By Mark Owen - © 2010
Chapter 6 - A potted history of Christianity (part 3)
'Times are bad. Children no longer obey their parents, and everyone is writing a book.' - Marcus Tullius Cicero, statesman, orator and writer (106-43 BCE)
We must return to our story. You will remember, we were watching a group of Jesus' followers who had gathered in Jerusalem and believed, some at least, that their Master was not dead but alive and now in heaven. And there they might have remained and the Jesus faith withered, in all probability, as have so many other faiths preached then and since were it not for that sun-affected zealot Paul. For it was this Paul who turned to the Gentiles, and from that point onwards the Church's Jewish foundations were submerged beneath Hellenistic and other foreign elements. A new faith was being born into the world, a religion that was to sweep over the empire of Rome and eventually far beyond the bounds of that empire. But it was not the same faith as that of the first Jesus people. They had preached a simple message concerning the Teacher and had maintained their links with the Temple. The new religion or Church soon ignored the Galileans and began erecting a vast edifice of dogma in the name of a structure known as Christianity. Jesus the Nazarene had become Jesus Christ, a Jesus elected to godhead, the Christ-god.
So it was that as Paul was taking his message to the Gentiles and forging the new faith with its strongly Hellenistic overtones the mother-church at Jerusalem continued in its former ways. One of their number, John the Apostle, penned an early book, the Apocalypse (or Book of Revelation), written between 64 and 70 CE. In this vast prophetic work John in effect expounds the faith of the Jerusalem Church. And here, clearly, very early in Church history, we already have two rival denominations. John denounces his opponents, speaking heatedly of his mortal foes, the 'Nicolaitanes', followers of a Hellenist, Nicholas, one of the party which was in time to come under Paul's influence.
That we are justified in considering this church of John as nothing more than a Jewish sect is never more clearly seen that when the church penned a letter to converts at Antioch, Syria and Cilicia. Non-Jewish converts were enjoined to 'abstain from the pollutions [i.e., food offerings] of idols, and from fornication, and from what is strangled, and from blood.' This was a fourfold exhortation which formed the normal requirements replacing the law of Moses for converts to Judaism. While Orthodox Jewry believed itself to be 'priests of mankind' and ipso-facto subject to the whole law, converts had only this limited obligation. Thus, clearly, the Church as represented by John was an offshoot of Judaism, and quite distinctively so.
Meanwhile Paul continued to build with zeal his Church. And it is at this point we find a few most interesting words, buried in Paul's letter to the Galatians (chapter 1:11 to chapter 2:14). These verses are thought by some scholars to form the one historic document of the whole New Testament ('and which is not even quite that,' remarked Dr Paul Couchoud, a cynic among them), a sort of window into what Paul actually wrote. It certainly bears the stamp of originality as its account of Paul's conversion is brief and devoid of the dramatic affectations of those other accounts we have already mentioned. Paul says that Titus, a Greek convert, had been compelled to accept circumcision at the hands of the 'Judaizers' and that Peter was preaching 'the Gospel of the circumcision' as well as maintaining Jewish exclusiveness towards Gentile converts.
Clearly the 'Gospel' preached at Jerusalem was a very different Gospel to that preached by Paul. Thus 'heresy' and 'orthodoxy' clashed - but which was which? And this was but the beginning. The list of 'heresies' was destined to grow to inordinate lengths with each passing century. Montanism, Gnosticism, Arianism, Eremitism, Donatism, Nestorianism, and every other ism one could think of, all rose, flourished for a time, and then more-or-less withered. Well, not quite - from time to time many of these resurface in the guise of some 'great truth discovered' by one of the latter-day modern neo-Christian cults.
And through all the doctrinal disputes greatest debate surrounded the person of the Christ-god himself, a debate that was to continue through the centuries into our own times. Why this should be so is plainly evident when the uncertainties surrounding the New Testament documents are acknowledged.
As the various writings, with their uncertain doctrines, began to emerge and to be circulated, the expanding Christological view, that the Nazarene preacher Jesus was not merely a man but was also a god, now bearing the additional title 'Christ', came to the forefront. This teaching was predominantly that of Paul but was developed by those who followed after him, the bishops and learned doctors of the Church, although it was not until the 4th century that things were put in order, at least for the time being.
