Philadelphia Seminar on Christian Origins 21.1, September 1983
Topic for 1983-1984: Syrian Christianity
Chairperson for the year: William Adler
Minutes by Allen Kerkeslager, August 1997, based on cassette tape
recording.

Meeting of September 1983
William Adler 
University of Pennsylvania and Dropsie College

"Syrian" Christianity was chosen as the topic for the year rather than
"Syriac" Christianity so that Greek materials could be included.  But the
geographical limits of "Syria" are not defined clearly or consistently in
the reference works.  E.g., in McCullough, A Short History of Syriac
Christianity to the Rise of Islam, the Syria on his map of the "Sassanian
Empire" does not correspond to what he actually describes in the book.
The book's discussion of Syrian Christianity refers to what is actually is
in Mesopotamia.  Thus how does one define "Syria"?  Is it that region
which includes Damascus, or is it that which includes Edessa and Nisibus?
Koester's NT Intro is also rather fluid in its use of the term.  Sometimes
he even includes Babylon.  Ancient sources also refer to both Assyrians
and Babylonians as Syrians.  Epiphanius refers to Elkasai's appearance in
Rome and says Elkasai's book was revealed in Syrês (spelling?) of Parthia,
which could refer to China or a mythical far eastern region where he
received his revelation.  Syria is also not fixed in actual history.  The
Seleucid Syria differs from Roman Syria, which also differs from Parthian
Syria.  Buffer states such as Edessa were often independent and thus
confuse the issue even more. 

Thus Syrian Christianity could be defined in very prejudicial ways in
research.  E.g., Antioch can be excluded or included depending on how one
wants to argue with regard to the amount of Hellenistic influence on
Syrian Christianity.  Tarn and Griffith clearly distinguish Syria to the
south from Mesopotamia.  But Christian treatments usually include Edessa,
Nisibus, Dura Europus, et al.

Scholarship in Syrian Christianity as a comprehensive field is generally
neglected (contrast Egyptian Christianity).  Most of the great finds were
made two or three generations ago, e.g., Manichean sources, Dura Europus,
and Mandaean sources.  Scholarship in the field is generally topical,
partly as a result of the focus on specific finds, e.g., Bousset,
Reitzenstein, and Bultmann's interest in the Mandaeans for pre-Christian
Gnosticism.  The dating of this material was recognized to be late and
gradually interest in it declined.  Syrian Gnosticism does deserve
attention, however, for issues such as relations between Judaism and
Gnosticism.  Another issue of such interest would be orthodoxy and heresy;
cf. Walter Bauer's arguments that early Christianity in Edessa was
extremely heterogeneous, which is clear from Ephraem.  The heterodox
groups survived into the 4th and 5th century there while the so-called
orthodox were at that time still a minority and even called a "sect."
Ephraem showed the minority status of orthodoxy when he emphasized to
others in his region that the orthodox in his area were representative of
the mainstream and were orthodox rather than a heterodox sect.  

This raises questions about the origins of Christianity in that region,
but there are few sources for discussing these origins.  The NT mentions
Parthia once in Acts.  Ignatius also says little.  Language may have been
the major barrier to taking the gospel to the regions north of the
Euphrates, because Aramaic was spoken there.  These factors might suggest
that Christianity did not come to Edessa and its environs from Antioch.
If Christianity didn't come from Antioch into these regions, then from
where did it come?  Palestine might be possible, as suggested by the Abgar
legend.  But the letter from Abgar V in Eusebius and Doctrina Addai was
written to prove the apostolic origins of Christianity in Edessa and
probably cannot be taken seriously as evidence of Christianity coming
directly from Palestine to Edessa.  A third possibility is that
Christianity came to Edessa from farther east in Parthia, as argued by
Segal, Edessa the Blessed City.  Segal's evidence is an inscription from a
bishop of Phrygia in the late second century which refers to brethren in
Nisibus.  Elkasai, in the time of Trajan, already is in the Parthian area
of Syria, implying Jewish Christianity is well rooted in Parthia by the
later half of the second century.  Segal thus concludes that Jewish
Christians brought Christianity to Edessa from the east.  

This suggests that Jews were responsible for the transmission of the
gospel in Parthia.  This may help explain the Jewish influences on Syrian
Christianity.  Even Ephraem knows much about Jews and is influenced by
them, though he attacks them.  So also is the case with Aphraat.  Thus
Koester says we should speak of Jewish Christianity for early Syrian
Christianity and says that Gnosticism rose in Jewish Christianity in
Syria.  Similar ideas were suggested in last year's PSCO (20.2, 1982) with
Schenke, who argued that Gnosticism grew out of wandering Syro-Palestinian
Jewish baptizing groups.  Schenke's argument was built on a series of
inferences rather than hard evidence.  But his conclusion is almost a
necessary inference from the Jewish Christian character of eastern
Christianity if one rules out Antioch and Palestine.  The Mani Codex does
provide some confirmation on this, a purported biographical text about
Mani.  It was argued in the 1600s and later that the Manicheans showed
both Jewish and Christian influences, though later finds directed
scholarly attention to Zoroastrianism.  The work of Ludwig Koenen and
others on the Mani codex shows Mani growing up in a Jewish Christian
community and disagreeing about what defiles and dietary regulations.  He
presented his religion as a new religion, not a sect of Christianity.
Other topics related to Syrian Christianity include asceticism.  Jewish
Christianity tends to be very ascetic.  Pagan ascetics also existed in
Syria.  E.g., Porphyry, a Syrian Neo-Platonist, gives an explanation for
abstaining from meat using demonological explanations similar to those
found in the Pseudo-Clementines.  Both refer to demons hovering over food
and then inhabiting it and thus possessing those who eat it.     
[At this point was a digression that evolved into the concluding
discussion about areas in Syrian Christianity that could be addressed in
future research]. 

Michael Stone suggested studying where the political boundaries of Syria
fell in various periods.  But Kathleen McVey suggested that the changing
nature of these boundaries is what should lead one to study Syriac rather
than Syrian Christianity, since the culture is relatively unaffected by
the shifts of political boundaries.  She also referred to a recent
argument that the Abgar legend may even be originally Manichean.  The
basis of this argument may have been the name Addai in the Abgar legend
(Syriac version), which was also the name of an apostle favored by Mani.
Bill mentioned that the relationship between Judaism and Christianity in
Syria would be one additional issue for discussion in the field.  Kathleen
referred to the Judaism-Gnosticism-Christianity mixture in Edessa.
Michael Stone mentioned that the relationship between the Old Syriac
biblical versions and the Targums could be another area for debate and
referred to a dissertation by one of Strugnell's students.  He also
pointed out that the oldest version of the Gospels in Armenian is the
Diatessaron in the early 5th century.  

