At first, in the years following the fall of Jerusalem, Paul’s Christianity flourished, then began to languish, but only briefly. At the beginning of the second century, his writings found a loyal following among the Gnostics when Marcion, one of the first recognized “heretics,” chose his writings as the basis for his canon. The Gnostics were not an ineffectual and unorganized bunch of fanatics that burst upon the scene and quickly disappeared into history. Theirs was a well-organized and worldwide form of worship that was accepted and promoted by reputable and intelligent leaders of their time, and endured well into the fifteenth century. But for the twists of fate and events, Gnosticism might have become the religion of choice today, rather than Christianity. No one is sure of the Gnostics' exact teachings, for though they had a number of very prolific writers; most of their works have been burned or lost in favor of early orthodox writings. Some that have survived are the Gospel of Truth, the Letter to Rheginus, Treatise on the Three Natures, Apocalypse of Adam, the Gospel of Matthias, Gospel of Philip, Acts of Peter, and Acts of Thomas.

The word "gnostic" means knowledge; they believed they possessed a special, divine knowledge of God. It is interesting to note that although Christians vilify the Gnostics as heretics, their own beliefs are also gnostic, attested to by their denial of agnosticism. When Christians claim a spiritual union with their God and assert that no man can know Him except by divine revelation, then they are espousing Gnosticism. In general, the Gnostics rejected the Old Testament, divided mankind into good (spiritual) and evil (earthly) and, much like Augustine, believed in a diversity of good and evil deities. Apparently their beliefs were a mixture of pagan, Jewish, and Christian teachings—another form of Christianity.

There is some speculation that Gnosticism predated Christianity and is therefore not truly Christian doctrine. However, it definitely adopted the idea of Christ, if not the person, and in that aspect was Christian. One of the first founders, or proponents, was an Alexandrian scholar named Basilides, who wrote between the years 120 & 130 AD. In the third century, the early Church theologian, Clement of Alexandria, wrote that Basilides claimed to have received the secret tradition from Glaucias, the interpreter of Peter.

But far more significant than Basilides, was his contemporary Valentinus who claimed he received lessons in Christian religion from a certain Theudas, who, he said, had been a student of St. Paul. This was, quite possibly, the crossroads where Gnostism and Pauline doctrines fused. Valentinus was a contemporary of Basilides, because he taught in, and established, a large following in Alexandria between 117 and 138 AD. He went to Rome, sometime between 136-140 AD, where his teachings flourished until about 160 AD. Valentinus had many followers, both in the East and in the West. Hippolytus speaks of an Oriental school and an Italian school established by Valentinus.

However, the best known leader of Gnosticism was Marcion, the son of the Bishop of Sinope, a seaport of Pontus, along the Black Sea. Marcion was a wealthy ship-owner who, in July, AD 144, stood before the Christian congregation in Rome to expound his teachings in order to win others to his point of view. For some years he had been a member of one of the Roman churches, and had proved the sincerity of his faith by making relatively large financial contributions. No doubt he was a respected member of the Christian community, but what he expounded to the presbyters was so monstrous that they were utterly shocked! The hearing ended in a harsh rejection of Marcion's views and he was formally excommunicated.

From that time forward, Marcion went his own way, energetically propagating a strange kind of Christianity that quickly took root throughout large sections of the Roman Empire. By the end of the second century, it had become a serious threat to the mainstream Christian Church. In each city of any importance, the Marcionites set up their church to defy the Christian one.

Marcion was the first to canonize a New Testament, an act that accelerated the process of creating the orthodox Church's canon, which had already begun in the first half of the second century. However, it was in opposition to Marcion's criticism that the Church first became fully aware of the power of a sanctioned set of Scriptures. Gnosticism flourished from the second century and, though suppressed by the Church, endured until the fifteenth century under different names, such as the Cathars, Bogomil, Paulicians, and Manichaeans. The only group to have continuously survived into modern times is the Mandaean sect of Iraq and Iran. This group currently numbers fewer than 15,000. Gnostic Christianity has been revitalized in the West and is now experiencing some growth. Today modern sects can be found on the Internet.

Paul’s Christ was spiritual. Jesus came to him in visions, lived within him as the Holy Ghost, and revealed the things he recognized as truth. It can be little doubted that this is what attracted Marcion to Paul’s writings, this is expressed in his Gnostic doctrines. But the orthodox group couldn’t tolerate doctrines that denied the God of the Old Testament and introduced an array of good and bad gods. A fierce controversy developed between these two groups and raged for centuries. For a clearer picture, it should be understood that each side wasn’t composed of a single, united group. Both sides were made up of sects, or denominations, that were often in disagreement within their own groups on at least one or two points.

However, all their differences melted down to one main topic of contention; should the gospel of Jesus Christ be regarded literally or allegorically? Marcion had collected Paul’s writings, combining them with some of his own, and canonized them into a book, or testament. The very fact that such writings were selected, compiled, and presented as chosen literature lent them credence, and like a flag, drew hundreds to Marcion’s banner. That was when the orthodox group, the Church, realized the importance of a canonized Scripture.

By the first part of the second century, various Christian sects throughout the world were repeating the stories of Jesus that they held dear, collecting their favorite tales, and expounding their own interpretations. As the second century passed, the need for the written word increased and a number of Church leaders were busy writing apologies, exhortations, and dissertations. Through more of a preference rather than a conscious effort, the different churches began to collect these writings and to formulate their own canonical Scriptures.

David L. Dungan, Professor of Religion University of Tennessee, sets the scene and explains:

 

Forty years of uninterrupted peace and tranquility followed the brief but intense persecutions of the Christian church, first under the emperor Decius in 250, when Origen was tortured and died, and the second under the Emperor Valerian in 258-260. After this period, the many different Christians sects and factions thrived and grew as never before, spreading to all of the great cities of the empire—Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, and Carthage—and to countless smaller towns and cities.

 

By now, there were distinguishable regional types of Christians. Jewish Christians, with their preferred gospels and anti-Trinitarian Christology, originally living in numerous small communities throughout Syria-Palestine (but greatly reduced by the end of the third century). Marcionites, with their tiny scripture of "Gospel and Apostle" and doctrine of two gods, outnumbered most other Christians in Asia Minor and northern Syria (especially in the late second century). Montanus and his prophetic daughters, with their ecstatic followers and no scripture at all (since they had the Holy Spirit), were numerous (especially in the late second century) in the province of Phrygia in eastern Asia Minor. And Gnostic conventicles, with their esoteric doctrines and distinctive gospels and mystic tracts, could be found in secretive suburban house-churches throughout Egypt, Syria-Palestine, and Italy in the second and third centuries…

 

In the latter part of the second century, a philosopher named Celsus, otherwise unknown to us, published a sophisticated philosophical attack upon the Christian religion, entitled True Religion. …One of Celsus's main objections was that it was impossible to tell what Christians believed, since they disagreed among themselves so completely. "When they were beginning…they were few and of one mind, but since then they have spread to become a multitude and are divided and rent asunder because each wants to have his own party."  (David L. Dungan, Constantine's Bible, chap. v, pp. 54-56).