These considerations throw light upon many confusing and conflicting passages of the New Testament. No amount of editing can eliminate such conflicts entirely. For example, in Revelation 2:9 and 3:9, Jesus is credited as saying to John: 'I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are of the synagogue of Satan . . .' Nobody familiar with the writings of Paul and his Church could possibly imagine the Apostle to the Gentiles penning such words as these! So far as their writer is concerned there is no such entity as the 'Christian Church'; the writer is a member of a Jewish sect and his outlook is almost wholly Jewish.
No wonder many in the early Church were reluctant to accept John's Apocalypse into the canon of the Scriptures. On the other hand, when we read John's book, we find it is almost impossible to believe that this writer, although he probably knew of Paul, was aware of Paul's letters. It is as if these letters did not exist. These two men were, in fact, promoting two different religious 'truths'. But let us remember that this book comes before the major accounts of the Gospels and thus more nearly reflects the ideas of the 'church' such as it existed immediately after the death of Jesus. John was preaching Jesus, Paul was preaching the Christ-god.
Let us look at one more example of this amazing conflict, so often glossed over by the Christian preachers: In Revelation 2:20-24, John denounces a certain woman of Thyatira, who calls herself a prophetess. She is, thunders John, a Jezebel (a term of opprobrium), who seduces the faithful to commit fornication and eat flesh consecrated to idols. She proclaims the Nicolaitane doctrine (i.e., the doctrine of Paul's party) and she and her followers will receive atrocious punishment. This is a blatant attack upon a Gentile convert of Paul's, a seller of purple, with whom he and his travelling companions once lodged. In a word, a backdoor attack on Paul himself and his message, and as such one of the most amazing passages in the whole New Testament.
Perhaps we shouldn't wonder that there were divisions for as yet there was no 'New Testament' to which warring parties might refer. Even two generations after the death of Jesus, the Church thought only of the Jewish scriptures (such as they were at that time) as Holy Writ. By the early part of the 2nd century there was circulating a large body of writings (some of which are still available for reading today) which were not included in the canon (i.e., the officially-received text). Such works as the Epistle to the Laodiceans, the Epistle of Paul to the Alexandrians, the Shepherd of Hermas, and the Epistle of Barnabas, along with several Gospels, were known to the Church and still being read late in this period.
There were also other books, lost forever to our ken. Thus one described by scholars as 'Q' (from the German quelle = source) which formed an important basis for the Gospels themselves, has long since vanished. Other references indicate there were numerous earlier texts since lost. The Gospel of Luke itself confirms all this, by starting with the words: 'Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to draw up a narrative . . .' (Luke 1:1). At least the writer of this Gospel managed to get something right!
It was not until about one hundred years after Jesus' death that some concept of 'Scripture' began to be attached to books such as Paul's letters (the Epistles) and the four present Gospels. And only towards the end of the 2nd century did lists begin to appear naming some of the accepted books. The earliest known list included the four Gospels, the book of Acts, some Epistles and Revelation. This list did not, however, include Hebrews, 1 and 2 Peter and 1 John. It also included the Apocalypse of Peter, a book later discarded.
That much uncertainty abounded is seen from the fact that about 300 years after the death of Jesus, Eusebius, a Church historian, doubted the inspiration of the important book of Revelation and also rejected 2 Peter! No wonder he doubted the latter work. It begins by not only claiming Peter's authorship but also referring in the first person to his direct personal contact with Jesus, yet it was written well after Peter's death! It is thus totally dishonest. But these were not the only doubts. In the 4th century Hebrews (much loved by Christians) was generally rejected by the Western Church and the worth of the book of Jude was still being disputed late in that century. James and 2 and 3 John were not accepted by everyone. On the other side of the coin we find that the Codex Sinaiticus, the oldest complete manuscript of the Bible, from early in the 4th century, still included the Shepherd of Hermas and the Epistle of Barnabas!