Other members of the seminar pointed out that additional topics for
discussion might include: evidence for Bultmann's Gnostic redeemer myth;
collecting non-literary evidence of Syrian Christianity as Tcherikover did
for Egyptian Judaism in the CPJ; the social world of Syrian Christianity;
how the political division of Syria affected Syrian Christianity as a
result of political support given to one or another Christian group by the
Sassanians and others.  The political issues are especially intriguing;
McCullough's book addresses this somewhat, but it has major problems.
Armenian sources include evidence of travels of heterodox individuals from
the east.  The story of the queen of Adiabene's conversion, like the Abgar
legend, records wandering Jews, a topic that might bear further
discussion.  The earliest known Syrian Christians may have been Elkasites.
The oldest actual linguistic evidence for Syriac Christianity may be the
Greek Diatessaron fragment from Dura, which says Arinmathea, which implies
a copy from Syriac script.  Dialects or even more the scripts of Syriac
may be especially fruitful sources of study because they are often tied to
distinctive religious communities.  But scripts may be misleading,
especially if the actual language was the same in different communities.
E.g., both Jews and Christians spoke a form of Aramaic, despite the
different scripts used, and each community had to be able to communicate
with its neighbors in the other community.

[This discussion resulted in a return to the issue of delimiting the field
geographically or linguistically].  Bill pointed out that the geographical
divisions tend to remain arbitrary.  Michael Stone pointed out that we
know very little about Jews in Babylonia before the redaction of the
Mishnah, even though Josephus clearly indicates that a lot was going on in
the Jewish communities in Babylonia.  John Gager pointed out that
differences in methods of biblical citations from one author to the next
may help to delimit distinct traditions and areas (cf. Neusner's work on
Aphraat).  Transmission back and forth from Greek and Syriac is another
issue.  Kathy McVey pointed out that Ephraem was translated into Greek
early on, but whether he himself knew Greek is unclear. 

Future discussion will try to include reports on the questions of the
earliest attestation of the Syriac script; Jewish inscriptions from Syria;
pagan cults in Syria; and administrative districts of Syria.


//END 21.1//

   
Philadelphia Seminar on Christian Origins 21.2, October 1983
Topic for 1983-1984: Syrian Christianity
Chairperson for the year: William Adler

Minutes by Allen Kerkeslager, March 1997, based on cassette tape
recording.

Meeting of October 1983

Four Brief Reports or "Communications"
(1) Paganism in Syria (John Gager); 
(2) Political Administration in Syria (Henry Green and Dan Bechtel); 
(3) Jewish Inscriptions in Syria (Ross Kraemer); 
(4) Development of the Syriac Script (Kathleen McVey) 

(1) Report on "Paganism in Syria" by John Gager

John distributed a bibliography of paganism in Syria.  Once basic to the
study of paganism in Syria was chapter 5 of Cumont's Oriental Religions in
Roman Paganism.  Syriac, Palmyrene, and various Aramaic dialects are
necessary tools for research on the topic.  Vermaseren's work as editor of
the Brill EPRO series presents the most recent work, while older work on
this topic is more rare.  Among older works are Cumont and Eissfeldt,
though Cumont hardly deals with indigenous paganism in Syria.  An
avalanche of more recent work has been done, however.  This includes Peter
Brown's work and Javier Teixidor's Popular Religion in the Greco-Roman
East, which is a survey of the gods and cults in Syrian centers.
Rostovtzeff mistakenly labeled all Syrian cities "caravan cities" and
coined the phrase "Parthian" art.  The art is not Parthian, however, and
this has led to quite a bit of confusion in the field.  The CIS is also a
vital source and shows that many inscriptions from cities in Syria are
bilingual, suggesting a bilingual culture.  Major studies have been done
in Baalbeck, Edessa, Palmyra; Dura-Europus; Byblos and Ras-Shamra.
Drijvers and Segal have a collection of inscriptions.  Christian and other
literary texts refer to paganism in Syria, e.g., Libanius, Philo of
Byblos, Pseudo-Lucian.  Extensive bibliography may be found in the work of
H. J. W. Drijvers, Cults and Beliefs at Edessa, which provides other
sources through which one can find other bibliographical references.
Teixidor and Drijvers (in his last chapter or so) provide good synthetic
treatments of Syrian paganism.

John's second handout was on temples, cults, and deities.  One interesting
point that Gager found was that Christians were not the first stylites in
Syria, as implied in Pseudo-Lucian of Samosata's De Deo, which refers to
phalli 1800 feet high (undoubtedly the text is corrupt here) to the top of
which a man climbs and lives for a few days. 
 
Some points that emerge from Teixidor's work are the following: (1)
Teixidor points out that previous scholarship on Syrian paganism is
helpless because there is so little literary evidence on the topic.
Teixidor points out that the epigraphic evidence does not support the
notion that Hellenistic culture undermined the indigenous traditions.
Failure to pay attention to this evidence has created a fictitious image
of indigenous Syrian paganism.  (2) Teixidor argues that there is a
tendency toward practical monotheism.  Even when there were 8 or 9 gods at
Palmyra, there was a longing for one to be supreme.  (3) Teixidor also
argues that the emphasis in the inscriptions is toward practical religion,
e.g., an interest in gods who hear.  (4)  Teixidor also argues that there
is no evidence of any mythology about the gods, unlike what we are led to
think about ANE mythology and stories based on the texts in ANET.  (5)
Theophoric names were thought to indicate religiosity, but Drijvers is
more skeptical about the value of names.

H. J. W. Drijvers, Cults and Beliefs at Edessa, discusses Edessa, Palmyra,
Hatra, and Dura.  He mentions that all show the influence of (1) an
Aramaic substratum; (2) Hellenistic traditions of learning; (3) strong
Arab influence from the desert populations settling in the cities and
bringing their language, cults, and deities; (4) Parthian/Iranian
influence, especially in personal names (which Drijvers is careful not to
overemphasize).  Common art, religious forms, and population characterize
these cities.  He also points out the frequency of dyadic and triadic
relations between deities; fairly widespread use of astrology; and an
element of Roman emperor worship.

