably orally transmitted. The same is
true of Didasc. 1, where the wording of 1 Pet. 1.2 is not reproduced exactly
either. The conclusion that the author of Didascalia knew 1 Peter is not com-
pelling, to say the least. Finally, with reference to the Apocalypse [cf. Connolly,
Ixxiii], even Achelis recognized that the few allusions do not go beyond the stock
of commonly used liturgical formulae in the ancient church (323f.). There is
thus no reason for assuming that the author of the Didascalia knew and used
the Apocalypse.
and
Dp Ch Bee etning), Didaskalia, pp. 336 ff.; [Connolly, Ixxiii;
ve, n. 12). ;
c Details a Achelis(-Flemming), Didaskalia, p. 361; C. Schmidt, Studien zu
TU 46.1 (1929): 252; L. Goppelt, Christentum und
den Pseudo-Klementinen,
Judentum im ersten und zweiten Jahrhundert (Gutersloh: Bertelsmann, 1954),
pp. 205-207. [Cf. also Connolly, Ixxxviii f.]
249
 APPENDIX 1

the evidence that will be cited here. The fact that the author speaks
of the Jews as “brothers” in chapter 21 (184.31 =5.14.23, and
187.8=5.17.1) is based on the Old Testament ** and perhaps goes
back to a literary source that could also have contained the idea of
intercessory fasting for the brethren from the Jewish people.” Be-
hind it lies an understanding of the history of salvation that con-
centrates primarily upon the past and less upon the current situation
(cf. 21 [184.17 ff. = 5.14.22], 23 [198.10 ff. = 6.5.4 ff.]). Nevertheless,
this assessment of Judaism also has a root in the author's present
experience, as is indicated by the fact that the Didascalia betrays
a detailed acquaintance with Jewish customs and teachings. The
following examples will suffice: the unusual etymological derivation
of the Jewish name from the Hebrew root YDH in chapter 13
(126,22 = 2.60.3—“‘Jew’ means ‘confession’”); the precise presenta-
tion of Jewish [254] sabbath customs; ?° the distinction between the
passover and the feast of the unleavened bread,?’ the dating of the

24. The former passage continues: “For even if they hate you, we must call them
brothers, for thus it is written for us in Isaiah, ‘Call those who hate and despise
you “brothers,” because the name of the Lord is praised’” (Isa. 66.5).
25. In terms of its content, Didasc. 21 (180.29 f.=5.13.1, “when you fast, pray
and intercede for those who are perishing, as we also did when our savior suf-
fered”) has parallels in the Gospel of Peter 5.27 (see above, 248 n. 17). The later
citation in Didasc. 21 (183.5 ff.=5.14.15) seems to be a resumption of the same
tradition, which Achelis already claimed was part of the Gospel of Peter (327)—
“but he [the Lord] said to us, teaching us, ‘would that you not fast these days for
my sake; or do I have need that you should afflict your soul? [cf. Isa, 58.4-5].
But for the sake of your brothers you did it, and you will do it on these days on
which you fast, on the fourth [day] of the week [= Wednesday] and on Friday,
for all time” [see also above, n. 18]. The possibility that a source lies behind
this material becomes more probable in view of the way it differs from its present
context; it refers to fasting on Wednesday and Friday, [254] but immediately there-
after Didasc. 21 (183.18 ff. = 5.14.17) speaks of fasting during the holy week, from
Monday “till the night after the sabbath.” With respect to the designation of the
Jews as “brothers” it follows that it was originally contained in the source which
was either closely related to or identical with the Gospel of Peter (above, and
n. 18), and was placed into the larger context by the author of the Didascalia.
Accordingly, it is on the basis of this source used in chap. 21 (180.29 f. = 5.13.1,
and 183.5 ff.=5.14.15) that the intercession was made to relate to the Jewish
people even in the subsequent treatment (184.22 =5.14.22, 185.3 ff. = 5.14.24,
185.10 f. =5.15.1), without being limited to them, as is clear from the earlier
reference to gentile unbelievers (180.10-181.1 =5.12.4-5.13.1).
26. Didasc. 21 (191.4 ff. = 5.20.1 ff.). However, the injunction for Sabbath observ-
ance “you shall not lift your foot to do any work, nor shall you speak a word
with your mouth” (191.16 ff.=5.20.5) is not derived from a Jewish tractate
(Achelis) but from Isa. 58.13; see Connolly, Ixxxviii [following Funk, ad loc.].
27. Didasc. 21 (192.18 =5.20.10); cf. Achelis(-Flemming), Didaskalia, p. 361;
Josephus Antiq. 3.(10.5.)248 f.
250
 ON THE PROBLEM OF JEWISH CHRISTIANITY

lament over the destruction of Jerusalem on the ninth of Ab.28 These

are statements which one may not explain simply by assuming that
the author had been of Jewish origin. Such a hypothesis cannot be
based upon observations that in reality do nothing more than to
identify various items of information.2® Hence it is more probably
the case that there was an active relationship between Christians
and Jews in the author’s world. Even though with regard to par-
ticulars the question of the extent to which such a contact con-
tributed significantly to the development of the outlook of the author
and the practice of his community must remain open,®° it is quite
clear that the Syrian environment of the Didascalia supports an in-
tensive influence of Jewish thought and conceptual material.
The “catholic doctrine” of the Didascalia unfolds itself in the con-
troversy [255] with the “heresies.” This problem is treated in chapter
23, “On Heresies and Schisms” (194 ff. = 6.1.1 ff.). Already at the be-
4om
ginning of the Didascalia the problem of heresy is mentioned,*! and
it is called to mind repeatedly in what follows.*? The heresies form
a constant danger to the church (23 [199.21 ff. =6.5.8]). Hence the
warning at the start of chapter 23, “guard yourselves against all hate-
ful, reprehensible, and abominable heresies and flee them as you

28. Didasc. 21 (191.23 = 5.20.6). It is true that a clear distinction between Jewish
and Jewish Christian influence cannot always be made. Thus some of the texts
that have been cited may have derived from Jewish Christian influence (see
below). Nevertheless, the distinction itself should not be abandoned—it is sug- -
gested by the author of Didascalia when on the one hand he can speak of the
“Jews” (13 [126.22 = 2.60.3] or of “the people” (21 [189.19, 190.26 f., 191.7 ff. =
5.19.2 and 9, 5.20.2 ff.], etc.), and on the other of the “dear brothers” who came
“from the people [and] became believers” (26 [233.7 f.= 6.18 (23).11]).
29. Contrary to Achelis(-Flemming), Didaskalia, pp. 384 f., and Quasten, Patrol-
ogy, 2: 147. Even though the author knows of a replacement of Israel by the
church in the development of salvation history (21 and 23; see above, 249f.), he
does not reveal any special sympathy for the fate of the Jewish people—in con-
trast to Rom. 9-11, for example.
30. Goppelt, Christentum und Judentum, p. 206, states that the instructions to
the bishop, the “juridical functions,” and the community’s “simple ideal for
living” are examples of the “high estimation” for the “Jewish tradition.” But with
respect to the orders of office and community the author is primarily dependent on
Christian traditions as is indicated, for example, by his extensive use of the
pastoral Epistles.
31. Didasc. 5 (38.1= 2.6.17). The sinners have “fallen into the pernicious cor-
ruption of the heresies concerning which the decisive word is (still) to be
spoken.”
32. Didasc. 7 (64.28 ff. =2.21.3), 12 (120.32 = 2.58.1), 13 (128.16 = 2.62.3),
23 (194 ff. =6.1.1 ff.), 25 (210.20 ff. = 6.14[18].1).
251
 APPENDIX 1

would a blazing fire” (197.22 ff. = 6.5.1), and the instruction in chap-
ter 25 to have no fellowship with the heretics (210.24 ff. = 6.14[18].1).
Nor are references to the frightful ultimate fate of the heretics lack-
ing in these contexts (194.13 ff.=6.1.2, 197.25 ff.=6.5.2, 212.29 f=
6.14[18].7 ff.).
Apparently the author presupposes the existence of a number of
heresies. This is not merely part of the fictitious character of this
work, with its apostolic claim addressed to the church's past, present,
and future, but is also based on actual experiences (cf. chaps. 7 and
12, above n. 32). What actual picture emerges? Following a general
warning about heresies in chapter 23 (199.21-31 = 6.5.8 f.), the author
presents the “beginning of heresies,” namely, the appearance of Simon
Magus from his confrontation with the apostles in’ Jerusalem ¢4) to
the macabre contest of the miracle workers (Simon Magus and”Peter)
in Rome (200.1-202.6 = 6.7-9). Of course, this does not permit us to
draw an inference as to the present situation of the author. The
presentation is rather reminiscent of the accounts of the apocryphal
acts of the apostles.*? But even the summary presentation of the
heresies that follows in Didasc. 23 is not immune to criticism. In a
very schematic manner “all heresies” are accused of rejecting “the
law and the prophets,” blaspheming “God almighty,” and denying
the resurrection (202.8-11=6.10.1). In addition there are the false
teachings of particular groups—“many of them taught that a man
ene

should not marry, and said that if one did not marry, that would
constitute sanctification” (202.12-14=6.10.2; cf. 204.14 ff. =6.12.1);
“others of them taught that a man should eat no meat ‘
(202.15 f. =6.10.3). These assertions, like the preceding portrayal of
the heresy of Simon [256] Magus, do not seem to presuppose the
existence of an actual situation of controversy, but remain remarkably
schematic and lack concreteness. Similarly, they are taken up again
only in brief summary statements, without the addition of more
specific information.*4 Apparently the author follows an established
33. Cf. Lipsius, Apokryphen Apostelgeschichten, 2: 59 ff., 321, 328 (but here
the text of the Didascalia is regarded as an abbreviation of the report found in
Apostolic Constitutions 6.9). Hegesippus already associated Cleobios with Simon
Magus (Eusebius EH 4.22.5; cf. Hilgenfeld, Ketzergeschichte, p. 32; F. X. Funk,
Die Apostolischen Konstitutionen (Rottenburg, 1891), p. 74, [and also his
Didascalia 1: 317 f.].
34. Cf. Didasc. 24 (202.23-204.4=6.11.1-2, 204.9 ff.=6.12.1), 26 (240.22 ff.
= 6.20[24].1).
252
 ON THE PROBLEM OF JEWISH CHRISTIANITY

_ pattern of presentation that does not reveal any connection with his
own situation. This leads to a further observation—the false teachings
to which Didascalia refers can be identified with the gnostic theologi-
cal ideas opposed by the “great church.” > But in the actual body
| of the Didascalia gnostic influences can be confirmed neither in a
__positive nor in a negative (antithetical) manner. The heresiological
statements summarize material formulated and transmitted in the
church tradition. It is a different matter with the last part of the
heresiological characterization that is given in Didasc. 23—“others
said that one should abstain only from the flesh of swine, and should
eat what the law declares to be clean, and ought to be circumcised
according to the law” (202.17-20 = 6.10.4). In contrast to the gnostic
rejection of the Old Testament, the ceremonial law of the Old Testa-
ment is here expressly acknowledged as binding. In a subsequent
section the author will apply to the above-mentioned “heresy” a
notion peculiar to him concerning the “second legislation” (24
[204.1-4 =6.11.2]; see below, 256). This makes it likely that the
former passage contains a reflection of a concrete situation. While
the question may remain open whether this notice originally was
attached to the older traditional formulation—the above-mentioned
repetition of the basic wording in chapter 24 would support this—or
whether it was composed by the author, it is certain that the author
connects the relevant doctrinal position to the present. Thus we are
here provided with the clue by means of which we can reconstruct
the “heresy” opposed by the author of the Didascalia.
It has already become clear that the heretical group under dis-/
cussion is not to be characterized as a vegetarian Jewish Christianity
[257] that rejected marriage, the eating of meat, and the Old Testa-
ment, such as is attested by Epiphanius.*®® Instead, the fundamental
35. It sufficies to refer to the summary treatments of Hilgenfeld, especially with
regard to the teaching of the Syrian gnostic Cerdo (Ketzergeschichte, pp. 316 ff.
and especially 332f.). According to Harnack, the characterization found in
Didascalia conforms to “the Marcionites” (Marcion?, p. 341*). However, it is
difficult to make a distinction between gnostic and Marcionite outlooks here,
as is often true with such isolated assertions. Against Harnack it can be argued
that Marcion does not seem to have rejected explicitly the idea of an eschatological
resurrection; and further, that in our passage the Didascalia ascribes the prohibi-
tion of marriage and of eating meat not to one single group but to different
heretical groups.
36. Cf. Achelis(-Flemming), Didaskalia, pp. 355 f.; Schoeps, Theologie, pp. 179
n. 3, and 191.
253
 APPENDIX 1

acknowledgment of the Old Testament law is assured. Of course,

the author can also clothe his polemic in the kind of Old Testament
terminology that does not allow us to recognize its actual setting. The
assertion that in the true law “no distinctions with regard to food,
no burning of incense, no sacrifices and burnt offerings” were men-
tioned (26 [218.21 ff.=6.16.2]) can be regarded only as literary
decoration at a time subsequent to the destruction of Jerusalem.*”
But in other respects the dependence on the Old Testament still can
| refer to current situations. The ritual baths after sexual contamination
| (26 [242.6 ff. = 6.21(27).1.]; cf. 24 [204.25 ff. = 6,12.2]) reflect Lev.
15.16 ff. without being derived in a literary sense from that passage.
The explicit nature of the controversy and also the direct or indirect
address to the heretics indicate a current situation. The observance
of the sabbath is also counted among the characteristic features of
the heretics, as the context attests (26 [233.7 ff. = 6.18(23).11]);
probably this is true also of circumcision, to which not only the last
part of the statement quoted above (on 253) refers but also
the emphatically positive description of ecclesiastical life (24
[204.21 =6.12.2], “spiritual circumcision of the heart”; 26 [218.25=
6.16(20).2], “uncircumcision”). Finally, it is possible that the ob-
servance of the Old Testament food laws is to be included here,
although it is mentioned only in the summary passages in chapters
23-24 (202.17 ff. = 6.10.4, 204.1 ff. = 6.11.2; see above, 253).
According to Connolly and W. C. van Unnik,** the heretics of the
idascalia were “Judaizing Christians” who had adopted some as-
‘pects ofJewish observancé. but not the- totality of Jewish regulations,
Therefore they did_ not actually live in association with Judaism | and
\are not to be. designated as Jewish Christians.*® But while it cannot
be denied that Syriac Christianity exhibits strong Judaizing tenden-
{ cies, one should not connect the people addressed in the Didascalia
\\.with such trends. Since they are interested in Jewish observances,

37. Cf. also Didasc. 9 (98.15 ff. =2.35.1), and perhaps 26 (216.3 f.=6.15.1, and
252.3 £. = 6. 22[28]. 1)?
38. Van Unnik, “De beteeknis van de mozaische vet voor de kerk van Christus
volgens de syrische Didascalie,’ Nederlandsch Archief voor Kerkgeschiedenes 31
(1939): 65-100. [Connolly, Ixxxiii, does not explicitly argue for such an interpreta-
tion, despite Strecker’s claim, but seems to leave the question open.]
39. Van Unnik, “Beteeknis,” pp. 95 ff. Cf. similarly J. Thomas, Mouvement bap-
tiste, pp. 406 f.; Simon, Verus Israel, pp. 362 ff.
254
 ON THE PROBLEM OF JEWISH CHRISTIANITY

they are explicitly [258] designated “heretics,” 4° a verdict which

would be extraordinary with respect to Judaizing Christians, whose
basic mistake did not so much involve questions of faith as questions
of ecclesiastical discipline. The same can be said with reference to
their practice of circumcision, which provides tight bonds to Judaism
and goes far beyond mere “Judaizing.” 4 Therefore, the deduction
} is more likely that we are dealing here with Jewish Christians. It is
not accidental that the author, at the beginning of his instruction
oie the “second legislation” (or “repetition of the law”) in chapter
26, spoke to those who “from among the people have turned to faith
in God our savior Jesus Christ” (216.1 ff.=6.15[19].1), just as in
chapter 21 he also interpreted the quotation from Isaiah 9.1 f.
by referring it to the church made up of Jews and gentiles
(186.4 ff. = 5.16.2 ff. ).
In spite of the apparent close connection between the Jewish
Christian “heretics” and the community of the author, it is not to be
assumed that they actually belong to the community of the Dida-
scalia.** It is striking that where the order.of-the congregation and _
its spiritual life is especially treated, a Jewish Christian perilisnot
mentioned. Controversies concerning the authority of the bishop and
the other office holders would hardly be absent in the event of a
struggle within the community. The question of how “catholic doc-
trine” is to defend itself against heresy is not concerned with the
problem of the inner life of the community, but the community is
presupposed as a self-contained entity that seeks to defend itself
1 against sin and apostasy (cf. Didasc. 5 ff. [37 ff. = 2.7 ff.]). The Jewish
Christian “heretics” stand outside the community of the Disascalia.
With this result we have reached a point of departure for the
i tei, concerning the relationship between heresy and catholicism
jin the world of the Didascalia. Apparently a complete separation
was not involved; rather the previously mentioned contacts permit
40. Didasc. 23 (202.17 ff. = 6.10.4), 24 (203.23 ff. = 6.11.1 f.); in 26, compare also
242.6 = 6.21(27).1 with 240.22 ff. = 6.20(24).1.
41. The objection that no christological heresy is mentioned (van Unnik, “Beteek-
nis,” p. 96) does not carry much weight, because first of all it is doubtful whether
the author of the Didascalia, in view of his very practical purpose, would even be
aware of such a deviation; second, it is not impossible that the Jewish Christians
who are addressed were in agreement with the community of the Didascalia in
christological matters.
42. Contrary to Schmidt, Studien, pp. 253, 260.
255
 APPENDIX 1

the assumption of a lively relationship in which the leading role

of “catholic doctrine” was not considered to be incontestable. The
powerful language with which the faithful are warned against “her-
esy” [259] in chapter 23 (194.7 ff. 6.1.1, 197.22 ff.=6.5.1, 1.99.1 ff.=
6.5.5, etc.) is eloquent proof of this. The statements made by the
author about the form and content of the Jewish Christian “heresy”
make it seem questionable that it formed an actual sect.** It is in-
structive to note that it is in his confrontation with his Jewish Chris-
tian opponents that the author develops the theory, so central for
the Didascalia, of the “second legeslation” (or “repetition of the law’)
—i.e. the contrasting of the Old Testament decalogue [=the “real”
law] with the ceremonial rules [the deuterdsis or “second legisla-
tion”] which had been added after the generation in the wilderness
worshipped the golden calf (26 [216.1 ff. = 6.15(19).1f.]). Although
it cannot be established as probable that the author himself con-
structed this theory in dependence upon a Jewish Christian theologi-
cal concept,*# since a corresponding interpretation of the Old Testa-
ment had long been used even in ecclesiastical circles in the contro-
versy with Judaism,* its pointed application to the Jewish Christian
situation (cf. 26 [216.1-5 =6.15(19).1]) shows that the Jewish Chris-
tian “heretics” had a special importance in the world of the Dida-
scalia. We can even go a step further; the fact that the author ad-
oedresses the Jewish Christian “heretics” with the term “dear brothers”
43. Cf. Didasc. 26 (240.1 = 6.19[24].3)—they live “in the dispersion among the
gentiles.” Of course, this also applies to Judaism after the year 135. But the con-
text refers to Jewish Christianity.
44, Contrary to Schmidt, Studien, pp. 262 ff., and Schoeps, Theologie, p. 180. The
theory of false pericopes, which is found in the “KP” document of the ps.-Clemen-
tines (see above, 244, and below, 257 f.), cannot be considered as a predecessor
since it shows no dependence on Exod. 32; nor does it contrast two stages of
written law, but rather, contrasts the falsification of the law with the oral revela-
tion of “the true prophet” (see Strecker, Judenchristentum, pp. 162 ff.). The criti-
cism of the Old Testament in the Didascalia comes somewhat closer to the Jewish
Christian “AJ II” source of the ps.—Clementines [= Rec. 1.33-44.2 and 53.4-71,
according to Strecker, Judenchristentum, pp. 221-254, and in Hennecke-Schnee-
melcher, 2: 106], which like the Didascalia sees the starting point of the out-
dated legislation in the veneration of the golden calf by the generation in the
desert (Rec. 1.36), and holds that sacrifice is replaced by baptism (1.39). How-
ever, the author of the Didascalia thinks, among other things, of the elimination
of the ritual baths through Christian baptism (cf. 26 [224.17 f. = 6.17(22).1, and
248.10 ff. = 6.21(27).7]), while for the “AJ II” source the Jewish ritual laws of
purification do not belong to the “second legislation.” [For an extended discussion
of the concept of deuterdsis or “second legislation” in the Didascalia, see Con-
nolly, lvii-lxix.]
45. As is pointed out correctly by van Unnik, “Beteeknis,” pp. 86-95.
256
 ON THE PROBLEM OF JEWISH CHRISTIANITY

(216.3 = 6.15[19].1, 233.7 = 6.18[23].11) can now no longer be un-

derstood as a self-evident captatio benevolentiae [attempt to gain
good will] resulting from pastoral concern, but can also include the
acknowledgement that the Jewish Christian “heresy” actually pre-
dominates. The reckoning of the dates for fasting as observed in
“the author’s community is expressly [260] traced back to the reckoning
by “believing Hebrews” (21 [187.12 f. =5.17.2]). Since the designa-
tion “believers” in a similar context means only Christians and not
Jews, this statement can only be referred to Jewish Christians.*®
The influence of the Jewish Christian “heresy” on the “catholic” ec-
clesiastical orientation of the Didascalia is evident there. The author
presupposes Jewish Christian influences. Furthermore, he considers
the possibility that the “heretics” might accept those who have been
excluded from the church (7 [64.28 ff. = 2.21.2]) or that they them-
selves might even take part in the worship in his community.‘ As
a result, the notion that the “heretical” Jewish Christians were the
ones who separated themselves from the church seems much less
probable than that the church of the Didascalia itself was faced with
the task of separating itself from the “heretics.” 4® The opposite view a
is no longer as self-evident as the heresiological outlook would like
to imagine, and it is not difficult to conclude that in this part of
Syria Jewish Christianity occupied a dominant “orthodox” position
superior to “catholicism.”
2. The “Kérygmata Petrou” Source. We would not be able to draw |
this conclusion with confidence if we were not in the position of being |
able to appeal to a direct witness for Jewish Christianity in Greek- |

46. It could be. argued that the preceding sentence, “begin [your fasting] when
your brothers who are of the people keep the passover” (187.7 f. = 5.17.1 ), already
should be considered as a reference to the Jewish Christian opponents. This ac-
cords with the reading in Epiphanius (Her. 70.10.2— hoi adelphoi humén hoi ek
peritomés), which, however, is regarded as doubtful by Connolly (note, ad loc.),
following Funk (Didascalia 2: 7). That the author of the Didascalia recognized
the connection between the Jewish Christian practice of fasting and the Jewish
practice is revealed also by the instructions, “thus you must fast when that peo-
ple is celebrating the passover” (21 [192.16 f.=5.20.10]). Therefore a serious
objection against the available textual tradition cannot be raised, [The point being
argued by Funk and Connolly is that Epiphanius has paraphrased the original
Syriac, which they accept as a satisfactory text. ]
47. Didasc. 12 (120.31 f.=2.58.1). The fact that these statements are formu-
lated in the plural (“heresies”) does not, in view of the tremendous influence
of the Jewish Christians, exclude the possibility that they are primarily under
consideration.
48. Cf. also Achelis(-Flemming), Didaskalia, p. 357.
257
 APPENDIX 1

speaking Syria. The Kérygmata Petrou source (= KP, “Proclamations

of Peter”) contained in the “basic writing” that underlies the pseudo-
Clementines contains a Jewish Christian theology that is approxi-
mately contemporaneous with the author of the Didascalia or per-
ae
haps a few decades earlier. This document, which was literary in
character but can be reconstructed only in part, is especially valuable
for our inquiry since we cannot assume that it was literarily dependent
on the Didascalia or vice versa, in spite of their geographical prox-
imity.49 KP is a [261] pseudo-Petrine treatise. It contains material
about (1) the “true prophet,” how he passed through the world, and
his relationship to the hostile female prophecy; also about (2) the
exposition of the law by the “true prophet” with material about the
“false pericopes”; connected with this are (3) anti-Pauline statements,
which attempt to show Paul as an opponent of Peter and as one who
was not approved by James, the representative of the true doctrine
and bishop of Jerusalem; finally (4) material about baptism is given
in which the strongly legalistic character of the work becomes
evident.®°
An important piece of evidence for establishing geographical locus
and orientation in terms of the history of theology is the testimony
a writing gives with respect to the New Testament canon. The KP
source is acquainted with the four canonical gospels, the Acts of the
Apostles, Galatians and 1 Corinthians.®! It is significant that neither
the catholic epistles nor the Apocalypse are known. Thus there is a
basic distinction between the attitude of the Kerygmata and the situ-
ation that obtained in the West and in wide areas of the East at
that time, in which the catholic epistles were in use and the validity
| of the Apocalypse was only partially contested.®*2 However, even at
a later period these writings were slow to find acceptance in northern
49. Cf. above, 256 n. 44; Strecker, Judenchristentum, p. 215 n. 2.
50. For a treatment of various details as well as a reconstruction of the “basic
writing” and the KP source, cf. Strecker, Judenchristentum, passim. A summary
presentation with selected texts in translation is found in Strecker, “The Keryg-
mata Petrou,” in Hennecke-Schneemelcher 2, 102-127 [in the same volume, see
also J. Irmscher’s introduction to the ps-Clementines on 532-535].
51. Strecker, Judenchristentum, p. 218.
52. Cf., among others, J. Leipoldt, Die Entstehung des neutestamentlichen Kanons,
1 (Leipzig, 1907): 58 f.
258
 ON THE PROBLEM OF JEWISH CHRISTIANITY

and eastern Syria.5? Even the Didascalia does not yet show ac-
quaintance with the catholic epistles and the Apocalypse, as was
noted above (249 n. 21). This establishes a relation between the KP
document and the Didascalia, and confirms the view that both are
to be placed in a Syrian locale.
It is noteworthy that, in contrast to the assumption of the ec-
clesiastical heresiologists,®4 the Jewish Christian Kerygmata show no
knowledge of a Jewish Christian gospel.®> Therein the Kerygmata
[262] stand even closer to the “catholic” tradition than does the Dida-
scalia which, as we have seen (248 f.), shows a positive relationship
to the apocryphal Gospel of Peter in spite of Serapion’s negative
j verdict. This and the fact that the Kerygmata quote as a matter of
course the four gospels that later became canonized is a fundamental
\ argument for the view that the Jewish Christianity represented by the
Kerygmata had not cut itself off from the “great church,” but lived
in a situation in which it could candidly accept the development
|toward the New Testament canon.
This can be corraborated through another line of approach. When
we take into consideration the fact that the Pauline letters and the
book of Acts are not quoted with approval in the KP document,*®
53. Zahn, Geschichte, 1: 373 ff.; Leipoldt, Entstehung, pp. 74, 222; Bauer, Der
Apostolos der Syrer, pp. 76 f.
54. Cf. Irenaeus AH 1.26.2 (=1.22), on the Ebionite use of “Matthew”; below,
DR
55. G. Quispel (“L’évangile selon Thomas et les Clémentines,” Vigiliae Chris-
tianae, 12 [1958]: 181-196) attempted to prove that a Jewish Christian gospel
is cited respectively in the so-called Gospel of Thomas and in the ps.-Clemen-
tines. [262] However, this attempt is not convincing. It presupposes that the ps.-
Clementine quotations from scripture disclose the use of an apocryphal Jewish
Christian gospel (cf. the contrary view in Strecker, Judenchristentum, pp. 117 ff.),
and takes into consideration neither the literary stratification of the ps.-Clemen-
tine romance nor the demonstrably free manner of handling scriptural evidence
on the part of the ps.-Clementine editor. Contrary to Quispel, cf. also A. F. J.
Klijn, “A Survey of the Researches into the Western Text of the Gospel and Acts
(1949-1959), Part 2,” Novum Testamentum, 3 (1959): 176f.: E. Haenchen,
“Literatur zum Thomasevangelium,” Theologische Rundschau, 27 (1961): 165,
168.
56. It is true that in Hom. 3.53.3 we find the influence of a reading which is
also attested in Acts 3.22f. But the parallel passage in Rec. 1.36.2 differs. Thus
it is not impossible that the (alleged) influence of Acts is to be attributed to a
later stratum of tradition in the development of the ps.-Clementine romance. On
the problem of anti-Paulinism, see below, 263 f.
259
 APPENDIX 1

it would appear that only the Old Testament and the four gospels
are quoted as holy scripture. This is without precedent in Greek-
speaking Syria around the year 200, but has a striking parallel in
the canon of the Edessene Christians, who besides the Old Testament,
used only the four gospels, and these in the harmonized form found
in Tatian’s Diatessaron (see above, 30 ff.). Of course the Kerygmata
are not to be assigned to Edessene Christianity; they were not origi-
nally written in Syriac and betray no acquaintance with the Diates-
saron, But this parallel probably can enable us to fix more precisely
their geographical position and their place in the spectrum of the
history of theology—it makes it clear that the Jewish Christianity of
the KP was located on the dividing line between Greek and Edessene
Syria. This type of Jewish Christianity is a witness for the history of
the development of the New Testament canon in this region. It is
[263] subject to the fluctuation which is characteristic of the formation
of the New Testament canon in the developing mainstream church.
This fundamental openness toward a line of development taken
by the “great church” is especially significant since the milieu in
which the Jewish Christianity of the Kerygmata emerged also pre-
supposes influences that are non-ecclesiastical-namely, Jewish and
pagan. That Judaism is an important factor in the environment of the
author can already be learned from the prefixed “Epistle of Peter to
James” (=EP) which serves as an introduction to KP*’ and ex-
plicitly presents the followers of Moses (EP 1.2) as an example to
the disciples of Jesus (EP 2.1). It becomes obvious that behind EP
there is not only an appeal to history (Moses handing over his teach-
ing office to the seventy, Num. 11.25), and not only a literary fiction
(the reference to a Jewish Christian body of seventy brethren should
probably be considered such, based on Luke 10.1!), but there are
actual references to contemporary Judaism. Thus it is expressly stated
that Judaism could serve as an example “to this very day” (EP 1.3),
and the document goes beyond biblical allusions in mentioning
particular details of a Jewish mode of instruction such as the Jewish
confessional formula (EP 1.3 and 5) and especially the idea of the
57. [This Epistula Petri (= EP) and another short document called the Contestatio
or “Testimony Regarding the Recipients of the Epistle” were prefixed to KP al-
ready in the “basic writing” behind the ps.-Clementines, according to Strecker.
See his treatment in Hennecke-Schneemelcher, 2: 102-115, which includes an ET
(by G. Ogg) of these two introductory writings; see also above, 184 n. 78.]
260
 ON THE PROBLEM OF JEWISH CHRISTIANITY