 

For the weaker of these sects this fight for truth was a struggle for survival; for the stronger, and more dominant, it was one for authority. The establishment of theological credibility went hand in hand with authority, and who was able to claim it. To that end, different parties produced literature to uphold their positions and refute that of the others. Each group viewed the others with skepticism at first, then hostility, and finally, hatred.  The followers of Paul viewed any doctrine other than their own as being of the devil and its adherents as accursed (Galatians 1:8-9). The Jewish believers rejected any teachings contrary to the Law, and everyone was labeling the Jews as Christ-killers. Superstition was rampant. Most Christians believed the old pagan gods were demons or fallen angels. And the doctrines of the Nicolaitans and Gnostics were further dividing those who claimed the name Christian.

To form a clearer picture of the literature available, let's take a closer look at some of those early writings.

 

The Apologists

 

In a prior chapter I referred to the early Church groups and mentioned the Apologists as one of the Christian movements. I also made reference to the importance the mystery religions played in the development of Christianity and how their adherents were drawn to the idea of one god. Mr. Earl Doherty, author of The Jesus Puzzle, (http://www.jesuspuzzle.com/), gives us a good description of what occurred.

 

Monotheism was the possession not only of the Jews, but of much of Greek philosophy. Ancient thinking had arrived at an ultimate high God who had created and governed the universe. But a problem had to be faced. As such a God was made ever more lofty, more perfect, he also became more transcendent. Any form of contact with the inferior world of matter was deemed inappropriate and indeed impossible, and so the idea arose that any relationship between God and the world had to take place through some form of intermediary.

 

The Greek solution was the Logos, a kind of subsidiary god or divine force, an emanation of the Deity. In the most influential school of thinking, Platonism, the Logos was the image of God in perceivable form and a model for creation. He revealed the otherwise inaccessible, ultimate God, and through him—or it, since the Logos was more an abstract than a personal being—God acted upon the world. We know of Hellenistic religious sects based on the Logos. (See the little Address to the Greeks, originally attributed to Justin Martyr.)

 

The Jewish God never became quite so inaccessible, but knowledge of him and of his Law was thought to have been brought to the world by a part of himself called "Wisdom." This figure (it was a 'she') evolved almost into a divine being herself, an agent of creation and salvation with her own myths about coming to earth—though not in any physical incarnation. (See Proverbs 1 and 8-9, Baruch 3-4, Ecclesiasticus 24 and The
Wisdom of Solomon.) In fact, many parts of the ancient world
seem to have developed the concept of an intermediary divine figure coming to earth to bring knowledge and salvation, but details of such myths, especially for pre-Christian periods, are sketchy and much debated.

 

Out of this rich soil of ideas arose Christianity, a product of both Jewish and Greek philosophy. Its concept of Jesus the "Son" grew out of ideas like personified Wisdom (with a sex change), leavened with the Greek Logos, and amalgamated with the more personal and human figure of traditional Messiah expectation. Christianity made its Christ (the Greek word for Messiah) into a heavenly figure who could be related to, though he is intimately tied to God himself. Unlike Wisdom or the Logos, however, the Christian Savior was envisioned to have undergone self-sacrifice.

 

As we have already mentioned, the first hundred years of Christianity remains shrouded in a fog of ignorance for lack of historical records. But when we enter the second century, we find the writings of the Apologists who championed Christianity, men such as Justin Martyr, Theophilus of Antioch, Athenagoras of Athens, Minucius Felix, and Tatian, a pupil of Martyr. The most amazing characteristic of these apologists is the fact that, with the exception of Justin Martyr, none introduces an historical Jesus into their defenses of Christianity to the pagans. There is little continuity between these writers and Church traditions. In fact, they often have little or nothing in common with New Testament Gospels and Epistles. With the exception of Justin Martyr, none have anything to say about Jesus and the Gospels prior to 180 AD.

Before he discovered Christianity, Justin Martyr was a philosopher who studied the Stoics, Aristotle, and the Pythagoreans. He applied that learned philosophy to his new religion. For him, Christianity was simply the best philosophy. In Rome, he opened his own school and taught Christianity in the same manner that philosophy was taught.

But what form did this Christian philosophy assume? It had all the basic elements of Jewish monotheistic worship. It used the Hebrew Scriptures and extolled Jewish ethics. On the other hand, its concept of a son of God was the Logos, perceived as an intermediary between God and man. It was a religion styled upon Platonism and Judaism, entirely different from Paul’s suffering Christ, or end of the world scenario. The apologists’ view of salvation was rooted in Greek mysticism, not Jewish martyrdom.

In studying the works of these writers, the difference becomes obvious. For instance, Theophilus was a bishop of Antioch in 168 AD, who claims to have turned to Christianity after reading the Jewish Scriptures. His treatise, To Autolycus, written in about 180 AD, asks the question: “What is a Christian?” In reply, the character Autolycus answers: “Because we are anointed with the oil of God.”¹ No reference to Jesus, or to Christ. In fact, Theophilus never mentions either in his writings. There is no reference to a founder/teacher. Instead, adherents receive their doctrines and knowledge of God by the Holy Spirit. He does mention “the gospels,” but this refers to the word of God, not the New Testament Gospels.²

Theophilus speaks of his God as the Word, through whom God created the world. The Word, or Logos, along with Wisdom, was begat by Him.³ The Word was the intermediary between God and man, yet Theophilus makes no reference to that Word being incarnated, made flesh, or even being on the earth. In fact, he denies any sense of begetting, asserting the Word was within the heart of God.