(2) Report on "Political Administration in Syria" by Henry Green and Dan
Bechtel

Henry Green:  Roman control in the east reach its peak ca. 120 CE and
declines thereafter.  Thus "Syria" cannot be defined as a region of Rome,
since it changes so often.  Language is more helpful and what we think of
as "Syria" is mostly outside the Roman empire even at the empire's
greatest extent.

Dan Bechtel:  Syria was a key district in the second century as a buffer
state against Parthia.  But in other times it was a gateway tempting to
the Romans, through which they sought to press on to the regions to which
Alexander had gone.  Archaeological work on Roman fortresses suggest a
line of boundaries approximately 10-20 miles apart in Hadrian's time.
References to Syria vary as to boundaries.  Epictetus refers to Jews,
Syrians, Romans, and Egyptians as distinct groups who differ on eating
swine's flesh.  Epictetus talks about Gentiles who act like Jews.  Lucian
(?; tape unclear at this point) notes that Syria and Palestine are split.
But this division was not always recognized, as the Mishnah suggests in
its statements about Syria.

(3) Report on "Jewish Inscriptions in Syria" by Ross Kraemer

The bulk of Jewish inscriptions are in Apamea, Palmyra, Dura, and the area
of Syria around Judea (which the Romans sometimes considered as part of
Judea).  J. B. Frey's volume 2 (1952) with Baruch Lifshitz, Donateurs et
Fondateurs (1967) include important inscriptions.  Some may also be found
in Greek and Latin Inscriptions from Syria.  But the inscriptions tend to
be scattered all over in various sources, esp. in regions that are not
well studied.  Frey included 65 Jewish inscriptions in Syria.   Lifshitz
adds 5 more.  Most are in Greek and a few are in Aramaic and Hebrew.  Most
date from the 3rd and 4th century CE.  All the inscriptions from Apamea
are Greek and are probably 4th century.  Dura and Palmyra are third
century and Greek and Aramaic.  No demonstrably Jewish inscriptions are
certainly before the 3rd century.  

Considerable evidence for synagogue life may be found in these
inscriptions; e.g., synagogue titles; donations from floors.  Women at
Apamea are the majority of the donors of mosaic floors.  Other
inscriptions are on magical amulets, three or four of which invoke the
protection of a wide variety of angelic beings on behalf of women.  Women
are identified by their mothers' names in these texts.  See Mansini,
Archaeological Discoveries Related to the Judeo-Christians.  Criteria for
identifying Jewish inscriptions includes name "Ioudaios," use of Hebrew,
and others features.  But these terms cannot be used to clearly
distinguish between Jews and Christians.  Many Jewish inscriptions were
originally thought to bee Christian and were included in collections of
Christian inscriptions. (cf. Mansini).

E.g., CIJ 2 no. 861 refers to Jewish names of persons who built a Jewish
synagogue in Palestine.  But Alt suggests that it may have been Jewish
Christian, because nearby Marcionites called their church a "synagogue"
and Epiphanius says that Ebionites called their churches "synagogues."
Frey rejects this argument (probably to his credit), but it point out the
problem of criteria used for distinguishing Jewish and Christian
inscriptions and the ambiguities of Jewish-Christian distinctions in the
area.  Since there are no demonstrably pre-Christian Jewish inscriptions
from the Syria area, this may raise questions about Jewish and Christian
evidence in the area.  

In the discussion, David Utz raised the question of what may be suggested
by the use of Jewish names in the Qur'an and when these names were adapted
by pagans.  This raises the problem of even further ambiguities about
Jewish identity in Jewish names.  The [still at the time of the discussion
unpublished] Aphrodisias inscription was briefly discussed for the problem
of names and Jewish identity.  

(4) Report on "Development of the Syriac Script" by Kathleen McVey

McVey favors a cultural and linguistic definition of "Syria" rather than
using the categories of the Roman empire.  As the Persian empire collapsed
with the coming of Alexander, the Aramaic-speaking people no longer spoke
the privileged language.  By the late second century they had begun to
develop their own Aramaic scripts in Hatra, Palmyra, and Edessa.  The
Edessan script came to be developed later into the script of literary
Syriac.  Drijvers edition of Old Syriac inscriptions from Edessa includes
all Old Syriac inscriptions.  Drijvers originally thought that they had
religious significance but thought this much less so later (probably under
the influence of Teixidor).  The Edessan inscriptions are clearly related
to Hatra and Palmyra by their content, funerary art, and language.

The first known parchment from Syria is a bill of sale from 243 CE.  The
first literary document is from 411 CE in a collection of Christian texts
in Syriac, mostly translated from Greek (found in W. H. P. Hatch, An Album
of Dated Syriac Manuscripts).  This is not by any means the first
literature in Syriac, however, so its significance for dating Syriac
literature is moot.  The Syriac inscriptions date from the first three
centuries and the earliest is from 6 CE.  Drijvers includes the text of
the inscriptions and substantial bibliography.  The Edessan script is
different from official Aramaic block script and is geographically
distinctive.  

David Utz raised the question of what makes the Edessan Aramaic script to
be "Syriac"?  Kathy's response was that the answer is unclear.  Edessan
script is closer to Palmyrene and Hatran but is different from official
Aramaic.  

The Diatessaron is the first major Syriac Christian document.  Bar Daisan
and Tatian would the first major literary figures writing in Syriac.  The
Syriac script and grammar comes to be an object of discussion in the late
7th and 8th century when the vowel system was introduced.  Jack Reumann
noted that Koester describes early Syriac literature includes possibly
Tatian's Diatessaron (either Greek or Syriac, though no Syriac fragments
have survived), Syriac gospel manuscripts (the Curetonian in the 5th
century and Sinaitic in the 4th century) and the Peshitta (5th or 6th
century), debatably much earlier in late second century.  