“contradictions of the scriptures,” which are brought into harmony

by means of a Jewish “guiding principle” or rule (EP 1.4f.). This
derives from a Judaism which is not really “official” but rather “heret-
ical,” from which other statements of the KP documents also come,
such as the explanation of the theory of false pericopes in particular.®®
It is also characteristic of KP that its Jewish Christian self-under-
standing affirms the continuity between ancient Israel and Judaism—
not only because the followers of Moses serve as an example in EP,
but also because the figure of the true prophet Jesus is important
in this connection. He is to guarantee the continuity between the
old and the new Israel (Hom. 8.5-7), and thus on the basis of this
coordination of contents which finds no essential conflict between the
law of Moses and the proclamation of the “true prophet,” the teaching
of Moses and the message of Jesus are identified.®® It is only logical
that [264] with such a common foundation, contact with Judaism
would also be maintained. The absence of an anti-Jewish polemic,
which was so freely practiced in the “great church” of the same
period, also suggests that the Jewish Christianity of the Kerygmata
existed in close relationship to Judaism. This corresponds to the situ-
ation regularly encountered with Jewish Christianity, which normally
grew from the soil of Palestinian or hellenistic Judaism.
The Jewish Christianity of the Kerygmata was also in close contact
with paganism. Even though the fictitious nature of the introductory

58. Cf. Strecker, Judenchristentum, pp. 166 ff.

59. Cf. EP 2.5, Hom. 9.19.3, etc.; Strecker, Judenchristentum, pp. 151f., 163 ff.
The nature of the Judaism confronted by the Kerygmata cannot be dealt with in
detail here. That it does not refer to the Essenic Judaism of the Qumran sect
has been shown elsewhere: see Strecker, Judenchristentum, pp. 215 ff. [cf. J. A.
Fitzmyer, “The Qumran Scrolls, the Ebionites, and their Literature,” Theological
Studies, 16 (1955): 335-372 (reprinted in K. Standahl, The Scrolls and the New
Testament [New York: Harper, 1957], pp. 208-231)]; contrary to Schoeps, The-
ologie, pp. 252 ff., 316, and also Urgemeinde-Judenchristentum-Gnosis (1956), pp.
68 ff.; K. Schubert, “Die [264] jiidischen und jiidenchristlichen Sekten im Lichte
des Handschriftenfundes von "En FeScha,” Zeitschrift fiir katholische Theologie,
74 (1952): 1; O. Cullmann, “Die neuentdeckten Qumrantexte und das Juden-
christentum der Pseudoklementinen,” Neutestamentliche Studien fiir R. Bultmann,
ZNW Beiheft 21 (1954): 35 ff.; K. Rudolph, Die Mandder 1, Prolegomena: Das
Mandderproblem, FRLANT 74 (1960): 226f. and passim. The Qumran texts are,
however, an important witness for the diversity of Judaism in the period of the
New Testament and earlier.
60. Cf. e.g. Justin, Dialogue; Tertullian Adversus Judaeos. In contrast to Matt.
23.25 f., the critique of Pharisaic attitudes is not applied to the totality of the
Pharisees in the Kerygmata (Hom. 11.29.1).
261
 APPENDIX 1

epistle should not be underestimated, on the basis of Peter’s plea “not |

to pass on to any one of the gentiles the books of the Kerygmata,
not even to a member of our own tribe before he has passed pro-
bation” (EP 1.2, 3.1), we may conjecture that the author's situation
brought him into confrontation with gentiles. Perhaps this is true
also of the statement that “some of the gentiles” have rejected Peter’s
“lawful” proclamation (EP 2.3). It becomes especially clear from the
baptismal instruction of the Kerygmata (Hom. 11.21-33 and parallel
material) included in the discourses of Peter at Tripolis (Hom.
8-11 = Rec. 4-6). Just as the external framework, which was part of
the “basic document,” presupposes a gentile audience (Hom. 11.1.1 f.),
the content of the baptismal instruction does likewise. It alludes to
the polytheistic cult of idols (Hom. 11.21.4, 11.31.1, etc.), which is
also characterized by “lust” (epithymia—Hom. 11.26.1; cf. 11.115,
11.15.1 and 4 ff., etc.). It contains the demand for the adoption of
ritual cleansings, which it presupposes are not being observed by the
hearers.*1 Accordingly, it is the gentile populace (not the Jewish)
that is the main objective of the Jewish Christian missionary
activity. [265]
The fact that the Jewish Christianity of the Kerygmata carried on
its discussion with both Jewish and gentile parties, coupled with the
realization that the KP document reflects tendencies at work in the
development of the canon of the ecclesiastical mainstream, should
not encourage us to draw far-reaching inferences concerning an actual
or even simply a geographical classification of KP within the sphere
of the ecclesiastical mainstream. And even though a basic openness
toward the tendencies at work in the development of the New Testa-
ment canon of the ecclesiastical mainstream is evident, the form
and the content of the Jewish Christian theology of the Kerygmata
are not determined by a confrontation with the “great church.”
Although the teaching on baptism in the KP document provides an
insight into the practices of the Jewish Christian mission to gentiles,
it is characteristic that this missionary activity does not reveal opposi-
tion on the part of a mainstream mission. The Jewish Christian
theological tenets of the Kerygmata do not imply a polemical atti-
61. Hom. 11.28. But Hom, 11.30,.2 states, on the contrary, that the hearers ob-
served “things that pertain to purity” (ta tés hagneias meré) during the time
of idolatry. Hagneia apparently must be understood in a wider sense. It does not
designate ritual practices but signifies an ethical attitude (cf. Hom. 11.31 ff.).
262
 ON THE PROBLEM OF JEWISH CHRISTIANITY

tude toward the “great church.” Apparently a serious controversy

with the representatives of the “great church” has not (yet) taken
place. It was not necessary because the real partner in the discussion
was not the “great church” and because, as has been said, the forma-
tion of this type of Jewish Christianity took place primarily in a
Jewish and pagan setting.
It should, of course, be asked whether the anti-Paulinism of the KP
document contains a polemic against the “great church.” ® One could
get that impression from the Epistula Petri. Here Peter says that al-
ready in his lifetime some of the gentiles have rejected his “lawful
preaching” since they “have preferred the lawless and senseless
teaching of the hostile man” (EP 2.3f.). This material seems to
reflect a later development, subsequent to Peter’s death. This becomes
even clearer in Peter’s prediction: “But if they falsely assert such a
thing while I am still alive, how much more will those who come
later venture to do so after my death” (EP 2.7). One must conclude
that the author is aware of Pauline teachings in his immediate en-
vironment or its wider setting. But this conclusion is as far as one
can go in this respect, for the anti-Paulinism of the Kerygmata does not
reveal an actual controversy taking place between the ecclesiastical
mainstream and Jewish Christianity. The author remains [266] bound
to his sources, the Pauline letters and the picture of Paul in Acts. His
knowledge derives essentially from literary sources. This is also indi-
cated by particular references that have the appearance of cita-
tions.®** The anti-Pauline statements of the Kerygmata thus can con-
firm that the Jewish Christianity of KP did have access to the writings
of the mainstream church, but they do not lead us back to an actual
controversy. From a formal point of view, their purpose is to give

62. In my opinion it is an assured result of scholarship that the Kerygmata orig-

inally polemicized against Paul alone, and not in some sort of combined fashion
187 ff.,
against Simon-Paul or Marcion-Paul (cf. Strecker, Judenchristentum, pp.
that
154 n. 1). The suggestion has recently been made by W. Schmithals [266]
(Das
from the very beginning the polemic was directed against Simon-Paul
kirchliche Apostelamt, FRLANT 79 [1961], p. 153 n. 305; p. 198 n. 481). But
ing the
this does not take into consideration the problems involved in reconstruct
analysis
Jewish Christian element in the ps.-Clementines. One must begin with an
(see above,
of the introductory writings, the Epistula Petri and the Contestatio
man” (ekthros
260 n. 57). They show no demonstrable confusion of the “hostile
Paul is evident
anthropos, EP 2.3) with Simon Magus, but the identification with
in the allusions to Gal. 2.11 ff. (EP 2.4).
um, p. 218.
63. Cf. the examples listed in Strecker, Judenchristent
263
 APPENDIX 1

color to the apostolic fiction of Peter’s doctrinal discourses as ex-

pressed especially in the reference to the controversy between Peter
and Paul in Antioch.** With reference to content, their purpose is
the explication of the Jewish Christian self-understanding. The
pseudo-Petrine doctrinal discourses as a whole are not directed pri-
marily against Pauline thought, but their anti-Paulinism should be
interpreted as a specific expression of the Jewish Christian legalistic
system.®
From this perspective the picture of the Jewish Christianity of the
Kerygmata comes into focus. If the references to the Pauline letters
and to Acts are set aside as a literary matter, then the relationship
to the “great church” can be defined with more precision. There ap-
pears to exist no direct interconnection nor any genetic dependence,
but the structural elements of the theology of the Kerygmata must be
attributed to an earlier independent Jewish Christian tradition. This
follows from the fact that the citation of gospel texts is made in a
rather unpretentious manner with such introductory formulas as: “For
thus the prophet has sworn to us saying” (Hom. 11.26.2), “for he
said thus” (EP 2.5), “and when he said” (Hom. 3.50.2), etc. Ap-
parently the readers made regular use of the gospel writings being
cited. [267] Insofar as the author is explaining the theology of the
Kerygmata by means of the citations,°* he is not resorting directly
to the tradition of the “great church”; rather, the Jewish Christianity
of the Kerygmata presupposes a tradition which may have developed
in the region bordering Osréenian Syria, and which paralleled in
part that stream of tradition represented on the other side by the
“great church.”
How much the theology of this Jewish Christianity must be con-
sidered to be fundamentally autonomous is further indicated by its

64, EP 2.4; Hom. 17.19; Gal. 2.11 ff.

65. The warning against false “prophets, apostles, and teachers” as well as the
admonition to accept only messengers who have been approved by the “bishop”
James (Hom. 11.35.3-6 and par.) could be construed as indicating the presence
of a current polemic, But this warning also is related to the basically literary anti-
Paulinism (the sequence of offices is paralleled in 1 Cor. 12.28). Furthermore, the
motif of James is related to the apostolic fiction and cannot be transferred to the
period [267] of the author. Even here, the contemporization indicates nothing
more than the presence of a legalistic self-understanding.
66. The quotations from the gospels underline the validity of the law (EP25);
the doctrine of the falsified pericopes in the scriptures (Hom. 3.50.1), the anti-
Paulinism (Hom. 11.18.1), and the teaching on baptism with its related injunc-
tions to purity (Hom. 11.26.2, 11.29.2).

264
 ON THE PROBLEM OF JEWISH CHRISTIANITY

teaching on baptism. On the one hand this appears against the back-
ground of gnostic dualism. The original materialism of this dualism
is taken over by the Kerygmata, with some modifications, but it is
still assumed that the “first birth” (proté genésis), the natural origin
of man, is identical with enslavement to lust (epithymia, Hom. 11.26
and par.). This recalls the deprecation of the cosmos in gnostic sys-
tems.°7 But at the same time a judaistic interpretation is also ap-
parent—the task of the Spirit at baptism is not related to a sacra-
mental event but rather to the evaluation of the good deeds of the
baptized. The Spirit “offers the good works of the baptized as gifts
to God” (Hom. 11.26.3 and par.). Not the act of baptism but man’s
ethically related “fear” (phobos) brings about the rebirth—i.e. the
exchange of man’s natural destiny for “being born to God” (Hom.
11.26.1, 11.27.2 and par.). Therefore in the last analysis the rationale
for the act of baptism consists solely in the divine command (Hom.
11.26.1 and par.). This peculiar doctrine of baptism also leads to
the baptismal exhortation (Hom. 11.27.3ff. and par.), which is
clearly distinguished from the unique baptismal instruction that
precedes by its directions concerning ritual baths of purification
(Hom. 11.28.2, 11.30.1). This distinction is also indicated by the
specific terminology used: while the baptisma or the passive voice
baptisthénai are regularly used for the act of baptism, the lustrations
are designated by kathareuein or loutro plunein;** [268] and while
baptism as an act of initiation is connected with “rebirth” (Hom.
11.24.2, 11.26.1 ff; Contestatio 1.2) with the phrase “living water” ap-
pearing in this context (hydor zdn; Hom. 11.26.2 and 4; Contestatio
1.2), this designation is not applied to the lustrations which can be
repeated, It is apparent that directions of this sort have no parallels
in mainstream gentile Christian practices, but express the genuine
67. Cf. Strecker, Judenchristentum, pp. 158, 199 f.
68. Hom. 11.28.1 ff.; also Hom. 11.30.1f., 11.33.4 (baptizesthai or baptistheisé).
K. Rudolph also called attention to this terminological distinction, but at the same
e
time he emphasized the unity of baptism and lustrations because the significanc
[268] of the water as “a vehicle of divine power” is present in both (Die Mandder
1, 241; cf. 235). Since KP does not really seem to attest a magical-sacramental
character for the baptismal act, it would be more accurate to speak of a moral-
istic understanding as the common basis for baptism and lustrations. This also
baptism
distinguishes the Jewish Christianity of the Kerygmata from the views of
Book of
and lustrations held by the Elchasaites and Mandaeans. Moreover, the
“El-
Elchasai also distinguishes between baptism and lustrations (cf. Strecker,
nature; cf.
kesai,” RAC 4 [1959]: 1181), and thus reveals its originally Christian
see Hennecke-
also below, 269. [For ET of the fragments of the “Book of Elchasai,”
Schneemelcher, 2: 745-750, by J. Irmscher and R. McL. Wilson.]

265
 APPENDIX 1

Jewish Christian character of the material.*® The KP source also

bases its injunctions for the ritual baths on the Old Testament Jewish
law (cf. Lev. 15.24, 18.19) or on the instructions of the “true prophet”
who summons men to surpass the pharisaic way of life (Hom.
11.28.1, 11,.29.1 ff.; cf. Matt. 23.25 f.).
The consequences of the peculiar Jewish Christian legalistic out-
look are not fully developed in the Kerygmata. Baptism serves as the
sole rite of initiation, not circumcision.” But Contestatio 1.1 advises
that the books of Peter’s proclamations be transmitted only to a
“circumcised and believing” candidate for the teaching office. This,
however, does not imply that circumcision had the function of a rite
of initiation, since the immediate context does not deal with the
introduction into the community, nor with baptism, but only with the
transmission of the books. Furthermore, the earlier statement in EP
3.1, which has the same purpose, [269] does not mention any require-
ment of circumcision. Although the supposed evidence in Contes-
tatio 1.1 also may permit the conclusion that the author knew of
circumcised persons who were members of the Christian community,
it seems that this passage should be understood primarily as a literary
intensification of the rule found in EP 3.1, and that inferences of a
more far-reaching sort cannot be drawn. Since statements correspond-
ing to this cannot be demonstrated elsewhere in KP, it is probably
correct to suppose that in the Jewish Christianity represented by the
Kerygmata baptism has taken the place of circumcision. However, this
does not imply that the Jewish Christian practice of baptism has been
borrowed from the ecclesiastical mainstream, although the parallelism
with ecclesiastical baptism extends beyond the mere act—if baptism

69. For Jewish ritual baths, cf. Babylonian Talmud Berakot 21b (3.4); Josephus
Against Apion 2, 203; W. Brandt, Die jiidischen Baptismen, ZAW Beiheft 18
(1910): 44 f., 52, 55; A. Oepke, “loud,” TDNT 4: 300 f.=TWbNT 4: 303 f.
70. This was correctly emphasized by E. Molland, “La circoncision, le baptéme
et l’autorité du décret apostolique (Actes XV 28 sq.) dan les milieux judéo-
chrétiens des pseudo-Clémentines,” Studia Theologica, 9 (1955): 1-39 [repr. in
Molland, Opuscala Patristica (Oslo, 1970)], against Schoeps (Theologie, pp. 115,
138). Molland’s position with respect to source analysis, however, is untenable; it
follows O. Cullman (Le probléme littéraire et historique du roman pseudo-
clémentin [Paris, 1930]) in positing a “Journeys of Peter” source (Periodoi
Petrou) between the “basic writing” and KP, but fails to recognize that the
demonstrable multiplicity of special sources behind the “basic writing” makes it
necessary to stratify the tradition further at this point.
266
 ON THE PROBLEM OF JEWISH CHRISTIANITY

is performed, according to the mysterious circumlocution, “in the

thrice-blessed name,” it is hardly possible that any formula other than
the ecclesiastical triadic formula is meant.™! But according to what
has been said it is evident that the witnesses for the baptismal prac-
tice do not stand in contradiction to the independent character of the
Kerygmata, but they enable us to recognize the stream of tradition that
is common to the Kerygmata and to the “great church,” just as was
true of the use of the “canonical” gospel writings (above, 258-260).
Can we conclude from all this that the Jewish Christianity of the KP
document was not a sectarian conventicle—that it cannot be con-
sidered as a sectarian minority that stood over against an orthodox
majority? 72 K. Rudolph has disputed these results and affirmed a
close relationship to the so-called baptizing sects on the grounds that
in his view the “living water” in the Kerygmata stands in opposition
to the fire, baptism by water is in contrast to sacrifices, and ritual
baths play an important role.** However, his argumentation does not
really take into account the problem of the literary criticism of the
ps.-Clementines, but he endeavors to take his point of departure from
the “contents of the entire complex insofar as they are instructive for
our purposes.” ** On the contrary, it is necessary to stress that this

71. Epi té trismakaria eponomasia, Hom. 11.26.3, In Hom. 11.26.2, according to

the extant text, Matt. 28.19 is expressly quoted along with John 3.5. This cita-
tion of Matthew belongs to a later stage of the tradition. The parallel passage in
Rec. 6.9 shows that the triadic formula of Matt. 28.19 is not yet found in the
“basic writing.” But even in the earlier form of the quotation (in Hom. 11.26.2)
the influence of Matthew’s gospel seems to be present in the phrase “you will
never enter the kingdom of the heavens” (ou mé eiselthéte . . . ton ouranon),
which reflects Matt. 5.20 [cf. John 3.3 and 5, and the variants].
72. Cf. Strecker, Judenchristentum, p. 215.
73. Rudolph, Die Mandder, 1: 240.
74. Rudolph, Die Manddéer, 1: 240 n. 1. E. S. Drower also is content to state:
“My own interest in the Homilies is, of course, confined to similarities found in
them [270] to the secret teaching of the Nazoraeans” (The Secret Adam: A Study
of Nasorean Gnosis [Oxford: Clarendon, 1960], pp. 45 n. 1, 88 ff). Similarly
P. Beskow (Rex Gloriae: The Kingship of Christ in the Early Church [Stockholm:
Almqvist and Wiksell, 1962]) does not wish to contribute to the “confusion” con-
cerning the question of the sources of the ps.-Clementines by introducing a “new
basis for source division” (256). One would hardly have expected such a major
undertaking in an investigation dealing with the kingship of Christ. But it is not
unreasonable to require that even this type of investigation should at least take a
position worthy of the name on the problem of the ps.-Clementine sources. In
its present form Breskow’s work itself contributes to the “goodly measure of
confusion” on this subject insofar as this author, in spite of his failure to take
267
 APPENDIX 1

[270] sort of approach does not do justice to the complicated stratifi-

cation of traditions reflected in the ps.-Clementines, and overlooks
the fact that the specific meaning of the supposed Jewish Christian
“contents” varies with each changing situation in the history of tra-
dition—thus the “contents” can be identified only by means of literary-
critical classification. But even apart from the methodological prob-
lem, Rudolph’s thesis is open to serious objections. Although the
antithesis between baptism and sacrifice appears not only in the“AJ II”
source of the ps.-Clementines (in Rec. 1.39 and 55; see above, 256
n. 44), but is also found in Rec. 1.48.5, the latter is part of a context
(Rec. 1.44.3-53.4a) in which the author of the “basic writing” gathered
together heterogeneous materials. Thus one would obviously suppose
that the passage in Recognitions 1.48.5 had been influenced not by
the KP source but by the context (Rec. 1.39 belongs to “AJ II”).
This assumption is confirmed by the fact that the KP document does
not contain such an antithesis between baptism and sacrifice else-
where. The rejection of temple sacrifices found in the Kerygmata is
not relevant to the present problem.” And finally it is doubtful on
principle that the antithesis between sacrifice and baptism constitutes
a sufficient criterion for connecting the KP document with the “bap-
tizing sects,” since this sort of direct relationship cannot be affirmed
for the “AJ II” source, in spite of the admitted antithesis, and since
the antithesis between baptism and sacrifice is not clearly evidenced
in the literature of the actual baptizing sects.7® [271]

a position on the source critical problem, thinks he is in a position to make the

straightforward claim, as startling as it is unfounded, that “It is sufficient for our
purposes to point out that in one section of PsC there is a deposit of Greek specu-
lation, which has nothing whatever to do with more or less hypothetical ‘Ebionite’
concepts” (256).
75. In reply to Rudolph, Die Mandder, 1: 240 n. 4.
76. It should be noted that the “AJ II” source speaks of a contrast between a
single act of baptism over against sacrifice and not of an antithesis between vari-
ous ritual baths and the sacrificial cult (cf. also Rec. 1.55 and 69f.). This indi-
cates a Christian [271] background. Wherever ritual baths were practiced alongside
baptism within the Christian sphere, a careful distinction is made (cf. above,
265 f.). The antithesis of ritual baths and sacrificial cult presupposes another en-
vironment, namely, a Jewish world of ideas; it is not even generally found among
the baptizing sects, and what evidence exists is ambiguous (for the Essenes cf.
Josephus Antiq. 18.[1.5.]19; for the Book of Elchasai [above, 265 n. 68], Epiph- —
anius Her. 19.3.6 f.—but is this from the Elchasaites?). This sort of contrast is
not present in the Jewish Christian literature of the ps.-Clementines.
268
 ON THE PROBLEM OF JEWISH CHRISTIANITY

An allusion to the practice of the baptizing sects could perhaps be

seen in the notion of the “daily baths of Peter,” if it were possible
to trace this idea back to the KP document.’” But this cannot be
demonstrated. First of all, the pseudo-Clementines do not speak of
“daily” baths of Peter. The “basic writing” only mentions occasional
baths (Hom. 8.2.5, 10.26.2 and par.). The editor of the Homilies-
recension has elaborated on this motif in secondary fashion, but still
has not understood it in the sense of “daily” baths (cf. Hom. 10.1.2,
11.1.1, 14.3.1; etc.). It is only in Epiphanius that such a reference
occurs (Her. 30.2.4, 30.15.3, 30.16.1, 30.21.1), which is a typical ex-
ample of the liberties he takes with his sources. Secondly, it is clear
that the notion of “Peter’s baths” cannot be traced back to the KP
source, but is a legitimate part of the narrative framework of the
Clement romance. Thus it would seem plausible that the idea was
inserted by the author of the “basic writing” since he is responsible for
the narrative of the romance. This is consistent with the archaizing
manner of presentation used by the author of the “basic writing,” who
also employs Judaizing features elsewhere."®
Of course, it cannot be denied that the KP document refers to
injunctions for ritual baths. But it has already been shown that in the
Kerygmata the ritual baths are distinguished from baptism proper
and that they reflect not a gnostic but a genuinely Jewish back-
ground.” These baths [272] do not go beyond the Jewish sphere of
thought and therefore cannot be used as an argument to show that
the Kerygmata belongs in the same category as the so-called bap-
tizing sects. The Book of Elchasai (above, 265 n. 68) serves as a
counter-example. Its injunctions for ritual baths depend not so much
on Jewish as on Christian presuppositions, and its demand for a

77. So. K. Rudolph, Die Mandéer, 1: 240, n. 5.

78. Strecker, Judenchristentum, pp. 213, 257 f.
79. Above, 267 f. Rudolph has demonstrated that Jewish commandments for ritual
baths are also known in Mandaeanism (Die Mandéer, 2, Der Kult [1961]: 109 ff.).
Beyond that, he sought to establish that the Mandaean baptism could, in the final
analysis, be traced back to Jewish ritual baths (402). This hypothesis is rather
daring, since unambiguous examples of the repetition of the Mandaean baptismal
bath are not given (if we ignore the modern reports, which can hardly be uti-
lized as evidence for the more ancient period). This criticism should not detract
from the significance of Rudolph’s work. Without doubt, his detailed presentation
of recent literature and the results of his discussions on particular problems of
basic importance make this investigation one of the most valuable contributions to
the present state of Mandaean studies.
269
 APPENDIX 1

baptismal bath for “grievous sinners” (Hippolytus Ref. 9.15.1f.) and

for baths at time of sickness (Ref. 9.15.4 ff. and par.) can with more
justification be considered elements of a baptizing sect.®°
Finally, the notion of “living water” does not provide grounds for
a real argument. The expression does occur in gnostic literature,*?
but nothing can be made of this fact because one should in principle
make a differentiation between baptizing the gnostic circles, and only
in particular instances can an identity be established.? Moreover,
the notion is not limited to gnosticism, but is met also in the ec-
clesiastical milieu,** quite apart from the fact that in the KP source
this expression appears exclusively [273] in connection with the water
of baptism and is not used in relation to ritual baths (see above, 265 f.).
In conclusion it can be said that Rudolph’s attempt to postulate a
sectarian situation for the Jewish Christianity of the KP by connect-
ing it with the so-called baptizing sects is not convincing. We can now
affirm with greater assurance that the Jewish Christianity of the
Kerygmata should be understood in the context of Bauer's hypoth-
esis.64 The relations to the “great church” are primarily on a liter-
80. Strecker, “Elchesai,” cols. 1171 ff. E. Peterson (“Die Behandlung der Tollwut
bei den Elchasaiten nach Hippolyt,” Friihkirche, Judentum und Gnosis [New York:
Herder, 1959], pp. 221-235; a revised form of “Le traitement de la rage par les
Elkésaites d’aprés Hippolyte,” Recherche de science religieuse, 34 [1947]: 232-
238) has attempted to prove that the lustrations of the Elchasaites were not in-
tended to avert sicknesses, but that sicknesses named in the Book of Elchasai
symbolize sin. “Madness” (Ref. 9.15.4) is to be understood as “concupiscence”
(227 ff.). But Peterson’s proposal leaves unanswered the question of why the
Book of Elchasai can in other places refer to sexual sins without circumlocution
(Hippolytus Ref. 9.15.1 and 3) if in fact it spoke symbolically in this passage.
Furthermore, Peterson did not take into consideration the fact that in the Elcha-
saite traditions cited by Epiphanius, lustrations against sicknesses also are men-
tioned (Epiphanius Her. 30.17.4). Finally, Hippolytus quotes another fragment
in which Elchasai’s injunctions to ritual baths are explicitly directed to sick
people (Ref. 9.16.1). In the original form of his essay, Peterson attributed this
last passage to an interpolator (237), which must be taken as an admission of
the weakness of his approach. The fact that this interpretation is not repeated
in his revised version is no improvement, since he does not provide an alterna-
tive solution.
81. Strecker, Judenchristentum, p. 202.
82. Contrary to Rudolph, Die Mandder, 1: 245; 2: 379.
83. Didache 7; perhaps also Barnabas 11.11, etc.; T. Klauser, “Taufet in lebendi-
gem Wasser! Zum religions-und kulturgeschichtlichen Verstandnis von Didache 7,
1-3.” Pisciculi (Festschrift for F. J. Délger, Miinster, 1939), pp. 157-164.
84. Only the historical problem is posed here. A dogmatically conditioned defini-
tion of the concept of “heresy” would not advance the historical analysis. This
must also be said of H. Késter’s article “Hiretiker im Urchristentum” (RGG3, 3
[1959]: 17-21; see below, 307 n. 21), which takes its point of departure from the
“faith of the community in the revelation of God that took place once and for
270
 ON THE PROBLEM OF JEWISH CHRISTIANITY

ary level and there is no indication of an active confrontation. Rather

this Jewish Christianity has its own theology, independent of main-
stream Christianity, which precludes the possibility that it is “sec-
tarian” in nature. The widespread notion that Jewish Christianity
separated itself from the “great church” and subsequently led a
cloistered existence as a sect (cf. above, 242 n. 3) must be revised.
It is much more probable that in the world from which the Kerygmata
derives, Jewish Christianity was the sole representative of Christianity
and the problem of its relationship to the “great church” had not yet
arisen. This conclusion is indirectly supported by Bauer's recognition
that other parts of Syria also served as the original homeland for
non-ecclesiastical gnostic [274] groups, and the situation did not indi-
cate the prior presence of ecclesiastical orthodoxy (above, pp. 1 ff.). It
is also supported by the witness of the Didascalia which, as has been
demonstrated above, reflects confrontations between a “catholic” com-
munity and a Jewish Christianity that apparently enjoyed unrestricted
prominence in Syria up to that time. This verdict stands even if the
Jewish Christians addressed in the Didascalia are not to be identified
with the community of the author of KP. The evidence of the Dida-
scalia confirms from the ecclesiastical viewpoint the situation of Syrian
Jewish Christianity as it is presented in the Kerygmata. In this part
of Syria around the end of the second and beginning of the third
century Jewish Christianity is independent of the “great church,”
and has an appearance that does not conform to the usual heresio-
logical characterization.