Redemption comes through obedience to the commandments of God. Theophilus doesn’t even entertain the idea of an atoning sacrifice through Jesus.⁴ A sacrificial death isn’t even mentioned. Although Theophilus speaks of the resurrection, when Autolycus (the non-believer) demands: “Show me even one who has been raised from the dead!” his Christian adversary has nothing to say about Jesus. Quite the contrary; he derides the pagans for worshipping “dead men,” such as Hercules and Aesclepius, who were supposedly raised from the dead.⁵

Athenagoras of Athens was a philosopher and Christian who wrote in Alexandria at about the same time as Theophilus. In his, A Plea for the Christians, addressed to the emperor, Athenagoras declared: “We acknowledge one God… by whom the universe has been created through his Logos, and set in order and kept in being… for we acknowledge also a son of God… If it occurs to you to enquire what is meant by the Son, I will state that he is the first product of the Father (who) had the Logos in himself. He came forth to be the idea and energizing power of all material things.”⁶

A Plea for the Christians has 37 chapters, yet somehow, Athenagoras fail to tell the emperor that the Logos, his son of God, had been incarnated as Jesus Christ. He goes deeply into Stoic and Platonic philosophy, angels, demons, and Greek myths, but says nothing about Paul’s concept of salvation. His Christian doctrine is “not from a human source, but uttered and taught by God". There are times when he quotes maxims close to those of the Sermon on the Mount, and refers to quotations that seem to be from Scripture, but they are never attributed to Jesus. Like Theophilus, Athenagoras never mentions Jesus; yet he apologizes to the emperor: “If I go minutely into the particulars of our doctrines, let it not surprise you.”⁷

Tatian, a pupil of Justin Martyr, wrote Apology to the Greeks, from Rome, in about 160 AD. Like the other apologists, he turned to Christianity after reading the Jewish Scriptures. Also, like the other apologists, he never uses “Jesus,” “Christ,” or the name “Christian". Great attention is given to describing the Logos as the creative power of the universe; the first-begotten of the Father, through whom the world was made. But, again, he fails to refer to an incarnation. Eternal life is gained through the knowledge of God, not an atoning sacrifice.

Finally, we come to Octavius, a small treatise in Latin. It presents a debate between Caecilius, a pagan, and Octavius, a Christian, as developed by the author, Minucius Felix. There is a lot of debate about when Minucius Felix, as the work is now known, was written. The dates range between 150 and 200 AD.

Again, in this work, as in the writings of other apologists, there is no reference to Jesus though the word Christian appears throughout. While it does refer to the resurrection of the body and a future judgment, no appeal is made to Jesus’ resurrection as proof, even when challenged: “…what single individual has returned from the dead either by the fate of Protesilaus, with permission to sojourn for even a few hours, or that we might believe it for an example?”⁸ Caecilius, enumerating pagan opinion accuses Christians of every offense imaginable, from debauchery and the devouring of infants, to Christian hopes for the world’s fiery destruction.

 

Assuredly this confederacy ought to be rooted out and execrated…. a certain religion of lust… I hear that they adore the head of an ass… that they worship the virilia [genitals] of their pontiff and priest… and he who explains their ceremonies by reference to a man punished by extreme suffering for his wickedness, and to the deadly wood of the cross, appropriates fitting altars for reprobate and wicked men, that they may worship what they deserve… An infant covered over with meal, that it may deceive the unwary, is placed before him who is to be stained with their rites: this infant is slain by the young pupil, who has been urged on as if to harmless blows on the surface of the meal, with dark and secret wounds. Thirstily_O_horror! they lick up its blood; eagerly they divide its limbs (Octavius, chap. 9).

 

In The Jesus Puzzle, Mr. Doherty comments upon these defamations:

 

Remember that a Christian is composing this passage. He has included the central element and figure of the Christian faith, the person and crucifixion of Jesus, within a litany of ridiculous and unspeakable calumnies leveled against his religion—with no indication, by his language or tone, that this reference to a crucified man is to be regarded as in any way different from the rest of the items: disreputable accusations which need to be refuted. Could a Christian author who believed in a crucified Jesus and his divinity really have been capable of this manner of presentation?

 

In Octavius' half of the debate, he proceeds eventually to the refutation of these slanders. Here are some of the other things he says along the way.

 

In ridiculing the Greek myths about the deaths of their gods, such as Isis lamenting over the dismembered Osiris, he says: "Is it not absurd to bewail what you worship, or worship what you bewail?" In other words, he is castigating the Greeks for lamenting and worshiping a god who is slain. Later he says: "Men who have died cannot become gods, because a god cannot die; nor can men who are born (become gods) . . . Why, I pray, are gods not born today, if such have ever been born?" He then goes on to ridicule the whole idea of gods procreating themselves, which would include the idea of a god begetting a son. Elsewhere he scorns those who are credulous enough to believe in miracles performed by gods.

 

How, without any saving qualification, could a Christian put such arguments forward, since they would confute and confound essential Christian beliefs in his own mind, and leave himself open to the charge of hypocrisy? It is one thing for the puzzled commentator to claim that silences in the apologists are due to a desire not to discourage or irritate the pagans with long and confusing theological treatises on subjects they are prejudiced against, or because they are not aiming to provide a comprehensive picture of the faith. But when an apologist makes statements which flatly contradict and even calumnize ideas which should be at the very heart of his own beliefs and personal devotion, such explanations are clearly discredited.

 

And how does Minucius Felex deal with the accusation that Christians worship a crucified man and his cross? As he did in Caecilius' diatribe, the author inserts his response into the midst of his refutation of other calumnies about incestuous banquets and adoration of a priest's genitals. Here is the manner and context in which he deals with the charge of worshiping a crucified criminal: "These and similar indecencies we do not wish to hear; it is disgraceful having to defend ourselves from such charges. People who live a chase and virtuous life are falsely charged by you with acts which we would not consider possible, except that we see you doing them yourselves. Moreover (nam), when you attribute to our religion the worship of a criminal and his cross, you wander far from the truth in thinking that a criminal deserved, or that a mortal man could be able, to be believed in as God. Miserable indeed is that man whose whole hope is dependent on a mortal, for such hope ceases with his (the latter's) death..."

 

Before going on, we should first note that verse 2, following as it does on the sentiments of verse 1 (which the Latin word nam emphasizes), makes it clear that the writer regards this accusation as being in the same vein as the other "indecencies" he is at pains to refute. And what is the refutation he provides? It is to heap scorn on those who would believe that a crucified criminal, a mortal, should be thought of as a god. Where is the necessary qualification that no Christian could surely have remained silent on? Where is the saving defense that in fact this crucified man was not a mortal, but was indeed God? Some claim that this is what Minucius is implying, but such an implication is so opaque, it can only be derived from reading it into the text. Octavius' words certainly do not contain it, although they do imply that the writer knows of some Christians who believe such things, but he has no sympathy with them.

 

…Those who are capable of letting historical documents say what they obviously seem to be saying will recognize that Minucius Felix is a true 'smoking gun' pointing to a Christian denial of the historical Jesus. Even though this document indicates that there were others within the movement who believed in such a figure, and that there were historical Jesus traditions circulating, this does not automatically validate the historicity of such a figure, especially as the author is writing no earlier than the mid-second century. But the key consideration is this: such a denial as Minucius Felix voices would hardly have been possible within the context of a movement which had actually begun with an historical Jesus, and so we can say that this document does indeed provide strong evidence of the non-existence of this figure.