Kathy suggests that the flood of new literature in this period is probably
a result of the emergence of "orthodoxy" and the loss of older
"non-orthodox" traditions in the fourth century.  Bill Adler pointed out
that one might argue about the orthodoxy of the Pseudo-Clementines, which
appear among the first works.  Kathy notes that Bar Daisan's disciple
Philip writes in Syriac.  Greek was incorporated into Syriac vocabulary,
especially in terms used in philosophy and theology.   

The session then adjourned.  A brief post-adjournment discussion centered
on the work of the Jewish and Christian Self-Definition project under the
leadership of E. P. Sanders.


//END 21.2//


Philadelphia Seminar on Christian Origins 21.3, January 26, 1984
Topic for 1983-1984: Syrian Christianity
Chairperson for the year: William Adler

Minutes by Allen Kerkeslager, March 1997, based on cassette tape
recording.

Meeting of January 1984
Helmut Koester, Harvard Divinity School
Nag Hammadi and Early Syrian Gnosticism

The paper being presented is in process and quite unfinished.  The focus
will be on historic names, geographical origins, and development of
traditions.  Koester had an informal discussion in east Berlin last year
concerning the geographical placement of Nag Hammadi.  In this discussion
Hans Martin Schenke pushed for locating the origin of all of the Nag
Hammadi materials in Syria and was skeptical of the possibility of
locating any of them in Egypt.

Determining the geographical origin of early Christian literature is
difficult because (1) much of it is pseudepigraphic; (2) we know nothing
about the lives of the authors; (3) scarcely any external evidence exists;
(4) the place of the discovery tells us very little and almost nothing in
the case of the Nag Hammadi writings; (5) we are dealing with literature,
which was intended for distribution outside the area of its production,
unlike inscriptions on monuments.  

Nevertheless, the names used in Christian pseudepigrapha are usually
apostles, not archaic fugures like Enoch.  In addition, use of these
documents by later writers sometimes gives a clue to the place of origin.
Also, the literature is often produced for internal consumption and
therefore continued to be used primarily in its place of origin for a time
before it was taken up by a wider audience.  Early Christianity involved
separate and rival movements.  It was not until the second century that
this exclusivity broke down as wider ecumenical traditions developed.

This raises a question concerning apostolic authority: Why did literatures
develop that claimed the authority of an apostle?  Reference to the
Pauline corpus and its inclusion of pseudepigraphic materials is
insufficient to answer this question for a number of reasons.  First, only
Paul wrote, not Peter, James, John, Thomas, or Matthew (as far as we
know).  Second, Paul wrote ad hoc letters.  The mere existence of these
letters does not explain why they were collected and edited with
pseudepigraphic additons.  Usually it is argued that the pseudepigraphic
letters were designed to help church order (as in the case of the
Pastorals) or to correct problems (as in 2 Thessalonians, though in this
case the ideas being corrected are those of Paul himself in 1
Thessalonians; likewise Colossians may have been correcting ideas found in
Philippians and Ephesians was presenting a fresh perspective in respect to
Romans).  But other known letters that did appear in Pauline churches to
affirm church order and with polemical intent did not appear under Paul's
name, e.g., 1 Clement; Ignatius's letters; 1 Peter.  Thus church order and
polemical intent alone do not explain the use of apostolic pseudepigraphy.

The real answer may be implied in 1 Corinthians.  In 1 Corinthians 1 the
apostolic name is used in the context of baptismal claims.  This suggests
that the problem was one of viewing the apostles as mystagogues and
teachers of wisdom.  Paul himself in 1 Corinthians 1 distances himself
from the role of the mystagogue.  But this chapter shows that it was
clearly an identity with which he and other apostles and church leaders
were associated.  Thus Koester's stated thesis is this: "Initiation into a
religious belief and interpretation of wisdom is at least one reason, if
not the earliest reason, for the claims to apostolic authority.  That
Paul's correspondence was seen as divine wisdom may have been an important
motivation for the collection of these letters of Paul."  [In other words,
the apostle's name was used because the apostle was associated with the
revelation possessed and transmitted in the community; cf. below].
Ephesians is clearly an example of this view of Paul.  Baptism is seen as
the means of election through which grace is received.  Ephesians 1:8-9
emphasizes this revelation of mystery through revelation "as I have
written before," which is a reference to Paul's letters (Eph 3:3-4) that
emphasizes Paul as a recipient of mysteries.  Use of apostolic authority
in Christian Gnostic writings thus designates such writings as (1)
esoteric; (2) belonging to certain esoteric groups who claim insights; (3)
emanating from groups in which the apostle was understood as a mystagogue.

Against Schmithals and others who have attributed sources of disagreement
between Paul and his opponents to certain theological views held by those
opponents, it must be emphasized that Paul and his opponents often shared
similar theological views.  Similar views existed even in the same Pauline
communities.  Thus we should direct our interest to continuities of
interpretation, not theological views.  The text used for interpretation
thus is the place to look for defining communities and for the reason for
collecting texts into corpora like the Pauline corpus.  Thus, for example,
the "Johannine" tradition is not a theological opinion as much as it is a
school of shared texts being interpreted.  Pseudepigraphical texts are
produced not for the needs of church order, but to demonstrate the locus
of divine wisdom (as Ephesians does for Paul's letters).  Literature and
community are thus inseparable.  [Koester's point is that
pseudepigraphical literature does not simply legitimate what a community
already believes in regard to  church order and theology.  Instead, the
production and interpretation of literature associated with one or another
apostle's name is the actual means by which and the focus around which the
community defines its identity in the first place.  Legitimation of this
definition is another process that can be considered separately from the
interpretive process].

With regard to the question of genre, these processes of interpretation
are not necessarily bound to a certain genre.  The interpretive genre is
based on older Jewish interpretive genres.  But interpretation itself
results in a change of genre.  E.g., in the process of interpretation that
goes on in Ephesians, the result that constitutes Ephesians may be a
sermon, but Ephesians certainly is not a letter and lacks the features of
Paul's letters.  In other cases, the wisdom teacher delivered the words of
Jesus, which thus resulted in a new genre in which quotations are embedded
in the language of the author without clear distinctions from the author's
interpretation.  Interpretation itself provides the knowledge that saves
from death, as the opening of GThomas states--not the sayings themselves.
This literature is thus always incomplete because of the ongoing need for
interpretation.  Such Christian dialogue literature is thus inherently
esoteric and limited to esoteric circles.  This esoteric Christian
literature is similar to esoteric Jewish literature, but esoteric Jewish
literature was already being brought into Gnostic circles before it had
come into contact with Christian Gnostic literature.  

