[German original, copyright J.C.B.Mohr, Tübingen, 1934] Second German Edition ed and supplemented byGeorg Strecker [Copyright J.C.B.Mohr, Tübingen, 1964] English Translation ed and supplemented byRobert A. Kraft andGerhard Kroedel with a team from the Philadelphia Seminar on Christian Origins [Copyright Fortress Press, Philadelphia, 1971] Updated Electronic English Edition byRobert A. Kraft [Copyright Robert A. Kraft, 10 April 1993]
[[ET 147]] [150] [ch 8]
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 However, these traces, when compared with the impressions such activity originally made, have become very faint and blurred so that frequently they are hardly legible or cannot be read with any confidence.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 a 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 Athenian (see above, 105 f.), 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
[[ET 148]] was determined by an anti-heretical concern. One can only
speculate about the matter. Even the predilection of
[[ET 149]]
For the end of the second century Eusebius enumerates 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
devoted 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
This list of literary works which gives us the painful impression
of an exceptionally tiny body of information, is placed in the framework
of some comments that indicate to us what attitude is supposed
to be called forth or strengthened by each particular item. The passage
(5.27) begins with these words: "A great many memoirs of
admirable industry by churchmen of the ancient past are still
preserved by many to this day. Among those, the writings of which we
have personal knowledge (
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 possible that this abundant orthodox literature was preserved from the second to the fourth century (see below, 159 ff.) 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 that as it 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, 142 f.). The statements in support and praise of orthodoxy that we meet in ecclesiastical authors without being able to test their contents and find verification, we do well to set aside and to distrust as tendentious. [[ET 151]] It is part of the style of the "ecclesiastical" historiography of Eusebius, 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
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.(19) In the eighth year of the reign of which we are presently speaking [i.e. of Marcus Aurelius], Soter succeeded Anicetus, who had occupied 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, Apollinaris, 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.
After a brief remark at the end of section 24 concerning the episcopal 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 [[ET 152]] 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[8] 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.[9] But, except for a
few citations everything as lost.[10] If we ask of which of Melito's
writings that had "come to his attention" does Eusebius actually divulge
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 defense 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,[11] beginning
with "two books on the Passover" (
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" (
Of the two books of Melito which Eusebius apparently has seen,
the
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.). Harnack
adds the observation: "Thus Eusebius did not actually have a
copy of the anti-Gnostic work [of Miltiades]; but he did have [according
to EH 5.17.5] 1. two books of Miltiades against the Greeks
(
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 statement
of what Eusebius still knew of Justin's literary activity, let me
appeal briefly to Harnack: "Thus Eusebius here [i.e. EH 4.18.1 ff.]
enumerates eight works of Justin known to him; a ninth, against
Marcion (
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 repeatedly[23] -- 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 contemporaries 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 provided 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 circulation in his time?
As we turn to Theophilus of Antioch, we note that the
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 [[ET 157]] 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.
This work also is still in existence. Chapters 29 and 30 bring
book four of the
It may be added that Quadratus also, who concerned himself solely
with apologetics (under Hadrian), survived with his
The criticism in the preceding paragraphs is directed against the position which Eusebius deliberately cultivated for obvious reasons (above, 149, 151, 156 f.), [161] namely that during the first two centuries 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" (
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."[24] Without further ado we believe 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, [[ET 159]] audience, or purpose (see above, 149 f.). But we cannot agree with him in so quickly attributing these remains to the ecclesiastical literature 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
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 eminent and prosperous man. How then can we imagine that the literary creations of the average Christians could have survived from [[ET 160]] 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 extraordinarily 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 suitably
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
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
With line 37 the manuscript returns to the context ofListen to me, propitious one, overseer, noble-born Anubis! [And you listen], wily one, secret consort, savior of Osiris! [Come] Hermes, rapacious one! Come, fair haired Zeus of the nether world! Give your decision and bring this spell to pass! [Come, Hades], and you Earth, imperishable fire, Helios Titan, come you also Iaa[26] 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, Ixioii, you origin and decline, and you, beautifully flaming fire; and come, underworldly and heavenly, you guardian goddess of dreams, and Sirius, who [. . .].
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
[[ET 162]] the structure of the poem. Nevertheless Africanus included
them here as "a most noteworthy production" (
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.[27] In that case, (1) his linguistic sensitivity led him to conclude that it must have been written originally in Greek, and could not be a translation; (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 tradition, which shows that the Susanna material did not originally belong to the book of Daniel.
The same sort of approach would have required him to raise decisive 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 [[ET 163]] libraries in Jerusalem[28] 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 tendencies -- namely, Alexandria-Egypt. Surely the process for which Africanus 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,[29] 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.[30] But Osiris, Isis, Anubis, Phtha, Phre, and Nephtho 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.[31]
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 [[ET 164]] 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 CE. 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 Egyptian 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
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 [[ET 166]]
bitterly about the Valentinian Candidus.[34] 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 (
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 surprising 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 opposition from the Christian public, then it must have been even easier for them to withdraw from circulation considerable amounts of "ecclesiastical" literature, which was disturbing and uncomfortable to them. As for the literature that remained, the heretics could optimistically rely on their good luck.