 

To the dispassionate eye, Minucius Felix is one Christian who will have no truck with those, in other circles of his religion, who profess the worship of a Jesus who was crucified in Judea under the governorship of Pontius Pilate, rumors of which have reached pagan ears and elicited much scorn and condemnation. To claim that a whole generation of apologists would falsely convey such an exterior to those they are seeking to win over, that they would deliberately indulge in this kind of Machiavellian deception, is but one of the desperate measures which modern Christian scholars have been forced to adopt in their efforts to deal with a Christian record that stubbornly refuses to paint the picture they all want to see.

 

As I have stated repeatedly, it is the generally held belief of most Christian denominations that Paul and the Apostles of Jesus carried the story of salvation throughout the world. The fact that we find several writers who professed a form of Christianity without an historical Jesus is additional proof that such was not the case. And when we consider the fact that these apologies were written from different parts of the world, within a close time frame of other Christian literature, it becomes obvious that there were many and varied concepts of Christianity.

 

Early Writings

 

As we compare the writings of the early Christians we find vast differences in ideologies and philosophies. Upon close inspection, we can actually detect the rapid evolution of a spiritual, personal religion to an organized and worldly system intent upon total dominance. For the early disciples of Paul, understanding of God was based upon the Hebrew Scripture. Heathen gods were false, helpless idols made by hand. God was supreme—all in all. Later the Hellenistic converts, even notable Fathers, saints, and bishops such as Tertullian and Augustine, viewed the gods as real evil demons and fallen angels of Satan, created to confuse the truth. Look at the difference between these passages; first from Octavius, then from St. Augustine’s City of God:

 

Also you offer up and worship the heads of oxen and of wethers, and you dedicate gods mingled also of a goat and a man, and gods with the faces of dogs and lions. Do you not adore and feed Apis the ox, with the Egyptians? And you do not condemn their sacred rites instituted in honour of serpents, and crocodiles, and other beasts, and birds, and fishes, of which if any one were to kill one of these gods, he is even punished with death. These same Egyptians, together with very many of you, are not more afraid of Isis than they are of the pungency of onions, nor of Serapis more than they tremble at the basest noises produced by the foulness of their bodies. (chapter 28)… For in that you attribute to our religion the worship of a criminal and his cross, you wander far from the neighbourhood of the truth, in thinking either that a criminal deserved, or that an earthly being was able, to be believed God. Miserable indeed is that man whose whole hope is dependent on mortal man, for all his help is put an end to with the extinction of the man (chapter 29).

 

From Augustine’s City of God:

 

It is alleged, in excuse of this practice, that the stories told of the gods are not true, but false, and mere inventions, but this only makes matters worse, if we form our estimate by the morality our religion teaches; and if we consider the malice of the devils, what more wily and astute artifice could they practice upon men?

 

… But the devils, whom these men repute gods, are content that even iniquities they are guiltless of should be ascribed to them, so long as they may entangle men's minds in the meshes of these opinions, and draw them on along with themselves to their predestinated punishment: whether such things were actually committed by the men whom these devils, delighting in human infatuation, cause to be worshipped as gods, and in whose stead they, by a thousand malign and deceitful artifices, substitute themselves, and so receive worship; or whether, though they were really the crimes of men, these wicked spirits gladly allowed them to be attributed to higher beings, that there might seem to be conveyed from heaven itself a sufficient sanction for the perpetration of shameful wickedness.

 

In the first example, Minucius Felix ridicules the idea that some make gods of the lower creatures and inanimate objects, and his remark about worshiping dead men even seems to scorn the idea of a risen Savior. In contrast, Augustine sees satanic devils in every aspect of life, thereby identifying himself as a superstitious fear monger. Another example from Theophilus' To Autolycus:

 

Who is the Physician? God, who heals and makes alive through His word and wisdom. God by His own word and wisdom made all things; for "by His word were the heavens made, and all the host of them by the breath of His mouth." Most excellent is His wisdom. By His wisdom God founded the earth; and by knowledge He prepared the heavens; and by understanding were the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the clouds poured out their dews. If thou perceivest these things, O man, living chastely, and holily, and righteously, thou canst see God. But before all let faith and the fear of God have rule in thy heart, and then shalt thou understand these things. When thou shalt have put off the mortal, and put on incorruption, then shall thou see God worthily. For God will raise thy flesh immortal with thy soul; and then, having become immortal, thou shalt see the Immortal, if now you believe on Him; and then you shall know that you have spoken unjustly against Him (Book I, chap. 7).

 

Here the apologist doesn’t even appear to know of Jesus Christ. All the emphasis is on God, not the Son. Even though God works through the Word, it is still God who is the point of focus. Salvation comes through righteousness and the mercy of God—not Jesus. In fact, there is no inference of the Word being made flesh; no indication Jesus Christ ever existed. On the other hand, as we shall see from the following passage, the Church equated Jesus with God, and their writings speak to and of Jesus instead of God. From Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans, written only twenty years or so later:

 

I Glorify God, even Jesus Christ, who has given you such wisdom. For I have observed that ye are perfected in an immoveable faith, as if ye were nailed to the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, both in the flesh and in the spirit, and are established in love through the blood of Christ, being fully persuaded with respect to our Lord, that He was truly of the seed of David according to the flesh, and the Son of God according to the will and power of God; that He was truly born of a virgin, was baptized by John, in order that all righteousness might be fulfilled by Him; and was truly, under Pontius Pilate and Herod the tetrarch, nailed [to the cross] for us in His flesh. Of this fruit we are by His Divinely—blessed passion, that He might set up a standard for all ages, through His resurrection, to all His holy and faithful [followers], whether among Jews or Gentiles, in the one body of His Church (Letter to the Smyrnaeans).

 

Notice the totally different avenues to salvation! One is through the knowledge of God and the other through the sacrifice of Christ. The fact that these passages were written within twenty or so years of each other leaves no doubt that there were numerous Christian sects at that early date.

