INFORMATION TO USERS
This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. U M I films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type o f computer printer.
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send U M I a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced form at the back o f the book.
Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6” x 9” black and white
photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact U M I directly to order. UMI A Bell & Howell Infonnation Company 300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor MI 48106-1346 USA 313/761-4700 800/521-0600
SOTERIOLOGIES OF EARLY CHRISTIANITY
WITHIN THE INTELLECTUAL CONTEXT
OF THE EARLY ROMAN EMPIRE:
BARNABAS AND CLEMENT OF ROME AS CASE STUDIES
DISSERTATION
Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for
the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate
School of the Ohio State University
By
ROGER STEVEN EVANS, B.S., MDiv, M.A.
*****
The Ohio State University
1996
Dissertation Committee: Approved by:
Timothy Gregory
Joseph Jynch Ad\fc Nathan Rosenstien Department of HistoV UMI Number: 9620011
UMI Microform 9620011 Copyright 1996, by UMI Company. All rights reserved.
This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
UMI 300 North Zeeb Road Ann Arbor, MI 48103 To My Wife Christine ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I want to express my sincere thanks to Dr Timothy Gr^ory for his guidance and encouragement through this process. Working with Dr. Gregory on this dissertation has made me a better scholar. I also wish to thank Dr. Joseph Lynch whose insights into the sometimes difficult arguments helped me to clarify my own positions. I want to thank my wife and children for their patience, knowing that whenever I was sitting in front of the computer, I could not be fully present for them. I thank Ted Bartter who has guided my theological growth. And finally Drs. John Kampen and Ed Motschiedler for giving me the time to do this work.
m CURRICULUM VITA
Name: Roger S. Evans
Address: 2945 Princeville Dr., Pickerington, OH 43147
Telephone: Home: (614) 866-4788; Office: (513) 376-2946
ACADEMIC DEGREES:
B.A., Columbia Union College, 1976 MDiv., Andrews Theological Seminary, 1979 M.A., The Ohio State University, 1987 Thesis - “The Soteriology of Clement of Rome Within the Intellectual Matrix of the Early Roman Empire.” Ph.D., The Ohio State University, 1996 Dissertation - “Soteriologies of Early Christianity Within the Intellectual Context of the Early Roman Empire: Barnabas and Clement of Rome as Case Studies” Dr. Timothy Gregory, Advisor.
MAJOR FIELD: History
FIELDS:
I)IIistorical: A) Greek: Classical, Hellenistic B) Roman: Republic, Empire C) Byzantine (through 10th century) D) Medieval E) Reformation F) Development of British Common Law and Growth of Parliament G) Aamerican Church History
II) Theological: A) New Testament B) Early Church C) Medieval Church D) Reformation E) American F) African-American Christianity
III) Languages: Greek: Classical, Koine. Byzantine
IV TEACHING EXPERIENCE:
Adjunct Professor of History - Ohio Wesleyan University 1990: Foundations of European History, Medieval Civilization, Introduction to Historical Thought
Assistant Professor of Church History - Payne Theological Seminary (A.M.E.)
African American Church History American Church History History of Christian Thought History of the Conflict Between Judaism and Christianity Introduction to Ministry Issues of Sexism in the Christian Church North African Theology Through Augustine Seminar in Reformation History Senior Seminar
ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES
I) Chair: Educational Programs Committee II) Chair: Campus Life Committee. III) Chair: Committee on Minority and Women Issues III) Member: Educational Support Committee IV ) Member: Steering Committee V) Faculty Representative for Payne with the Ohio Council of Churches. V I) Faculty Advisor for one-third of the Payne students.
PAPERS:
“The Anthropology of St. Augustine.” “A Biblical Theology of Wine.” “Antisemitism in the Writings of the Early Christian Church Fathers.” “A Historiography of 16th Century Anabaptism.”
PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS:
American Academy of Religion American Historical Association North American Patristic Society American Society of Church Historians REFERENCES:
Dr. Timothy Gregory, Professor of History The Ohio State University Columbus, OH 43210
Dr. Jan Hallenback, Professor o f History Ohio Wesleyan University Delaware, OH 43015
Dr, John Kampen, Academic Dean Payne Theological Seminary Wilberforce, OH 45384
Dr. Kenneth Strand, Chair Department of Church History Andrews Theological Seminary Berrien Springs, M D 49104
VI TABLE OF CONTENTS
DEDICATION ...... ii
ACKNOLWEDEMENTS ...... iii
VITA ...... iv
INTRODUCTION ...... 1
Chapter
I. Methodological Approach ...... 9
II. The Use of Zcorfip and ZtorripLa ...... 16 The Ancient Pagan Writers The Ancient Christian Writers
III. The Use of ALKaioowri ...... 24 The Ancient Pagan Writers Hellenistic Judaism The Septuagint Philo and Josephus The New Testament The Other Apostolic Fathers
IV . Possible Intellectual Influences on Barnabas and Clement ...... 42 Judaism Old Testament First Century C.E. Judaism New Testament Christianity Gnosticism Hellenistic Paganism Stoicism Mystery Religions
V. Soteriological Themes in Early Christianity ...... 86 The Ped^ogical or Chri st-the-Teacher Model of Salvation The Christus Victor Model of Salvation The Recapitulation Model of Salvation The Platonic Model of Salvation The Reconciliation Model of Salvation
CONCLUSION ...... 107 CLEMENT OF ROME
INTRODUCTION ...... I l l
Chapter
VI. The Historical Context of Clement of Rome ...... 114 Authorship
V II. Possible Intellectual Influences on Clement ...... 118 Judaism Post New Testament Christianity Stoicism
V III. The UseofôiKaioaûi/T] in Clement ...... 129
IX . The Use of aipa in Clement ...... 132 Analysis of Chapter 7.4 Analysis of Chapter 21.6
X. The Use of epya in Clement ...... 142 A Comparison of 9.3 and 10.6 A Comparison of 30.3 and 32.3-4 Analysis of Chapter 33.8 Analysis of Chapter 58.2b
X I. The Use of Xurpov* in Clement ...... 152 Analysis of 12.7 Analysis of 55.2 Analysis of 59.4
CONCLUSION FOR CLEMENT...... 156
BARNABAS
INTRODUCTION ...... 161
Chapter
XII. Historical Context of Barnabas ...... 162 Authorship Time of Authorship Place of Authorship The Audience of the Epistle
X III. Possible Intellectual Influences on Barnabas ...... 185 The Religious Context of Second Century C .E Alexandria The Jewish Population o f Second Century C.E. Alexandria
viii X IV . Evidence o f a Jewish Influence in the Epistle ...... 191 Parallels with the Qumran Community
XV. The UseofoiKaLoauini in Barnabas ...... 203 Analysis o f 1.6 and 11.7 Analysis o f 4.12 Analysis o f 4.10 Analysis of 5.4 Analysis of 13.7b
X V I. The Place of “Works” in Barnabas ...... 220 Analysis o f 4.1 Analysis o f 17.1 Analysis of 19.1
X V II. The Use of Xurpov in Barnabas ...... 226 Analysis o f 19.10 Analysis o f 14.5,6
/(V lll. The Use of dipa in Barnabas ...... 230 Analysis of 12.1 Analysis of 5.1
XIX. The Use of in Barnabas ...... 234 Analysis o f 5.10
CONCLUSION FOR BARNABAS...... 236
FINAL CONCLUSION ...... 241
BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 245 INTRODUCTION
As the early Christian communities began to articulate their belief systems, questions concerning soteriology were among those they strove to answer. The primary question this dissertation will attempt to answer is how two of the Apostolic Fathers,
Barnabas and Clement of Rome, contributed their own voices to those questions.'
Soteriology, coming from the Greek words owTfip (savior, deliverer, preserver)- and
Xoyo? (word)3 is the study of the different elements which go into a religion’s doctrine of how a person is saved. Louis Berkhof says that Christian “soteriology deals with the communication of the blessings of salvation to the sinner and his restoration to divine favor and to a life of intimate communion with God. ”4
Given the different intellectual and cultural backg^-ounds of Barnabas and Clement, agreement with each other on the questions of soteriology should not be expected. And it is not the purpose of this dissertation to prove the “correctness” or the “orthodoxy” of one view of salvation over against others. This study will explore how the intellectual and cultural contexts of Barnabas and Clement, which included Jewish (both Palestinian and
’ The term “Apostolic Fathers" Is used to designate the early Christian writings, Barnabas, I Clement, II Clement, the Didache, the epistle of Polycarp, the Shepherd of Hermas and the letters of Ignatius.
2 cf. Joseph Henry Thayer, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Grand Rapids, Ml: Zondervan, 1885), 612).
3 ibid., 380.
Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, Grand Rapids, Ml: Eerdmans Publishing, 1941), 415. 1 Hellenistic), pagan. Gnostic and the earlier Christian writings, influenced their soteriologies. Some o f the terms used by early Christian authors, including Barnabas and
Clement, to express ideas concerning salvation also w ill be examined. However, any attempt to discover well-defined, tight definitions o f soteriological beliefs in the first or second centuries must be approached with extreme caution.