all,” and considers as “heretical” (1) an overemphasis on the time-bound histor-

ical character of the revelation or, (2) the absolutizing of the transcendent con-
tent of the revelation (18). However, Koster’s presentation of the “heretics” is
not based on this theological point of departure but proceeds phenomenologically
on the basis of statements by New Testament writers concerning the Christian
groups which are opposed to them (18 ff.). This discrepancy can be interpreted
as constituting an indirect admission that sufficient criteria for the historical ap-
plication of the theological concept cannot be developed, but rather that the
historical phenomenon of “heresy” resists theological classification. This also is
evidence for the correctness of Bauer’s thesis. If the theological definition of heresy
were consistently applied to the whole New Testament and were not used simply
but
to describe anti-ecclesiastical groups, this would not only lead to difficulties,
New
the problem would also be raised as to what extent the theology of the
from the
Testament writers or of the traditions used by them should be exempt
in that sense. Against such a schematic application of a theo-
concept of “heresy”
the New
logical understanding we could also point to the usage of hairesis in
meaning.
Testament, which does not yet suggest the later heresiological-dogmatical
271
 APPENDIX 1

3. The Ecclesiastical Attitude and “Ebionism.” In the heresiological

classifications Jewish Christianity has a well established position under
the rubric “Ebionites. ” In the older secondary literature the Hebrew
equivalent ‘of this name [ebionim = = “poor” ] was traced back to a
messianic. “self-designation “of th
the "primitive
5 ‘community.85 However,
while this“éxplanation seems ‘quite plausible at first sight, it cannot be
verified. In the Pauline letters those references to the “poor” (ptdchoi)
which relate to the situation of the Jerusalem community and have
been interpreted in the above sense do not demonstrably require any-
thing but a literal interpretation. They are not messianological in
nature.®* Even if it is admitted that [275] at an early period a broad
stream of piety based on a Jewish ideal of poverty found acceptance
in Christianity,®7 there is no reason to assume that the earliest com-
munity as a whole followed that ideal. The reports in Acts about a
general community of goods in the Jerusalem community are largely
legendary or else Lukan generalizations of non-typical isolated epi-

85. E.g. Holl, Gesammelte Aufsdtze, 2: 60; Lietzmann, An die Rémert, 122 fi.
86. Rom. 15.26, Gal. 2.10. E. Bammel’s attempt to the contrary is not convincing.
His argument that the expression ptdchoi in Rom. 15.26 could not have the literal
meaning “poor” because “then it is inconceivable that the collection would be
continued after the need for it had disappeared” (TDNT 6, 909=TWbNT 6,
909.5 f.) is not decisive because it has not been proven that the reason for the
collection was a specific emergency in Jerusalem—Acts 11.27-30 cannot be used
in support of this thesis (Strecker, “Die sogenannte Zweite Jerusalemreise des
Paulus,” ZNW 53 [1962]: 67-77). It is not impossible, on the contrary, that the
collection resulted from a general concern for the socially deprived, and that the
Jerusalem authorities would have added legal overtones to its accomplishment.
When in Rom. 15.26 t6n hagidn appears as partitive genitive describing tous
ptochous (“the poor from among the saints”), this certainly does not convey a
“general meaning” which “would not definitely exclude non-Christian Jerusalem”
(Bammel, TDNT 6, 909=TWbNT 6, 908.33 f.; G. Klein also disagrees, “Die
Verleugnung des Petrus,” ZTK 58 [1961]: 320, n. 5; this essay has been reprinted
in Reconstruktion und Interpretation: Gesammelte Aufsdtze zum Neuen Testament
[Miinchen: Kaiser, 1969]), but employs the eschatological designation of the
community that is frequent in Paul (“saints’—Rom. 1.7, 1 Cor. 1.2, 2 Cor. 1.1,
etc.). Thus ptdchoi refers to only one group within the community and not to
the community as a whole, and a literal interpretation of “poor” is the most logi-
cal. This can also be demonstrated for Gal. 2.10 (A. Oepke, Der Brief des Paulus
an die Galater?, Theologische Handkommentar zum Neuen Testament 9 [Berlin:
Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1960], p. 54), and is confirmed by 2 Cor, 9.12 (ta
hysterémata [!] ton hagién).
87. Cf. e.g. Luke 6.20f., 12.13 ff., 16.19 ff.; James 1.9 ff., 2.5 ff., 5.1 ff., etc.; M.
Dibelius, Der Brief des Jakobus, Meyer Kommentar 15 (G6ttingen: Vandenhoeck,
1956; expanded by H. Greeven, 19579, 1964141, etc.), p. 37 ff.
272
 ON THE PROBLEM OF JEWISH CHRISTIANITY

sodes.** The title Ebidnaioi appears first in Irenaeus (AH 1.26.2

[=1.22]), and even if it was already used as a fixed designation for
the sect prior to Irenaeus, as is probable (see below, 278), it does
not date back to earliest Christian times with that meaning since it
does not occur at all in Justin’s statements about Jewish Christianity
(Dial. 47). Thereforeit is not probable that it was originally used
as a general1 Jewish Christian _self-designation; instead, we assume
that the name wasvas originally <applied _to_a_ specific JewishChris
group -which felt especially obligated to upholdthe 1e Jewish ideal of
poverty. Later the title was transformed by the heresiologists into a
general designation for “sectarian” Jewish Christianity. “Suchasche-
matic procedure corresponds to the usual heresiological pattern, as
will become clear. Thus critical discretion with regard to the data of
the church fathers is mandatory as we proceed to investigate their
accounts in detail.
After the first part of his Dialogue with Trypho theJew, which
deals with the transitory value of Jewish ceremonial law (9-42), Justin
speaks of the divine majesty of Jesus in a second section (43-118).
At the intersection of these two major sections there is an excursus
criticizing those Christians who comin’ the ee ee of theJewish

of ‘the. ESE
Jewish people aaa
can ae saved i‘ifhe _
ees a _inn Jesus
ae
a
as the
Christ but also observess the Mosaic ‘commandments.
ca [276]-is answered
as follows: (1) “Jewish Christians can be saved if they hold fast to
the Jewish law without demanding such observance from others nor
regarding it to be necessary for salvation (47.1)—this is Justin’s view,
even though there are gentile Christians who reject any social contact
with Jewish Christians (47.2). (2) Jewish Christians who force their
gentile brothers to keep Jewish observances or who withhold fellow-
ship from them are not acknowledged as true Christians by Justin
(47.3). (3) For those who have been misled by Jewish Christians
to accept Jewish observances, salvation is possible if they hold fast
to the confession of Christ (47.4a). (4) Christians who have turned
88. Acts 2.44 f., 4.36 f., 5.1 ff.; E. Haenchen, Die Apostelgeschichte*, Meyer Kom-
mentar 3 (1961), ad loc. Epiphanius later traced the name of the Ebionites back
to the community of goods in the earliest community of Acts 4-5 (Her. 30.17.2)
[See also J. A. Fitzmyer, “Jewish Christianity in Acts in the Light of the Qumran
Scrolls,” in Studies in Luke-Acts, ed. L. E. Keck andJ.L. Martyn (1961) p. 244.]
273
 APPENDIX 1

to Judaism and forsaken faith in Christ and who are not converted
prior to their death will not be saved (47.4b). (5) The descendants
of Abraham who live in accordance with the Jewish law and who
are not converted to Christ, but in their synagogues curse the be-,
lievers in Christ will not be saved (47.5). In spite of its logical
arrangement this list cannot be attributed to mere abstraction. It
presupposes actual knowledge about..the..“Jewish” attitude. This is
demonstrated not only by the concluding reference to the Jewish
“eighteen benedictions” (Shemoneh Esreh) * but also by the fact
that in other passages, Justin also is well-informed about Judaism,°°
not the least of which are the statements that according to Jewish
Christian theology Christ had been a “man from among men” (48.4)
and “had been elected” to be Messiah-Christ (48.3, 49.1).
From Justin’s data the following can be discovered about the form
and the self-understanding of the Jewish Christianity known to him.
The general mark of identification relates to Jewish _observances,
o} circumcision andsabbath (47.2), of months
namely the observance of
and purification (cf. 46.2). Of course, sacrifice is no longer part of
Jewish _cultic practice, as is stated elsewhere (46.2). Justin’s witness
about the| large variety of beliefs and practices within Jewish Christian
theology is significant. The indefinite formulation “for there are also
some” (kai gar eisi tines, 48.4) already indicates that an adoptionistic
christology was not a general feature of all Jewish Christian circles.
In fact, the presence of a preexistence [277] Christology in Jewish
Christian literature can be demonstrated.®*! On the other hand, an
adoptionistic christological confession is considered possible also
among gentile Christians (48.4). Above, all there were different ap-
proaches to the gentile mission—legalistic Jewish Christianity wavers
between a basically tolerant attitude that grants gentile Christians
freedom from the law (47.1 f.), and another attitude that expects
gentile Christians to maintain Jewish observances also (47.3).

89. On this subject, see H. Strack-P. Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testa-
ment aus Talmud und Midrasch, 1 (Miinchen: Beck, 1926): 406 ff.; 4 (1928):
208 f.; K. G. Kuhn, Achtzehngebet und Vaterunser und der Reim (1950).
90. E.g. on Jewish teachings concerning the Messiah in Dial. 8; A. von Harnack,
Judentum und Judenchristentum in Justins Dialog mit Trypho. . . , TU 39.1
(1913), passim.
91. Jerome Commentary on Genesis 1.1; ps.-Clementine Rec. 1.43 f.; Strecker,
“Ebioniten,” col. 497.
274
 ON THE PROBLEM OF JEWISH CHRISTIANITY

The heresiological situation reflected in this account is somewhat

clearer. In the gentile Christian church the appraisal of legalistic
Jewish Christianity apparently has not yet.advanced beyond the stage
of expressing a personal point ofview. This is indicated by the intro-
ductory words “as it seems to me” (hds men emoi dokei, 47.1-2) and
also by the extremely personal tone of Justin’s statements in general,®?
and his references to other possible points of view (47.2, 48.4). There
is nothing to indicate the existenceof a developed heresiological
Se ene eee duixeniatiog Noma tere
evidence that Jewish Christians were classified with other “heretical”
groups. A basic tolerance is possible in which the norm of behavior
can depend on the attitude of the Jewish Christians, with the prin-
ciple that the person excluded from the church’s fellowship is the
one who excludes himself (47.2f.). It is therefore quite consistent
that the concept_hairesis_is not..applied.to,.Jewish..Christians. Here
Justin’s assessment of Jewish Christianity differs greatly from his pre-
sentation of other religious groups. The parties of Judaism are desig-
nated “heresies” (62.3, 80.4). Above all, gnostics and Marcionites are
numbered among the haireseis (Dial. 35.3, 51.2, 80.3f.; Apol. 26.8).
If Justin’s Syntagma described “allheresies”°*it would
not have in-
cluded heretics of Jewish Christian provenance, but.probably dealt
primarily wit gnostic-Marcionite teachings.
The author Hegesippus is quoted by Eusebius as an outstanding
representative of the correct doctrine (EH 4.21f.) whose travels,
by his own admission, were aimed at confirming that “the law, [278]
the prophets, and the Lord” possess authority “in every transmission
of doctrine ®° and in every city” (EH 4.22.3). To the extent that
the preserved fragments permit us to recognize the outline of his own
conception, Hegesippus shows parallels to Justin’s heresiological
thought in a surprising
way. The danger that threatens the church
originates primarily from gnostics (EH 4.22.5; see above, 189). The

92. “I am of the opinion” (apophainomai, 47.2,4,5), “I am not in agreement”

(egd ou sunainos eimi, 47.2), “I do not accept” (ouk apodechomai, 47.3), “I
suspect” (hypolambané, 47.4).
93. Apology 26.8, syntagma kata pasén ton gegenémenon hairesedn syntetagmenon.
94. Apol. 26 names the heretics Simon (Magus), Menander, and Marcion.
95. This is the meaning of diadoché; for a discussion and bibliography cf. Altaner,
Patrology, 149 f. (see the German 6th ed. with A. Stuiber, p. 118), and above
196 n. 2.
275
 APPENDIX 1

concept hairesis is applied _to Jewish groups,** but a_corresponding

characterization ofJewish Christianity islacking. The name “Ebionite”
apparently is unknown to him, and the problem of the relationship
between Jewish Christianity and orthodoxy is never raised. The ab-
sence of that sort of question is not necessarily due to the Jewish
Christian tradition in which Hegesippus undoubtedly stands, which
even permits him to view the Jerusalem community as the authentic
prototype of orthodoxy (EH 3.32, 4.22.4). For our purposes, his
witness is all the more valuable since it cannot be demonstrated that
he was dependent on Justin.®? Thus, with Justin, Hegesippus_is an
important informant concerning t the openness. _of..the heresiological
situation in the
second half of the second century.
Justin’s*litérary influence is noticeable in the writings of Ireneaeus,
in which Justin’s work against Marcion is cited (AH 4.6.2 [=4.11.2])
and Justin’s literary heritage has also been utilized in general.®* It
is therefore all the more surprising that Irenaeus’ reports concerning
the Ebionites do not refer back to the position taken by Justin to
which we have already referred. Irenaeus describes the “Ebionaei”
in AH 1.26.2 (=1.22), subsequent to the heresiological characteriza-
tion of Cerinthus (26.1 [=21]) and prior to the treatment of the
Nicolaitans (26.3 [=23]), Cerdo (27.1 [=24]), and Marcion (27.2ff.
[= 25.1-2]). They are said to acknowledge the creator God, possess
ee

a christology similar toCerinthus and Carpocrates, 99 and [279]. use

only_ “the gospel according
ac ‘to) Matthew.” The_apostle Paul iis rejected

96. EH 2.23.8 f., tines oun ton hepta hairesedn ton en to lad. . . ; cf. 4.22.5. The
names of the seven Jewish heresies are found in EH 4.22.7; cf. also 3.23.3 and
6 (also 3.19 and 3.32.2).
97. Cf. Hilgenfeld, Ketzergeschichte, pp. 30 ff., contrary to A. von Harnack, Zur
Quellenkritik der Geschichte des Gnostizismus (1873), pp. 36 ff.
98. Cf. AH 5.26.2 (=5.26.3)—is this material taken from Justin’s Syntagma? See
Bardenhewer, Geschichte?, 1: 407. [On the general problem of Justin’s lost Syn-
tagma, see P. Prigent, Justin et Ancien Testament (Paris: Gabalda, 1964).]
99. The “non” must be deleted; it disturbs the meaning of the text which ap-
parently intended first to emphasize the contrast between Ebionites and Cerinthus-
Carpocrates, and then the agreement with them. The deletion is confirmed by
Hippolytus Ref. 7.34 (ta de peri ton christon homoios t6 Kérinth6 kai Karpokratei
mytheuousin) and also through Irenaeus’ description of Ebionite christology in
AH 3.21.1 (=3.23) and 5.1.3. [279] The reading could have originated through
assimilation to the preceding “dominum” (cf. Harvey’s note, ad loc.).
276
 ON THE PROBLEM OF JEWISH CHRISTIANITY

by them as an apostate from the law. They have their own peculiar
interpretation ofthe“prophecies” (prophetica), practice circumcision,
and also observe the Jewish law in general.
No doubt, this description is influenced by the immediate context—
e.g. in the emphasis on God’s creatorhood. But it is also clear that the
statements which in part are rather general in tone presuppose a
concrete tradition not only in the reference to the similar christological
ideas of Cerinthus and Carpocrates but also in the other reports, even
though at first glance they may seem to be rather unintelligible.
The statements receive partial explanation through the other passages:
In AH 3.21.1 (=3.23) Irenaeus mentions that the Jewish translators
Theodotion and Aquila do not read parthenos (“virgin”) °° in Isa.
7.14 but neanis (“young woman”) and that the “Ebionites,” who re-
gard Jesus as_anatural
son of Joseph, follow them (cf. also 3.21.9
[=3.29]). Here a “natural christology” is clearly reported as the
christological position of the Ebionites (cf. 5.1.3). This confirms the
reference back to Cerinthus and Carpocrates (1.26.2 [=1.22]) for
whom the notion of a natural birth of Jesus is also asserted (1.25.1
[= 1.20] and 1.26.1 [=1.21.1]). Perhaps this christology can shed new
light upon the obscure remark about the “peculiar interpretation of.
the prophets” among the Ebionites (1.26.2 [=1.22]). Is Irenaeus
thinking of the interpretation of Isaiah 7.14 along the lines of an
Ebionite christology? For support one could refer to Symmachus’
translation, which like that of Theodotion and Aquila reads neanis—
if indeed Symmachus had been a Jewish Christian.
AH 3.11.7 (=3.11.10) contains a brief notice about the gospel of
Matthew which was the sole gospel used by the Ebionites and, as

100. This is the reading of the “Septuagint”; cf. the detailed discussion of this
passage in Justin Dial. 43 f., 66 ff. (esp. 84).
101. Cf. Origen’s Hexapla; Hilgenfeld, Ketzergeschichte, p. 440. According to
Eusebius EH 6.17, Symmachus was a Jewish Christian; this is supported by Har-
nack, Geschichte, 1.1: 209-212; 2.1: 165f.; History of Dogma, 1: 305, n. 1
( =5th German ed., 1: 327 n. 1); Schoeps, Theologie, passim. But according
to Epiphanius, Symmachus had been a Samaritan who defected to Judaism (On
Weights and Measures 16). [For a survey of the subject, see H. B. Swete, An
Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek (Cambridge: University Press, 1902?,
supplemented ed. by R. Ottley, 1914, repr. KTAV 1968), pp. 49-53; also S. Jelli-
coe, The Septuagint and Modern Study (Oxford: Clarendon, 1968), pp. 94-99.]
277
 APPENDIX 1

Irenaeus remarks, contradicts their specific christology. Obviously,

Irenaeus is thinking of the canonical gospel with its doctrine of the
virgin birth in the infancy narrative (Matt. 1.18 ff.) which cannot be
brought into harmony with an adoptionist christology. But it must be
asked whether such a contradiction ought to be postulated for Jewish
Christianity? [280] It can only be claimed if the Ebionites mentioned
by Irenaeus actually used the canonical Matthew. But it is more
probable that behind the phrase “gospel according to Matthew” is
hidden another gospel writing similar to the canonical gospel or per-
haps even dependent on it, but not identical with it. This is true of
the so-called Gospel of the Ebionites which, according to Epiphanius,
was a mutilated Matthaean gospel.!°? The infancy narratives are
lacking in the latter, so that the assumption of a contradiction is
resolved if we suppose that Irenaeus’ notice reflects some confusion.
That Irenaeus could have confused the Gospel of the Ebionites
with the canonical Matthew is conceivable since he does not have
independent knowledge of the Ebionites. The fact that his report
contains only a few concrete details that are frequently repeated!
points in the same direction. Basically, his reports can be reduced to
the information which is explicitly or implicitly contained in 1.26.2
(=1.22). This would suggest that Irenaeus had used a fixed source
corresponding most nearly to that passage, from which the remaining
references are also taken. In favor of this assumption is the fact that
the name “Ebionites” is first attested in Irenaeus, where it seems to
be taken for granted as the designation for legalistic Jewish Chris-
tianity. Irenaeus probably found this name in the suggested source.

102. Epiphanius Her. 29.9.4, 30.13.2, 30.14.2; cf. P. Vielhauer on “Jewish-Chris-

tian Gospels” in Hennecke-Schneemelcher, 1: 117 ff.
103. AH 5.1.3 deserves notice as a further reference to the Ebionite christological
confession. Here the comment is offered that instead of a “mixture of the heavenly
wine” (commixtio vini caelestis) the Ebionites accept “only worldly water” (solam
aquam saecularem [?]—on the textual problem cf. the editions of Stieren or Har-
vey, ad loc.). Epiphanius later speaks of a Jewish Christian meal with unleavened
bread and water (Her. 30.16.1). However, one must question whether our pas-
sage ought to be interpreted in the light of Epiphanius’ information or whether
commonly held Christian notions about a meal with water have, in secondary
fashion, here been transferred to Jewish Christianity (cf. G. Gentz, “Aquarii,”
RAC 1 (1950): 574f.). There is danger of over-interpreting this section since
its thrust is to be understood christologically and not sacramentally. AH 4.33.4
(=4,52.1) also deserves notice with its general pronouncement of judgment
against the Ebionites. The anti-Pauline passage in AH 3.15.1 to which Hilgen-
feld refers (Ketzergeschichte, p. 421, n. 711) is not relevant to this discussion, as
is indicated by its immediate and its wider context.
278
 ON THE PROBLEM OF JEWISH CHRISTIANITY

This is not the place to inquire into the more comprehensive ques-
tion as to the source materials from which Irenaeus’ report about the
Ebionites is derived. No detailed argumentation is necessary to show
that this source cannot be identified with the Syntagma of Justin. [281]
The name Ebionites as well as the content of Irenaeus’ report and
its heresiological presuppositions are completely alien to Justin. This
difference in outlook marks a development in the patristic evaluation
of Jewish Christianity. The complex nature of Jewish Christianity,
which was self-evident to Justin, is now no longer seen. Jewish Chris-
tianity now is classified as a self-contained unit alongside of other
groups. The designation Ebidnaioi, which probably originated in a
concrete situation and was not a general label, has become the name
of a sect. The term loses its original theological significance and is
degraded to a heresiological technical term. A tendency toward
schematization, which becomes characteristic of subsequent heresi-
ology, comes into operation.
In Ref. 7.34, Hippolytus is largely dependent on Irenaeus’ report.1°*
His claim that the Ebionites acknowledge God as creator together
with the explicit comparison of the Ebionites with the heretics Cerin-
thus and Carpocrates and the summary statement about “Jewish cus-
toms” are reminiscent of Irenaeus, AH 1.26.2 (= 1.22). Even his sub-
sequent observations only appear to go beyond what is found in
Irenaeus. Hippolytus’ reflections on the elevation of Jesus to the
position of Messiah-Christ add nothing really new but merely transfer
to the Ebionites what Irenaeus said about Cerinthus or Carpo-
crates. For the remainder, Hippolytus has introduced into his
104. It is assumed that Hippolytus wrote this work; see also Harnack, Geschichte,
2 (Chronologie). 2: 211, n. 2. The frequently noted attempts of P. Nautin (Hip-
polyte et Josipe [Paris, 1947] and Hippolyte, Contre les hérésies. Etude et édition
critique [Paris, 1949]) to attribute Hippolytus’ literary activity to an almost un-
known Josippus or to an equally little known Hippolytus lead to even greater
difficulties than those involved in the objections Batiffol once raised against the
commonly accepted literary-historical judgment concerning Hippolytus (Anciennes
littératures chrétiennes: La littérature grecque (Paris, 1897], pp. 156f.). Con-
trary to Nautin cf., among others, M. Richard in Mélanges de science religi-
euse, 5-10 (1948-1953) and Recherches de science religieuse, 43 (1953): 379 ff.;
H. Elfers, “Neue Untersuchungen iiber die Kirchenordnung Hippolytus von Rom,”
Abhandlungen iiber Theologie und Kirche, Festschrift for K. Adam, ed. M.
Reding (Diisseldorf, 1952), pp. 181-198. [For further bibliography on the dis-
cussion, see Altaner, Patrology, p. 185, and Quasten, Patrology, 2: 169.]
105. The distinction between “Jesus” and “Christ” as well as the idea of his
adoption are found in Irenaeus’ treatment of Cerinthus (AH 1.26.1 [= 1.21]; cf.
the reference in 1.26.2 [=1.22]; a relationship to Jewish Christianity is already
attested in Justin Dial. 48.3-49.1). On the other hand, the anthropological sig-
279
 APPENDIX 1

discussion terminology and concepts from the Pauline doctrine of

justification. Of course, this does not represent an independent tra-
dition, but it expresses the intention to theologize and conceptualize
[282] which characterizes the whole of Hippolytus’ “Philosophumena”
(cf. Ref. preface.11). The Epitome of the work repeats the same ma-
terial in abbreviated form—the sketch of Ebionite tenets derived from
Irenaeus and Hippolytus’ own Paulinizing judgment (Ref. 10.22).
Finally, it is also significant that for Hippolytus the sequence of
heresies immediately preceding his section on Ebionites corresponds
to Irenaeus’ schema. Thus the genesis of this material in terms of its
literary history is not problematic.
On the other hand it is remarkable that in the next chapter, Refuta-
tion 7.35, “Ebion” is mentioned as the supposed hero from whom the
Ebionites derived their name. This is the first appearance of that
name in the heresiological literature and it cannot be traced back
to Irenaeus. Where did this name originate, for which there is ob-
viously no historical basis? 1° Reference could be made to Lipsius’
witnesses for the Syntagma of Hippolytus,!°7 which likewise mention
“Ebion”: Pseudo-Tertullian Against Heresies 48 (11); Epiphanius
Heresy 30.1f; and Filaster Heresy 37 (9). But since E. Schwartz's
brilliant explanations 1°* this attestation has become questionable:
Filaster probably used Epiphanius; Pseudo-Tertullian is still “an un-
known quantity which first must be solved” (p. 38); and the treat-
ment in Epiphanius is demonstrably confused while the sources he
employed still have not been identified.1°° In order to answer our

nificance of the adoption [i.e. anyone who lives as Jesus did can become “Christ”]
Sale from the report about Carpocrates (AH 1.25.1 [= 1.20.1]; Hippolytus Ref.
7.32.3).
106. Hilgenfeld, Ketzergeschichte, pp. 436 ff., shows unusual confidence in the
reports of the church fathers when he accepts as genuine a monothelitic tract
er according to the witness of Anastasius (seventh century), was attributed
to Ebion.
107. [R. A. Lipsius, Zur Quellenkritik des Epiphanios (Vienna, 1865).]
108. Schwartz, “Zwei Predigten Hippolyts,” Sitzungsberichte der Bayrischen
Akademie der Wissenschaften, 3 (Miinchen, 1936): 36 ff.
109. On the indiscriminate use of the ps.-Clementines by Epiphanius, cf. Strecker,
Judenchristentum, pp. 265 f., and “Elkesai,” 1175 f. Indeed, on the basis of the
reports on the Nazoraeans M. Black asserts that Epiphanius’ treatment is trust-
worthy (The Scrolls and Christian Origins: Studies in the Jewish Background of
the New Testament [New York: Scribner's, 1961], pp. 67 ff.). But his argument
only shows in exemplary fashion that Epiphanius’ literary efforts are capable of
producing such an impression.
280
 ON THE PROBLEM OF JEWISH CHRISTIANITY

question, therefore, it would be better not to make use of Lipsius’

threefold attestation. Nevertheless, it should be discussed whether this
designation could derive from the Syntagma. Tertullian, who also
refers to “Ebion,” 11° encourages this possibility. It is therefore im-
possible to regard Hippolytus’ Refutation as the place of origin for
this name since Tertullian belongs to an earlier period. Since Ter-
tullian also made use of local Roman tradition [283] elsewhere 111
the possibility cannot be excluded that he was here under the direct
or indirect influence of the Syntagma which was composed much
earlier than the writing of the Refutation and perhaps immediately
after the appearance of Noétus in Rome.!!? This possibility is sup-
ported by the fact that in the immediate context, also without any
parallel in Irenaeus, Hippolytus deals with the Byzantian Theodotus
who appeared in Rome and was excommunicated by Bishop Victor.1!*
Theodotus is mentioned also in chapter 3 of Hippolytus’ homily against
Noétus.1!4 Both the excommunication of Theodotus and the com-
position of the writing against Noétus suit the time of origin of the
Syntagma. Thus it is reasonable to conclude that Refutation 7.35 as a
whole is based on the Syntagma. Perhaps we may go one step further
and assume that it was Hippolytus himself who, on the basis of false
etymology, conjectured that the founder of the sect had been a person
named “Ebion.” The context even seems to indicate how this mis-
understanding could have arisen. While Hippolytus deals with
“Ebionites” in Refutation 7.34, depending on Irenaeus, the name
“Ebion” occurs in 7.35, in the chapter that goes back to the Syntagma,
110. On the Flesh of Christ 14, 18, 24; On the Veiling of Virgins 6.1; Prescription
Against Heretics 33.5 and 10.
1ll. Cf. e.g. Harnack, Marcion?, p. 17°.
112. According to Photius (Library, codex 121) Hippolytus’ Syntagma covered
thirty-two heresies beginning with the Dositheans and ending with the adherents
of Noétus. Its time of composition should be fixed considerably before the Refu-
tation since according to the preface to book one of the Refutation, the earlier
draft was written “some time ago” (palai). The grounds for Harnack’s dating
of the Syntagma (Geschichte 2 [Chronologie]. 2: 223: during the first decade of
the third century) are convincing only insofar as the work could not have ap-
peared after 210. Since Photius applied the word biblidarion to the Syntagma, it
follows that it was small in size and (contrary to the widely held assumption)
could not have contained Hippolytus’ Homily against the Heresy of Noétus, as
has been demonstrated conclusively by Schwartz (“Zwei Predigten,” 37).
113. Ref. 7.9 and 35, 10.23; Eusebius EH 5.28.6; Hilgenfeld,; Ketzergeschichte,
poll:
114. [Ed. by Schwartz, “Zwei Predigten”; cf. also Migne PG 10.817. ET by S.
Salmond in ANF 5: 223-231.]
281
 APPENDIX 1

and is juxtaposed with the names of “Cerinthus” and “Theodotus.”