[[ET 167]]
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 leveled a curse on anyone who would alter his prophetic book by additions or deletions (Rev. 22.18f.). 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 administer 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 Corinthian 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 have been included?"[36] 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 [[ET 168]] 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[38] which have disappeared 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 of holding 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 [[ET 169]] writings (see above, 141 f.) succeeded in convicting the Montanists of their error. Basically, such literature was influential only in its own circle of sympathizers, and this effect was itself narrowly limited in time as well as in 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 disputes 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 conscious of the fact that a very important and instructive portion of the relevant writings of this period no doubt has disappeared without a trace, 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 constantly 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 Marcionites (see above, 29). But in contrast to orthodoxy, according to its professional guardians, heresy always seems to be on the defensive, and capable of only a futile resistance at that. It is only occasionally that we are in the fortunate 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 "refutations" 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 [[ET 170]] reports, 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 numerous titles of gnostic writings of which we are still aware,[39] 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
The orthodox tirade against Marcion was concentrated in the
West.[44] 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 himself
(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. Nicomedia
(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.[45] 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 influence
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 Autolycus
(
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.[46] [175] In the Marcosian sect, they advanced as far as Gaul already in the second century.[47] 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.[48] 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[49] as was observed in the case of Marcion -- such expressions of opposition are not found any farther east than western Asia Minor.[50]
The observations made above concerning the heresies of Marcion
and Valentinus and the "ecclesiastical" confrontation with them permit
a generalization. Apart from the tempest-tossed island of ecclesiastical
orthodoxy within the Christianity of Antioch,[51] and the
timid attempt to assist orthodoxy in Egypt to achieve a united existence
(see above, 53 ff. and also 170 f.), the
But surely, if it is possible to deduce from something like the letter
of Pliny as much as Harnack does concerning the spread of Christianity
in Asia Minor (pp. 331 [= 737 f.]; cf. also p. 347 [=754]),
or if the material cited by Ramsay is assessed from a similar
standpoint,[54] 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\4]. 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
discernible "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
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 Christianity, 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 directed against heresy sometimes take the form of polemics against individual heresiarchs or heresies, and sometimes concentrate on certain 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 Valentinus[55] 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.[56]
Letters of recommendation, such as already plagued the life of the
Apostle Paul (2 Cor. 3.1), play their role. "Take special care," says
[[ET 175]] the Peter of the pseudo-Clementine materials, "not to believe
any teacher who does not bring a recommendation (
Apparently, a collection of the above-mentioned letters of Valentinus
already existed by the time of Clement of Alexandria, who
quotes from three of them in the passages listed. Valentinus' adherents
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.[57]
Unfortunately we are no longer able to determine whether the collection
of Valentinian writings stood in noticeable opposition to a
Christianity of a divergent character, as was true of the two ecclesiastical
collections. At Philippi, orthodoxy had requested the letters
of Ignatius as a weapon in its struggle against docetism (Polycarp
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,[58]
[[ET 176]] 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.[59] "The Holy Spirit was
their counselor" (EH 5.3.1-3). In heretical gospels (
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 (Hippolytus
Here, moreover, we have one of the isolated instances in which
we hear something to the effect that heretics responded to the reproofs
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 (
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[61] 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"
(
Finally, the attempt by the Montanist Tertullian to utilize the utterances
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 confirmed
by a revelation.[64] 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" (
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.[65] [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.[66] The
For Montanism, prophecy is something so characteristic that Tertullian
calls the movement "the new prophecy,"[69] 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,[70] and Maximilla avers that [183] whether she wanted
to or not, she was forced by the Lord to receive the knowledge of
God (Epiphanius
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 believe,
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
contradiction 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
The attempt to rely for support on contemporary prophetic phenomena 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, 139 f.). 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
[[ET 182]] they proclaim is ancient. We have already spoken about the
apocalypticist 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,
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
Laodiceans[72] 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.[73] 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.[74] 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
[[ET 183]] and attributed writings to the latter that were useful for their
own interests. Thus Hippolytus knew and used a book with the title
"
Of course there were also genuine fragments of the primitive
tradition which were zealously collected to use for support and
confirmation 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
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 material 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.
[[ET 184]]
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."[75] Dionysius of Corinth also complains about certain
people who falsify the "dominical writings" (
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
But if the criticism of Mark and Matthew has its basis in the controversy 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[80] and thereby became aware of their inadequacies.[81] A standard gospel by which one evaluates apostolic gospels and traditions must without qualification derive from the same origin itself. That Papias had such an attitude toward the Fourth Gospel, however, is no longer as clear to me as when I prepared the third edition of my commentary on John.[82] 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.[83] According to the prologue to John, Papias of Hierapolis, the beloved disciple of John, claimed [[ET 186]] 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,[84] 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 he 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.[85] But then the other item claiming that the Fourth Gospel had been written by the apostle John,[86] 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 [[ET 187]] 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 tradition of the church and which is rooted in the circle of the twelve (EH 3.39.34).