The writings of Ignatius are interesting for another reason. At the turn of the second century, he wrote a number of epistles (fifteen in his name, but eight are considered forgeries) to various churches while under arrest, and on his way to Rome, where he would surely suffer death. Later, his works would be expanded upon, expansions that provide us with amazing insight into the growth of Christian doctrine and the Church’s usurpation of power. And we aren’t speaking of an occasional expansion in his epistles. Almost every paragraph on every subject and every epistle has been enlarged. Both the long and short versions are readily available for viewing on a number of websites, by simply searching “Ignatius". Here are a couple of examples:

 

But if any one preach the Jewish law unto you, listen not to him. For it is better to hearken to Christian doctrine from a man who has been circumcised, than to Judaism from one uncircumcised. But if either of such persons do not speak concerning Jesus Christ, they are in my judgment but as monuments and sepulchres of the dead, upon which are written only the names of men. Flee therefore the wicked devices and snares of the prince of this world, lest at any time being conquered by his artifices, ye grow weak in your love. But be ye all joined together with an undivided heart. And I thank my God that I have a good conscience in respect to you, and that no one has it in his power to boast, either privately or publicly, that I have burdened any one either in much or in little. And I wish for all among whom I have spoken, that they may not possess that for a testimony against them (Short Letter to the Philadelphians).

 

It should be noted that by his statement, "if either of such persons do not speak concerning Jesus Christ, they are in my judgment but as monuments and sepulchres of the dead," Ignatius is unequivocally denouncing the apologists who ignored the person of Jesus.

The subject of this passage is simply a warning, perhaps based on the teachings of Paul who opposed the Jews and taught his Gentile converts that their salvation was apart from the Law. One can’t help but feel the love and compassion of the writer. But look at the hatred and racism that grew with time. From the long version:

 

If any one preaches the one God of the law and the prophets, but denies Christ to be the Son of God, he is a liar, even as also is his father the devil, and is a Jew falsely so called, being possessed of mere carnal circumcision. If any one confesses Christ Jesus the Lord, but denies the God of the law and of the prophets, saying that the Father of Christ is not the Maker of heaven and earth, he has not continued in the truth any more than his father the devil, and is a disciple of Simon Magus, not of the Holy Spirit. If any one says there is one God, and also confesses Christ Jesus, but thinks the Lord to be a mere man, and not the only-begotten God, and Wisdom, and the Word of God, and deems Him to consist merely of a soul and body, such an one is a serpent, that preaches deceit and error for the destruction of men. And such a man is poor in understanding, even as by name he is an Ebionite. If any one confesses the truths mentioned, but calls lawful wedlock, and the procreation of children, destruction and pollution, or deems certain kinds of food abominable, such an one has the apostate dragon dwelling within him. If any one confesses the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost, and praises the creation, but calls the incarnation merely an appearance, and is ashamed of the passion, such an one has denied the faith, not less than the Jews who killed Christ. If any one confesses these things, and that God the Word did dwell in a human body, being within it as the Word, even as the soul also is in the body, because it was God that inhabited it, and not a human soul, but affirms that unlawful unions are a good thing, and places the highest happiness in pleasure, as does the man who is falsely called a Nicolaitan, this person can neither be a lover of God, nor a lover of Christ, but is a corrupter of his own flesh, and therefore void of the Holy Spirit, and a stranger to Christ. All such persons are but monuments and sepulchres of the dead, upon which are written only the names of dead men. Flee, therefore, the wicked devices and snares of the spirit which now worketh in the children of this world, lest at any time being overcome, ye grow weak in your love. But be ye all joined together with an undivided heart and a willing mind, "being of one accord and of one judgment," being always of the same opinion about the same things, both when you are at ease and in danger, both in sorrow and in joy. I thank God, through Jesus Christ, that I have a good conscience in respect to you, and that no one has it in his power to boast, either privately or publicly, that I have burdened any one either in much or in little. And I wish for all among whom I have spoken, that they may not possess that for a testimony against them (Long Letter to the Philadelphians).

 

A lying son of the devil! The passage has been turned into a tirade of bitterness and hatred! And notice how the writer uses the occasion to promote controversial Church issues such as the trinity, unclean food, even wedlock and attacks Church opponents such as the Ebionites, the Nicolaitans and Jews. The passage endorses a list of contested Church doctrines. And remember, by inserting his opinions anonymously within this work the rewriter is making it appear that Ignatius actually penned these doctrines. Here is a perfect example of the corruption of original writings. Let’s look at another example:

 

These things [I address to you], my beloved, not that I know any of you to be in such a state; but, as less than any of you, I desire to guard you beforehand, that ye fall not upon the hooks of vain doctrine, but that ye attain to full assurance in regard to the birth, and passion, and resurrection which took place in the time of the government of Pontius Pilate, being truly and certainly accomplished by Jesus Christ, who is our hope, from which may no one of you ever be turned aside (Short letter to the Magnesians).

 

Just a simple admonition to be strong in the faith, but look how it is expanded:

 

These things [I address to you], my beloved, not that I know any of you to be in such a state; but, as less than any of you, I desire to guard you beforehand, that ye fall not upon the hooks of vain doctrine, but that you may rather attain to a full assurance in Christ, who was begotten by the Father before all ages, but was afterwards born of the Virgin Mary without any intercourse with man. He also lived a holy life, and healed every kind of sickness and disease among the people, and wrought signs and wonders for the benefit of men; and to those who had fallen into the error of polytheism He made known the one and only true God, His Father, and underwent the passion, and endured the cross at the hands of the Christ-killing Jews, under Pontius Pilate the governor and Herod the king. He also died, and rose again, and ascended into the heavens to Him that sent Him, and is sat down at His right hand, and shall come at the end of the world, with His Father's glory, to judge the living and the dead, and to render to every one according to his works. He who knows these things with a full assurance, and believes them, is happy; even as ye are now the lovers of God and of Christ, in the full assurance of our hope, from which may no one of us ever be turned aside! (Long letter to the Magnesians).

Look at the additional information revealed concerning Jesus! Ignatius speaks of the birth, passion, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, and refers to him as “our hope". But look what the rewriter puts into his mouth; he was “begotten by the Father before all ages, but was afterwards born of the Virgin Mary without any intercourse with man. He also lived a holy life, and healed every kind of sickness and disease among the people, and wrought signs and wonders for the benefit of men; and to those who had fallen into the error of polytheism He made known the one and only true God, His Father…,” he “endured the cross at the hands of the Christ-killing Jews…,” he “is sat down at His right hand, and shall come at the end of the world, with His Father's glory, to judge the living and the dead, and to render to every one according to his works". Apparently, as the Church grew and consolidated its doctrines, someone felt a need to go back and clarify the obsolete thinking of the early writers. I have one other passage for consideration.

Now it becomes you also not to treat your bishop too familiarly on account of his youth, but to yield him all reverence, having respect to the power of God the Father, as I have known even holy presbyters do, not judging rashly, from the manifest youthful appearance [of their bishop], but as being themselves prudent in God, submitting to him, or rather not to him, but to the Father of Jesus Christ, the bishop of us all. It is therefore fitting that you should, after no hypocritical fashion, obey [your bishop], in honour of Him who has hired us [so to do], since he that does not so deceives not [by such conduct] the bishop that is visible, but seeks to mock Him that is invisible. And all such conduct has reference not to man, but to God, who knows all secrets (Short letter to the Magnesians).