Syria
The choice of Syria as a place of origin of Gnostic literature rests
largely on negative arguments [cf. last couple paragraphs of discussion at
the end of these notes].  We know of ongoing influence of Paul in Greece
and Asia Minor; and of the influence of Petrine tradition in western Syria
(Mark, Matthew, GPeter).  But why not place the early Gnostic literature
in Egypt?  Alexandria is Greek-speaking, but the bilingual Syrian/Greek
tradition suggests elsewhere than Alexandria and no other city culture
existed in Egypt [sic; cf. notes of discussion at end].  Syria, however,
had many hellenistic cities in which small sectarian Christian communities
could develop undisturbed.  

The case of GThomas's origin in Syria has been made repeatedly.  But the
close relationship to the Synoptic sayings source suggests a region not
far from Palestine.  Also the Dialogue of the Savior and Johannine
dialogues suggest a geographical proximity to GThomas, which would place
these too in Syria.  The puzzle is that 1 Corinthians 1-4 (e.g., 1 Cor 2:9
is also in GThomas) presents a similarity to GThomas in its wisdom
presentation of Jesus already in the first century.  But there are no
other traces of this in Asia Minor or Greece in the first century.

The Gospel of John is based on a miracle source, which probably comes from
Palestine, but this source does not present a very firm basis of judgment
about place of origin.  The passion narrative in John is similar to
GPeter, which Sarapion says was used in Rhossus (a city in Syria just
northwest of Antioch) in the late second century, which was also the time
it was found in Egypt.  The discourses in John are based on older
traditions of sayings similar to the Dialogue of the Savior's source.
Also in P. Egerton 2 there are parallels to John.  The Apocryphon of James
(Epist. of James) seems independent of any Gospel known to us.

At the beginning of the Johannnine tradition was a claim that remembering
and interpreting the sayings of Jesus is the sole source of knowledge for
life.  This appears in the second century in Papias and the Apocryphon of
James.  This sayings tradition was related to Gnosticism from the very
beginning, but whether or not it is "Gnostic" is itself precisely the
central question in the composition and transmission of the dialogues.  

In the early stages of the Johannine tradition, at least, the process of
remembering and interpreting this material would not have resulted in a
uniquely Gnostic group.  We must avoid the misconception of Schmithals et
al. that doctrinal differences are the criterion for creating distinct
Gnostic groups.  Firm criteria for distinguishing Gnostic and non-Gnostic
material did not exist in this period.  In fact, John 17 itself is
thoroughly Gnostic.  The new theological criterion secondarily introduced
in the later development of the Johannine community was the kerygma of the
cross and resurrection of Jesus (cf. Koester's "Gnomai Diaphorai"
article).  This was a deliberate theological step in which remembering
Jesus' words was explicitly tied to his death and resurrection (John
2:18-22).  The interpretation of Jesus' words thus became a preface to the
passion narrative.  Those within the Johannine community who were
embarrassed with this connection to Jesus' death were as a result forced
to docetism.  In other words, docetism is not originally a necessity of
Gnosticism itself but was a result of tying the "words of Jesus that give
life" to his death.  

At this point the Johannine community took a deliberate political step:
It recognized the authority of Peter, as John 21 shows.  But the tradition
of the life-giving words of Jesus was still tied to John, because very
early in the external evidence (as Papias shows) the Gospels were tied to
specific names.  Once again, the importance of names in 1 Corinthians 1
suggests that the name of an apostle, specifically John, must have played
a key role in the development of this tradition right from the very start,
when individual apostles or their disciples founded individual
communities.  Only later did these communities associated with the name of
an individual founding apostle or his disciples begin to come in contact
with one another and forge relationships with communities founded by other
apostles or their disciples.  Koester thus envisions a gradual "ecumenical
movement" (his own phrase) that brought together many separate communities
in late first-century and second-century Christianity.  

The political reconciliation between the Petrine and Johannine communities
took place probably in western Syria, resulting in something like "the
United Church of Peter and John" or perhaps "the United Church of Christ"
from then on.  The association of James and Thomas in the Gospel of Thomas
represents a similar political union and was probably representative of a
movement that took place in Syria.  Syria is also the place for the
Jewish-Christian association of Peter and James [During the discussion,
Koester reemphasized that it was important in the history of the church at
Antioch that James was always assumed to be the leader of the church in
Jerusalem].  Conservative Jewish Christians within Petrine circles who did
not like the Peter-John ecumenical movement may have approached the
circles of James and formed a Peter-James movement (cf. Apocryphon of
James).  The joining of Petrine and Johannine traditions opened up the way
for the Johannine tradition to move into the west.  By the middle of the
second century John was transferred to Ephesus, which later resulted in
the apostle John being identified with the John of Revelation.  From here
Irenaeus derived his tradition that justified the four-gospel canon.

Concluding observations about later developments:  In the James-Peter
tradition of Jewish Christianity, Gnosticism remained an internal issue
(cf. Apocryphon of James, Kerygma of Peter).  Another issue is Sethian
Gnosticism, which was a Syrian alliance of Gnostic Jews and Christians
that permitted the interpretation of Jesus' sayings and the eventual
replacement of those sayings by older more august texts such as Genesis.
Syrian missionaries then may have gone to Egypt from the following
churches in Syria, which may be identified with some rather frivolous
titles: "Jewish Universalists for Jesus" (now called Sethians); "James of
Jerusalem Holiness Church" (now called Jewish Christianity);
"Un-Reconstructed Church of John" (i.e., persons within the Johannine
tradition who did not join the Peter circles); "Baptists of the House of
Philip" and "Thomas Anti-Sabbatists" (last decades of the first century);
"Church of the Secret Gospel" (a relative latecomer, though its patron
saint, Mark, was later able to become bishop of Alexandria); "Salome's
Liberated Women for the Kingdom of God" and "Mary Magdalene's Holiness
Church," though these were suppressed when Paul, 75 years after his death,
agreed to write the Pastoral Epistles and had them sent to Egypt for the
suppression of women.  Actually, he had originally intended to admonish
the bishop of Alexandria to be married to one wife only, but the bishop
used these documents to silence all women in the church.