Therefore, it would seem that the name originated in the Syntagma
by means of a somewhat automatic assimilation to other founders of
sects—apart from the other argument based on the fact that Hippolytus
provides the earliest attestation of this name.
The foundation for the later heresiological treatment of Ebionitism
has been provided by Irenaeus and Hippolytus. Henceforth, the
doctrine and the practice of Jewish Christians will be reported in a
stereotyped manner. Observance of Jewish customs, rejection of Paul,
a “natural christology,” and derivation from a certain “Ebion” as
founder of the sect—all of this is subsumed under the concept hairesis
tén Ebiénaién, “Ebionite heresy.” By being identified as “Ebionism,”
Jewish Christianity [284] becomes an established heresiological entity
which is treated in the one place provided in the catalogue of sects.
The heresiologists who are supposed to have used Hippolytus’ Syn-
tagma (above, 280) can confirm this. The individual details that
they have to offer are nothing but assimilations to the extant heresi-
ological material, and cannot claim to be derived from firsthand
knowledge (cf. Pseudo-Tertullian and Filaster). This also applies
to Epiphanius. The comparison with other heresies mentioned by
name (Her. 30.1) is just as much a secondary literary embellishment
as the seemingly significant reference to “the earliest” Ebionite posi-
tion (ta prota), which introduced a line of development in Ebionite
christological outlook stretching from a “natural” (30.2) to an Elcha-
saitic Christology (30.3 and 17), but is really a literary device
whereby the diverse sources and disorganized bits of information are
held together. This indicates, to be sure, that in distinction from other
heresiologists, Epiphanius had access to sources hitherto unknown in
the West, but it also shows that he did not really understand the
significance of these bits of information, but rather grouped them
according to a general heresiological point of view in which matters
of detail are not differentiated.1®
Origen’s evidence also agrees at first with the heresiological re-
porting. Jewish observances (Homily 3.5 on Genesis), rejection of
Paul (e.g. Against Celsus 5.65 and Homily 17.2 on Jeremiah), and

115. On the heresiological outlook of Epiphanius, cf. P. Fraenkel, “Histoire sainte

et hérésie chez Epiphane de Salamine,” Revue de théologie et de philosophie, 12
(1962): 175-191. Unfortunately Fraenkel does not follow Bauer’s approach.
282
 ON THE PROBLEM OF JEWISH CHRISTIANITY

natural christology (Homily 17 on Luke) also are typical character-

istics of the Ebionites according to Origen. He can also designate
them as “heretics” (Against Celsus 5.65). However, it is remarkable
that Origen does not reflect the heresiological pattern in other respects
—e.g. the common stereotyped comparison with Cerinthus and Car-
pocrates is not made. It is also characteristic of Origen to interpret
the name of the Ebionites ironically as indicating “the poverty of
their spirit.” 146 What is especially important is the new information
he provides. Origen knows of Jewish Christians who teach that Jesus
was born in a natural way [285] but he is also aware of others who
acknowledge the virgin birth (Against Celsus 5.61; Commentary on
Matthew, 17.12). He is informed about their literal interpretation of
the Bible (Commentary on Matthew, 11.12), and also about their
celebration of the passover (Commentary on Matthew, series 79). His
reports apparently are based at least in part on his own substantiated
observation. He is aware that the Jewish Christian rejection of Paul
continues “to this day” (Homily 19 on Jeremiah). And there is other
evidence to confirm that the christology of Jewish Christians cannot
be limited to the notion of Jesus’ natural birth, but also has room for
declarations concerning his preexistence.'!?
The idea that Origen’s knowledge of Jewish Christianity was based
on personal observation explains his exceptional attitude of openness.
Origen admits that Jewish Christian theology was more complex than
would be possible according to the heresiological pattern. Even Euse-
bius, who elsewhere follows Origen’s presentation for the most part,
by no means remains within the limits of the heresiological pattern,
but is also aware (perhaps on the basis of personal observation) of
Jewish Christians who live in Kokaba,"* and he knows “Ebionites”
who celebrate the Lord’s day as well as the sabbath.1!* The reporting
of Origen and Eusebius differs from the usual heresiological approach
not only by virtue of its factual knowledge; chronological and geo-
graphic differences are also reflected. Whereas Origen and Eusebius
116. On First Principles 4.3.8; Against Celsus 2.1, and passim. This interpretation
probably originated with Origen himself. It agrees with his knowledge of Hebrew
and is not found prior to him but appears rather frequently afterward. Cf. Strecker,
Judenchristentum, p. 123.
117. Strecker, “Ebioniten,” col. 496 f.
d,
118. Onomasticon (ed. Klostermann, GCS, 11.1 [1904], 172); [cf. Hilgenfel
Ketzergeschichte, pp. 426 n. 715, 428 n. 734 chon doll:
119. EH 3.27.5; cf. Apostolic Constitutions 7.23.
283
 APPENDIX 1

attest that in the eastern church the complexity of Jewish Christianity

is still acknowledged (even if only with regard to particular details)
in the third and fourth century, the western church had already
forced Jewish Christianity into a fixed heresiological pattern by the
end of the second and beginning of the third century. This pattern
was the result of a gradual development since the relatively open
position of Justin, (and of Hegesippus),was replaced around the end
of the second century by the typically heresiological approach. It is
clear from the witness of Origen and Eusebius that even after standard-
ization took place in the West, the East remained open with respect
to the actual situation. It was not until much later that the final
transfer of the heresiological pattern in the East seems to have be-
come possible. Epiphanius can be named as the first witness to this
development. [286] Theodoret and the later fathers, who wrote in
complete dependence on their predecessors, mark the ultimate victory
of the heresiological outlook.1?°
Walter Bauer had established that the early opponents of heresy,
from Clement to Dionysius of Corinth, stood in close relation to Rome
(see above, 106 ff.). It can now be added that this is also true with
respect to the heresiological approach itself. The Roman character
of Justin’s literary endeavors is well known, in spite of his Samaritan
origin and his sojourn in Asia Minor. Even though it may be supposed
that his source material comes partly from the East, it was given
its ultimate shape in Rome. Bauer showed in detail the connections
between Hegesippus and Rome (above, 103, 107). This Roman orien-
tation is especially true of Irenaeus, the first ecclesiastical author of
whose systematic heresiological activity we have knowledge. His ac-
count of the heresies grew out of the ecclesiastical situation at Lyons—
out of his struggle with Valentinian gnosticism. His journey to see
Eleutherus of Rome (Eusebius EH 5.4) and his entry into the pass-
over controversy through his letter to Bishop Victor (EH 5.24.10 ff.)
are sufficient evidence for recognizing the strong ties by which he and
his community felt themselves bound to the Roman ecclesiastical
position. And that Hippolytus represents Roman tradition does not
need to be argued, in spite of his actual alienation from the official
120. In several respects, Jerome occupies a unique position. He has connections
with both East and West. As is well known, his information is no more reliable
than that of Epiphanius. We cannot deal with it in more detail here.
284
 ON THE PROBLEM OF JEWISH CHRISTIANITY

incumbent of the Roman episcopal chair and his corresponding enum-

eration among the schismatics. Without any doubt, systematically
practiced heresiology begins in Rome. The later penetration into the
East of the heresiological attitude toward Jewish Christianity indi-
cates that a Roman principle gained “ecumenical” validity. In this
respect, Bauer’s claims receive substantial confirmation.
The variations in configuration and success of the heresiological
point of view corroborate the results gained from the direct and in-
direct evidence for Jewish Christianity in Syria—namely, that the
situation with regard to Jewish Christianity is complex, both in terms
of its own theological frame of thought and also in its relationship
to the “great church.” This complexity contradicts the heresiological
pattern. And to the extent that later Jewish Christianity can be un-
covered, even greater variety is encountered there.!*! The simplistic,
[287] dogmatically determined classification of Jewish Christianity as a
heresy which confronts the “great church” as a homogeneous unit
does not do justice to the complex situation existing within legalistic
Jewish Christianity. Walter Bauer’s opinion that “the Judaists soon
became a heresy, rejected with conviction by the gentile Christians,”
and that the Jewish Christians were “repulsed” by gentile Christianity
(above, 236f.) needs to be corrected. Not only is there “significant
diversity” within the gentile Christian situation, but the same holds
true for Jewish Christianity. The fact that Jewish Christianity was a
polymorphic entity and that a heresiological principle emanating from
Rome could succeed against it only gradually provides not only a
correcting supplement, but above all an additional substantiation of
Bauer's historical perspective.
121. There are few witnesses, the Jewish Christian gospels cannot [287] be dated
with sufficient certainty, and the reports of Jerome and Epiphanius are unreliable
even when they deal with the contemporary situation rather than with past events.
On the activity of Jewish Christian groups on into Islamic times, cf. A. Schlatter,
“Die Entwicklung des jiidischen Christentums zum Islam,” Evangelisches Mis-
sionsmagazin, 62 (1918): 251-264; Harnack, Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte?,
2, (Tiibingen: Mohr, 1909; repr. Darmstadt, 1964): 534 ff. [this appendix on
Islam is not included in the ET, History of Dogma, 4 (1898)]; Schoeps, Theol-
ogie, pp. 334-342; Strecker, “Elkesai,” col. 1177.

285
 Appendix 2 —
The Reception of the Book
by Georg Strecker

revised and augmented by Robert A. Kraft *

Reviews and Notices of the Original Edition

During the years immediately following the appearance of Bauer’s
original edition, more than two dozen reviews or notices appeared in
six different languages. For convenience, those known to the editors
are listed below: 1

“A.” [=N. von Arseniew (P)], Irénikon 12 (1935): 682-83 [French

language, Belgian Roman Catholic publication; brief summary,
favorable];
“p.b.,” Religio 11 (1935): 83-84 [Italian Roman Catholic; relatively
favorable summary];
“Brs.” [=H. Bruders, S. J.]. Scholastik 10 (1935): 589 [German lan-
guage, Dutch Roman Catholic; brief and favorable summary];
* The original essay by Georg Strecker, “Die Aufnahme des Buches” (Bauer?,
288-306), has been completely revised and expanded by R. A. Kraft in con-
sultation with Professor Strecker for inclusion in this English edition,
1. Brief annotations are provided for some of the reviews not treated at any
length in the subsequent discussion as well as basic information about the re-
viewer when available. Bauer himself supplied a precis of the book in Forschun-
gen und Fortschritte, 10 (1934): 99-101; this has now been reprinted in the
collection of Bauer’s Aufsdtze und Kleine Schriften, edited by Georg Strecker
(Tubingen: Mohr, 1967), pp. 229-233. See also the detailed appreciation by W.
Schneemelcher, “Walter Bauer als Kirchenhistoriker,’” NTS 9 (1962/63): 11-22,
and the “Report on the New Edition of Walter Bauer's Rechtglaubigkeit. . . ,”
by Georg Strecker, Journal of Bible and Religion 33 (1965): 53-56.
286
 THE RECEPTION OF THE BOOK

J. Bergdolt, Luthertum 47 (1936): 316-17;

G. A. van den Bergh van Eysinga, Nieuw Theologisch Tijdschrift 24
(1935): 374-76 [Dutch Protestant];
M. Dibelius (Heidelberg), Deutsche Literaturzeitung 6 (1935): 443-48;
M. Goguel (Protestant Faculty, Paris), Revue d’histoire et de philoso-
phie religieuse 15 (1935): 163-67;
K. Heussi (Jena), Historische Vierteljahresschrift 30 (1935): 410-11
[complimentary brief summary];
H. Koch (Munich), Theologische Literaturzeitung 59 (1934): 343-46;
~ J. Lebreton (Catholic Faculty, Paris), Recherches de science religieuse
25 (1935): 605-10;
J. Leipoldt (Leipzig), Theologisches Literaturblatt 57 (1936) :228-30;
“H. L.” [= Hans Lietzmann, Berlin], ZNW 33 (1934): 94;
W. von Loewenich (Erlangen), Theologie der Gegenwart 29 (1935): 8;
E. Lohmeyer (Breslau), Historische Zeitschrift 151 (1935): 97-100;
eae S. J. (Louvain), Nouvelle revue théologique 62 (1935):
0-51;
C. H. Moehlman (Colgate-Rochester Divinity School), Church History
4 (1935): 236-37 [favorable summary];
J. Moffatt (Union Seminary, N.Y.), The Expository Times 45 (1933/
34): 475-76;
M. Schmidt, Neues Sdchsisches Kirchenblatt (20 Jan., 1935);
H. Schuster, Deutsche Evangelische Erziehung 48 (1937): 260;
H.-D. Simonin, O. P. (Rome), Revue des sciences philosophiques et
théologiques 25 (1936): 342-45;
H. Strathmann (Erlangen), Theologie der Gegenwart 28 (1934):
192-93 [generally favorable, some reservations];
W. Volker (Halle), Zeitschrift fiir Kirchengeschichte 54 (1935):
628-631;
H. Windisch (Kiel/Halle), Christliche Welt 49 (1935): 138-139;
“7,” [=J. de Zwann, Leyden], Nieuw Theologische Studien 20 (1937):
255 [Dutch, generally favorable with some reservations];
(anonymous), La vie spirituelle (1936), p. 177 £.;
(anonymous), Revue des sciences religeuses 17 (1937): 23-24.

Continental Protestant Reviews. On the whole, continental prot-

estant reviewers showed a positive appreciation for the book, although
criticisms of this or that aspect were not infrequent.
Hans Lietzmann, in his very brief published notice, praises it highly
as:

A splendid book. . . , a frontal attack on the usual approach to church

history, vigorously carried out with solid erudition, penetrating criti-
cism, and balanced organization. . . . It is the old thesis of Usener,
287
 APPENDIX 2

once so violently rejected by Harnack, that reappears here in a new

form and with new foundations. Hopefully it will be appreciated bet-
ter this time for its positive significance. Bauer’s book belongs to those
works the value of which rests not in the sum of particular matters
treated, but which by their provocative total impression force the in-
vestigation to healthy self-examination.?

Ernst Lohmeyer, near the end of a lengthy summary of the book,

concedes that “it is inevitable that this book, ‘more than it likes, must
make use of hypotheses that cannot be fully substantiated. But what
is to be said has been said with so much caution and such careful
support that the whole picture seems assured even though particular
interpretations of sources and events must remain uncertain.” ®
In his extremely appreciative review, Maurice Goguel’s only spe-
cific complaint is that “the title . . . perhaps is a bit unfortunate”
since it is “too vague and would profit from having a sub-title to
define the subject more closely.” Otherwise, he emphasizes the value
of the book as “an entirely new approach” that “throws light on a
number of hitherto obscure points” and as a “point of departure”
from which further studies may arise to sharpen, verify, or perhaps
correct various aspects. By way of example, Goguel offers some ob-
servations of his own on Revelation 2-3 (above, 78 ff.). In short,
Goguel feels that the book “has an importance out of proportion to
the number of pages it contains” in that “it offers more new conclusions
and fruitful suggestions than many large books three or four times
2. Bauer’s files contain a private communication from Lietzmann, dated 17 April
1934, as follows:
Seldom has a book reached me at such an opportune time as your investigation
has for the second volume of my History of the Church. How much I incline to
your view, on the whole, you will realize from my [academic] genealogy. It was,
after all, the thesis of my old teacher Hermann Usener that ‘between the rock
of the teaching of Christ and the clearly heathen lands lies a wide plain of com-
mon property’ (Das Weinachsfest Kap. I-III?, ed. H. Lietzmann [Bonn: Bouvier,
1911], p. XI), and I have always thought this thesis to be correct. It is now
very gratifying to me to see it carried through by you with such energy, and to
have the church history of all regions examined from this perspective. That is
truly a fruitful adjustment which I will carefully investigate and will make fruit-
ful in my own presentation.
The extent to which Lietzmann actually put Bauer’s work to use seems limited
—see his History, 2: 58 n. 6; 259, nn. 1 and*5; 260 nn. 2-3; and 275 n. 1. As
Strecker has pointed out privately in this connection, the identification of the thesis
of Usener with Bauer’s approach rests on a misunderstanding.
3. Lohmeyer’s personal note to Bauer, dated 29 June 1934, reads: “I have worked
through your book . . . with much pleasure and agreement.”
288
 THE RECEPTION OF THE BOOK

its size.” Because of the positive results it provides, the method it

inaugurates, and the perspective it offers for subsequent research,
“this book is one of those, few in number, that marks a stage. No one
who henceforth concerns himself with the history of primitive Chris-
tianity can neglect to read and study it.”
Hugo Koch is somewhat more critical, although also complimentary,
on the whole. He regrets that Bauer did not examine more system-
atically the early Jewish-Christianity of Palestine (and Egypt), and
that he is “completely silent” about earliest Christianity in Africa; on
these matters, Koch appends some suggestions of his own (e.g.
above, 241 n. 1), as well as on early Roman christology and on the
problem of marriage in early Christianity. Also he feels that a dis-
tinction might usefully be made between the earlier, more “gnostic,”
and the later, more ecclesiastical, positions of Origen. Nevertheless,
although:
one may think what he likes about [the book’s] conclusions in particu-
lar matters, as a whole it is an extremely valuable scholarly investiga-
tion that for once reads the sources through other eyes than is usually
the case, and hears many things from them that have not been heard
for a long time. Bauer himself is well aware that the area in which
he moves is often uncharted and requires careful procedure, and it
cannot be said that he has neglected the necessary caution and has
substituted mere conjectures for facts.

Similarly, Johannes Leipoldt praises Bauer for an exciting book that

opens “new paths” and deals critically with some legends of modern
scholarship as well as those of antiquity. “ITaken as a whole, the
book of Bauer will determine the course of the investigation for a
long time.” Nevertheless, Leipoldt finds that the book moves along
almost too rapidly—there is little coherence—and hopes that Bauer
will “someday paint a complete picture of how the history of the
church in the second century now looks.” While agreeing “essentially”
with Bauer’s thesis, Leipoldt has reservations at some points and
mentions specifically his conviction that “the boundaries between
orthodoxy and heresy “often were even more fluid” than Bauer allows,
and that Bauer’s interpretation of the situation behind 3 John is un-
likely (above, 92f.)—it has to do with a conflict in “church polity”
between an old missions-type of Christian and a young representative
of the “local episcopate” (see also below, p. 308).
289
 APPENDIX 2

In what must have been one of the last pieces he wrote before his
death in 1935, Hans Windisch comments that “much is immediately
convincing, but many things still require substantiation” in this
“learned and ingenious” book. “Perhaps what is worked out in the
main points is correct, but it is not exhaustive for the entire situation
of the church in the second century.” Nevertheless, it is welcome for
its many new observations, and will help to advance scholarship along
many lines.
In the same vein, H. Strathmann complains that Bauer’s “ingenious
criticism” often must employ the argument from silence and that
Bauer seems excessively distrustful of ecclesiastical sources in con-
structing his picture. But on the whole, “the book is an extremely
suggestive and forward-moving plea to rethink the history of earliest
Christianity with new considerations.”
From the protestant Netherlands we find J. de Zwann mentioning
exegetical and methodological problems accentuated by Bauer's use
of the argument from silence and multiplication of hypotheses, in an
otherwise favorable, brief notice. G. A. van den Bergh van Eysinga
writes at much greater length, praising Bauer for countering the tra-
ditional Roman Catholic view that has also enjoyed wide influence
among protestants, but objecting to such details as Bauer’s dating for
the Pauline and Ignatian letters and for 1 Clement.
Martin Dibelius provides a balanced and incisive review in which
he praises the book as “a bold advance,” concerned with “a con-
structive search,” and maintains that from it “a historical view of
earliest Christianity can only gain, on the whole, in a constructive way,
and I am the last who would or should call the author to task because
of the boldness of the treatment... . It is a pleasure to find that there
still can be an investigation that reflects the two talents that have
made German scholarship the pillar of German respectability: meticu-
lousness in investigation of the most minute aspects, and boldness of
construction in larger matters.” Nevertheless, Dibelius feels it his
duty to ask basic questions especially about “the methodology by
which the author supports his overall picture,” and collects his obser-
vations under two main headings: (1) Bauer makes extensive use of
the argument from silence—e.g. concerning pre-Ignatian Christianity
at Antioch, Asia Minor apart from Ignatius’ addressees, the orthodoxy
of the Christians mentioned by Pliny, Papias’ failure to mention Luke’s
290
 THE RECEPTION OF THE BOOK

gospel, and Polycarp’s silence about a bishop at Philippi; (2) “Bauer

tends to give to writings and events the purpose of which has not been
clearly preserved for us an interpretation that relates to his problem”—
e.g. 1 Clement, Ignatius’ concern about the monepiscopate, references
to the “great number” of heretics. Nevertheless, such questions by no
means negate “the importance of the whole endeavor and the serious-
ness of the plea for a revision of opinion” in dealing with early church
history.
By far the most negative review to appear was the caustic piece by
Walter Volker (see also below, n. 5). Although Bauer claims to be
fully aware of the fragmentary nature of the sources and the hypothet-
ical nature of much of his study, this does not prevent him from mak-
ing a claim such as is found in the second sentence of chapter 6 (p.
111), complains Volker. At a number of particular points, Volker attacks
Bauer's interpretations: “no less than everything is unsure” about the
early situation at Edessa, “the chapter on Egypt... is riddled with
the argument from silence,” at various points the interpretation of
Ignatius’ letters is unacceptable as is Bauer’s use of 1 Clement.
All in all, Bauer’s book is an attempt to view the history of the earliest
church in an entirely new light, and to interpret all the particulars as
consistent with this new approach. Thus the heretics are valued most
highly, especially Marcion. . . . In contrast, the ‘church’ faded strongly
into the background, and only Rome championed orthodoxy. .. .
The author arrives at this atonishing conclusion by frequent use of the
argument from silence, by bold combinations, by unsupportable con-
jectures which themselves are reused as a precarious foundation for
further conjectures, by inferences drawn from later periods, and finally,
by the arrangement of all the particulars into the schema orthodoxy/
heresy, whereby the variegated historical events are robbed of the com-
plexity of their causes and motivations. I cannot believe that such a re-
construction of history has prospects of becoming accepted in the prot-
estant approach to church history (to say nothing of the Catholic);
it is only the most extreme swing of the pendulum of a view that
ultimately goes back to G. Arnold’s estimation of the heretics, and
thus it must occasion just as extreme a reaction.*
4. In the following year (24 May 1936), Volker wrote Bauer this note: “After
a searching examination I cannot agree with the thesis ventured in part 1, but
you yourself scarcely will have expected that the firm battle lines of the tradition
would shatter at the first assault of the opposition.”
Bauer also received personal communications from several other distinguished
German scholars: y
Adolf Jiilicher (Marburg, emeritus), dated 1 Feb. 1934: “I have begun to read
291
 APPENDIX 2

English Language Reviews. Apart from a fairly lengthy favorable

summary by C. H. Moehlman, the only real review in English came
from the pen of James Moffatt, who found the book to be an “able,
challenging monograph.” Nevertheless, Moffatt thinks that Bauer's
“proofs” for certain interpretations “are sometimes forced’—“he tends
to take the position of the barrister rather than of the judge.” The
fact that at times the earliest extant written materials from an area
happen to voice the faith of “queer, uncatholic movements . . . in-
stead of the catholic . . . does not imply that the latter was non-
existent.” Perhaps the gnostics such as Valentinus were

more Christian than their later critics allowed, or than even Dr. Bauer
believes. . . . A historian must be sensitive to what we may call the
sense of the Centre in early Christianity. I should prefer that term
to “orthodoxy.” And although it took the Church long to express that
sense of the Centre, yet it was not absent from the early controversies.
We need not read back a definite expression or consciousness of it.
One merit of Dr. Bauer’s treatise is that it enters a valid warning
against such an unhistorical prejudice.

Moffatt also questions Bauer’s estimate of the role of Rome.

There is still a case for the other side here. Was not the Apostolic Canon
of Scripture first formed, in its informal stages, in Asia Minor? Was not
Asia Minor ahead of Rome in the formation of the Apostolic, Episco-
pal ministry? And does the Symbol not seem as likely to have emerged
in Asia Minor as at Rome? Dr. Bauer’s views to the contrary are sharply
stated, but I do not detect any cogent, decisive arguments in support
of his thesis at this point, beyond what other scholars have brought
forward. The real thinking upon vital Christianity for centuries was
done outside the Roman Church.

the first part of your new book, on the earliest church and/or Christianity in
Edessa, and have already obtained from it so many unexpected and persuasive
insights that it is with deep regret that I must lay the book aside for a few
weeks, after which I intended to read it to the end with heightened interest.
Where you yourself hesitate, neither can I arrive at any definite decision, but
the main point, the priority of heretics in Edessa, seems to be demonstrated.”
Rudolf Otto (Marburg), dated 20 Feb. 1934: “I have now partaken with thanks
and admiration of your Ketzer. Jiilicher spoke very appreciatively of it.” (The
same card contains handwritten notes with complimentary remarks by Frederick
C. Grant [Seabury-Western Seminary, Illinois], W. Macholz, and K. Miiller.)
Rudolf Bultmann (Marburg), dated 7 Feb. 1935: “The basic thesis and pre-
sentation are, it seems to me, a real advancement of research. I have learned
much from it” (see also below, p. 306).
292
 THE RECEPTION OF THE BOOK

In short, Bauer has provided a “serviceable . . . reminder that cathol-

icism or orthodoxy took much longer to shape itself than is commonly
supposed, and that centrifugal tendencies in the first three centuries
were probably stronger than the later Church liked to admit. [What]
. . . sounds less convincing here and there . . . [is] the estimate of
the data from which [this position] is deduced.”
Roman Catholic Reviews. There is much variety of attitude among
the Roman Catholic reviews that appeared. By far the most receptive
are those from the Netherlands and Belgium. Heinrich Bruders’ brief
notice concludes that “the entire work is a constructive attempt to
understand the development of Christianity without the papacy as
an enclosure surrounding a unified doctrine.” Indeed, N. von Ar-
seniew(?) writes that “the interest of the book does not necessarily
rest only with those ideas which it is well to place before the eyes
of protestant readers but which represent nothing particularly new
for the catholic scholar, but also in the way in which the author treats
the birth of the concept ‘orthodoxy’ and the idea of ‘heresy.’ His
thesis is clearly explicated . . . and gives useful material for medi-
tating upon the seriousness of our faith.”
The treatment by H. D. Simonin, O.P., of Rome, on the other hand,
is relatively hostile. He characterizes the volume as “a hard book,
difficult to read, with a vehemence and a dialectic power that is rarely
met to such a degree in a work dealing with history’—a “typically
Germanic” book. Simonin considers it ironical that Bauer appears as
an “apologist” whose phenomenology of religion cannot seem to vis-
ualize orthodoxy “without having at every moment a church charged
to guard and to teach doctrine.” This has “a real apologetic value for
the Roman Church” in contrast to the Anglican conception of “ortho-
doxy.” Where Bauer errs most seriously is in the frequent use of the
argument from silence and in failing to deal with the theological
aspects of church history, particularly with the development of the
regula fidei—the credal rule of faith emphasizing belief in the creator
God (see below, n. 8).
The French Jesuit, C. Martin, has mixed reactions. He agrees that
the relationship between orthodoxy and heresy is more complex than
usually has been recognized, but “neither the method nor, often,
the argumentation of Bauer is satisfactory.” Martin’s fundamental
objection is that Bauer neglects most of the evidence from the New
293
 APPENDIX 2