As long as one is not bound to the dogma of the fourfold gospel, infallible because it is inspired, one can scarcely conceal the deviations of the last canonical gospel from the others. And whoever, with Papias, rediscovers the attitude of the twelve apostles concerning 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 considered 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 expression 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.[87]
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,[88] that we do well
to keep in mind that he found himself in a particularly exposed outpost.
He was situated, so we have discovered, at the easternmost [[ET 188]] point that the church in opposition to heretics succeeded in occupying
in Asia Minor, or indeed anywhere (see above, 171 f.). He offered
resistance there with the realization that he was dealing with a
superior force. At least, he explains that his anti-heretically conditioned
perspective with reference to the materials of the gospel
tradition set before him the task of excising everything that delights
the "great majority" (
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
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 [[ET 189]] account of Irenaeus concerning Papias.[89] 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;[90] 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 "
The heretics seized on the same means in order to give the primitive
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
"
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. 172 f.). As
a point of departure, let me refer back to what has been said earlier
(173f.) concerning Eusebius' silence about the success of heresy -- a
silence to which he is entitled from his perspective as an "ecclesiastical"
historian. But although the tone with which he speaks of
[[ET 191]] orthodoxy 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, 63 f.
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 so that they appear to be more recent.[91] 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
(
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),
like a filled threshing floor, arose communities with countless members
and a huge multitude crowded together."[92] The apostles endure
"countless" (
I will forego continuing this easy task of assembling even more
evidence of this sort from Eusebius'
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.
A few observations may serve to confirm the conclusions we have reached in our assessment of the two opposing forces. Quite frequently we hear the churchmen bewail the extent of the danger from heresy, but nowhere do we find [196] them attempting to adduce numerical 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 ecclesiastical literature than about that of the heretics. It is impossible 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? 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 (
One final point. The reckless speed with which, from the very beginning, the doctrine and ideology of Marcion spread_LAST_[94] 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.
[1] Clement of Alexandria
[2] Ed. R. Reitzenstein (-H. H. Schaeder),
[3] In Hippolytus
[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 Hennecke\2, 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).
[6] Cf. Harnack,
[7] It can hardly be more than a way of speaking when Eusebius claims that all these churchmen demonstrated their orthodoxy by their sciptural interpretation (above, 149 f.). At the time of Eusebius that may have been an important characteristic. But in the second century, sciptural interpretation was not so widely practiced (see below, 195 n. 1).
[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,
[10] [See below, p. 315 n. 37, on the more recently recovered
[11] According to the GCS edition of Schwartz, it includes
fourteen items; Harnack,
[12] Melito made no distinction between the Old Testament of
Palestine and that of the Greek diaspora. Rather, he speaks about
"the old books" whose crucial contents he wants to make
available to his friends. In his opinion, one had to take a trip
to Palestine in order to have access to more accurate
(
[13] Cf. Harnack,
[14] Eusebius' approach here is also similar to what we previously observed, 130 n. 1.
[15] Harnack,
[16] Harnack,
[17] Tertullian ridiculed Melito, the "prophet" of the
[18] Examples are given in Harnack,
[19] That the author of the
[20] Harnack,
[21] For Eusebius, the "
[22] Harnack,
[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].
[24] Jerome
[25]
[26]
[27] In his letter to Origen. Cf. W. Reichardt,
[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] Manuscipt 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 knowledge and art" (
[30] Cf. R. Wünsch, ''Deisidaimoniaka,''
[31] Cf. A. Dieterich,
[32] Quoted in George Syncellus
[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 Africanus
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
(
[34] In a letter "to certain close acquaintances at Alexandria"
(
[35] In the same letter mentioned above (ed. Simonetti, lines 46 ff.; Harnack, p. 405 f.).
[36] Harnack,
[37] See also Harnack,
[38] On this matter, cf. Bauer
[39] Cf. Harnack,
[40] Mentioned by Origen
[41] The so-called
[42] Origen
[43] Isidore's "
[44] The material may he found in Harnack,
[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.
[46] See Harnack,
[47] E. Preuschen, RPTK\3 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, Theophilus Serapion).
[52] Whether the agreement of Palestinian church leaders with Roman Easter practice (EH 5.23.3) also extended to matters of doctine, we do not know. In any event, we hear nothing of the participation of Palestine in the battle with the heretics.
[53] Harnack,
[54] Harnack,
[55] Preserved by Clement of Alexandria
[56] Cf. G. Heinrici,
[57] On this point, cf. Harnack,
[58] In AH 1.15.6 (= 1.8.17), Irenaeus quotes the words of a
"divinely favored elder" (
[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