The first complete list of the books that came to be known as the New Testament was from the hand of Athanasius, Patriarch of Alexandria (Eastern Church) in his Easter Letter of 367 CE, and in the West from Jerome, onetime secretary to Pope Damasus, and one of the 'Fathers' of the Church, in 391 CE. In 397 the Synod of Carthage, a gathering of Church leaders from East and West, confirmed these lists as comprising what was to become the second half of the Christian Bible. It was now 360-odd years since the death of Jesus! To put all this in perspective, a not dissimilar period of time has elapsed between the death of Shakespeare and our own day. And throughout these long years the Church's doctrines were being hammered out, a great part of the time without benefit of some or all of the documents forming this 'inspired' Word now paraded before us as the very law of God himself. And even after the year 397 doubts still remained as to what was and what was not inspired. A final note - in our own day small sections of the canonical Scriptures are regarded by scholars as being later spurious additions.
In summary, then, we have in the New Testament a body of writings of questionable value. A major bloc comprises the Pauline Epistles, fourteen being attributed to the Apostle, and thereby hangs yet another tale! It is considered doubtful if many of these letters were actually written by Paul. Even conservatives agree that Hebrews is not from his pen. It seems fairly certain now that 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus are not his. Some scholars even go so far as to state that not one of the 'Pauline' letters came from the hand of Paul! Are we surprised?
It is highly significant that the first known collection of Pauline Epistles was made by Marcion, around the year 140 CE. Now this is very interesting indeed, for this same Marcion was, in the eyes of orthodoxy, a heretic, beyond the pale. But there is more - as they say in those TV adverts. In 150 CE Justin Martyr, a pillar of the Church, ignored Paul altogether. And the notable Tertullian, in the early 3rd century, while quoting Paul's writings, described him as 'the apostle of the heretics'! Yet Paul was the chief architect of Christianity as it has come down to us. Make of all this what you will. Certainly, though, it does not say much for Scriptural inspiration.
And turning to the much-lauded Gospels, what do we find? Not one of the four is the work of an eyewitness of the events portrayed. Each was compiled piece by piece as a secondhand work (and oftentimes third-hand and worse), over a long period of time, drawing on earlier sources. And let us not forget, there were other Gospels, many in fact, a large literature, circulating throughout this period. Could it not be that some at least of these other books reflected more accurately any truth there was to be discerned in those 1st century happenings?
What is of greatest interest to us today is that the Church as it evolved was formed on the basis of a mighty power struggle between many opposing forces. No divine inspiration guided these men in their quest for supremacy. The doctrines that evolved did so as a result of this struggle of big-headed men and these were codified in meetings of prelates, known as Councils. It was not the holy writings that were appealed to first, for nobody knew which were inspired and which not! The writings were moulded by the Church to reflect the emerging dominant viewpoint, the viewpoint that was backed by the secular power.
All those enthusiasts (who are with us even to this day) who fondly call for a 'return to the primitive faith of the Church' as enshrined in the New Testament appeal to the faith of the Church not of Jesus' time but of the Church as it stood three centuries after his death. The New Testament is, emphatically, not a 1st century book but a 4th century one. The only primitive Church order anyone can ever possibly return to is the order of the Church as imposed by the bishops of Rome, Alexandria, Constantinople and like places around the year 400 CE.
With all this uncertainty no wonder dissension and disorder spread. Each small circle of Christians, gathering such crumbs of doctrine as they could from the various preachers and teachers, formed their own view of the events in far-off Jerusalem and of the true nature of the person they were supposedly following. Let nobody think that in these early times the Christians were a homogeneous body of people, all believing that Jesus the Christ was the Son of God, Perfect God and Perfect Man. This was very far from the case. Every imaginable opinion ran riot through the developing church. It was a situation that demanded an assertion of authority on somebody's part. And here and there were men who did not shrink from trying to exert that authority, prominent among them the bishops of Rome. After all, Roman citizens were quite accustomed to ruling the world. They'd been doing it for a very long time.