 

And the long version:

 

Now it becomes you also not to despise the age of your bishop, but to yield him all reverence, according to the will of God the Father, as I have known even holy presbyters do, not having regard to the manifest youth [of their bishop], but to his knowledge in God; inasmuch as "not the ancient are [necessarily] wise, nor do the aged understand prudence; but there is a spirit in men." For Daniel the wise, at twelve years of age, became possessed of the divine Spirit, and convicted the elders, who in vain carried their grey hairs, of being false accusers, and of lusting after the beauty of another man's wife. Samuel also, when he was but a little child, reproved Eli, who was ninety years old, for giving honour to his sons rather than to God. In like manner, Jeremiah also received this message from God, "Say not, I am a child." Solomon too, and Josiah, [exemplified the same thing.] The former, being made king at twelve years of age, gave that terrible and difficult judgment in the case of the two women concerning their children. The latter, coming to the throne when eight years old cast down the altars and temples [of the idols], and demons, and not to God. And he slew the false priests, as the corrupters and deceivers of men, and not the worshippers of the Deity. Wherefore youth is not to be despised when it is devoted to God. But he is to be despised who is of a wicked mind, although he be old, and full of wicked days. Timothy the Christ-bearer was young, but hear what his teacher writes to him: "Let no man despise thy youth, but be thou an example of the believers in word and in conduct." It is becoming, therefore, that ye also should be obedient to your bishop, and contradict him in nothing; for it is a fearful thing to contradict any such person. For no one does [by such conduct] deceive him that is visible, but does [in reality] seek to mock Him that is invisible, who, however, cannot be mocked by any one. And every such act has respect not to man, but to God. For God says to Samuel, "They have not mocked thee, but Me." And Moses declares, "For their murmuring is not against us, but against the Lord God." No one of those has, [in fact] remained unpunished, who rose up against their superiors. For Dathan and Abiram did not speak against the law, but against Moses, and were cast down alive into Hades. Korah also, and the two hundred and fifty who conspired with him against Aaron, were destroyed by fire. Absalom, again, who had slain his brother, became suspended on a tree, and had his evil-designing heart thrust through with darts. In like manner was Abeddadan beheaded for the same reason. Uzziah, when he presumed to oppose the priests and the priesthood, was smitten with leprosy. Saul also was dishonoured, because he did not wait for Samuel the high priest. It behoves you, therefore, also to reverence your superiors” (Long letter to the Magnesians).

 

The failure of Paul’s teaching of an indwelling spirit that would lead the believer into all truth was bearing bitter fruit. Contentions and divisions were occurring within the churches. And numerous sects were all proclaiming themselves Christian. Note how the second passage, written years later, expanding on Ignastius’ theme, includes Old Testament examples with inferred divine punishments. Efforts had to be made to suppress Paul’s spirit-led doctrine. The above forgery is one example of how the Catholic Church endowed the bishops with the power to enslave. Ignastius was attempting to restore unity and strengthen the believers—the latter version is an attempt to instill blind obedience to Church leaders.

To those who would point out that these writings are not Holy Scripture I will ask: “How did the Holy Scriptures evolve?” And I will answer that later we’ll see they were derived from writing such as these we are studying. In fact, many of these writings were read as Holy Scriptures in the early churches and revered as divine.

We have made references to some early Church writings that predated all the canon books of the New Testament except those of Paul. Let's look at some very short commentaries on the earliest ones, just to get an idea of what information was available to the early Christians. I've mentioned Richard Carrier's The Formation of the New Testament Canon (200). I highly recommend it for those who desire an understanding of the origin of their New Testament without becoming bogged down in weeks and months of intense study. It can be accessed at: (www.geocities.com/airspirit3/newtestamentcanon.html).

He gives us a good introduction to some Pre-Canonical writings: (Note: I have removed Mr. Carrier’s reference links because they are inactive outside the web).

 

The first Christian text that did not become canonized but was respected as authentic is the first epistle of Clement of Rome, reasonably dated to 95 AD, and contained in many ancient Bibles and frequently read and regarded as scripture in many churches.  This is relevant because even at this late date two things are observed: Clement never refers to any Gospel, but frequently refers to various epistles of Paul. Yet he calls them wise counsel, not scripture—he reserves this authority for the OT ("Old Testament"), which he cites over a hundred times. On a few occasions he quotes Jesus, without referring to any written source. But his quotations do not correspond to anything in any known written text, although they resemble sayings in the Gospels close enough to have derived from the same oral tradition. This suggests that the Gospels were not known to Clement. Yet he was a prominent leader of the Church in Rome. If they had been written by then, they must have not made it to Rome before 95. It is possible that they had not been written at all. In the case of Mark, for example, it is often thought that he was writing for an audience in Rome, thus it is most remarkable that Clement would not know of this, supposedly the earliest, Gospel. But it is also possible that he simply chose not to quote Mark, though knew the book—although why he would ignore Mark (even in his quotations of Jesus) and yet refer to numerous epistles of Paul is difficult to explain.

The next such text concerns the collection of letters by Ignatius.

However, these were added to and redacted in later centuries, making the reliability of even the "authentic" letters uncertain.  Ignatius wrote while on the road to his trial in 110 AD and it is important to note that he appears not to have had references with him, thus any allusions or quotations in his work come from memory alone. Thus, he borrows phrases and paraphrases from many Pauline epistles, yet never tells us this is what he is doing (he probably could not recall which letters he was drawing from at the time). Likewise, he borrows phrases or ideas which are found in Matthew and John, and on one occasion something that appears to be from Luke, but again he never names his sources or even tells us that he is drawing from a source at all. In no case does he name or precisely quote any NT ("New Testament") book, but again this may be due to the unusual circumstances in which he was writing.

 

Despite the difficulties, it seems plausible that the Gospels had been written by this date, although it is remotely possible that Ignatius is simply quoting oral traditions which eventually became recorded in writing, and also possible that this material was added or dressed up by later editors. Of greatest note is that in his letter to the Philadelphians, Ignatius recounts a debate he held with Judaizing Christians in which it is clear that only the OT was regarded as an authority. Instead of referring to any NT writings as evidence, he simply says that Jesus Christ is the witness to the authority of the tradition. This suggests that none of the NT was regarded even then as an authority. Like Clement, Ignatius and other Christians probably regarded these texts as wise counsel or useful collections of their oral traditions, and not as "scripture" per se.