DISCUSSION

John 21 was written in the last decades of the first century after Peter's
death and gives Peter the pastoral role of feeding the flock.  Peter is
not, however, related to the life-giving words of Jesus in this chapter.
Likewise in GThomas, the statement about the authority of James the Just
ties GThomas to another person and the tradition behind him.  These
examples imply an ecclesiastical move to join together groups of different
traditions, i.e., groups of different communities.

In the earliest stage, Christians claimed their religious identity by
referring to the name of an apostle.  Some apostles were missionaries, but
others were not.  Yet the names of these individuals did not die out in
certain communities to be used simply as a means for legitimating the
authority of texts in later pseudepigraphy.  Instead, the names were used
to identify communities right from the very start and continued to be used
in this way.  Thus even though we do not know from documentation that the
Johannine community called itself the Johannine community, we can assume
that it did identify itself with the name John (not just a mysterious
"Beloved Disciple").

The model of Paul may imply certain questions for other apostles.  But the
other apostles either did not write letters or the letters were not
preserved.  Paul's letter writing is an unusual phenomenon.  Paul says
there is no room in the east anymore because the region from Syria to
Illyricum has been evangelized.  But he does not mention Egypt and the
east.  Was he aware of other communities in these areas?  Were Peter,
James, and John always in Jerusalem?  

The notion that the early Christian missionaries were uneducated is an
unacceptable myth.  Jesus himself was not uneducated.  The question,
rather, is what kind of education these early missionaries had.  Paul's
education, for example, apparently did not include, or at least he
rejected, the idea of being a mystagogue (cf. 1 Corinthians 1).  

Alexandria may have been a center for the seeds of Gnosticism, but not
Sethian Gnosticism.  The earliest Gnostic writings, at least all or most
of the Sethian documents, are probably from Syria; e.g., Apocryphon of
John, Dialogue of the Savior, Apocryphon of James, Hypostasis of the
Archons, et al.  If P. Egerton 2 and P52 are dated correctly in the early
second century, and fragments of GThomas and GPeter are also from the
second century, then a large amount of materials must have come to Egypt
in the later first or second century.  These documents, certainly John and
GThomas, were brought to Egypt from outside.  Were they also brought to
Asia Minor?  John certainly was.  It was then from Asia Minor that
Irenaeus took it to Gaul.  If there were still secluded sectarian
communities at this stage, then they were indeed secluded.  

The fact that Paul disappears from the record in the second century has
been observed numerous times.  From Justin Martyr, for example, it would
be impossible to know that Paul wrote letters--though Justin wrote against
Marcion and thus had to have known Paul.  Apparently John's theological
tradition had no use for Paul's type of thinking.  The church at Rome also
apparently had no use for Paul's type of thought in the second century,
though in the first century Paul's influence in Rome is apparent from
Romans, Ephesians, 1 Peter, and 1 Clement.  Thus sometime between 60 and
100 it seems to have become less and less possible to simply identify only
with Paul or any other single apostle.  These figures had by this time
become political authorities, i.e., leaders associated with the subsequent
leadership of various groups, that had to be politically brought together.

If we had a Christian writing from the first century in Alexandria it
would not look like the Nag Hammadi documents.  GThomas, DialSavior, and
John are not Alexandrian.  They are instead from Syria, perhaps not far
from Antioch.  Sethian Gnosticism presents another problem that is also
probably not Alexandrian in origin.

 In response to a question about the role of Jerusalem as an authority and
the impact of the fall of Jerusalem on this authority, Koester stated that
too much has been made of the fall of Jerusalem in reconstructions of
early Christianity.  Even before the fall of Jerusalem Paul's only reason
for going back to Jerusalem, at least after writing Galatians, was to
deliver the collection.  He did not regard Jerusalem as the authority.
But Syrian Christians of Jewish origin definitely felt that Jerusalem
traditions were still crucial, but this was not so in other circles in
Syria or in the Nag Hammadi corpus.  In the Pauline churches there had
already existed an established tradition of independence from Jerusalem.

The notion that churches were originally connected to apostles should be
distinguished from the political inventions of later centuries in which
older bishoprics were associated with apostolic tradition, which involved
a lot of fabrication.  It must likewise be distinguished from the practice
of identifying traditions with various saints and martyrs in the apostolic
claims of the third and fourth centuries.

Interpretation is the common link between Jewish Gnostic traditions and
Christian Gnostic traditions.  The Gnostic hermeneutic itself is
pre-Christian and Jewish in the way that it interprets texts; or at least
it developed in circles that had Jewish writings and knew Jewish methods
of interpretation.  Sethian Gnostic writings were then brought together
with Christian Gnostic writings.  Many of the Syrian Christians were Jews
and thus may have held a Gnostic interpretation of Genesis side-by-side
with a comfortable use of the Gospel of John.

In response to Bob Kraft's question of why these materials should be
placed in Syria and not Egypt, Koester emphasized that the necessary
community structure, education, and so on were not available in Egypt, at
least outside of Alexandria, as they were in the Syrian cities [and, as
stated above, Alexandria is an unlikely setting for these materials].  Bob
argued that this is not the case.  But Koester presupposes that
Christianity is a city phenomenon and required what cities had to offer.
Thus if it was not Alexandria, then it was unlikely elsewhere in Egypt.
Demonstrable links to Syria include material in Ignatius related to John
and Matthew.  The issue is admittedly one of probability, however; the
package fits more likely in Egypt than in Greece, but more likely in Syria
than in Egypt.  

Syria and other regional churches in the first and second century need to
be viewed from these early periods, not on the basis of third and fourth
century sources, which reflect much later developments.  The relationship
between Sethian Gnostic documents and Christian Gnosticism is also
different from the relationship between the Hermetic writings and
Christian Gnosticism.  Hermetic documents had no influence on early
Christian documents, but Sethian Gnostic documents were taken over by
Christian Gnostics and made to be revelation from Jesus to John or someone
else.  

//END 21.3//


Philadelphia Seminar on Christian Origins 21.5, April (or at least, last
meeting for the year; I was unable to find out what month it was from any
of the tapes of the year) 1984
Topic for 1983-1984: Syrian Christianity
Chairperson for the year: William Adler

Minutes by Allen Kerkeslager, March 1997, based on cassette tape
recording.