Testament, where he thinks the issues are already rather clearly de-
fined. Bauer also overplays language referring to “the whole world”
being full of heretics. Even if Egypt and Syria did abound with
heretics, “such a fact is not so astonishing, and theologically speaking,
is only of secondary significance. Already from the outset, as the
New Testament writings show, the church was more concerned with
orthodoxy than with numbers. The distinction between the sects and
the ‘apostolic party’ stands out clearly there. .. . We regret that Bauer
has not given enough attention to the analysis of these writings” which
are fundamental for the problem (see below, n. 6).
Finally, the distinguished French church historian Jules Lebreton,
S. J., incorporates numerous critical comments into his fairly lengthy
summary of the book. He thinks that Bauer’s evidence in support of
this “new schema” has been offered “not without violence,” and notes
the use of the argument from silence. “One reads [the book] with
lively interest, but without being able to subscribe to the thesis he
defends”—e.g. Bousset’s hypothesis that Pantaenus was gnostic “is
generally abandoned today” in favor of Munck’s judgment that Pan-
taenus was what Clement was after him. And however one evaluates
the truth of such claims as Clement and Tertullian make for orthodoxy
(Strom 7.[17.]106; Prescription against Heretics 29), they “prove to
us that the catholics were conscious of being in possession of the
church from apostolic times.” In contrast, claims of apostolic suc-
cession by the heretics are rare (see below, n. 7). Clearly, at the end
of the second century orthodoxy saw itself as traditional, and viewed
gnosticism as something new. When heresy occasionally did gain the
upper hand (as in the rise of Montanism), it was “a passing fever and
local” in extent. If Bauer had interpreted the evidence from Rome as
he does the letters of Ignatius for the Antioch situation, he could argue
that heresy controlled Rome also. Although he assigns to Rome a role
that is “very glorious . . . very charitable for the catholic church, . . .
it is not necessary, in order to make this point, to suppose that ancient
and quasi-universal defections had abandoned the churches to heresy
until Rome took charge. .. . What (Rome) taught corresponded in
the other churches to a traditional faith, inherited from the apostles”
(with references to Irenaeus AH 1.10.2 [=1.3]).
Synthetic Summary. On the whole, the reviewers tend to agree that
Bauer's general thesis is a desirable, if provocative, counter-balance
294
 THE RECEPTION OF THE BOOK

to the oversimplified traditional view,® and some of them do not

hesitate to express basic agreement with Bauer’s overall view (e.g.
Lietzmann, Lohmeyer, Leipoldt; cf. Koch, Windisch), The positive,
constructive character of the investigation is emphasized by some
(Lietzmann, Dibelius, Goguel, Bruders) as well as its negative thrust
(esp. Eysinga). Its value not only as a new step, but as a stimulus
to further research especially impresses Goguel (cf. also Windisch,
Leipoldt, Heussi). Some of the reviewers even comment that they
found it an exciting book to read—‘“like a novel,” says Leipoldt, com-
plimentarily—although Simonin complains that it is hard to read and
“typically Germanic.”
One expects to find negative comments in critical reviews, and is
far from disappointed in this case. At the general level, Bauer's
method and argumentation is assailed to various degrees again and
again: hypotheses and conjecture play a large role (Lohmeyer, de
Zwann, Volker), the argument from silence is frequent (Dibelius, de
Zwann, Vélker, Strathmann, Simonin, Lebreton), interpretations often
are forced to fit Bauer’s thesis (Dibelius, Moffatt), Bauer writes as
an apologete rather than an impartial judge (Moffatt, Volker, Simo-
nin) and shows excessive distrust for ecclesiastical authors (Strath-
mann), some materials are used anachronistically and the whole pic-
ture is grossly oversimplified (Volker, see n. 5 above). For Windisch,
the treatment of the second century is hardly exhaustive, and Leipoldt
would like to see a more synthetic overview of the situation as Bauer
now pictures it.
The problem of exactly how Bauer’s investigation relates, or should
relate, to theological questions appears in some reviews. Goguel
thinks a subtitle would help clarify the fact that Bauer is not dealing
primarily with the history of doctrinal conflicts. In different ways
and for different reasons some of the reviewers are concerned that
Bauer tends to neglect the question of theological standards in the

5. With respect to Vélker’s extremely negative review, Strecker complains that

it shows no appreciation for the fact that the traditional attitude toward the
development of church history and the history of dogma can no longer be ac-
cepted as self-evident in the light of Bauer’s investigation. Instead, Volker is
critical of what the book intends to do and of how the material is presented, and
his review places a one-sided stress on the hypothetical character of many of
Bauer’s particular conclusions, generalizes from the difficulties relating to indi-
vidual details, and emphasizes out of all proportion the use of the argument from
silence (p. 291 n. 1).
295
 APPENDIX 2

early church, whether it be the Christianity of Paul and John (Loe-

wenich), “the sense of the Centre” (Moffatt), the presence of the
“apostolic party” already in the New Testament (Martin),° the con-
sciousness of possessing the catholic faith (Lebreton),’ or the de-
velopment of the regula fidei (Simonin).°
Finally, numerous more or less detailed questions are raised about
various aspects of Bauer's treatment: Can anything be said with con-
fidence about early Edessene Christianity (Vélker, cf. Martin)? Is
not Tatian’s role more important than Bauer allows (Windisch)? In
Egyptian Christianity, was Pantaenus really “gnostic” (Lebreton)?
Certainly Clement has his orthodox side (Windisch, Lebreton), and
the later Origen must be distinguished from his earlier, more gnostic
outlook (Koch). Especially open to question are Bauer's interpreta-
tions of the evidence from Ignatius (Dibelius, Volker, Simonin, Le-
breton) and from 1 Clement (Dibelius, Volker, Lebreton; cf. Eysinga),
and his overly literal reading of passages referring to the large num-
bers of heretics (Dibelius, Martin). And did Rome really play such a
uniquely formative role (Moffatt, Lebreton)? A few other particular
queries are raised by individual reviewers (cf. Dibelius, Leipoldt,
Eysinga), along with Koch’s observation that Bauer has completely
neglected the origins of Christianity in North Africa, and has not paid

6. On Martin’s claim that already in the New Testament the church was more
concerned with orthodoxy than with numbers, Strecker commenis: “This can
hardly be supported under close scrutiny since it overlooks the differences be-
tween the New Testament writings themselves, and since the New Testament
solves the problem of ‘orthodoxy and heresy’ (when it hints at such a problem
at all) in a different way and presupposes neither the concept nor the conscious-
ness of later ‘orthodoxy’ ” (p. 292).
7. Strecker comments as follows on Lebreton’s argument that from apostolic times,
the “catholics” were conscious of being in possession of the “church”: “No one
has denied this. But it is questionable whether this consciousness corresponds to
the facts in every instance. Lebreton’s reference to the lack of a concept of an
apostolic succession in heretical circles can neither be accepted in general nor does
it refute Bauer’s thesis in toto” (291). See also above, pp. 119 f., on “heretical” ap-
peals to apostles.
8. On this matter, Strecker offers the following comments: According to Simonin,
orthodoxy considers belief in the creator God to be the boundary line separating
from heresy, which maintains a dualistic cosmology (see Irenaeus AH book 3).
The recognition of the regula fidei, with which Bauer does not deal, is of funda-
mental significance for this question. In this way it is possible for Simonin to sim-
plify the difficulty; but the fact remains that not all “heretics” can be considered
as gnostics, or as advocating a dualistic cosmology. The example of Jewish Chris-
tianity already shows that the problem of differentiating between orthodoxy and
heresy is much more complicated (p. 292).
296
 THE RECEPTION OF. THE BOOK

sufficient attention to earliest Jewish-Christianity in Palestine and

Egypt (see above, 241 n. 1).

Turner's Reply to Bauer

For two decades, Bauer’s work had little recognizable impact in the
English-speaking world. Then, in the Bampton Lectures of 1954, it
was examined—and attacked—in great detail by the Anglican Pro-
fessor of Divinity at Durham, Canon H. E. W. Turner.®
Turner's intentions are outlined clearly in the opening lecture,
where he contrasts the so-called classical theory (cf. above, xxiii f.)
with three modern alternative views (of Harnack, Werner, and Bult-
mann) that emphasize diversity in early Christian thought and “the
marked difference between the developed Christianity of the fourth
century and the primitive life and thought of the Church” (25f.).
Turner sets out to “bridge the gap” between these extremes by sug-
gesting that there was “an interaction of fixed and flexible elements”
in early Christianity (26-35).
On the one hand, argues Turner, three kinds of “fixed elements”
appear: (1) “religious facts” such as a “realistic experience of the
Eucharist,” belief in God as father-creator, in Christ as historical
redeemer, and in the divinity of Christ; (2) recognition of the cen-
trality of “Biblical Revelation” (28 f.); and (3) “the Creed and the
Rule of Faith” (29-31). In his discussion of the “religious facts,” Turner
9. The Pattern of Christian Truth: A Study in the Relations Between Orthodoxy
and Heresy in the Early Church (London: Mowbray, 1954). H. Koester calls this
book the “only systematic treatment of the question of heresy in the early Church
since W. Bauer; . . . a very learned and instructive study” (281 n. 4 of the
article discussed below, n. 24), and A. A. T. Ehrhardt finds Turner’s study to
be “the only detailed appreciation of [Bauer's] book in English which I have
found” (93 n. 1/171 n. 1 of the article discussed below, n. 13). In this connec-
tion, mention should also be made of a paper read by S. E. Johnson at the annual
meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature and Exegesis on 29 December 1942,
entitled “Nascent Catholicism and Rome.” The abstract of this paper appeared
in JBL 62 (1943), ii-iii, and reads as follows: “Bauer’s Rechtglaubigkeit und
Ketzerei is a ground-breaking study which may prove a starting point for many
investigations; the fact that it asks theological, not merely literary-historical ques-
tions, accounts partly for its success. On the basis of Bauer’s results it is possible
to push back into the end of the first century and better understand the situa-
tion of Hebrews, James and other late New Testament books.” Also, the intro-
duction to Robert M. Grant’s 1946 collection of fragments from second century
Christianity (London: SPCK; see below, n. 11) reflects a positive appreciation of
Bauer’s thesis: “well into the second century . . . there was within Christianity no
sharp dividing line between what was orthodox and what was heretical” (p. 13,
with a footnote reference to Bauer's book).
297
 APPENDIX 2

gives the title lex orandi to that “relatively full and fixed experi-
mental grasp of what was involved religiously in being a Christian”
which he finds to have existed in the early church. “The Church’s
grasp on the religious facts was prior to any attempt made to work
them into a coherent whole. . . . Christians lived Trinitarily long be-
fore the evolution of Nicene orthodoxy” (27f.). This lex orandi
“formed the instinctive basis for that exercise of Christian common
sense which enabled the Church to reject interpretations of her Faith
and dilutions of her life even before she possessed formal standards
of belief” (28).
On the other hand, he admits, some “flexible elements” also were
present in early Christian thought (31-35). There were “differences
in Christian idiom,” including various literary forms and “differing
thought-worlds (e.g. Semitic-eschatological gave way to Greek-meta-
physical). “The selection of a distinctive theological idiom, whether
it be eschatology, ontology, or even . . . existentialism, illustrates one
possible element of flexibility in Christian thinking. The primacy of
Christ . . . will inevitably assume a different appearance in each case”
(31). Many problems arose as the church sought for adequate philo-
sophical terminology to express her theology. Finally, “the individual
characteristics of theologians themselves” constituted another ele-
ment of flexibility (34 f.).
Turner’s second lecture, “The Relation between Orthodoxy and
Heresy—An Historical Inquiry” (39-80), is devoted expressly to
Bauer’s monograph and to the issues it raises from the perspective
of church history rather than the history of doctrine. Turner scru-
tinized Bauer's treatment piece by piece, often presenting objections
and observations already known to us from the reviews. “We know
nothing and can conjecture little more” (41) about the early history
of Christianity at Edessa (40-46). Burkitt’s source analysis is pre-
ferred to Bauer’s for the Abgar legend; Marcion’s supposed role in
founding the church there is questioned as is Bauer's interpretation
of the “Paliitian” passage (above, 21 f.); the claim that Kine (Quna)
was the first real Edessene bishop (above, 33 ff.) rests on an argument
from silence. Bauer is excessively sceptical on many details, and “the
evidence is too scanty . . . to support any theory so trenchant and
clear-cut as Bauer proposes.” Nevertheless, Turner admits that “he-
retical or at least sub-orthodox influences counted far more at Edessa”
than in the Mediterranean area churches (45).
298
 THE RECEPTION OF THE BOOK

With regard to Alexandria (46-59), the evidence as a whole “favours

the full rigour of Bauer’s hypothesis even less than that of Edessa,”
although in both places “the full pattern of orthodoxy” develops rather
late and there is “a certain shading off into heresy on the outer fringes
of Church-life” (59). The gospels of the Egyptians and of the Hebrews
(above, 51 ff.) may simply “represent the views . . . of splinter move-
ments” (51); the “orthodox” Fourth Gospel circulated in Egypt earlier
than Bauer allows (e.g. above, 206 ff.), as new papyri discoveries
show,!° and soon came to be used by Egyptian gnostics—who thus
must have been in close proximity to orthodoxy. Bauer's inference
concerning the minority position of orthodoxy prior to Demetrius
(above, 53) is a possible interpretation, but hardly the only alterna-
tive. “Personal pique” may have been an important factor in Origen’s
trouble with Demetrius.
“The early history of the Church in Asia Minor is even less promis-
ing for Bauer’s views” (59). Both Ignatius and Polycarp are “de-
terminidly orthodox,” with a “genuine grasp of doctrinal essentials
and a firm practical attitude towards heresy” (59f.). In the letters
of Ignatius, “the existence of heretics on the fringe or within the
Church is clearly recognized,” and the implication is that “orthodoxy
has already reached self-consciousness” and has a “doctrinal policy.”
“Nothing here supports the more daring features of Bauer's recon-
struction” (63).
On the situation at Philippi (above, 73f.),. Bauer's interpretation
is “much exaggerated” and does not exhaust the possibilities (64 .).
His appeal to Polycarp Phil 2.1 and 7.2 (above, 73 £.) is overly literal
(66). He relies on a “twofold misuse of the argument from silence”
in dealing with Thessalonica (67; see above, 74f.). His “recon-
struction of the events which led up to the letter of St. Clement
[above, 95 ff.] is at best non-proven”—the traditional interpretation
of 1 Clement seems more likely (69-71). °
With regard to Rome, “it is regrettable that Bauer did not attempt
any minute analysis of the early traditions. . . comparable to his
treatment of the history of the other great sees” (72). Since there
were many reasons why a Christian might wish to visit Rome in the
John 18 from
10. Turner refers particularly to P. Rylands 457 (a fragment of
codex, = p®2) and to P. Egerton 2 (fragments from a non-canoni cal “gospel’-
a
materials resemblin g John), both of which have been dated
like codex with some
century
on paleographical grounds to sometime around the middle of the second
or slightly earlier.
299
 APPENDIX 2

second century, there is “nothing surprising” about “the convergence

of orthodox church leaders upon Rome” (the names of many non-
orthodox figures also are connected with that city), and it “certainly
fails to establish the special significance which Bauer appears to assign
it” (73). Polycarp and Polycrates seemto represent a native orthodox
growth in Asia Minor, “collateral” with Rome “rather than derivative.”
Finally, the presence of the name of Peter (or Mark, in Alexandria)
in the bishop lists of various communities (above, 111 ff. = chap. 6)
probably simply reflects “the desire of the great sees to claim apostolic
foundation” rather than signifying a token of gratitude to Rome
(74-79).
In sum, Turner suggests that Bauer’s

fatal weakness [is] . . . a persistent tendency to over-simplify prob-

lems, combined with the ruthless treatment of such evidence as fails
to support his case. It is very doubtful whether all sources of trouble
in the early Church can be reduced to a set of variations on a single
theme. Nor is it likely that orthodoxy itself evolved in a uniform pat-
tern, though at different speeds in the main centres of the Universal
Church. The formula ‘splinter movement, external inspiration or assist-
ance, domination of the whole Church by its orthodox elements, trib-
utes of gratitude to those who assisted its development’ represents
an historical generalization too neat to fit the facts. History seldom
unfolds itself in so orderly a fashion (79).

Clearly, Bauer has made “many valuable suggestions: . . . it is

probable that orthodoxy may have been more hard-pressed in certain
churches . . . than it has been customary to admit. Orthodoxy and
heresy certainly lay side by side . . . The establishment of the monepis-
copate and the achievement of fixed standards of orthodoxy evolved
with varying degrees of rapidity in different parts of the Christian
Church” (79 f.). Nevertheless, Bauer’s presentation is open to question
time and again. Turner finds the “root difficulty” to be that due to
“the primarily historical character of his inquiry,” Bauer

fails to attain an adequate view of the nature of orthodoxy. . . . He

is . . . concerned not so much with the nature either of heresy or
orthodoxy as such as with the historical relations between those who
considered themselves to be orthodox and those whom they condemned
as heretical. But the virtual absence of a satisfactory treatment of the
previous question inevitably vitiates his treatment to some extent.
300
 THE RECEPTION OF THE BOOK

For the nature of orthodoxy is richer and more varied than Bauer
himself allows. Its underlying basis lies in the religious facts of Chris-
tianity itself. . . It may appear in different forms at different periods
without loss of continuity of life and unity of theme. For orthodoxy
resembles not much a stream as a sea, not a single melodic theme but
a rich and varied harmony, not a single closed system but a rich
manifold of thought and life (80) .14

In the remaining lectures, Turner devotes his attention to the

theological issues that he considers basic. In “The Relationships be-
tween Orthodoxy and Heresy—A Theological Analysis” (lecture 3) he
sets out to “test the claim of heresy to the name Christian” by examin-
ing some typical examples (101 ff.)—e.g. “Gnosticism as the dilution
of Christianity by alien elements, . . . Marcionism as the truncation
of the Christian faith to a mere fragment, . . . heresies which con-
serve the past without reference to the demands of the present” as
“archaism,” and Arianism as “the virtual evacuation of the religious
content of Christianity in the interests of a barren, if coherent, meta-
physic.” The errors of the heresies vary and the response of the church
varies. “Yet at every stage the response is made in the light of the
religious realities received by the Church and revealed by the One
God...” (148). :
“The Doctrinal Basis of Heresy” (lecture 4) is the same as that of
orthodoxy—“Scripture, Tradition, and Reason’”—but the application of
these sources differs. For the heretics, canonical scripture is used
selectively or interpreted’ by forced exegesis, church tradition is fal-
sified or discarded in favor of non-orthodox materials, and in the use
of reason, there is a tendency to convert “logic into logistics” (230).
In short, the heretics have no feeling for the organic wholeness of
11. Turner’s objection to Bauer’s position, and his thesis that a “penumbra” existed
between orthodoxy and heresy, which he works out in detail in this book (79,
81-94, and passim), were already expressed in his review of R. M. Grant’s Second-
Century Christianity in Theology, 50 (1947): 37: “While in his Introduction Prof.
Grant rightly emphasizes the infinite variety of second-century Christianity, his
conclusion (following W. Bauer) that there is no sharp dividing line between
orthodox and heretics needs considerable qualification. There was a large Chris-
tian penumbra of the Gnostic type, but it remains a highly debatable point to
what extent this can be regarded now, or even was regarded then, as within the
ambit of second century Christianity. Further, many of the passages which he
quotes indicate the growth of a Christian paradosis and the reaching back into
the traditions of the past. The solution of the difficulty, which might have been
more clearly emphasized, is that orthodoxy was an organic thing, rejecting heresy
rather as the healthy body rejects a virus, than a closed system with a hard-and-
fast dividing line separating it from its competitors.”
301
 APPENDIX 2

the church’s faith. Lectures 5-7 deal with the use of scripture, tradi-
tion, and reason by “orthodoxy”—e.g. the formation of the New Testa-
ment canon, the development of the theory of apostolic succession
(or better, the “fact of the transmission of the apostolic authority,”
348) and of the creed, and the gradual cultivation of philosophically
oriented theology, although this still remained secondary to the lex
orandi (462 f.).
Turner’s “Conclusions” (lecture 8) emphasize again his belief in “the
essential autonomy of orthodoxy” (479; cf. 338 etc.) which “rests ulti-
mately upon the authoritativeness of the Christian facts” as they are
“mediated through the lex orandi of the Church” (473f.). The in-
dependence of orthodoxy also is maintained in contrast to heresy:
“The utmost that can safely be admitted is that certain stages of
development may have been accelerated by the battle against heresy”
(479). “The most important element in the evolution of Christian
orthodoxy” is not external influences, but “a kind of Christian common
sense . . . which is merely another name for the guidance of the Holy
Spirit” (498).

General Influence of the Book

As the reviews indicate, Bauerss monograph was read widely on
the continent, and especially in Germany. Lietzmann claims (above,
n. 2) to be ready to take it into account in preparing the second and
subsequent volumes of his History, but it does not seem to have ap-
peared soon enough to leave any significant mark on the French
Roman Catholic History produced around the same time by Jules
Lebreton (who reviewed it; see above) and Jacques Zeiller.? It would
be futile to attempt to catalogue here all the references to Bauer's
book in continental literature. One finds it as a fairly standard item
in the bibliographies and footnotes of works dealing with related is-
sues, as for example:
Marcel Simon, Verus Israel, bibliography;
Hans-Joachim Schoeps, Theologie und Geschichte des Judenchris-
tentums, bibliography and passim (cf. index);

12. J. Lebreton and J. Zeiller, The History of the Primitive Church (4 vols.;
ET by E. C. Messenger from the 1934-35 French; New York: Macmillan, 1942-
47; reprinted under the title A History of the Early Church, New York: Collier
paperback, 1962).
302
 THE RECEPTION OF THE BOOK

Jean Daniélou, The Theology of Jewish Christianity, bibliography

and 55, n. 1;
Hennecke-Schneemelcher, New Testament Apocrypha, 1: 23, 33.
Ehrhardt’s Positive Appraisal. Special notice may be given here to
the recent appreciation for Bauer’s thesis offered by the late A. A. T.
Ehrhardt, who fled Germany in 1935, leaving his position as lecturer
in Roman and Civil Law at Freiburg University (Frankfurt) and sub-
sequently became an Anglican clergyman and lecturer in church his-
tory (Manchester). Ehrhardt’s lengthy article on “Christianity before
the Apostles’ Creed” 1° attempts to show that in the early period,
“the unity of Christianity was not preserved by outward means. Bap-
tism was not originally considered as an admission rite; . . . the Creed
. . . Was not considered as a constituent part of Baptism... , but only
as declaratory, and almost accidental. . ... There is no evidence for it
to have been used as a touch-stone of orthodoxy anywhere before
the end of the second century” (119/198 f.).
Parts 1 and 2 are concerned respectively with “The Meaning of
‘Creed’ and the ‘Gospels’ of St. Paul and his Opponents,” and “The
Various Forms of the Gospel of Christ in the Later New Testament
Writings.” Ehrhardt finds that credal formulae existed in the early
period, but they are not identical with the later apostles’ creed. Never-
theless, by the time 3 John appeared, there seems to be a search for
“such an authoritative statement of the right Christian doctrine”
(92/170).
In parts 3 and 4, entitled respectively “Orthodoxy and Heresy in
the Early Church” and “The Formation of the Creed and the Church
of Rome,” Ehrhardt makes frequent reference to Bauer’s investigation.
On the whole, he is highly appreciative:
For the possibility of making such a survey [of the boundaries be-
tween orthodoxy and heresy around the year 100] with comparative
ease, and indeed for the first attempt at analyzing Christianity before
the Apostles’ Creed without any doctrinal or denominational bias, we
are indebted to that great New Testament scholar, the late Dr. Walter
Bauer. . . . In 1934 he published a comparatively small book on ortho-
doxy and heresy in earliest Christianity, the result of many years of
13. HarvTR 55 (1962): 73-119; reprinted with minor corrections in The Frame-
work of the New Testament Stories (Manchester: University Press; Cambridge:
Harvard University Press, 1964), pp. 151-199. Page numbers will be given below
from both editions.
303
 APPENDIX 2

study. However, those were the days when the small still voice of
the self-denying theological scholar could hardly hope to penetrate
the groans of suffering and'the shouts of triumph in the German Prot-
estant Church, where the battle for the preservation of contemporary
Christianity was fought, and at best only partly won. No wonder that
Dr. Bauer's book found far too little of the attention which it so
richly deserved—and still deserves (93/171).
Ehrhardt is not uncritical of Bauer. He complains that the way
Bauer speaks of “ecclesiastical” doctrine (above, xxiii f.), “as if the
earthly existence of the Church had already had a theological sig-
nificance for the earliest Christians” is “unmethodical because it pre-
supposes that somewhere in early Christianity a regula fidei was
invented as a touch-stone of orthodoxy at the very outset of the history
of the Church, an assumption which seems to leave out of considera-
tion the question whether or not the problem of heresy was at all
visualized in the early days of Christianity.” 1* Ehrhardt thinks, rather,
that “the formation of organized groups was suspect in earliest Chris-
tianity” and that “the true Church” was understood in the context of
divine election, parallel to the contrast between Israel and the na-
tions (93 and n. 2/172 and n. 1).
On matters of detail, Ehrhardt voices some additional protests.
Although he finds Bauer’s discussion of eastern Syria and Egypt to be
especially persuasive,}® the view that Marcion founded east-Syrian
Christianity is “open to doubt” and Tatian’s role there was probably
more important than Bauer allows (94 f./173). Concerning western
14. Strecker (p. 303) comments: “Ehrhardt is quite correct in calling attention to
the fact that Bauer’s definition of ‘orthodoxy’ begins with the assumption of an
‘ecclesiastical doctrine’ recognizable from the beginning; but he is erroneous in
concluding that this represents Bauer’s own position (93/172); actually, this only
shows that the book is conditioned by the way in which the problem is posed.
The results leave no doubt that the existence of an orthodox ecclesiastical doc-
trine for the period of origins is not undisputed” (see above, p. xxiv; also below,
n. 28).
15. Strecker (p. 303) doubts that Bauer would agree with Ehrhardt’s statement
about the formation of organized groups, and adds: “Here Ehrhardt seems to
subscribe to a view in which the Christian self-awareness which derived from
a consciousness of being the elect originally stood in fundamental opposition to
ecclesiastical organization—a view that has scarcely any support in the early Chris-
tian literature.”
16. For example, p. 93 n. 1/p. 171 n. 1: Tumer has not done “Bauer's book
justice, as in the case of East-Syria, so particularly in the case of Egypt.” Also,
concerning Egypt, “Bauer has made one of the most signal discoveries in early
Church History” (95/174); his thesis for this region is “wholly convincing” and
Ehrhardt accepts it “to the full” (96/174).
304
 THE RECEPTION OF THE BOOK

Syria, Ehrhardt finds that “the evidence for a strongly Gnostic move-
ment in Antioch at the time of Ignatius is hardly overwhelming”—
Ignatius probably is not representative of Antiochian Christianity,
nor does he fight for “purges and excommunications,” but for recon-
ciliation. His creed is that of the martyr, like some of the creedal
formulae (“gospel”) of earlier times. Furthermore, Bauer has “ne-
glected the evidence of the Didache,” a writing that exercised con-
siderable “constitutive force” in the church of west-Syria (100 ff. =
179 ff.). Nor is Bauer’s “challenging” treatment of Asia-Minor prior
to Ignatius “wholly convincing,” especially because some of the sources
to which he appeals may not be Asian (e.g. Jude, 2 Peter, Pastorals;
102f. n. 43=181f. n. 4). Although Bauer poses the question of
what became of Christianity in Asia Minor in the latter part of the
second century, he has not treated this matter in its entirety
(103/182). Montanism as a regional movement that assimilated Phryg-
ian ecstaticism and set in motion group conversion, had a great effect
on “organized Christianity.” The Catholic defence included appeals
to the “Apostolic” ministry and to a closed canon of “Apostolic”
scriptures, but “no recourse to any ‘Apostolic’ credal formula was
made” (104-108 = 183-187).17 Bauer also has “greatly exaggerated”
Polycarp’s relative failure to expand the influence of the Smyrnean
church over other communities in Asia Minor, although he rightly
draws attention to the struggles of Polycarp (105/184).
Finally, Ehrhardt disagrees strongly with Bauer’s assessment of the
influence of Rome on Christian leaders elsewhere (109 ff. = 189 ff.),
and traces the problem largely to Bauer’s failure to give “an account
of the character and the organization of the Church at Rome in the
17. Strecker poses the following “critical questions” concerning Ehrhardt’s assess-
ment of Montanism (p. 303): “Was the confrontation with Montanism really of
decisive significance in the establishment of the New Testament canon? Is it
demonstrable that the danger of accepting Montanist scriptures into the canon
ever existed for the nascent ‘great church’?” In faimess to Ehrhardt, however,
it should be noted that he only claims that “the closing of the ‘Apostolic’ canon
of sacred books” helped to prevent Montanism “from making its mark in the
Catholic Church,” not necessarily that Montanism was the primary catalyst for
closing the “orthodox” canon, Indeed, Ehrhardt refers to the fact that the anti-
Montanist Roman presbyter Gaius (see EH 2.25.6, 6.20.3) rejected the book of
Revelation as a composition of the gnostic Cerinthus (see EH 3.28.3, and the
note of Lawlor and Oulton to 6.20.3; also above, 207), possibly because it was
so similar to the “new prophecy” of Montanism. That the canon was an issue
in at least some of the Montanist disputes is clear from such passages as EH
5.18.5 and 6.20.3.
305
 APPENDIX 2

second century’—“the homogeneity of the Church at Rome” in the

middle of that century is particularly open to question, “at least in
matters of doctrine.” Ehrhardt objects to Bauer’s interpretation of the
situation behind 1 Clement, and to his assessment of the role of Vic-
tor I in the “third Easter conflict” (111-117/190-197).1® Ehrhardt
concludes that “the influence of the Church at Rome... did not
aim at doctrinal unification,” although it sometimes worked out in that
direction (e.g. with the rejection of Marcion and Montanism), and
thus “it seems doubtful . . . that this Church should have been
responsible for the spreading of the Apostles’ Creed”—“Bauer has
understandably refrained from enquiring into the propagation of the
Roman ‘regula fidei, [but] this is nevertheless to be regretted” (117 f./
197 f.).19 ‘
Contemporary German Scholarship. The most widespread and ob-
vious influence of Bauer’s position, however, is to be found among
contemporary German scholars, especially those associated with Ru-
dolph Bultmann, at first in Germany, but now overflowing to the
United States. Bultmann himself appealed to Bauer’s thesis in support
of the contention that “faith” rather than “orthodoxy” was the dis-
tinguishing mark of earliest Christianity.2° More recently, Helmut
18. Strecker (p. 303) questions the claim of Ehrhardt that in Asia Minor, the ob-
servance of Easter went “right back to Apostolic times” (116 f./196). Ehrhardt
suggests that Victor hesitated to appeal to apostolic succession in support of the
Roman position on the date of Easter precisely because observance of Easter had
begun only recently in Rome, in contrast to Asia Minor.
19. On Ehrhardt’s assessment of the significance of Rome, Strecker comments as
follows (p. 303 f.): “Is not the role of the Roman community too greatly uhder-
rated, in opposition to Bauer? For granted that Valentinus and other ‘heretics’ were
found in Rome, does this suffice to demonstrate the heterogeneity of the Roman
community? The expulsion of Marcion shows how they were accustomed to deal
with the ‘arch-heretics.’ [Ehrhardt, 110 n. 8/190 n. 2, suggests that Marcion’s
banishment “was caused by his resignation, if we may trust Epiphanius,” Her.
42.2.] The character of the Roman community may thus have been more unified
than Ehrhardt would allow. And even though an antiheretical thrust may not
always stand behind the intervention into extra-Roman affairs, the importance of
the Roman point of view can hardly be denied—this follows simply from the
position of Rome as capital city, as Bauer rightly would have argued. The special
significance of Rome is acknowledged by Ehrhardt himself when he mentions
that the bishop Victor came from Africa, where Roman primacy was recognized
(117/197); in any event, that calls attention to the claim of Rome, and is con-
firmed with reference to Asia Minor by the ‘resentment against Roman presump-
tuousness’ attested by Firmilian of Cappadocian Caesarea, if Firmilian can be
considered a reliable witness here. (This is, however, not so certain as Ehrhardt
assumes—Hamack, Maricon2, p. 340*, rightly shows that Firmilian often wrote
‘what Cyprian dictated to him.’) Above all, critical questions may be raised con-
cerning the attempt to claim that gnosticism and Montanism, along with catholi-
cism, were the three formative factors in the history of doctrine (108 f./187 f.).”
306
 THE RECEPTION OF THE BOOK