 

Next comes the Didakhê (did-a-KAY), a manual of Christianity, which cannot be certainly dated, though it is believed to follow 110. Some scholars have weakly tried to place it much earlier, even to the time of Paul—others have proposed a much later date for the existing text, as late as the 4^th century (though it existed in some form without a doubt before the 3^rd century). Its detailed account of a church hierarchy and rituals and the text's unusual organization into "The Way of Life" and "The Way of Death," among other details, likely suggest a 2^nd century date. It does not name any written sources, but quotes exactly the Gospel of Matthew as just the "Gospel" of Jesus.  No references are made which show any clear connection with the epistles, but the OT is quoted a few times. It is worth noting that the book attributes its ultimate source to unnamed itinerant evangelists, showing that anonymous oral tradition was still king when the Didakhe was written. It is also worth noting that this text was regarded as canonical scripture by Clement of Alexandria and Origen, and perhaps in the Egyptian churches for quite some time.

 

Unfortunately, we cannot date this text well enough for it to be helpful, and the same problem is faced by the Epistle of Barnabas, which cites many OT books by name and uses many phrases which appear in the Gospels, but never names any NT book—and the allusions are of the sort that could merely reflect common oral traditions.  The date of this letter is unknown and could be anywhere from 70 to 130 AD (Barnabas was supposedly a companion of Paul), and it was for a long time actually a part of the NT canon itself, appearing at the end of the oldest surviving complete Bible, the Codex Sinaiticus (printed in the 4^th century AD, possibly based on a text produced by imperial commission…

 

…Polycarp wrote a letter which cites "Jesus" for certain sayings a hundred times, and the sayings match closely those appearing in the Gospels (and even things written in numerous Epistles, which were not originally attributed to Jesus), but he does not name any sources. We see the authority of oral tradition is again elevated above the written—like all the previous authors, no NT text is called scripture, though many OT texts are, and the only cited source for NT information is the report of 'unnamed' evangelists (Epistle of Polycarp, 4.3). However, a sign of a change lies in the very purpose of the letter: it is a preface to a collection of letters by Ignatius which another church had requested be copied and sent on to them. The interest in written documents is thus rising among Christian congregations in this period (unfortunately, this could also be a source of interpolated Gospel quotations in Ignatius). And so it is in this milieu, between 138 and 147 AD, that the first philosophical defense of Christianity addressed to an Emperor (Antoninus Pius) appears, written by Aristides of Athens, in which there was vaguely mentioned "what [the Christians] call the holy Gospel writing" which is alleged to be powerful in its effect on readers.

 

As all this is going on, however, one of the first written texts to become universally popular and an object of praise among Christians is none other than the book of Hermas, a.k.a. The Sheppherd, an unusual (to us) collection of "visions, mandates, and similitudes" (the names of the three books that comprise it). This was written at some time in the 2^nd century, and we have papyrus fragments from that very century to prove it. It may date even from the 1^st century, but references inside and outside the text create likely dates ranging from 95 to 154 AD (both Origen and Jerome thought the author was the very Hermas known to Paul, i.e. Romans 16.14), but it is probably more likely later than earlier in that range.

 

So popular the Sheppherd was that it was widely regarded as inspired—it was actually included, along with the Epistle of Barnabas, as the final book in the oldest NT codex that survives intact, the Codex Sinaiticus (c. 300 AD).  But even the book of Hermas never names or quotes exactly any NT text. It contains many statements which resemble those in various NT books, but this could just as well reflect a common oral tradition. It is noteworthy that the only book actually named by Hermas is an apocryphal Jewish text, the Book of Eldad and Modat. In contrast, it is notable that none of the Gospels or canonical Epistles ever name any book of any kind apart from Jude—which cites another apocryphal text, the Book of Enoch.

 

Other works that were extant, during the middle and late second century, were those of the Apologists, which we covered briefly earlier in this chapter. What should be gleaned from this brief literary history is the diversity of inspirational materials and the absence of any references to the Gospels.

So, relying mostly on its claim of apostolic succession, based upon oral tradition, the orthodox Church struggled for dominance through the second century and into the third. It should be understood that the orthodoxy of the Church was very liquid, and during that era many sects that termed themselves Christian would later be declared heretical. Precisely for this reason, as the number of believers increased, the need for training material also grew. Questions arose that had no readily available answers, especially where Jesus was concerned. For the first hundred years their only divine literature was the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, which they searched for prophecies believed to have been fulfilled by Jesus. Dr. Hugh J. Schonfield refers to such a collection in his, The Passover Plot.

 

Evidently in presenting the material a sentence from one prophet was sometimes tacked on to or combined with the words of another prophet. Classic examples are Mal. 3:1 running on into Isa. 40:3, ascribed to Isaiah in Mk. 1:2-3, and a passage from Zach. 11:12-13 mixed with some allusion to Jer. 32:6,9, ascribed to Jeremiah in Mt. 27:9. It is not only that the secondary authority is substituted for the primary, but that excerpts from different works are combined to make a continuous quotation.

 

That's just what we saw Paul doing with excerpts from Hosea and Isaiah in Romans 9:24-27, 29. And from Morton Scott Enslin's, Christian Beginnings (Parts I & II):

 

The Old Testament became the Bible of Christians, and remained such even when in the second century specifically Christian writings came gradually to be added to it. The significance of this Christian adoption of the Old Testament cannot be overemphasized. Actually the Septuagint came soon to be regarded as essentially the property of Christians, not Jews of Christians, not Jews. Not only was it believed to be full of prophecies of Jesus, the coming Messiah, but that it had been actually written for Christians.

Here we should consider the origin and history of the Septuagint, often referred to as LXX, meaning 70; a reference to the supposed number of translators. The importance of the Septuagint is made evident in light of the emphasis early Christians placed upon it. They pointed to many passages they considered as prophecies which foretold the coming of Jesus as the Christ. Such teachings have fostered a number of controversies. Just how credible is this translation of the Hebrew writings? Let me insert a brief history as recorded in the Catholic Encyclopedia:

The Septuagint Version is first mentioned in a letter of Aristeas to his brother Philocrates. Here, in substance, is what we read of the origin of the version. Ptolemy II Philadelphus, King of Egypt (287-47 BC) had recently established a valuable library at Alexandria. He was persuaded by Demetrius of Phalarus, chief librarian, to enrich it with a copy of the sacred books of the Jews. To win the good graces of this people, Ptolemy, by the advice of Aristeas, an officer of the royal guard, an Egyptian by birth and a pagan by religion, emancipated 100,000 slaves in different parts of his kingdom. He then sent delegates, among whom was Aristeas, to Jerusalem, to ask Eleazar, the Jewish high-priest, to provide him with a copy of the Law, and Jews capable of translating it into Greek. The embassy was successful: a richly ornamented copy of the Law was sent to him and seventy-two Israelites, six from each tribe, were deputed to go to Egypt and carry out the wish of the king. They were received with great honor and during seven days astonished everyone by the wisdom they displayed in answering seventy-two questions which they were asked; then they were led into the solitary island of Pharos, where they began their work, translating the Law, helping one another and comparing translations in proportion as they finished them. At the end of seventy-two days, their work was completed, the translation was read in presence of the Jewish priests, princes, and people assembled at Alexandria, who all recognized and praised its perfect conformity with the Hebrew original. The king was greatly pleased with the work and had it placed in the library.