Meeting of April (?) 1984
Susan Harvey, University of Rochester
" 'Does Your Doctrine Teach You to Hate Your Bodies': Further Problems in
Syrian Asceticism"

The title is taken from a fourth century Syriac martyrdom in which a
Syrian deacon, Habib, is put to death by a governor of Edessa.  Habib was
tortured with metal combs until his flesh hung in strips and the governor
asked, "Does your doctrine teach you to hate your bodies?  For what kind
of a God would demand such a cost of his followers?"  Habib's answer was,
"We do not hate our bodies.  Our doctrine teaches that whoever will lose
his life will find it."  Habib died in 310.  Habib and other Syrian
Christians seem to have thought that the governor's question itself was
strange.  His answer provides a parable for the manner in which scholars
have traditionally addressed Syrian asceticism.   Modern scholars have
called the pervasiveness and intensity of asceticism in Syrian
Christianity "insane"; "soul destroying"; and "repulsive."  But these
reactions to Syrian asceticism do not show an interest in actually
listening to the sources or reconsidering the evidence with a more
moderate stance.  This paper is an attempt to do these things.

Christianity is ascetic by nature in Syria.  Asceticism is not an external
element or one at the margins practiced only by extremists.  Asceticism
was instead central to the understanding of Christianity, sacramental,
devotional, and universal in all forms of Syrian Christianity.  Biblical
models of John the Baptist and others provided the basis.  Jesus himself
had emphasized selling all that one has, denying oneself, and renouncing
one's family and possessions.  These biblical injunctions were taken
literally in the Syrian understanding of imitating Christ.  

E.g., GThom 75, from Syria, states that "Many are standing at the door,
but it is the solitary (Gk. monachos) who will enter the bridal chamber."
Acts of Judas Thomas labels marriage as "filthy sexual intercourse."
Tatian's Diatessaron demanded an ascetic response and was often the only
version of the Gospels available in Syria in many places up through the
fifth century.  

Other statements in the sayings of Jesus were also interpreted as calls to
asceticism.  E.g., marriage parables led to the image of Jesus as a
heavenly bridegroom to which the believers is married, thus leaving no
place for earthly marriage.  Celibacy thus remained widespread and
standard practice in Syrian Christianity.  As late as the third century
celibacy was a requirement for baptism in the Syrian Orient.  Celibates
were of two types: (1) the bethulah (the absolute virgin); (2) the
qadishah (the married person who renounced sex within marriage).  The
practice of celibacy was so widespread in Syrian Christianity that
bethulah itself ultimately came to mean "Christian" (male or female).

The view of the eschatological setting also encouraged asceticism.  The
believer was already viewed as in a state of paradise awaiting the final
arrival of the eschaton.  Thus engaging in marriage and having children
delayed the arrival of the eschaton.  The notion that symbols should be
taken literally and lived out in reality encouraged the attempt to
literally express and live out the symbolism of the restoration of Eden.
This was done variously by living naked, living among the beasts, eating
raw food, foraging rather than engaging in agriculture, and other
practices.  To live as if the eschaton had already come was a way of
hastening its actual reality.

The ideal of singleness complemented the ideal of celibacy.  Singleness
allowed for a singular focus on Christ.  The same word used in Syriac for
"single one" was also the word used of Jesus as God's only Son; i.e.,
Greek monachos and monogenes were both translated with the same Syriac
word.  This allowed the word for "single one" to emphasize the imitation
of Christ and close identification of the believer with Christ.  Thus as
in the case of bethulah, which became synonymous with "Christian," so also
to be a "single one" took on a broader usage, moving from referring to an
"ascetic" to simply any "monk."  To be a Christian implied celibacy,
asceticism, and renunciation.  

Christianity thus carried in itself an inherently ascetic understanding.
This goes well beyond and must be distinguished from dualism.  Dualism was
indeed important, but asceticism was not the result of dualism.
Asceticism became important in Syriac Christianity because early Syriac
Christianity looked away from this world and chose instead to gaze on its
maker and the other world. 

The Odes of Solomon are perhaps the earliest non-biblical Syriac work.  It
is disputed whether they were first composed in Greek or Syriac and they
are dated as early as the first century (Charlesworth) and as late as the
third century (Drijvers).  They probably date to the mid-second century.
Celibacy is assumed throughout the Odes.  E.g., Ode 23 speaks of joy and
grace and love for the holy ones.  In Ode 33 the perfect virgin calls to
women and men in a manner similar to the call of Wisdom in Proverbs 8.  In
Ode 42, since celibacy was pictured as betrothal to Christ, Christ is here
pictured as a bridegroom.  In Ode 38, false doctrine is seen as a
bridegroom who corrupts.  The relationship between the believer and Christ
is thus intimate and complete.  The action of the believer must involve
the entire body and soul, the heart and the spirit.  The Odist praises God
by an act of self-giving, resulting in being assumed into the being of
Christ.  The posture of prayer emphasizes this point even further by being
the posture of Christ himself on the cross.  The Odist thus seeks
assumption into union with Christ.  This is so complete in the Odes that
it is often difficult to distinguish the voice of Christ from the voice of
the believer.

Not until the mid-fourth century, under the attempts to moderate Syrian
asceticism by Christians in the west, do we see two groups clearly
distinguished from one another--those who live in a good marriage in
consecrated life, while others are monks.  This appears first in Aphraat,
who wrote in 334 or 337.  His view of Christianity is almost purely
Semitic.  He is not concerned with doctrinal disputes but with disputes
with his Jewish neighbors.  

Aphraat's view of asceticism is the opposite of that of the ascetics in
the Roman realm.  Antony was not permitted to die as a martyr, so he lived
out his martyrdom through asceticism.  Asceticism was thus an alternative
form of martyrdom.  But for Aphraat and other Syrian Christians, martyrdom
was an alternative form of asceticism.  Thus Aphraat's "Treatise on Faith"
has much in common with his "Treatise on the Consecrated Life," while
there are fewer similarities between his "Homily on Persecution" and his
"Treatise on the Consecrated Life."  One would have expected his views on
the consecrated life and persecution would have had more in common.
Aphraat says that the following practices are needed for service in
Christ: pure fasting, pure prayer, love, alms, meekness, virginity,
mourning, purity, holiness, wisdom, hospitality, and simplicity.  All of
these are also what is needed among the benei chayama.  