Koester of Harvard Divinity School has listed an impressive array of

recent books and articles dealing with various aspects of the problem
of “heresy” in the early church, most of which were written by stu-
dents of Bultmann (including himself) and “influenced by Walter
Bauer’s pioneering monograph,” 2! a sampling of which follows (since
1950, arranged chronologically ):
Hans Freiherr von Campenhausen, “Polykarp von Smyrna und die
Pastoralbriefe,” Sb Heidelberg for 1951, pp. 5-51; reprinted in
Aus der Friihzeit des Christentums (Tubingen: Mohr, 1963),
pp. 197-252;
Emst Kasemann, “Ketzer und Zeuge: zum johanneischen Verfasser-
problem,” ZTK 48 (1951); 212-311; reprinted in Exegetische
Versuche und Besinnungen, 1 (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ru-
precht, 1960); 168-187 [see further below, p. 308];
Giinther Bornkamm, “Herrenmahl und Kirche bei Paulus,” ZTK 53
(1956), 312 ff.; reprinted in Studien zu Antike und Urchristen-
tum (Miinchen: Kaiser, 1959, 19637), 138-176; ET in Early
Christian Experience (New York: Harper, 1970);
Walther Schmithals, Die Gnosis in Korinth. Eine Untersuchung zu
den Korintherbriefen, FRLANT 66 (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1956, 1965 ?);
——. “Die Hiretiker in Galatien,” ZNW 47 (1956): 25-67 (see
above, 243 n. 6);
_ “Die Inrlehrer des Philipperbriefes,” ZTK 54 (1957): 297-341
(see above, 243 n. 6);
_ “Die Irrlehrer von Rém. 16.17-20,” Studia Theologica, 13
(1959): 51-69 (see above, 243 n. 6);
Ulrich Wilckens, Weisheit und Torheit: eine exegetisch religionsge-
schichtliche Untersuchung zu 1 Kor. 1 und 2, Beitrage zur his-
torischen Theologie 26 (Tiibingen: Mohr, 1959);
1951 German;
20. Theology of the New Testament, 2 (ET by K. Grobel from the
New York: Scribner’s, 1955): 137 (55.4).
” in Zeit und Ge-
91. “Haretiker im Urchristentum als Theologisches Problem,
; Dankesg abe an Rudolf Bultman n zum 80 Geburtst ag, ed. E. Dinkler
schichte
1964), p. 61 n. 1. and also his HarvTR article discussed below
(Tiibingen: Mohr, article
a more extensiv e selection , see Koester’s
(see n. 24), p. 283 n. 8. For
s other titles might
on “Hiretiker im Urchristentum” in RGG® 3: 17-21. Numerou
in such a list—e.g. Strecker’s work on the ps.-Clementines
have been included
of the Bauer-Bultmann ap-
(see 242 n. 3); a relevant discussion of some aspects
by J. M. Robinson , “Basic Shifts in Ger-
proach also may be found in the article
man Theology,” Interpretation 16 (1962): 76-97.
307
 APPENDIX 2

Schmithals, “Zur Abfassung und 4ltesten Sammlung der paulini-

schen Hauptbriefe,” ZNW 51 (1960) : 225-245;
Helmut Koester, “The Purpose of the Polemic of a Pauline Frag-
ment,” NTS 8 (1961/62): 317-332 [on Phil. 3].
Dieter Georgi, Die Gegner des Paulus im 2 Korintherbrief: Studien
zur religidsen Propaganda in der Spiitantike, Wissenschaftliche
Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament II (Neukirchen-
Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1964).

A brief summary of but one of these investigations should suffice

to illustrate how provocative the Bauer-oriented approach to the his-
tory of earliest Christianity has proved to be. In his inaugural lecture
at Gottingen, where he was appointed to Bauer’s former chair, Ernst
Kasemann boldly reversed Bauer’s interpretation of Diotrephes and
the “presbyter” of 3 John (above, 93), and pictured Diotrephes as
the authoritative leader of the community who refuses to receive the
messengers of the “presbyter” and excommunicates those who support
them. The “presbyter” is on the defensive; Diotrephes is accused of
being power-hungry, but his “orthodoxy” is not questioned. Ap-
parently Diotrephes is functioning “as a monarchial bishop who con-
siders himself to be confronting a false teacher and acts accordingly”
(173 f.). Since a local leader could hardly threaten with excommuni-
cation the apostle John, or even the famous presbyter named John
known to Papias, the author of 2-3 John must actually be one of
Diotrephes’ presbyters—“a Christian gnostic who has the inconceiv-
able audacity to write a gospel of the Christ whom he has experienced
and read back into the world of gnosticism” (177 f.). The Johannine
approach posed a serious threat for the “nascent catholicism” repre-
sented by Diotrephes; thus it was both logical and necessary that
Diotrephes intervene. The question that remains for us is whether
the “presbyter” was really a heretic, or an authentic witness (186 f. ).2?
Soon after the appearance of the 19642 edition of Bauer, the
Bauer-Bultmann approach received general treatment in a paper read
by Hans Dieter Betz (Claremont School of Theology) at a New
Testament colloquium dealing with the legacy of Rudolf Bultmann.2%

22. Subsequently, Kaisemann has modified his thesis somewhat in view of criti-
cisms such as those offered by Emst Haenchen in Theologische Rundschau 26
(1960): 267 ff. See Kasemann, Exegetische Versuche und Besinnungen, 2 (Gét-
tingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1964): 133 n. 1.
23, “Orthodoxy and Heresy in Primitive Christianity: Some Critical Remarks on

308
 THE RECEPTION OF THE BOOK

Clearly Betz thinks that Bultmann’s use of Bauer’s thesis is a step in

the right direction: “Bultmann not only reformulates Bauer’s thesis,
he also sees its full impact lying within the New Testament itself:
Bauer’s problem is identical with the problem of the origin of early
Christian theology” (300). Betz emphasizes that one must be aware
of Bauer’s own theological development and earlier writings to ap-
preciate fully the synthesis presented in this volume. Bauer has put
historical investigation on the right track, but “did not apply his
thesis extensively enough to the New Testament” and “leaves certain
facts out of consideration” such as “the fact that Paul claims to be
‘orthodox’ (Gal. 1-2)” (306-308).
Betz argues that we must “rethink and reformulate Bauer's thesis”
for each area with which it deals, as Strecker has done for Jewish
Christianity (see above, appendix 1). The historical and theological
approaches cannot be sharply distinguished—indeed, it may be, as_
Koester argues (see below), that “the historical problem itself was
regarded by the New Testament writers themselves as essentially a
theological problem,” that is, the question of what constitutes a legiti-
mate interpretation of the historical Jesus. Clearly there was no “pure”
form of Christianity that existed in the beginning and can be called
“orthodox.” Betz concludes:
In the beginning there existed merely the ‘heretical’ Jew, Jesus of
Nazareth. Which of the different interpretations of Jesus are to be
called authentically Christian? And what are the criteria for making
that decision? This seems to me the cardinal problem of New Testa-
ment studies today. The problem was raised clearly by Bauer in his
book Rechtgléubigkeit und Ketzerei. Bultmann understood the prob-
lem rightly as the problem of the origin of Christian theology. If we
are concerned today with the question of the legacy of Bultmann, we
must accept as part of this legacy the concept of the historical-critical
and the theological tasks as being basically one. (311)
In the same month that Betz’ article was published, there appeared
a wide-ranging, “hypothetical and fragmentary” sketch of just such a
Bauer-Bultmann approach from the pen of Helmut Koester.** Koester
begins by discussing the problem of “historical and theological cri-

und Ketzerei
Georg Strecker’s Republication of Walter Bauer’s Rechtgliubigkeit
im dltesten Christent um,” Interpreta tion 19 (1965): 299-311.
in the His-
24, “GNOMAI DIAFOROI: The Origin and Nature of Diversification
as Chapter
tory of Early Christianity,” HarvTR 58 (1965): 279-318. Reprinted
1971).
4 in Trajectories Through Early Christianity (Phila.: Fortress,
309
 APPENDIX 2

teria” applicable to the early Christian situation and decides that

“the criterion for true Christian faith” is “that which has happened
historically . . . in the earthly Jesus of Nazareth.” The only way to
evaluate the “orthodox and heretical tendencies of each new historical
situation” is to determine “in which way the criterion for true Chris-
tian faith, consciously or unconsciously, structured the re-interpreta-
tion of the religious traditions and presuppositions upon which Chris-
tianity was dependent,” whether Jewish, pagan, or Christian (282).?*
In the remainder of the essay (284 ff.), Koester keeps this criterion
in view in his attempt “to draw the lines from the developments
of the ‘Apostolic Age’ and the first century a.p.—seldom considered
in Walter Bauer’s study—into the subsequent history of the Ancient
Church” by surveying the earliest evidence from “Palestine and West-
em Syria” (284-290), “Edessa and the Osrhoéne” (290-306), and
“The Countries around the Aegean Sea” (306-318). This is intended
as “a blueprint for further work in the history of early Christian
theology” rather than an attempt “to present final solutions with com-
plete documentation,” and is “heavily indebted to W. Bauer’s work
throughout” (284 nn. 9* and 9).
Occasionally, Koester’s reconstruction comes into direct conflict with
that of Bauer: for example, “Bauer was . . . probably mistaken in his
assumption that the Marcionites were the first Christians to come to
Edessa, presumably soon after the middle of the second century”
(291). Rather, argues Koester, the tradition embedded in the newly
recovered Gospel of Thomas probably “was the oldest form of Chris-
tianity in Edessa, antedating the beginning of both Marcionite and
orthodox Christianity in that area” (293; see also below, n. 40). Even
on such rare occasions, however, Koester’s “sketch” fulfills its function
as an extension of Bauer’s investigation back into the earliest period
of Christian beginnings. For the many stimulating details of Koester’s
provocative historico-theological treatment, the reader must be re-
ferred to the essay itself.

Summary and Prospectus

In the body of the preceding survey, an attempt has been made
to allow the various authors to speak for themselves as much as
25. Koester focuses further on such an approach in his “One Jesus and Four
Primitive Gospels,” HarvTR 61 (1968): 203-247.
310
 THE RECEPTION OF THE BOOK

possible, and the temptation to join in the debate has been resisted
(except in a few notes). At times this has not been easy; the claims
and counter-claims concerning Bauer’s presentation often invite the
observations of a moderator or the rebuttals of a defense counsel,
and it is sometimes hard to avoid commendation of or impatience
with the suggested improvements, applications, or alternatives to the
thesis—or to add one’s own observations on points neglected by the
reviewers.
General Methodology and Approach. For example, no one is more
conscious of the hypothetical aspects of the inquiry than Bauer him-
self. Sometimes he must argue from silence if he is to say anything
at all. The monograph attempts to suggest a fresh approach; as new
evidence becomes available and the results of fresh investigations
are made known, it is expected that various aspects of the picture
will require modification of one sort or another. Historical study is a
matter of weighing degrees of probability. By its very nature it is to
a large degree hypothetical. There is little to be gained for historical
research by simply dismissing certain of Bauer’s suggestions as “con-
jectural.” Rather, what is needed is a methodologically sound presen-
tation of a more probable interpretation, a more adequate recon-
struction of the evidence. This is not to. deny that Bauer has sometimes
used language suggesting more confidence in his reconstruction than
the evidence would seem to warrant, and that sometimes there is no
direct evidence to support his interpretation, or he has overgeneral-
ized on the basis of ambiguous data. But this admission in itself
cannot be used to brush aside Bauer’s thesis without further ex-
amination. The place to join battle is, ultimately, with the examination
of the various pieces of evidence and their implications, not with ad
hominem blasts 2° and apologetic counter-charges.?"
use of
26. Volker, for example, notes various passages in which Bauer admits his
, contrasts them with some less-carefu l statements , and on that basis
conjecture
ion of
hints that the whole endeavor can be dismissed. Simonin’s clever classificat
the point,
Bauer as an “apologete” for catholic orthodoxy also is mostly beside
for all its cleverness.
judg-
27. Turner’s lectures present a strange juxtaposition of descriptive historical is
a general framewor k of confession al apologetic s. This
ments on details and
refers doxologi-
most obvious in the final sentence of each lecture, where Turner
revelation (35,
cally to the trinitarian orientation of the church’s interpretation of
of truth (80), faith (231, 306), experienc e (378), and service
148), expression
of his book are an excellent illustratio n: “Despite the
(463). The closing words
dubious techniques
picture of flesh and blood contestants with mixed motives and
311
 APPENDIX 2

That there were people who considered themselves to be “true”

followers of Jesus Christ, in contrast to other positions which they
considered “false,” cannot be doubted, either in the second century
or in the first. If “orthodoxy” means such a self-evaluation, then
Lebreton is undoubtedly correct in pointing to the “orthodox” position
of Clement of Alexandria, and Betz is justified in suggesting that
Paul understands himself to be “orthodox.” Clearly Tertullian also
exhibits such a self-consciousness, and it does not vanish in his “Mon-
tanist” period! And Marcion also saw himself in this light, as a “true”
believer as over against the “false.” Nor do we lack evidence that
there were those for whom Paul’s approach was to be condemned
as contrary to their “orthodox” position.
At this level, the problem is to a large extent semantic in nature.
The word “orthodoxy” almost inevitably conjures up a picture of
established, institutionalized Christianity as it was forged in the great
doctrinal debates of the fourth and fifth centuries. Is it possible to
trace lines of direct and significant continuity back from this tra-
ditional “orthodoxy” (which came to wield political as well as social
and theological weapons) toward the earliest period of Christianity,
and to apply the title “orthodoxy” to them without confusing the
issue? Is such a procedure desirable, and if so, why? Is such a pro-
cedure helpful? What happens when we find a person who is clearly
a predecessor of “orthodoxy” in one sense but not in another? How
do we handle a Tertullian, with his Montanist sympathies, or an
Origen, condemned by some representatives of later “orthodoxy”?
It is not clear that, in 1934, Bauer saw this aspect of the problem
in sharp focus.28 Indeed, he helped clear the way for us to see it
more sharply. Despite all the talk, especially by Bauer’s Bultmannian
heirs, of the unity of the historical and theological tasks, there is a
strictly historical legacy left by Bauer—the obligation to ask each

which the Church historian will often bring to light, it is impossible for the
historian of Christian thought in its classical formative period to mistake the guid-
ance of that Spirit of Truth to Whom with the Father and the Son be now ascribed
all honour, glory, dominion, and power now and forever more” (498).
28. Bauer discusses specifically only the problem of majority/minority in this
context (xxii), an issue that is rather peripheral to the question of “orthodoxy/
heresy,” as some of the reviewers noted (cf. especially Martin). Nevertheless, it
is clear from Bauer’s introduction (xxiv) that he does not intend to use “orthodoxy/
heresy” as value judgments—despite the fact that in their “traditional and usual
use” they normally do involve value judgments. See also above, n. 14, and below.
312
 THE RECEPTION OF THE BOOK

participant in the drama how he sees his role and how it relates to
other participants. This is a descriptive task. Where it deals with
evaluations, they are the evaluations of the participants in their own
time and place, not of the investigator. The theological aspect is
unavoidably present, but it concerns the “theology” of the partici-
pants, not of the investigator. If one then wishes to make theological
judgments about the participants from his own modern perspective,
or to derive from some of them theological principles to be applied
today, or to trace back into an earlier period theological outlooks
that are appealing today, or in some other way to join the theo-
logical to the historical approach, that is his business; but it is not
an inevitable or necessary adjunct to the descriptive-historical task.
And if it be objected that pure descriptive history, totally divorced
from the presuppositions and prejudices of the interpreter is impos-
sible, that is freely admitted; but does it follow necessarily that this —
ought to be used as justification for neglecting the ideal goal of ob-
jective inquiry? 7° 7
Even more seriously than Goguel may have realized, Bauer’s title
has an unfortunate and misleading aspect to it. Whether one trans-
lates Rechtgléubigkeit hyper-literally. as “right-believing,” or with its
traditional and idiomatic connotation of “orthodoxy,” he scarcely es-
capes the feeling of passing theological judgment on the figures of
history when the word is used. Yet in the introduction, Bauer claims
that this is not his intention at all—he uses the terms “orthodoxy” and
“heresy” to designate movements in history to which these terms
usually are applied, but he does it for the sake of convenience, so
as not to confuse the issue (xxiif.), But it has not proved to be a
convenient procedure at all. Even as appreciative a commentator as
Ehrhardt misinterprets Bauer's perspective at this point when he ac-
cuses Bauer of presupposing that “a touch-stone of orthodoxy” must
have been available at the very outset. Indeed, Bauer does set the
stage for his inquiry by using such traditional terminology—that is
of law
29. Although Bauer's analogy between historian and judge in a court
ff.) is not a completely happy one (the judge does pronounce judgment !),
(xxii
he is clear about the ideal objectivity of the historian: value judgments are not
and
the business of the historian (xxiv), he should cast his preconceptions aside
(xxii).
place himself into the period and thought-world of those he examines
y
Whether Bauer himself has been successful in exercising such ideal impartialit
is quite another matter (see esp. Moffatt’s critique).
313
 APPENDIX 2

how he poses that question—but a careful reading of the introduc-

tion leaves the clear impression that for Bauer, “the ecclesiastical
doctrine” of later orthodoxy was neither present with Jesus nor does
it necessarily represent something “primary” and “genuine” in the
period of Christian origins (xxiv; cf. also xxii and n. 14 above). How
much less confusing the whole discussion would be in the future if,
for the historical task, such traditional, theologically loaded slogans
as “orthodoxy” and “heresy” could be eliminated from treatments of
the early period except where they are used by the participants under
discussion—and thus are actual elements within the historical
reconstruction.*°
Specific Details. With reference to content, there is much in Bauer's
treatment that invites supplementation or reassessment, especially in
the light of more recent discoveries and continuing research. In the
19642 edition, a section on Jewish-Christianity has been added; **
Koester has made some preliminary attempts at drawing lines to the
earlier phases of Christian origins by means of the New Testament
(and related) writings and newly discovered materials such as the
“Nag Hammadi” finds.?? Turner has referred to papyrological discov-
30. The sort of confusion that results from this aspect of the semantic problem
is well illustrated by the attempts of some of Bauer's critics and heirs to define
what they would like to understand by the word “orthodoxy”: for Moffatt, it is
“a sense of the Centre”: for Turner, a mostly unconscious feeling for unity, etc.,
centered in “the religious facts”; Ehrhardt speaks of “orthodoxy” in the context
of a recognized regula fidei; others appeal to the “apostolic” criterion (e.g. Mar-
tin); for Koester, it has to do with a conscious or unconscious identification with
the historical Jesus. Indeed, is there today any commonly accepted meaning of
“orthodoxy” such as Bauer wished to presuppose?
31. The ever-growing interest in this aspect of early Christianity is evidenced by
the literature cited above in Strecker’s essay (esp. 242 f.), to which may now be
added these more recent examples: Aspects du judéo-christianisme, essays from
a Strasbourg colloquium (Paris: Presses Universitaires de Francé, 1965); B. Ba-
gatti, L’Eglise de la Circoncision (Jerusalem: Impremerie Franciscaine, 1965);
S. Pines, “The Jewish Christians of the Early Centuries of Christianity accord-
ing to a New Source,” Proceedings of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Hu-
manities 2.13 (1966); and the relevant material in M. Simon and A. Benoit, Le
Judaisme et le Christianisme Antique d’ Antiochus Epiphane 4 Constantin, Nouvelle
Clio 10 (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1968), which also includes a
chapter by Benoit on “Orthodoxie et Hérésie dans le Christianisme des premiers
siécles” (289-307), with a summary of Bauer's thesis (297-301).
32. Koester’s probe does not extend to Alexandria-Egypt or to the western Med-
iterranean (North Africa, Rome, etc.). On the Nag Hammadi materials, see J.
Doresse, The Secret Books of the Egyptian Gnostics (ET by P. Mairet from the
1958 French; New York: Viking, 1960), W. C. van Unnik, Newly Discovered
Gnostic Writings Studies in Biblical Theology 30 (ET by H. H. Hoskins from
the 1958 Dutch; London: SCM, 1960), J. M. Robinson, “The Coptic Gnostic
314
 THE RECEPTION OF THE BOOK

eries that indicate the need for some revision of detail in Bauer’s
presentation on Egypt.** Ehrhardt makes passing reference to a re-
cently discovered letter attributed to Clement of Alexandria, which
is of interest for the situation at Alexandria.*4 Other significant ma-
terials to appear in the past quarter century include Manichaean *°
and Mandaean *¢ texts, the long lost homily of Melito on the pass-
over,?7 and a previously unknown record of a discussion between
Origen and Heraclides (ed. J. Scherer, 1949; compare above 166).
Still lacking are a fresh approach to the origins of Christianity in
North Africa, Rome, and other western regions.°* The situation in
Asia Minor and the Aegean area also is admittedly more complex
than Bauer indicated,®® and the whole question of east Syrian Chris-

Library,” (above, 170 n. 39), and the growing literature conveniently listed in
each issue of New Testament Abstracts under “NT World.”
33. Turner’s argument, however, that the presence of the Fourth Gospel in Egypt
at the beginning of the second century (p®2, etc.) indicates the existence of
“orthodoxy” there before the gnostics came to “borrow” that gospel is open to
question since it simply assumes the “orthodoxy” of the Fourth Gospel. But the
affinities of that document are quite problematic, and it would not be difficult
to adjust Bauer’s picture to include an originally “gnostical” Fourth Gospel in
circulation in Egypt at that early date. On the recent discovery of a papyrus
yeu Csae Corinthians” and its implications for Bauer’s argument, see above,
n. 9.
34. See above, 60 n. 60. In the letter, Clement refers to a longer, “secret” form
of the gospel of Mark, allegedly used by Christian “gnostics” at Alexandria.
35. For a recent survey of the subject, see G. Widengren, Mani and Manichaeism
(ET by C. Kessler; New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1965). See also
above, 49 f. n. 25.
36. See now K. Rudolph, Die Mandéer (above, 261 n. 59); also E. M. Yamauchi,
“The Present Status of Mandaean Studies,” Journal of Near Eastern Studies, 25
(1966): 88-96. The Mandaean discoveries had already made a large impact by
the 1930’s, but much additional material has been published subsequently.
37. Two relatively complete Greek manuscripts have come to light since 1935:
the Chester Beatty papyrus, edited by C. Bonner (Philadelphia: University of
Pennsylvania, 1940), and the Bodmer papyrus, edited by M. Testuz (Cologny-
Geneve: Bibliotheca Bodmericana, 1960). Abundant versional and other textual
evidence also has now been identified. A new edition of the text is being prepared
by Molly Whittaker of Nottingham University, and an ET by S. Hall, also of
Nottingham.
38. In his review, Koch made some preliminary observations on_ this subject.
Of continued interest for the situation at Rome is the classic article by G. La-
Piana, “The Roman Church at the end of the Second Century,” HarvTR 18
(1925): 201-277; see also his “Foreign Groups in Rome during the First Cen-
turies of the Empire,” HarvTR 20 (1927): 183-394.
39. Cf. the comments of Windisch, in general, and the specific suggestions by
Moffatt, Turner, and Ehrhardt. Koester discusses the earlier situation here on the
basis of such evidence as Paul, Revelation, Colossians-Ephesians, Luke-Acts, the
Pastorals, and (briefly) some of the early fathers.
315
 APPENDIX 2

tianity currently is receiving much attention along with the question

of “gnosticism” in general.*° Again, several reviewers regretted Bauer's
failure to discuss the origin and development of the early Christian
regula fidei, which certainly deserves treatment among themes such
as those discussed in Bauer’s chapter 9.41 But this should all be
viewed as part of the legacy left by Bauer for those who were to
follow. He did not claim to be attempting an exhaustive treatment
(xxv), but to be opening a new route for historical investigation. In
this he has certainly been successful, and it is in hopes of encourag-
ing even more careful historical scrutiny of the period of Christian
origins, unencumbered by later ecclesiastical value judgments, that
Bauer’s pioneering volume is here made available to the English
reader.
40. Whereas some of Bauer’s critics ascribed a much greater role to Tatian in
founding Christianity in eastern Syria (e.g. Windisch, Ehrhardt), Koester argues
that “the Thomas tradition was the oldest form of Christianity in Edessa” (293)
and was developed along various lines including the approaches of Bardesanes,
Tatian, and later, Mani (304 f.). On the Nag Hammadi material in general, see
n. 32 above; on the Thomas tradition in particular, see also the literature cited by
Koester. Of the many recent works on gnosis and gnosticism, the English reader
is referred especially to Hans Jonas, The Gnostic Religion (Boston: Beacon, 1958,
19632) and to R. M. Grant, Gnosticism and Early Christianity (New York: Harper
and Row, 1959, 19662), as well as his Gnosticism Anthology. See also the com-
ments of M. Smith in JBL 89 (1970): 82-84, for some timely warnings about
this subject matter.
41. In addition to Ehrhardt’s probe, see J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Creeds
(New York: Longmans, 1950, 19602).

316
 Comprehensive Index
by Robert A. Kraft ©
This comprehensive index includes abbreviations, supplementary bibliographical information
beyond what is contained in the notes, and other aids to the reader. Names of modern authors
appear in capital letters; no attempt has been made to include the names of modern editors of
ancient texts or modern translators if they are mentioned solely for that reason in the notes.
Some selectivity has also been exercised with regard to proper names (persons, places) from
the ancient world—those of primary significance for the subject of the book are emphasized. With
regard to ancient authors such as Clement of Alexandria, Epiphanius, Eusebius, Hippolytus,
Origen, and Tertullian, to whom frequent reference is made in various connections in the book,
the index does not attempt to be complete. When an item appears primarily or solely in a
footnote on a given page, this will normally be noted by listing page and note number as
follows: 42.99 (i.e., page 42, note 99).