It would thus seem quite reasonable that the prelate of the church at the very centre of the Roman empire should assert such authority. But not all so readily agreed. A long struggle was to follow before Rome was in the ascendant. Soon the Roman bishops were describing themselves by the exalted term of Pope ('father') and claiming they were the successors of Peter, for he was the first Pope and the divinely appointed head of the Church on earth. Well so they said. 'Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it' (Matthew 16:18) seems to be a pivotal statement, supposedly from the lips of Jesus the Nazarene. A cardinal article of the faith. Surely we must take heed? But before we do so let us look at what the other Gospels have to say on this topic. What did Mark have to say about it? And Luke? And John? Search and seek for you will find - nothing! Nothing whatever in the other three Gospels will be found attesting to this pivotal doctrinal statement.
But again, there is more. The writers of Mark and Luke not only omit any reference to Jesus' proclamation but they report the preceding part of the conversation between Jesus and Peter. Quite amazing! Surely, having reported the conversation itself the two writers would not have left out the most vital words of that encounter, those words upon which the outrageous claims of the Popes of Rome have ever been based. It is plainly obvious that this is one of those 'proof texts' written into the account by later editors. But perhaps we should more rightly describe them as counterfeiters, for that is the only epithet one can apply to those who moulded (as they assuredly did) the New Testament documents to suit the doctrinal system now holding sway. Let us note clearly this fact, the Church came first, the New Testament later. The words began to be brought together after the institution sprang into being.
There is here, too, what can only be described as a clumsy play on words, the name Peter (Petros) being contrasted with the word for 'rock' (petra). Further, had Jesus actually spoken such words to a simple Jewish fisherman (for Simon Peter was just that) they would have been quite meaningless. Why? Because no such institution as the church (ekklesia in the Greek) was then in existence! Not only this but the Aramaic language used by Jesus and his disciples did not even have such a word in it! Indeed, there are just three instances of the word 'church' occurring in the whole of the Gospel writings and they are in Matthew, certainly a later compilation than Mark.
Even the title Pope was not a name specially designated for the bishops of Rome. This title was commonly used of bishops in the East and the West from the 3rd to the 5th centuries. It is still used by heads of the Greek and Coptic Churches today. Be that as it may, the bishops at Rome quite early ran into difficulties when they tried to assert a greater degree of authority over the Church than their fellows. They were to discover it was not easy to get away with such an outrageous assertion. According to Eusebius (bk.5:34), when Bishop Victor of Rome was informed around 190 CE that the Eastern Christians did not celebrate Easter on the same day as the Western Church he forthwith commanded the Church of Asia Minor to celebrate Easter at the same time as Rome. Upon hearing this the Eastern bishops told him to mind his own business! When Victor threatened excommunication, even his fellow Western prelates rebuked him for his arrogance and told him they would ignore any such excommunication.
Thirty or so years later Pope (Bishop) Callistus tried again. He was treated with disdain by Tertullian. He 'calls himself the supreme pontiff' and 'the bishop of bishops'; thus Tertullian spoke disdainfully of Callistus (On Chastity, chapter 1). In 252 CE we have Bishop Cyprian of Carthage (Ep. 55) rebuking Bishop Cornelius of Rome for holding an audience with some complainants as if he was fulfilling a special role in the Church. In a later letter (Ep.72), written in the name of all the African bishops, Cyprian emphasized: 'We use no violence and make laws for none, because each prelate has the right to follow his own judgment in the administration of the Church.' There is clearly no hint here of Rome being accorded a special supreme position, but in reply to this letter Bishop Stephen asserted the Roman claim, threatening excommunication. The African bishops replied in strong language, stating: 'None of us regards himself as the bishop of bishops, or seeks by tyrannical threats to compel his colleagues to obey him.'
But as the squabbling continued there arose a situation where Christians would sometimes be forced to make common cause. When it came to religious tolerance pagan Rome was as good as any state and better than many; the borders of its far-flung empire embraced a multitude of religions. Yet, somehow the Christians seemed to have happy knack of stirring up strife and opposition. Indeed, Christians tend to thrive on opposition. They cherish their other-worldliness and (like their Jewish forbears) their exclusiveness. They are 'different' (or like to think they are) and suffer accordingly. In any event, whatever the reasons, it was not long before Christians faced persecution and there developed the cult of the martyr, a whole subsidiary industry to Christianity proper.