In Aphraat's demonstration on the Consecrated Life, celibacy is his basic
concern.  Bridal imagery as betrothal to Christ, a call to a wedding
feast, and discipleship commands of renunciation are all juxtaposed.  All
who are God's chosen are betrothed and fornication is viewed as adultery
against the heavenly bridegroom.  Those who preserve chastity will rest
with the solitary Christ where there is neither male nor female.  OT and
NT examples of celibacy, fasting, and living on raw food in the wilderness
are cited.  

Aphraat's 18th demonstration is "Against the Jews" because Jews said that
the Christian practice of celibacy violated the command to be fruitful and
multiply.  Aphraat's response is that marriage is indeed "very good," as
it says in Genesis, but virginity is more excellent.  As analogies he says
that both heaven and earth are created by God, but heaven is better; both
Adam and Eve were created by God, but Adam is better.  Marriage, he
argues, separates us from God.  The celibate alone can be joined to God.
He says that Jews do not grasp the power of virginity and asceticism.  

Asceticism is so essential to Aphraat that he does not distinguish it from
persecution.  Unlike the Roman world, persecution was not a major
experience under the Persians.  In fact, persecution was relatively recent
in Syria and Aphraat saw persecution as something that came "because of
our sins," unlike the view of persecution in the Roman world.  Rather than
the ultimate witness of the believer, martyrdom shows what is wrong in the
world.  But persecution was also seen as part of living as God's people.
[In the discussion, Susan added that in Persia, persecutions are directed
at Christians partly precisely because of the practice of celibacy, which
was especially disturbing to the Zoroastrians].    

Faith in itself calls the believer to absolute self-giving to God.  In
demonstration 6 in discussing the benei chayama, Aphraat merges the
imagery of betrothal with the hard sayings of Jesus in discipleship.
Aphraat says that the believer renounces the things of this world not
because they are evil, but because the believer is bound to Christ in
betrothal and is utterly God's own.  

Ephraem sets Aphraat's ideas to song.  He was a monk and a deacon writing
hymns, homilies, and working among the sick.  He holds together both the
rapture of the Odist and the belabored fervor of Aphraat.  He too is
committed to a life of consecration to God.  "The soul is your bride, the
body your bridal chamber, your guest the senses and thoughts.  And if a
single body is a wedding feast for you, how great is your banquet for the
whole church."  Ephraem cannot be read with a body-spirit division.
"Those who are themselves fashioned of dust now fashion dust, and the
earthborn labor on the earth.  We love our bodies, which are akin to us,
of the same origin.  For our roots are dust and our branches bear the
fruits of our works. . . .  Let the roots of our love be bound up in him.
. . . O Lord may the body be a temple for the praise of him who built it.
. . . Let not our body become a hollow cavity, our soul not a harbor of
loss."  

Ephraem turns inside out the dualism of body and soul that we expect from
older works.  For him, body and soul were formerly alienated from one
another.  But now in Christ, in the promised resurrection, body and soul
are once again reconciled as they should be.  So he rejoices, "Make glad
the body with the soul, return the soul to the body, let them have joy
with one another.  For they were separated but now are joined to one
another again. . . . Let light dwell in the body's eyes. . . . "


DISCUSSION

Bill Adler asked that if what Susan has said in general in the paper is
true, then why did Manicheans and Marcionites take root in Syria?  

Susan responded that the asceticism among the "orthodox" is very
different.  It is based on a response to commands in the Gospel rather
than the kind of presuppositions found in Manichean and Marcionite
circles.  They may have found the practices of the Marcionites appealing,
but based them on different presuppositions.  Peter Brown has pointed out
(especially appropriately in this case) that rather than denying the body,
asceticism is using the body to make a higher statement.

Susan also reemphasized the contrasts with Egyptian asceticism.  The
Egyptian ascetics were out in the desert, but Syrian ascetics were in or
near cities.  Some of this is for practical reasons, such as safety from
raids and wars.  This requires one to be near a fortification.  But it
places one in the world, unlike the Egyptian monks.  

Kathleen McVey pointed out that even in Egyptian monasticism Scripture
provided the basis.  She also stated that the notion of the martyr
providing the model for monasticism, with monasticism substituting for
martyrdom when martyrdom became less common, is probably not valid even
for Egypt.  This is especially unlikely since the ideology of martyrdom in
Egyptian asceticism developed before the persecutions had come to an end.  

Susan emphasized that the point is that so much of Syrian asceticism seems
to come directly from the Bible and the Syrians' interpretation of the
Bible rather than from India or outside influences.  It appears to be
pietism taken to extremes rather than a struggle against something.  In
this respect it appears similar to what is found in some rabbinic circles
in the area.  

David Efroymson referred to Tyson's wandering ascetics and suggested that
this is the possible kind of missionaries who brought Christianity to
Syria.  

Susan noted that Paul may be an ascetic in some sense, but stated that he
is "more Hellenic."

Strong objections raised against Susan's paper by one individual were that
the martyrdom story about Habib is sadistic and that Aphraat was terrified
at the body and life in this world.  Ephraem's poetic view was an
exception.  (Susan made no direct response to these objections).

Susan reiterated that the Syrian Christians took the body seriously.  They
may also have taken seriously the notion that there is neither male nor
female.  The Spirit and the Logos were viewed as feminine until 400 when
the Syrians were forced by pressures from Christians further west to use
masculine pronouns.  Marcionites may also have given greater freedom to
women.  The betrothal imagery also overrides gender in some way.  It is
only in the late 3rd and 4th century that formal attempts were made to
change these things.  In this period attempts were also made to convince
the Syrian Christians that "spiritual marriage" was not normal for
everyone.  This is understandable, given the demonstrably widespread
nature of this practice (evidenced in the work on inscriptions and other
sources that show a decline in birthrates in this period).  The misogyny
that appears in sources from this period may have been a backlash against
the greater freedom and openness for women that may have characterized the
earlier stages of Syrian Christianity.

Kathleen suggested that the association between asceticism and the freedom
that women possessed to exercise various roles (such as prophets) implies
that they had to deny their female identity to fill these roles. 

Susan responded that this association does not really imply that the women
denied their female identity.  It was simply a result of the fact that not
having babies gave them freedom to go off and preach as Thekla did.   

//END 21.4 or 5//