Aba, Mar 23(.50) QUASTEN and J.C.PLUMPE (Westminster,

Abgar V see Abgar legend Md.: Newman, 1946 ff)
Abgar VI 15f Adamantius. 31.73
Abgar VIII 2.4 Addai, Doctrine of Addai 3.7 4.8 10£ 14.31
Abgar IX 2 4-8 12-16 17.35 20 23.51 38 282.7
Abgar legend 2-12 16-17 35-39 60 156.23 Aetheria (pilgrim) 11.23
298 AF see Grant, AF
Abraham of Edessa 16 20 Africa see North Africa
‘Abshelama 17 Africanus, Sextus Julius 6.14-7 9 12 45 55.46-
Acacius of Aleppo 19 47 63 115 159-165 172£
Achaia see Greece Agathangelos 40
ACHELIS, H. 34.80 : Christentum 72.27 Agrippa Castor 108.25 170£ 179 192
82.13 97.5-6 124.28 : Didaskalia (with J. AH see Irenaeus
FLEMMING) 244.7 246-257 passim Aithilaha 15.32
Acts of apostles (general) 213 AJ IL (=“Anabathmoi Iacobou Il’) 256.44
Acts, canonical book (see also Luke) 42 84f 268
115 149.5 249.21 258f 263f 272 : specific Alexander (Montanist) 139f
passages 1.23 (189), 2.14 (70.21), 2.44f Alexandria and Egypt xxv 44ff (=ch. 2) 64
(273.88), 3.22f (259.56), 4.36f and 5.1ff 75 86 109 116-118 163.65 170 172f 232
(273.88), 8.1f (86), 8.14 (115), 11.19-30 237 291 294 296f 299 304 314f : see also
(23.51 86 109 115 136 272.86), 12.17 Africanus, Basilides, Clement of Alex., De-
and 13.1 (115), 14.5 (70.21), 15.1ff metrius, Didymus, Dionysius of Alex., Her-
(132), 15.32 (136), 18.22-25 (46 63), aclas, Mark, Origen, Pantaenus, Papyri,
20.30 (82-84 89), 21.8-10 (86 136), Pistis Sophia, Therapeutae, Valentinus, etc.
27.7 (76) : Alogoi 207f
Acts, non-canonical (apocryphal) books (ed. ALTANER, B. (and A.STUIBER) xv 244.7
R.A.LIPSIUS and M.BONNET, Acta Apos- 275.95 279.104
tolorum Apocrypha [Leipzig, 1891; repr. Amastris see Pontus
1959]; ETs in Hennecke- Anastasius of Sinai 148.3 280.106
Darmstadt,
[see Ancyra see Galatia
Schneemelcher 2, or in M.R.JAMES
ANF (ANL) = The Ante-Nicene Fathers,
above, 53.38], also by A.WALKER in ANF
Translations of the Writings of the Fathers
8) 75.33 137 252 : of John 204.13 211.80 down to A.D. 325, ed. A.ROBERTS and
; of Paul (see also Paul, 3 Corinthians) 11
J.DONALDSON (=Edinburgh Ante-Nicene
39-42, 85.19 100f 114.6 179 198 227 ; of Library, 1866-1872), revised and supple-
Peter 41 ; of Thomas 11f 41.97 176
Acts of Archelaus see Hegemonius mented ed. by A.C.COXE (=American ed.
in 10 vols., Buffalo, 1884-1887; repr. Grand
Acts of martyrs see Martyrs
= Ancient Christian Writers, ed. J. Rapids: Eerdmans, 1967)
ACW
317
 ORTHODOXY AND HERESY IN EARLIEST CHRISTIANITY

Anicetus of Rome 127-129 151 79 12 14.31 21f 26-33 35f 157 316.40 :
Anonymous _ anti-Montanist author 132-145 exclusion from church xxii 38f : influence
155 168f 180 205 233 in Edessa 15f 24-26 29-32 relation to
Antioch and western Syria general situation Marcion and Valentinus 24f 29 169 17I1f£
61-67 75 77 108-110 172 192 233 290 231.6 : scriptures of 29-33 40-42 (see also
305 810 : relation to Edessa 17-20 ; to Gospel of) Book of the Laws of the
Alexandria 58f : to Peter and Paul 37 Countries 5.12 6.13 23.51 33
112-118 219-221 :; see also Ignatius, Sera- BARDIE, G. 244.7
pion, Syria, Theophilus, etc. Barnabas 115 119.19 235
Apelles (Marcionite) 49 108 132 148 179 Barnabas, Epistle of (for ed. and ET, see
198 Apostolic Fathers) 44 46-48 196.1 270.83
Aphraates (partial ET by J.GWYNN in Barsamya 17
NPNF, ser. 2, vol. 13) 23.51 24.54 40 Basil of Caesarea 19.41
Apocalypses 213 Basilides and Basilideans 35 48 100 170f 179
Apocalypse, canonical (=book of Revelation) 190f 197 225 227 232 : Exegetika 170.41
87-89 140f 145 178 185.79 186.84 206£ 191 (see also Isidore) : see also Gospel of
216 249.21 258f 305.17 315.39 (see also Basilides
John, apocalyptic seer) : specific passages BATIFFOL, P. 279.104
1.1 (141), chs. 1-3 (77-80 83£ 100 167 BAUER, K. 65.10
179 192 288), 22.6 and 9 (136.13), BAUER, W. xi f 2.6 50.27 51.33 149.5
22.18f (167) 187.87 204.14 213.31 286 (=appendix
Apocryphon of John see Gospels (non-canon- 2) passim : Apostolos 33.77 42.98 259.53 :
ical) Ignatius 61.2 64.9 70 88.27 121.25 217.37 :
Apollinaris of Hierapolis 30.69 88.26 142-146 Johannesevangelium 185.82 186.85 209.21
151f 156f 214.34 238.16 : Leben Jesu 140.18 141.21
Apollonius (anti-Montanist) 123.26 124 132 189.89 201.10 203f 210.26 : Wortgottes-
134-142 dienst 131.2 153.12 168.38 238.14 239.17
Apollos (see also Acts 18.24f) 46 99 101 235 BAUMSTARK, A. 37.86 42.98
Apostle, “The” 21 136f 139 149 : see also BAUR, C. 19.40
John, Paul, Peter, etc. BELLINZONI, A.J. 206.17
Apostles, Epistle of the see Epistle BENOIT, A. 314.30
Apostles (general) xxiii f 35-39 41 57 83 112 BERGDOLT, J. 287
114.6 119 189 141 145 187-189 191 195 BERGH van EYSINGA, G.A. van den 287
204 212f 215f 227 239 and passim 290 295f
Apostolic Constitutions (see 244.7; for ET see BERTHELOT, M. 163.29
J.DONALDSON in ANF 7, 391-505) 36.83 BESKOW, P. 267.74
104£,.123.26 244-257 283.119 BETZ, H.D. 308f 312
Apostolic Fathers (ed. K.Bihlmyer [Tiibingen: BILLERBECK, P. (and H.STRACK) 274.89
Mohr, 1924; supplemented reprint ed. W. Bishop lists (Alexandria, Antioch, Rome) 45
SCHNEEMELCHER, 1956], also LCL ed. 55 60 63f 109 114-117
,and ET by K.LAKE [1912-1913]; ET also Bishops, heretical 69f 73 93
in Grant, AF) see individual entries Bithynia 75 81 90f : see also Pliny
Apostolic Succession see Bishop lists, Bishops BKV and BKV? = Bibliothek der Kirchen-
Appian 1,1 vater, ed. REITHMAYR-THALHOFER
Arabia see Damascus (1869-1888), and ed. BARDENHEWER
Arbela see Chronicle of et alii (1911-1930)
Archelaus of Charchar see Hegemonius BLACK, M. 280.109
Archives (ancient), appeal to as evidence 3 BLUDAU, A, 11.23
10 139 162 BONWETSCH, N. 82.13 141.22 180.70
Archontics (Ophite gnostics) 179 Book of the Laws of the Countries see Barde-
Ardesianes (Valentinian) 31.73 sanes
Aristides (apologist) 23.51 158 Books of Jett 49 204.13
Ariston of Pella 196.1 BORNKAMM, G. 41.97 307
Arius 12.25 25 301 BOUSSET, W. 185.79 206.17 215.35 294
Armenia 1 28 40 BRANDON, S.G.F. 242.3
ARNOLD, G. 291 BRANDT, W. 266.69
ARSENIEW, N. von 286 293 BROCKELMANN, C. 19.41
Asia Minor 58 67-71 77-93 134 189 144 BRUDERS, H. 286 293 295
171f 192f 208 233 237 290 292 299 305 BRUYNE, D. de 185.83
306,18 315 and passim : southeastern area BULTMANN, R. 292.4 297 306 308f 312
81f 86 173 : see also Ephesus, Galatia, BURCH, V. 53.38
Hierapolis, Phrygia, Smyrna, etc, BURKITT, F.C. 298 : Eastern Christianity
Athenagoras (apologist) 147 17.34 20.43 27.62 34.81 39.92 : Euphemia
Athens 75 105f : see also Greece 23.51 34.81

BABELON, M. 2.4 Caesarea 86 : Library of 158f

BAGATTI, B. 314.31 Caius of Rome see Gaius
BAMMEL, E. 272.86 CAMPENHAUSEN, H.F. von 224.55 307
Bar Hebraeus 14.31 27.62 Candidus (Valentinian) 166
Barbelo-Gnostics 49 203 Carpocrates (Gnostic) 48 50 129 204,13
BARDENHEWER, O. 54.44 108.26 276.98 276f 279 280.105 283
Bardesanes (=Bar Daisan) and Bardesanites CC = Corpus Christianorum (Turmbhout and

818
 COMPREHENSIVE INDEX

Paris, 1953ff) d. = died

Celsus 50.30 148 216.36 237.18 see also DACL = Dictionnaire d’archeologie chréti-
Origen enne et de liturgie (Paris, 1907-1953)
Cephas (not Peter) 115 Damascus and Arabia 232.7 239
Cerdo (Gnostic) 66 128 253.35 276 DANIELOU, J 243.5 303
Cerinthus (Gnostic) 49 85 149.5 205.15 207 Demetrius of Alexandria 44 53-57 299
. 276£ 279 282f 305.17 Diatessaron see Gospels
CHABOT, J.B. 13.28 14.31 24.55 27.61 DIBELIUS, M. 217.38 224.54 227.61 272.87
81.71 38.90 287 290f 295f
“Christian” as designation of non-orthodox Didache (for ed. and ET, see Apostolic
22-24 53 67 Fathers) 138 179.66 270.83 305
Chronicle(s) of Arbela 282.7 Chronicon Didascalia (244.7) 36.83 40 123.26 244-257
Maroniticum 27.61 39.93 : Chronicon Pas- 258f 271
chale 88.26 : of Dionysius Tell Mahré Didymus of Alexandria 180.70 181
13.28 : Edessene Chronicle (12.26) xxii.2 DIETERICH, A. 163.81
11.24 12-17 20f 28.51 24 33f 38 : of Dio Cassius 8.19
Joshua the Stylite 34.78 : of Michael the Diocletian (Emperor) 8 15 19.48
Syrian 14.31 24.55 27.61 38.90 39.93 Diodorus 1
Patriarchal Chronicles 20 Dionysius of Alexandria 8 122
Chrysostom see John Chrysostom Dionysius of Corinth 73.31 75f 91 93f 103-
Cilicia 81 173 233 = 106 111-113 114.6 119.18 121-123 125-
Clement of Alexandria (works ed. O.STAH- 127 151 157 166-168 171 174f 184 190
LIN-L.FRUCHTEL-U.TREU, GCS 12 [3rd 192 207 284
ed. in preparation], 52 [19603], 17 Dionysius of Tell Mahré see Chronicle of
[19697], 89 [1934-1936]; ET by W.WIL- Diotrephes (see also 8 John) 93 133.7 308
SON in ANF 2, 163-605, and ANF 8, DOBSCHUTZ,E. 58.56
41-50) 50 58 115 153 201 211 223.50 and Doctrina Addai see Addai
passim :; early career 57 non-orthodox Domitian (Emperor) 6 120 128
tendencies 56f 193 204 : orthodox tenden- DORESSE, J. 314.32
cies 49.20 67 119 171 172.49 195 296 312 DROWER, E.S. 267.74
: recently discovered letter 60.60 315.34 DUCHESNE, L. 19 34.80
Clement of Rome 105f 111f 117f£ 120 209 DUENSING, H. 184.76
230.1 246.11 284
Clement of Rome, literature associated with Easter Chronicle see Chronicles (Chr. Pas-
1 Clement (for ed. and ET, see Apostolic chale)
Fathers) 94-104 111f 114 121f 124 126 Easter controversy (=paschal or passover con-
128 148 209 214 219f 224 230.1 239f troversy) 9 18 56 75 88 97 105£ 126f
290f 296 299 306 : 2 Clement (for ed. and 152-154 172.52 284 306
ET, see Apostolic Fathers) 100 105 209 Ebion(ites) 201 241 244 259.54 268.74 272-
211 : ps.-Clementine Homilies and Recog- 285 : see also Gospel of the Ebionites,
nitions (ed. B.REHM-F.PASCHKE, GCS 42 Jewish Christianity
[19692] and 51 [1965]; ET by T.SMITH ed(s) = editor(s), edited by, edition
in ANF 8, 67-346) 48.18 1I7£ 175 184 Edessa and eastern Syria (=Osréene, Urhai-
198f 246.11 256.44 258-271 280.109 Urfa) xxv 44 75 1738 260 291 292.4 315
Colossae 78 80£ 192 and passim : history of Christianity there
Colossians, Paul’s letter to see Paul 1ff (=ch.l) 232 298 scriptures 29-33
CONNOLY, R.H. 123.26 244.7 247.13-14 40-42 310 316.40 : Judaism there 4 23 :
248.16 249.21-23 250.26 254.388 256.44 see also Abgar, Addai, Aphraates, Barde-
sanes, Ephraem, Gospels (Diatessaron, of
257.46
Thomas), Kéné, Marcion, Palit, Rabbula,
Constantine (Emperor) 7 17 123
Syria, Tatian, etc.
Constantinople, Council of 19 Egypt see Alexandria
CONZELMANN, H. 217.38 EH = Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History
Coptic writings see Books of Jet, Gospels (ed. ELSSCHWARTZ-T.MOMMSEN, GCS 9
(Apocryphon of John, Coptic, of Thomas, of [1903-1909]; ET by [H.J.LAWLOR and]
Truth), Papyri, Pistis Sophia J.E.L.OULTON [London: SPCK, 1927],
Corinth 52 94 95-105 108 192f 196 213 221 also by K.LAKE and OULTON in LCL
227 : see also 1 Clement, Dionysius, Greece [1926-1932] )
Paul, Rome, etc. EHRHARD, A. 18.38 48.17
Corinthians, letters to see Clement, Paul EHRHARDT, A.A.T. 60.60 116.10 297.9
Crete 75f 84 88 90 106 125f 193 see also 303-306 313 314.80 315(.89) 316.40-41
Philip of Gortyna, Pinytus of Knossos Elders (Presbyters) of Asia Minor, etc. 107
CSCO = Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum 119 186 171 183 190 195.1 198£
Orientalium (Louvain, 1903f) ELFERS, H. 279.104
Elkasai, Elkasaites, Book of Elkasai 265.68
CSEL = Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum
268.76 269 270.80 282
Latinorum (Vienna, 1866ff) ELLIOTT-BINNS, L.E. 242.3
CULLMANN, O. 50.27 242.3 261.59 266.70 Encratites 149.5 157 168 176 see also
Cyprian (works ed. W.HARTEL, CSEL 3 Tatian
[1868-1871]; ET by E.WALLIS in ANF Ephesians, letters to see Ignatius, Paul
5, 275-596) 123.26 (=Ep. 59 in ANF) Ephesus 46 69 77-79 82-85 88-90 189 193
306.19 227 233
Cyril of Jerusalem 39.93 53 Ephraem (for eds. and ETs see 6.13 and

319
 ORTHODOXY AND HERESY IN EARLIEST CHRISTIANITY

25.58) 10.22 11 19.41 23.51 25 28-30 logia’) 209 212 239 synoptic 87 183
83-43 and passim in ch.1 239 ; Matthew 50f 185-187 204f 211.28
Epiphanius 193f 269 280.109 284 285.121 276-278 — passages 1.18ff (278), 5.18
and passim : Her. = Against Heresies (Pan- (184), 5.20 (267.71), 7.15 (213), 10.9f
arion), ed. KHOLL, GCS 25 (1915), 31 (124 138), 13.16 (214), 16.17-19 (114),
(1922), 37 (1933); no ET available 20.22f (189), 23.28-34 (145 181 205
Epistle of the Apostles (=Epistula Aposto- 261.60 266), 24.11 and 24 (213), 24.35
lorum) 58 114.6 184 204 227 (184), 28.19 (267.71); Mark 185-187
ET = English Translation 204f—passages 10.38f (189), 13.22 (213);
Euodius of Antioch 115f Luke 51 185-188 205f 214f 290f—passages
Eusebius of Caesarea 2-4 8-1235-41 44f 59 6.20f (272.87), 10.1 and 7 (124 260),
106f 109 114f 125 130.1 142 146 149-159 12.18f (272.87), 16.19 (272.87), 20.1
165.33 173£ 186 190-192 196-199 283f and 23.11 (70.21) : Fourth Gospel (John)
and passim : EH (see above), Chronicle 80 72.28 86 92 141 145 183 185-188 193
(ed. RLHELM, GCS 47 [19562]; no ET 205-212 224f 228 238.15 299—passages
available), Preparation for the Gospel (ed. 1.14 (210), 3.8-5 (267.71)
K.MRAS, GCS 43 [1954-1956]; ET by Gospels, non-canonical (‘“‘apocryphal”) (for
E.H.GIFFORD [Oxford: Clarendon, 1903]), various eds. and ETs, see MHennecke-
Onomasticon (ed. E..KLOSTERMANN, GCS Schneemelcher 1; also the ET by MLR.
11.1 [1904]; no ET available) JAMES [see 53.38]) 183 : “Jewish Chris-
Eusebius of Emesa 12.25 en tian” in orientation 203 259 276f 285.121—
Eusebius of Samosata 19 of the Ebionites 51.34; according to the
EYSINGA see BERGH van EYSINGA etl ebrews 51-53 57 80 170 203 210.27
A7.14 299; of the Nazarenes 51.34 203;
FASCHER, E. (see also A. JULICHER) xi.1 yriac Gospel 51.34 : “Gnostic” in orienta-
FEINE-BEHM see KUMMEL, W.G. tion (see also Gospels of Marcion, of
Filaster Her. = On the Heresies, ed. F.MARX, Peter)—Apocryphon of John 49 203 204.13
CSEL 38 (1898); no ET available : see ; of Bardesanes 30; of Basilides 66 119
Hippolytus, Syntagma 170 191 203; Coptic Gospels (see also
Firmillian of Cappadocean Caesarea 306.19 Books of Jet, Pistis Sophia) 49 203; of
FITZMYER, J.A. 261.59 273.88 Egyptians 50-53 57 80 170 176 299 ;
fl. = flourit (was active at this time) “Secret” Gospel of Mark 60.60 315.34 ;
FLEMMING, J. see ACHELIS, H.. of Thomas (Coptic) 203.12 259.55 310
FORSTER, R. 65.10-11 316.40 ; of Truth 203.11 : miscellaneous
Forgeries 36 182 204 see also Abgar legend, other Gospels and fragments—Diatessaron 9
Acts (non-canonical), Archives, Gospels 10.22 30-33 39 157 260 ; of Judas 203.12 ;
(non-canonical), Paul (spurious writings), of Marcion 31.70 32 ; Papyrus Egerton
Peter (writings) 2(fragment) 299.10 ; of Peter 66.18 80
FP = Florilegium Patristicum (Bonn, 1904ff) 115 203 211.80 248 249.21 250.25 259 ;
FRAENKEL, P. 282.115 “of the Separated” (Evangelion da-Mep-
FRLANT = Forschungen zur Religion und harreshe) 30
Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments GRAHAM, H.H. 209.24
( Gottingen ) GRANGER, F. 161.25
FUNK, F.X. 244.7 250.26 251.33 257.46 Grant, AF = The Apostolic Fathers, a New
Translation and Commentary, ed. R.M.
Gaius (Caius) of Rome 142 194 207f£ 305.17 GRANT, (New York: Nelson, 1964-1968);
Galatia 63 81 138f 173 222 223 vols. 1, 2.1, and 4 by R.M.GRANT, vol.
Galatians, Paul’s letter to see Paul 2.2 by H.H.GRAHAM, vol. 3 by R.A.
GALTIER, P. 244.7 KRAFT, vol. 5 by W.R.SCHOEDEL, vol.
Gaul 105 144 172 192 208: see also Martyrs 6 by G.SNYDER
of Vienna and Lyons GRANT, F.C, 211.28 292.4
GCS =.Die Griechischen Christlichen Schrift- GRANT, R.M. 209.22 230.1 816.40
steller der ersten Jahrhunderte (Leipzig and Ignatius 209.25. 210.27 218.389 : Gnostic-
Berlin, 18974 ) ism Anthology 49.23 and passim : Second
GELZER, H. 15.32 46.9 Century 297.9 and passim
GENTZ, G. 278.103 Greece (Achaia) 55 l105£ 233 see also
George Syncellus 6.14.164.32 165.33 Athens, Corinth, Lacedaemonia
GEORGI, D. 308 Gregory the Illuminator 40
GIBSON, M.D. 244.7 ps-Gregory of Nyssa 30.69
GINGRICH, F.W. xi.1-2 GUTSCHMID, A. von 1.2 2.4-5 4.9 8.19
Glaucias 66 119 13.28
Gnostics and Gnosticism 57 88 92 169 189
194 204.13 207 214 233f 240 253 265
269f 275 301 306.19 316 see also Archon- HAASE, F. 2.4 5.10 10,22 14.31 30.69
tics, Barbelo-Gnostics, Basilides, Carpo- Hadrian (Emperor) 46f
crates, Cerdo, Cerinthus, Naasenes, Ptolemy, HAENCHEN, E. 259.55 273.88 308.22
Valentinus, etc. HALLIER, L. 12.26-27 14.29 17.34
GOGUEL, M. 287f 295 313 HARNACK, A. von 28.64 55.47 120.22
GOMPERTZ, H. 5.10 182.72 248.16 274.90 276.97 285.121 297
GOPPELT, L. 249.23 251.30 : Briefsammlung 36.85 75.35 93.39 125.29
Gospels, canonical 30 57 117.14 183 185-188 167.36-37 175.57 221-223 : Evangelien-
204f 212 247f 249.21 258 260 264 267 Prologe 70.24 72 91.33 107.23 109.27
803 and passim sayings source (“Q” 117.14 185.83 208.20 239.18 Einfiih-

820
 COMPREHENSIVE INDEX

rung 96.2 99.9 : Geschichte 1 and 2 Ignatius of Antioch (for ed. and ET, see
(Chronologie) 24.55 31.74 45.2 and passim Apostolic Fathers) 36 45 61-70 72-75 77-
: History of Dogma 242.3 277.101 : Mar- 84 88f 92f 98 108-117 121-128 128 131
cion 27.62 32.75 42.100 and passim 188 175 184 196.1 200 202 209-211 217-
Mission 44.1 45 46.9 49.20 135.9 173.53- 220 221.44 229 2380.1 234 238.15 291
54 232.7 233.9 296 299 305 : letters and passages 63-65
HarvTR = Harvard ‘Theological Review 67-71 81.10 86 88 108 113 115 121 123
(Cambridge, Mass. ) 131 188 290f 294
HbNT = Handbuch zum Neuen Testament, Irenaeus 31 71 107f 119 141 151 155f£ 166
ed, H. Lietzmann (Tiibingen: Mohr) 171 177 186 194f 201 207f 211 226 273
Hebrews, Epistle to 128 185 196.1 240 276-279 281f 284 and passim : AH =
249.21 Against Heresies, ed. W.W.HARVEY (Cam-
Hebrews, Gospel according to see Gospels bridge: University Press, 1857; repr. 1965)
(non-canonical ) or ASSTIEREN (London, 1848-1853); ET
Hegemonius, Acts of Archelaus 27.61 81.74 by A.ROBERTS AND W.H.RAMBAUT in
Hegesippus xxiv 10.22 51.34 103 107 112 ANF 1, 315-567 (divisions of AH are cited
120 151 171.45 189 192 194 196£ 207 first by the older system [= STIEREN
213f 225 275f 284 and ANF], followed by the new system of
HEINRICI, G. 174.56 234.10 HARVEY in parentheses where it differs)
HENNECKE, E. 49.24 50.27 58.56 105.18 IRMSCHER, J. 258.50
Hennecke? = Neutestamentliche Apokryphen?, Isaac of Antioch 6.13
ed. E.HENNECKE (Tiibingen: Mohr, Isidore (Basilidean) 48 170 179 190
1924) Isis 65£ 161 163
Hennecke-Schneemelcher = Edgar Hennecke,
New Testament Apocrypha, ed. by W. Jacob of Edessa (for eds. and ET, see 21.46)
SCHNEEMELCHER, ET ed.. by R.McL. 1 22.49 24.55 38 42.101 43.102
WILSON , (Philadelphia: Westminster, Jacob of Nisibis 16
1963-1965 ) Jacob of Sarug 37
Heraclas of Alexandria 54f James, “apostle” 57 189
Heracleon (Valentinian) 30 58 197 205.15 James, Epistle of 249,21 272.87
206 208 James (the Just) of Jerusalem xxiv 20 119
a
“Heresy, concept of xxii f 77 270.84 312 : 196 236 258 264.65
‘ ecclesiastical view of its origins xxi f 28 JBL = Journal of Biblical Literature (Phila-
87-39 241f delphia)
Heretics, ethical perversity of from orthodox JELLICOE, S. 277.101
: perspective xxiii f 38f 133-146 200 : nu- JEREMIAS, J. xi.l
=~. merical strength 27f 68 72f 76 79 256f Jerome 10 51 52.37 55.48 242.2 284.120
271 : see also Orthodoxy 285.121 and passim (works ed. D.
Hermas, Shepherd of (for ed. and ET, seé VALLARSI [Verona, 1734-1742] PL
Apostolic Fathers; chapter and verse sub- 22-30; for other eds. [and partial ETs],
divisions are noted by both the old sys- see ALTANER, Patrology, 465; also CC
tem [in parentheses] and the new system 72-78)
used in the GCS ed by M.WHITTAKER Jerusalem see Palestine
[19672]) 104 114 121 124 127 179.66 Jesus xxiii 15 20 31 35 87 89 50 87 114
209 211 230.1 234 119 140.18 145 183 188-190 202-212 226
Hermogenes (Gnostic) 78.1 130.1 156 199 238f 247f and passim: see also Abgar
HEUSSI, K. 287 295 legend, Apostles, Gospels, etc.
Hierapolis 72 78 80f 86 105 171f 192f 216 Jeti, Books of see Books of Jet
229 235 : see also Apollinaris, Papias Jewish Christianity 87 132 197 201f 205.15
HILGENFELD, A. 71.25 85.17 180.70 231f 241 (= appendix 1) 289 297 : im
252.33 253.35 276-283 passim Alexandria 51-53 65 ; in Antioch and
HILL, G.F. 2.5 Syria 63 65 86 88 244ff (= appendix 1)
Hippolytus 31.74 207 279-282 284 and ; in Asia Minor 77 84 86-89 ; in Corinth
passim : Ref. = Refutation of all Heresies 86 99-101 ; in Crete 88 : see also Ebion-
(Philosophoumena), ed. P.WENDLAND, ites, Gospels (non-canonical), Paul (atti-
GCS 26 (1916); ET by F.LEGGE (Lon- tudes toward)
don:SPCK, 1921); ET also in ANF 5, 9- Jews and Judaism 4 23 46f 86 88 127 131
153, by J.H.MACMAHON Syntagma 205 216 236 237.18 238f 242.3 243.5
(reconstructed from Epiphanius, Filaster, 249-251 254-257 260-262 269 273f 276
ps-Tertullian and Against Noétus (ed. E. John, apocalyptic seer 77-80 82-85 94 100
SCHWARTZ, see above, 280.108 ; ET in 136.13 141 145 167 178f£ 182 216 see
ANF 5, 223f) 66.16 71.25 85.17 280- also Apocalypse (canonical)
282 John, apostle 37 57 84f 119 185£ 189 211.30
HOFFMANN, G. 7.15 233 296 308 : letters associated with him
HOLL, K. 100.12 Gesammelte Aufsdtze (see also John, elder) 67.19 91-93 249,21
85.20 272.85 ; 1 John passages 136.13 186 207.19 215
HOLTZMANN, H.J. 216.36 217 228 238.15—2.3f (92), 2.18-22 (91f),
Homer 160-165 2.25-28 (92), 3.12 (92 200), 4.1-6 (91f),
HUNZINGER, C.-H. xi.1 ch.5 (91f); 2 John 91f 93.38 ; 3 John
Hystaspes of Edessa 38f 93 133.7 289 303 308 see also Acts
(non-canonical), Gospels (canonical and
Ibas of Edessa 28.63 non-canonical )
IBSCHER, H. 49.25 John Baptist 46 226