 

…the letter and the story were accepted as genuine by many Fathers and ecclesiastical writers till the beginning of the sixteenth century; other details serving to emphasize the extraordinary origin of the version were added to Aristeas's account" The seventy-two interpreters were inspired by God (Tertullian, St. Augustine, the author of the "Cohortatio ad Graecos" [Justin?], and others); in translating they did not consult with one another, they had even been shut up in separate cells, either singly, or in pairs, and their translations when compared were found to agree entirely both as to the sense and the expressions employed with the original text and with each other (Cohortatio ad Graecos, St. Irenaeus, St. Clement of Alexandria). St. Jerome rejected the story of the cells as fabulous and untrue ("Praef. In Pentateuchum";"Adv. Rufinum,” II, xxv). Likewise the alleged inspiration of the Septuagint. Finally the seventy two interpreters translated, not only the five books of the Pentateuch, but the entire Hebrew Old Testament. The authenticity of the letter, called in question first by Louis Vivès (1492-1540), professor at Louvain (Ad S. August. Civ. Dei, XVIII, xlii), then by Jos. Scaliger (d. 1609), and especially by H. Hody (d. 1705) and Dupin (d. 1719) is now universally denied. (Original Catholic Encyclopedia - http://oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Septuagint_Version).

 

In actuality, the formation of the Septuagint took place over a period of centuries, and differs greatly from the Hebrew Scriptures. For example; some of the books are shorter in the Septuagint. Some of the material is arranged differently and Joshua has a number of additions and omissions. The LXX also has books not found in the Hebrew Scriptures. It should be understood that Hebrew or Aramaic was the language used in the Jewish synagogues and, even today, the Jews and many historians and scholars view the Septuagint as an inaccurate translation.

When one reads the writings of the early Church leaders and champions, the most obvious facet is that of contention; not only with differing factions, but also within their own ranks. There was a constant power struggle for favorable diocese or providence, and arguments over doctrines and interpretations of scriptures. The professed reason was to protect the newly converted heathen from the heretics; with a heretic being defined as anyone who disagreed with their Church doctrine. What transpired could best be encapsulated in passages from, A History of Christianity, by Paul Johnson.

 

… the process of achieving uniformity, thereby making orthodoxy meaningful, began only towards the end of the second century, and was far from complete by the end of the third. A number of factors made this process possible. The first was the evolution of a canon of New Testament writings. Although oral tradition continued to be important right up till the end of the second century, most traditions had found written form by its early decades; they constituted an enormous mass of writing, only part of which has come down to us, covering a wide range of doctrine and assertion, much of it contradictory (Part 1, pp 54-55).

 

Later, the Church expanded the canon to either ostracize certain sects, or include others within its control. Continuing from, A History of Christianity:

 

Expanding the canon was also a weapon against heresy. All the evidence suggests that heresiarchs did not create heresies: they merely articulated popular moods which already existed or in some cases fought for traditions which were being trampled by the march of orthodoxy. An inclusive canon allowed the Church to make a wider appeal to heretical populations or, to put it another way, to include under its umbrella of faith the followers of old and divergent traditions. At the same time, the process of selection and canonization allowed the orthodox leaders to demolish dangerous documents once their adherents had been captured. Thus in the third, fourth and fifth centuries, many written 'gospels', particularly those penetrated by gnosticism, were excluded and so disappeared. At the same time, dangerous elements within the canon could be to some extent de-fused by attaching more orthodox documents to their authors. Thus Paul, damaged by the championship of Marcion, was credited with the so-called 'pastoral epistles', which have the tone of the emerging orthodox church; and the gospel of John, much used by the Montanists and other heretics—and certainly a candidate for exclusion at one time—was saved by attributing to its supposed author three unobjectionable epistles. There was horse-trading between rival centers of Christianity and, increasingly, between East and West. Thus the West successfully insisted on the elimination of many alexandrine documents, but it was unable to foist on the East a number of important Roman writings of the early second century. It almost failed with Revelation, about which most Greeks were skeptical even in the eighth century; some never accepted it. The epistle to the Hebrews, as most of the early fathers knew, was not by Paul. It was excluded from the Muratorian fragment and rejected by Tertullian and virtually everyone else in the West. The first notable Latin figure to accept it as canonical was the mid-fourth century Bishop of Poitiers, Hilary. But it was popular in the East and finally categorized as Pauline, as a result of a deal at the Council of Carthage in 419…

 

… the very idea of a body of 'new scriptures', containing the essence of the Christian faith, assisted the forces which were creating an institutional Church. Paul had been writing in an age when the parousia was still thought to be imminent, though by the end of his life hope that it would come immediately was fading. During the next two generations, the Christians had to face the problem of a receding eschatology and accept that the period of waiting for the apocalypse was 'normalcy'. For a time, the idea of a general resurrection and of individual expectations of heaven at death were presented side by side, without reconciliation; then the first gradually fell into the background. Ethics once more became complicated and subtle. Paul's simple eschatological call for repentance, the summons to 'watch', yielded to the idea of the 'Christian life' as expressed in the pastoral epistles and the epistle to the Hebrews, which were fathered on him. Thus the regulation of life once more tended to be portrayed as the condition of salvation and the great ethical commandment of the gospels assumed the status of a new law. But law implied obedience; and obedience implied authority. What was this authority? The Church. What constituted the Church? The men who ran it.

 

The same process of reasoning was at work in faith as well as ethics. Hebrews stressed the importance of faith and of its public confession by Christians. The first epistle of John introduced the idea of the confession as a defense against heresy and false knowledge. Hitherto, the confession produced a decision for or against faith; now it was a decision for or against particular groups in the Church. In short the confession had to be interpreted. The author of I John insisted that anyone who rejected his interpretation not only rejected part of the
faith but the faith, because it was indivisible. We see here the rise of dogma. The sacred writings not only had to be classified as authoritative or not, they had to be explained—and the explanation itself was authoritative. Who was in charge of the process? The Church. What was the Church? The men who ran it (Part 1, pp. 55-56).