321
 ORTHODOXY AND HERESY IN EARLIEST CHRISTIANITY

John Chrysostom 19.40 116.11 243.5 75.34

John the “elder” (presbyter) 84.15 86 93 KUHN, K.G. 274.89
120 (?) 188 308 see also the letters listed Kiané of Edessa 14-15 17 33-43 54 298
under John, apostle
John of Ephesus 25.59
John Malalas 115
John the Stylite 21.46 24.55
JOHNSON, S.E. 297.9 Lacedaemonia 75 105 : see also Greece
JONAS, H. 316.40 Laodicea 78-81 153 192 235
JORDAN, H. 31.70 Laodiceans, Epistle to the see Paul, writings
Joseph Moses (Syrian ascetic) 23 associated with
Josephus (ed. and ET by H.St]. THACKERAY- LA PIANA, G. 315.38
R.MARCUS-L.FELDMAN in LCL) 73.31 Laws of the Countries, Book of the see Bar-
153.12 250.27 266.69 268.76 desanes
Joshua (Moses’ successor) 26 LCL = Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge,
Joshua the Stylite see Chronicle of Mass.: Harvard University)
Judas (betrayer of Jesus) 134 188f 203.12 : LEBRETON, J. 287 294-296 302 312
see also Gospel of Judas LECLERCQ, H. 2.4 7.17 17.34 34.79 65.10
Judas Thomas see Gospels (non-canonical ), LEIPOLDT, J. 258.52 259.53 287 289 295f
Thomas (apostle) LELOIR, L. 10.22
Jude, Epistle of 89f 198 200 212f 305 LIECHTENHAHN, R. 225.59
JULICHER, A. 60.60 291.4 (and E. LIETZMANN, H. 34.80 58.55 107.24 117.14
FASCHER) 75.34 89.29 92.87 185-221 287f 295 302 : History 4.9 17.386 46.5
passim 61.1 66.13 85-99 (passim) 242.3 288.2 :
Julian (Emperor) 7 27.62 An die Korinther 100.11 221.45 : An die
Julius Africanus see Africanus Romer 102.14 272.85 : “Zwei Notizen zu
Julius Cassianus (Gnostic) 49 50.28 190 Paulus” 113.1 221.45
Justin the Gnostic 148.3 Life of Rabbula see Rabbula
Justin (martyr) 10.22 61 87 107£ 127 LIGHTFOOT, J.B. 81.9 103.16 105.18
140.18 155-157 160 171 196.1 197 200 Linus of Rome 116 120
202 205f 208-211 215 225 230.1 232 LIPSIUS, R.A. 17.36 252.33 280.107
235 239 273-276 279 284 and passim : Little Labyrinth 108 124 155.19
Apol. = Apology (1 Apology), App. LOEWENICH, W. von 206.17 287 296
= Appendix (2 Apology; see above, LOHMYER, E. 287£ 295
155.21), Dial. = Dialogue with Trypho LOOFS, F. 18.38
(separate ET by A.L.WILLIAMS [Lon- LUBECK, K. 18.37 19.42
don: SPCK 1930])—works ed. E.J. GOOD- LUTGERT, W. 243.6
SPEED (G6ttingen, 1914), also J.C.T. Luke 109 315.39 : see also Gospels (can-
OTTO (Jena, 1876-18813); ET by M. onical)
DODS and REITH in ANF 1, 163-272 Lycaonia 81 173 233
Juvenalis of Jerusalem 36 Macarius of Edessa 12.25
Macedonia 105 193 221.46 233 see also
Philippi, Thessalonica
MACHOLZ, W. 292.4
Magic 237.13 : see also Papyri (magical)
KASEMANN, E. 307f Magnesia 61 69 77-79 193 see also Ignatius
KELLY, J.N.D. 316.41 (letters)
Kerygma and Kerygmata Petrou see Peter, Mandaeans 265.68 269.79 315.36
writings associated with Mani and Manichaeans xxiii 15£ 21 24f 27
KESSLER, K. 39.93 35f 38 39.93 49 233 315.35 316.40
KIRSCH, J.P. 49.20 114.3 Mar Aba see Aba
KLAUSER, T. 270.83 Marcion and Marcionites 42 49 59.57 91 94
KLEIN, G. 272.86 114 124 127-129 180.1 148 149.5 151
KLIJN, A.J. 259.55 154-157 168f 171f 175£ 182f 186f 194
KNOPF, R. Clemensbriefe 95.1 98.7 : Zeital- 198f 207 215-217 218.39 219.40 221-227
ter 64.8 70-85 (passim) 114.4 124.27 230-233 239 253.35 263.62 275f 291
127.30 298 301 304 306 810 312 : influence in
Knossos see Crete Asia Minor 27.62 70-72 108 : influence in
KOCH, H. 241.1 287 289 295f 315.38 Edessa and Syria 15f 21-26 29-33 35f 38
KO(E)STER, H. 52.35 209.22 244.6 270.84 53 : influence in Rome and separation from
297.9 307-310 314 315.39 316.40 “orthodoxy” there xxiv 15f 88 39.21 66 71
KP = Kerygmata Petrou see Peter, writings 106 114 128 132 : see also Apelles, Mar-
associated with inus, Metrodorus
KRAELING, C.H. 65.10 Marcus Aurelius (Emperor) 2 132.38 139
KRAFT, R.A. xii.4 xvi 48.16 286 142 151f 192
KRAUSE, M. 49.23 (with P.LABIB) Marcus (Valentinian) 175.58 176f£ 197
KRODEL, G. xvi Mari of Persia 20 28.63 :
KROLL, W. 161.25 163.28 Marinus (Marcionite) 31.73
KROPP, A.M. 53.40 Mark in Alexandrian tradition 45 60 116£
KRUGER, G. 12.25 300 : in Roman tradition 107 120 239 :
KT = Kleine Texte fiir Vorlesungen und see also Gospels (canonical and non-
Ubungen, ed. H. LIETZMANN (Berlin: de canonical)
Gruyter) MARTIN, C. 287 293f 296 312.38 314.30
KUMMEL, W.G. xi: (FEINE-BEHM) Martyrs and Martyrdoms 17 79 91 112 135-

822
 COMPREHENSIVE INDEX

145 153 192 : of Perpetua and Felicitas NPNF = Nicene and post-Nicene Fathers of
178 : of Pionius 71.26 : of Shamuna and the Christian Church, ed. P.SSCHAFF and
Guria 23.51 34 : of Vienna and Lyons H.WACE (New York, 1890-1900; repr.
82 144 176 (192) see also Polycarp Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1957)
(Martyrdom of) NTS = New Testament Studies (Cambridge )
Marutha of Maipherkat 23.51 28.64 42.101
Mary (mother of Jesus) 31 53 210
Matthew see Gospels (canonical) Odes of Solomon 49
Matthias, apostle 35 119(.21) OEPKE, A.’ 75.34 266.69 272.86
MAURER, C. 66.18 248.16 Old Testament 29f 87f£ 92 147f 153.12 190
195-201 238-240 246 256 : proofs based
Maximilla (Montanist) 134-136 143.27 180
McELENEY, N.J. xvii on scripture 145 153f 198-202
Onesimus of Ephesus 67 83
MEINERTZ, M. 207.18
Melito of Sardis 74 88.26 148 151-154 Onesiphorus 85
156.23 160 171 193 196.1 ORBE, A, 243.5
Orient and Christianity 232f : see also
Menander (Gnostic) 66 110 275.94
Antioch, Edessa, Palestine, Syria
Mesopotamia see Edessa and eastern Syria
Origen of Alexandria 31.74 54-59 66 106
Metrodorus (Marcionite) 72 159 162.27 164 166 204 210.27 282-284
MEYER, E. 1.2 113.1 289 296 299 312 315 (works ed. LOM-
Meyer Kommentar = Kritisch-exegetischer MATZSH = PG; more recent eds. of some
Kommentar iiber das Neue Testament,
writings in GCS by P.KOETSCHAU, E.
founded by H.A.W.MEYER (Gottingen: KLOSTERMANN, E. PREUSCHEN,. W.A.
Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht) BAEHRENS, M. RAUER, and others; ETs
Michael the archangel 53 of some writings—e.g. above, xxiii.l, also
Michael the Syrian see Chronicle of H.CHADWICK’s ET of Contra Celsum
Migne see PG and PL [Cambridge: University Press, 1953; repr.
Miltiades (anti-Montanist) 108 135.8 136 1965]; see further QUASTEN, Patrology 2)
142 145 155 160 169 Orthodoxy concept of xxii f 77 270.84 304.14
Modestus 108.25 151 171 812-314 : numerical strength 21 28f 53
MOEHLMANN, C.H. 287 292 257 294 : relationship to ‘“‘heresy” xxi-xxv
MOFFATT, J. 287 292f 295f 313.29 314.30 13 29 189 228f (= ch.10) 284f ; separ-
315.39 ation of orthodoxy and heresy 58f 71 92f
MOLLAND, E. 266.70 131£ 174 ; geographical extent 171-173
Monarchians 117.14 124 229 ; numerical relationship 190-194 231
Monepiscopate 61-63 69 300 : in Alexandria Osiris 53.39 161 163
and Egypt 64 116f : in Antioch and Syria Osréene 1 5.11 9 and passim : see Edessa
63 (= ch.3) 114-116 246 290 : in Asia OTTO, R. 292.4
Minor 61 67-72 79f 83 : in Corinth 111
: in Philippi 72-75 : in Rome 64 114 129
Money as a means of influence 121-124 187£ Palestine and Jerusalem 18 54f 57 77 84-87
230 106 109 115 117f£ 141 153 162-164 172f
Montanus and Montanism 72 79.5 82 91 108 197 215 222 232 288 241.1 242.3 243
123.26 124 132-146 147 150 155 157 252 272 289 297 310 : see also James of
168£ 177-183 187 193 200 205 207 211 Jerusalem, Jewish Christianity, Orient
225 231 233 294 305f 312 see also Palit of Edessa 17 20-22 64
Alexander, Anonymous, Apollonius, Maxi- Palitians 21f 24 29 32 40 298
milla, Miltiades, Priscilla, Tertullian Pantaenus 57 148.3 195.1 199f 294 296
MORENZ, S. 59.59 Papias of Hierapolis (for ed, and ET, see
MULLER, K. 46.5 AT 292.4 Apostolic Fathers) 70 72 73.31 80 84.15
MULLER, O. 65.10 and 12 86.21 87 106 119.18 120 148.3 171 184-
MUNCK, J. 242.3 248.5 294 188 194 196£ 204f 207.19 214f 217 225
~—Muratorian Canon/Fragment (ed. H.LIETZ- 228 233 247.14 290 308
MANN in KT 1 [19082]; ET in GRANT Papyri and related discoveries 51,31 : Acts
[R.M.], Second Century, 117-120) 78 of Paul 40.96 : Africanus 159ff : Claudius’
127.30 170.42 171 182 208 212 219.40 letter 47.13 : 3 Corinthians 42.99 315.33
220 224.56 225f 229 Gospel materials 51f 170.39 299.10
Musanus 108.25 151 157 314.32 316.40 magical 52.36 53 161
MUSURILLO, H.A. 178.63 163£ : Mandaean texts 315.36 Man-
ichaean texts 49.25 315.35 : Melito 315.37
Naasenes 50.28 : Preaching of the 148.2 :; Origen 315
NAU, F. 5.12 14.31 24.55 38.90 Parthia(ns) 1 15
Paschal controversy see Easter controversy
NAUTIN, P. 279.104
passim = here and there throughout the
NESTLE, E. 19.41
book or section
NEUMANN, K.J. 216.36 237.15 : Rémische
Staat 74.32 91.35 136.11 139.16 140.19- Passion of Perpetua and Felicitas see Martyrs
Passover controversy see Easter controversy
20
Nicaea, council of 15f 20 298 Pastoral Epistles see Paul(letters, spurious)
Nicolaitans 276 Paul, the apostle (see also Apostle, “The” )
NOLDEKE, T. 7.15 13.28 Jewish (Christian) attitudes towards xxiv
Noétus 71 281 149.5 201 213 234f 258 263 278.103
North Africa 97 144 211 289 296 306.18 2982f : mission activities 173 232f — in
315 Antioch-Syria 37 63 115 219f.; in Asia
Minor 80-85 87 89 193 ; in Macedonia
NovI = Novum Testamentum (Leiden)
323
 ORTHODOXY AND HERESY IN EARLIEST CHRISTIANITY

74 193 ; in Corinth 99-101 111-121; in Preaching (Kerygma) of Peter 58 141

Crete 76 ; in Rome 111-121 128 215f : 196.1 ; Proclamations (Kerygmata) of
miscellaneous references 52 57 96 136.13 Peter 244 256.44 257-271 ; Teaching of
145 149 175 177.61 178f 182f 185 191 Peter 210.27 ; Journies (Periodoi) of Peter
193 197£ 201 206 212-228 230.1 232- 117£ 266.70
240 258 263-265 276 296 303 312 315.39 PETERSON, E. 270.80
Paul (apostle), letters attributed to (see also PG = Patrologia Graeca, ed. J.PMMIGNE
Acts [non-canonical]) 149.5 221.44 222 Philadelphia 69 77-79 81 192f 202 : see
243 249.21 259 263f 272 290 : probably also Ignatius (letters)
authentic; Romans 219-221 240—passages Philastrius see Hippolytus, Syntagma (Filas-
8 (234), 91.7 (272.86), 1.29-32 ter)
(220.41), 2.29 (23), 6.1 (220.41), 7.12 Philemon, letters to see Paul(letters )
(234), 8.3 (234), 8.6 (177.61), chs.9- Philip, evangelist 86f 136 189
11 (216 222 234 251.29), ch. 13 (215), Philip of Gortyna 151 157 171 : see also
ch. 14 (102), 15.14 (121), 15:26 Crete
(272.86), ch. 16 (70.22 82 85.18 218.39 ' Philippi 65 70 73f 77 93 175 193 233 239
230.1 236.11) ; 1 Corinthians 83f 214f 299
217 218.39 219 258—passages ch. 1 (21 Philippians, letters to the see Ignatius, Paul
186.13 220 272.86), 2.9 (214), 8.1 Philo of Alexandria 45 47 52 73.31
(100), 9.22 (234), 10.23 (100), ch.12 Philonexenus of Mabbug 24.55
(178f£ 220 264.65), 13.4-7 (220), 14.18- Photius 56f 214.33 281.112
36 (234), ch.15 (85.18 100 216 218f Phrygia 63 72 80.7 81f 89 105 133-137
234f), 16.8f (82 89 218) ; 2 Corinthians 143.27 193 233 239 see also Colossae,
219 220.43 221—passages 1.1 (272.86), Hierapolis, Laodicea, Montanism
1.8 (85.18 218.39), 3.1 (175), 9.12 Pilgrimage of Aetheria see Aetheria
(272.86), 11.22 (52), 12.1-4 (234) ; PINES, S. 39.93 314.31
Galatians 217 219.40 222 236 258—pas- Pinytus of Knossos 73.31 76 126f 151 167f
sages chs.1-2 (309), 1.2 (70.22), 1.21 : see also Crete
(233), 2.10 (272.86), 2.11ff (63 114 Pionius see Martyrs
263.62 264.64), 4.4 (284), 4.14 (287.13) Pisidia 81 173 233
; Colossians 89 222 234 315,.39—passages Pistis Sophia 49 50.29 53 204.13
1.7 (235), 4.10 (107), 4.13 (80 214), PITRA, J.B. 148.3 170.42 198.8
4.16 (80) ; Philippians 73 217—passages PL = Patrologia Latina, ed. J.P.MIGNE
1.1 (70.21), 1.18 (123), 2.1-2 (220.42), Pliny the younger, letter to Trajan 90.30 91
2.7 (234), ch.3 (236.11), 3.5 (52), 4.21 173 290
(22) ; 1 Thessalonians 74 ; Philemon 107 PO = Patrologia Orientalis, ed. R.GRAFFIN
222 224.56 : probably spurious; Ephesians and F.NAU (Paris, 1903)
217 218.39 221.44 299.49 234 315,39— POGNON, H. 7.18 24.55 38.90
passages 1.3 (218.39), 2.20 (212), 3.18 polloi, hoi = “the overwhelming majority”
(70.21), 4.11ff (186.18) ; 2 Thessalonians 73.31
75 221.44—passages 2.2 (75 182), 3.17 Polycarp of Smyrna (for ed. and ET, see
-(75) ; pastoral Epistles 76 (Titus) 84f Apostolic Fathers) 67 69-75 77 80 85.16
( 88-91 182 215 2Q17f 221.44 222-298 97 100 103 107 110 119-121 123 129
) 249.21 251.30 805 315.89—passages 1 171 196 200 207.19 208f 212 216-219
Tim. 1.3f (84 226), 1.7 (89), 1.19f 221.44 and 46 222-226 228 234f 291
(235), 5.18 (124), 6.7 and 10 (217.38), 299f 305 : letter to Philippi 64f 69f 72-74
6.20 (189 226), 2 Tim. 1.15-18 (85), 77 79 93 107.22 110 175 184 192
2.18f (100 200), 3.14-16 (200), 4.10 Martyrdom of 70.22 79 229
(75), 4.11 (107), 4.14 (200), Titus 1.10 Polycrates of Ephesus 86.21 127 300
(75 89f), 3.10f (91) ; Alexandrians 182 Pontus 75f 81 91 94 105 125 175 222
226 ; 3 Corinthians (see also Acts of Paul) PREISENDANZ, K. 53.39 161.25-26 163.31
11 39-43 182 184 198 227 315.33 ; Prepon (Marcionite of Syria) 29.66
Laodiceans 182 226 “Presbyters” see Elders
Paul, heretic in Alexandria 58f PREUSCHEN, E. 53.42 59.57-58 129.32
Peregrinus 123.26 152.9 172.47
Paulys Realencyklopddie see 1.1 PRIGENT, P. 100.12 276.98
Pergamum 79 100 192 Priscilla (Montanist) 138 140 143 177
Peter (Simon Cephas), apostle
his authority Procopius 14,30
claimed by non-orthodox 66
198f : rela- Prophets and prophecy 179-182 190 see also
tion to Antioch 37 63 114-119 ; to Corinth Montanism, Revelation (visions)
112f ; to Rome 45 107 112f 239 : re- Ptolemy (Valentinian) 30 47 120 136.13
lation to Paul 101 112-119 : miscellaneous 174 196.2 197f 204.13 205.15 206 208
references 17 57 99 105 175 185 206 (for ed, and ET of his letter to Flora, see
211.80 215 230.1 235 246.11 252 258 120.22)
262-264 269 300 ps = pseudo (falsely ascribed to)
Peter (apostle), writings and traditions as- PSyr = Patrologia Syriaca, ed. R.GRAFFIN
sociated with him (see also Acts of Peter, (Paris, 1894-1926)
Gospel of Peter): 1 Peter 81f 102 107 121 PUECH, H.-C. 49.23-24 52.35 170.40-41
124 128 215 217 234 240-—passages 1.2
(249,21), 2.9 (249.21), 4.8 (249.21), “Q” sayings source (logia) see Gospels (can-
5.13 (239) ; 2 Peter 89 102 182 305— onical)
passages. 1.19-21 (199), 2.1-22 (200 Quadratus (apologist) 157£ 160
213), 3.2 (212f), 3.16f (213 225 234) ; Quadratus (Montanist elder) 136

324
 COMPREHENSIVE INDEX

QUASTEN, J. xv 244.7 251.29 279.104 SCHMIDT, C. 40.96 49.22 49.24 172.48

QUISPEL, G. 259.55 227.63 Mani-Fund (with POLOTSKY )
49.25 233.8 Gespriche Jesu (Epistola
Apostolorum) 58.54 114.6 : Studien 249,23
Rabbula of Edessa 6.13 26-28 43 : Life of 255.42 256.44
19 26.60 SCHMIDT, M. 287
RAC = Reallexikon fiir Antike und Christen- SCHMIDTKEH, A. 51.33
tum, ed. T.KLAUSER (Leipzig-Stuttgart, SCHMITHALS, W. 243.6 263.62 307f
1941ff) SCHNEEMELCHER, W. xi.l 40.96 42.99
RAMSAY, W.M. 78.3 81.9 173 50.27 52.35 227.62 286.1 : see also Hen-
REICHARDT, W. 162.27 necke-Schneemelcher
Se pena R. (and H.H.SCHAEDER) SCHOEDEL, W.R. 72.28 148.3 185.83 189.
89-90 209.22 217.37 224.55
repr. = reprint(ed) SCHOEPS, H.-J. 242.3 253.36 256.44 261.59
Resurrection 100 147 149 266.70 277.101 285.121 302
Revelation (visions, etc.) as source of SCHUBART, W. 40.96
knowledge 175-179 : see also Prophets SCHUBERT, K. 261.59
Revelation, book of see Apocalypse SCHULTZE, V. 18.39 36.84 65.10 and 12
RGG = Die Religion in Geschichte und SCHUSTER, H. 287
Gegenwart, 2nd ed. by H.GUNKEL and SCHWARTZ, E. (ed. of EH) 8.20 45.2
L.ZSCHARNACK (Tiibingen, 1927-1932), 55.46 63.8 85.20 113.1 114.5 117.15
3rd ed. by K.GALLING (1957f) 207.18 and passim “Zwei Predigten”
Rhodon 31.74 108 132 148 157 171 180 199 280.108 281.112 and 114
207 Scriptural interpretation proof from Jewish
RICHARD, M. 279.104 scripture (see also Old Testament) 145
ROBINSON, J.A. 28.51 105.19 153f£ 198-202 : use of Christian traditions
ROBINSON, J.M. 170.39 307.21 314.32 (Gospel material) 182-185 204f
ROLFFS, E. 40.94 227.62 SEGAL, J.B. 2.6
Romans, letters to the see Ignatius, Paul Seleucia-Ctesiphon 20.45
Rome history of Christianity there 101f 113- Serapion of Antiich 17f 115 142f 146 150
129 : relationship to Alexandria and Egypt 157 168 248 259
55f 60 97 108 117 122 129 300 ; to Serapis 47
Antioch and Syria 105-110 114-117 121- Sextus Julius Africanus see Africanus
122 129 229 ; to Asia Minor 82 97 107 Shamuna and Guria see Martyrs
129 229 ; to Macedonia 229 ; to Corinth Sibylline Oracles 79.6
82 94 96-108 111-114 122 126 129 229 SIMON, M. 242.8 243.5 254.39 302 314.30
233 ; to North Africa 97 ; attitude to Simon Magus 39.93 48.18 66 118 134 183
Fourth Gospel 205-212 ; to Pauline Epistles 191.92 232 252 263.62 275.94
Q15f 220f : heresy fighters 106-110 284f SIMONIN, H.-D. 287 293 295f 311.26
miscellaneous references 144 162-164 SMITH, M. 60.60 316.40
193 196 223 225 227 229-232 239f 252 Smyrna 70f 77-81 105 192f£ 220f 223 : see
Q91f 294 296 299f 305f 315 : see also also Ignatius (letters)
Bishop lists, Clement of Rome, Hippolytus, SNYDER, G.F. 209.23 230.1
Justin, etc. Socrates (church historian) 11.24 (for text,
RUDOLPH, K. 261.59 265.68 267.73-74 see PG 67)
268.75 269.77 and 79 270.82 315.36 Solomon al Basra 14.31 20
Rufinus 9 11.24 166.34 Soter of Rome 64.5 104 111 113f 121f 126
151 167£
Sozomen (church historian) 11.24 (ed. J.
BIDEZ, GCS 50 [1960])
Sabbatians 42f ST = Studia Theologica (Lund)
Salome 50 204.13 STEELY, J.E. xvii
Samaria and Samaritans 47 115 232 277.101 Stephen, martyr evangelist (see Acts 6-7) 86
: see also Justin (martyr), Simon Magus Stephen Gobarus 196.3 214.33
Sardis 79 192 : see also Melito Stephen of Rome 8 122
Saturninus (Gnostic) 66 110 Stevenson, New Eusebius = A New Eusebius:
Sb Berlin = Sitzungsberichte der Preussis- Documents Illustrative of the History of
chen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Phil.- the Church to A.D. 337, ed. by J.STEVEN-
hist. Klasse (Berlin) SON (London: SPCK, 1957)
Sb Heidelberg = Sitzungsberichte der Heidel- STRACK, H. see BILLERBECK
berger Akademie der Wissenschaften, Phil.- STRATHMANN, H. 287 290 295
hist. Klasse (Heidelberg ) STRECKER, G. xvii 247.13 272.86 286.1
Sb Miinchen = Sitzungsberichte der Bayeris-
295.5 296.6-8 304.14-15 305.17 306.18-19
chen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Phil.-
309 314.31 “Ebioniten” 242.4 274.91
hist. Klasse (Munich) 283.117 : “Elkesai” 265.67 270.80 280.
109 285.121 Hennecke-Schneemelcher
SBT = Studies in Biblical Theology (Naper-
ville, Ill,; Allenson) 258.50 260.57 Judenchristentum 242.3
Scha‘ad of Edessa 14f 246-283 passim
25.57 29.65 see also STREETER, B.H. 211.28
SCHAEDER, H.H.
REITZENSTEIN STULCKEN, A. 66.18
STUIBER, A. see ALTANER
SCHAFERS, J. 10.22
SCHLATTER, A. 285,121 Suidas 12.25
SURKAU, H.W. 51.33
SCHLIER, H. 67.20
325
 ORTHODOXY AND HERESY IN EARLIEST CHRISTIANITY

SWETE, H.B. 277.101 ULLMANN, W. 246.11

Symeon Metaphrastes 12.25 UNNIK, W.C.van 254.88-39 255.41 256.45
Syncellus see George Syncellus 314.32
Syria 1ff (= ch.l) 86 244-285 294 304 : Urfa, Urhai, Urrha (= Edessa, Osréene) 2
see also Antioch and western Syria, Edessa 5.11 7 and passim
and eastern Syria, Orient, etc. USENER, H. 287 288.2

Talmud 266.69 VAGANAY, L. 248.16

Tatian (ed. GOODSPEED or OTTO [see Valens, presbyter at Philippi 73
above under Justin]; ET by J.E.RYLAND Valentinus and Valentinians departure from
in ANF 2, 65-83) 108 115 129 149.5 155 “orthodox” church xxiv 39.91 128 : in-
157 160 168 176 207 296 304 316.40 see fluence in Egypt 48f ; in Rome 106 114
also Encratites, Gospels (non-canonical, 128f£ : relationship to Bardesanes 24f 31
Diatessaron), Rhodon 38f£ : writings 174-177 203.11 : miscel-
TAYLOR, C.C, 209.23 laneous passages 30f 59 108 119f 148 172
TCHERIKOVER, V.A. (and A.FUKS) 47.13 183 187 197£ 206f 224f 227 231 284 292
TDNT = Theological Dictionary of the New 306.19 see also Ardesianes, Candidus,
Testament, ET by G.BROMILEY (Grand Heracleon, Marcus, Ptolemy, Theotimus
Rapids: Eerdmans) of G,KITTEL and VETTER, J. 40.95
G.FRIEDRICH, Theologisches W6rterbuch Victor of Rome 9 97 117.14 127 281 284
zum Neuen Testament (Stuttgart: Kohl- 306
hammer ) VIELHAUER, P. xii 51.33 52.37 53.38 278.
TEICHER, J.L. 47.14 102
Tertullian (works ed, in CSEL and CC; ET VigChr = Vigiliae Christianae (Amsterdam)
by P.HOLMES and S.THELWALL in ANF VOLKER, W. 287 291 295f 311.26 :
8, 19-718, and ANF 4, 5-166) 31.74 99 Volker, Quellen = Quellen zur Geschichte der
133 142f 154.17 177-181 184.75 195 211 christlichen Gnosis, ed., by W.VOLKER
281 312 and passim (Tiibingen: Mohr, 1932)
ps-Tertullian see Hippolytus, Syntagma
Testamentum Domini 36.83
Thaddeus 3 4.8 10.22 : see also Abgar legend
Thebutis xxiv
Thecla 42 WAITZ, H. 51.38
Themiso (Montanist) 124 135 138f 142 WEBER, W. 46.10
Theodore bar Khoni 24.55 27.61 38.90 WEINEL, H. 179.65
Theodoret of Cyrus 19 27.62 29.66 31.72 32 WEISS, J. 81.12
116.11 284 (Ecclesiastical History ed. by WERNER, M. 297
L.PARMENTIER-F.SCHEIDWEILER, GCS WESTPHAL, G. 20.43-45
44 [19542]; other works, including History WIDENGREN, G. 315.35
of Heresies, in PG 80-84; ET of Eccl. Hist. WILCKEN, U. 1.1
by B.JACKSON in NPNF series 2, vol.3 WILCKENS, U. 307
[1893], 1-348) WINDISCH, H. 81.11 287 290 295f 315.39
Theodotus the Byzantian 281f 316.40
Theodotus (Gnostic) 49 50.28 190 WMANT = Wissenschaftliche Monographien
Theodotus (Montanist) 134 zum Alten und Neuen Testament, ed.
Theophilus of Antioch (ed. OTTO [see above G.BORNKAMM and G.von RAD (Neukir-
under Justin]; ET by M.DODS in ANF 2, chen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag)
89-162) 45 63f 78.1 109f 118 130f 151 WRIGHT, W. xv 23.50 (also ed. Jacob of
155f 160 171 196.1 216 Edessa, Joshua the Stylite )
Theotimus (Valentinian) 48 197.5 WUNSCH, R. 163.30
Therapeutae 45 47 YAMAUCHI, E.M. 315.86
Thessalonica 74f 233 299 see also Paul
(letters)
Thomas (= Judas), apostle 3 11 : see also
Abgar legend, Acts (non-canonical), Gos-
pels (non-canonical) ZAHN, TL. 33.77 S12) 5 Forschungen 57.53
THOMAS, J. 233.8 254.39 79.5: 87.23 -lOV21. 115.8) 1SSaies
Thrace 143f Geschichte 30.68 31.73 33.76 40.95 224.57
Thyatira 79 100 192 225.58 234.10 248.19 259.53
Timothy 235 ; see also Paul. (letters, pastoral ZAW = Zeitschrift fiir die alttestamentliche
Epistles) Wissenschaft (Giessen)
Titus l11f 235 : see also Paul (letters, pas- ZEILLER, J. 302
toral Epistles ) Zephyrinus of Rome 17 55 117.14
TIXERONT,J. 19 ZIMMERLI, W. xi.1
Tobias of Edessa 4 ZKG = _ Zeitschrift fiir Kirchengeschichte
Tralles 61 69 77 79 193 : see also Ignatius (Stuttgart)
(letters ) ZNW = Zeitschrift fiir die neutestamentliche
TU = Texte und Untersuchungen (Leipzig Wissenschaft und die Kunde der 4lteren
and Berlin) Kirche (Giessen)
TURNER, H.E.W. 21.46 297-302 311,27 ZTK = Zeitschrift fiir Theologie und Kirche
314.30 315.33 and 39 ( Tiibingen )
TWbNT = TDNT ZWANN, J. de 287 290 295

N7EB44 826
THEO FOGY LIBRARY
CLAREMONT, CALIF.
 WALTER BAUER (1877-1960) was a
German New Testament scholar, lex-
icographer, and historian of the early
church. He taught successively at
Marburg, Breslau, and Gottingen.
Author of many books and articles, he
also edited the journal Theologische
Literaturzeiting.
Editor Robert A. Kraft is Professor of
Religious Thought at the University of
Pennsylvania. Gerhard Krodel is Pro-
fessor of New Testament at Lutheran
Theological Seminary at Philadelphia.

89304
)

Bauer
Orthodoxy and...

THEOLOGY LIBRARY
SCHOOL OF THEOLOGY AT CLAREMONT
CLAREMONT, CALIFORNIA

73 44
RR sie ae |
 4

es =

+<
‘

* v

wim eK

SNe oh ten
Hye Soa
nage roan
=

BPRS nas
ieee at
Sy Stn,
Ot haan
4