Berkhof, in sounding 2 common theme of modem scholars, says that "'it would be unreasonable to look for a common, definite, well integrated, and fully developed view of the application o f the work o f redemption in the earliest Church Fathers.”5 He goes on to say that their representations were “rather indefinite, imperfect, and incomplete, and sometimes even ... self-contradictory.”6 H.E.W. Turner says that there was no really satisfactory treatment o f the doctrine o f Redemption in the early church.^ This is not entirely true, for the Apostle Paul spent a fair amount of space discussing salvation issues in his epistles to the churches in Rome and Galatia. However, Turner is correct when he says “there is no single formulation of the doctrine o f Redemption” in the first four centuries.8 Gustaf Aulen says that “the contributions of the patristic period to theology lie in another direction ... chiefly concerned with Christology and the doctrine of the Trinity
5 Berkhof, 203.
6 ibkJ. Of course Berkhof is imposing what he considers to be a correct view of salvation when he says that some of the early Christian authors held ‘erroneous" views of salvation. Other scholars who say essentially the same are: Samuel Laeuchli “Prolegomenon to a Structural Analysis of Ancient Christian Views of Salvation," Disciplina Nostra (1979):133: Joseph F. Mitros, “Patristic Views of Christ's Salvific Work," Thought 42 (1967): 415: R.S. Franks, A History of the Doctrine of the Work of Christ (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1918), 11; Michael Slusser, “Primitive Christian Soteriological Themes,” Theological Studies 44 (1983): 557; Basil Studer and Brian Daley, “Soteriologie in der Schrift und Patristic," Handbuch der Dogmengeschicte 3 (1988) does not treat themes such as those treated in this dissertation.
7 H.E.W. Turner, The Patristic Doctrine of Redemption: A study of the Development of Doctrine during the First Five Centuries, (London: A.R. Mowbray, & Co. Ltd., 1952): 11.
8 ibid., 114. . .. in regard to [soteriology], only hesitating efforts were made along a variety of lines.”9
And finally, Jaroslav Pelikan tells us that there was ambiguity present in the writings of the fathers well into the second and third centuries on the questions of justification, grace and forgiveness - terms which came into the earliest discussions concerning soteriological issues. 10 Therefore, we cannot expect the Apostolic Fathers of the Christian church to have tightly defined statements on soteriological beliefs. The earliest Christian writings, which included the epistles of the Apostle Paul (c.45-55 C .E ), appeared less than fifty years before the time of some of the Apostolic Fathers. The canon of the New Testament was not yet thought of, fixed or even fully written at the beginning of the second century.
Nor was there an “orthodox'’ faith to which all Christians ascribed. The transmission of the stories about and the teachings of Jesus, like the development of doctrine, was sporadic.
In the late first century (Clement) and early second century (Barnabas), when a profusion of Christian writings appeared (many pseudepigraphical), the earlier doctrinal questions (some of which are discussed in the writings of Paul and John) had not been resolved. Charges of heresy were heard, and invectives were tossed between the theological combatants. 11. By the second century there were Ebionites, Alogi, Dynamic
Monarchians, Docetai, Nazarenes, Elkesaites, Gnostics, Modalists, and other lesser known groups, all claiming to be the only true representatives of Jesus Christ and his teachings.' -
9 Gustaf Aulen, Christus Victor (New York: Macmillan, 1951): 1.
Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Tradition: AHistoryof the Development of Doctrine, Vol. 1 Tne Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600), (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1971), 29. cf. also pp.141-155.
11 The Apostle Paul, twice in Galatians 1 (vv.8,9) pronounces a curse on those who are preaching another gospel. For those who are guilty of this, Paul says di'riOciia carw (let him be accursed).
12 Berkhof, 44.45. 77-79. The situation continued to plague the Christian communities, and became so serious by the second century that Irenaeus (c. 110-170) felt compelled to write his Againsr Heresies. The main weapon of these Christian, theological combatants was their pen. Unfortunately, most of the tracts and treatises from this period did not survive, and we only know of these groups through their enemies or from references to them from later authors. We do know, however, that many writings which were condemned by contemporaries, or which were later condemned, were circulating in different parts of the Empire, and read in Christian churches.
Faith (TTLOTig), sin (dpapTia), repentance (lierduoia), forgiveness (a Clement and Barnabas, but this does not mean that they possessed a fully spelled-out and consistent understanding of these complex, and at the time, still fluid notions. >3 These men came from different religious, philosophical and cultural backgrounds. And from the sparsity of evidence concerning Clement and Barnabas, the scholar can only guess, often from the internal evidence left in the documents, what their motives for writing were. It was through their own personal historical contexts that they interpreted the teachings of Christianity. It must also be kept in mind that perhaps some of these earlier writers were exposed to certain strains of Christianity which stressed a soteriological belief that would not be found elsewhere. Others may have read or heard many early Christian documents and formed their own distinct understanding. O f the early Christian writings which have been given the title “Apostolic Fathers" 1 have chosen to look only at the texts of Clement and Barnabas for two reasons. 14 First is 13 ibid., 129. 1“ Traditionally the “Apostolic Fathers have included I Clement. II Clement, Ignatius of Antioch , Polycarp of Smyrna, the Didache, and Barnabas, cf. Lake, pp.v. 4 their importance. The letters of Clement and Barnabas were considered canonical by some later Christian communities. Kirsop Lake says, '^It is noteworthy that I Clement appears to be treated by Clement of Alexandria as Scripture, and this, especially in connection with its position in the Codex Alexandrinus and in the Strassburg Coptic MS, where it is directly joined on to the canonical books, suggests that at an early period in Alexandria and Egypt I Clement was regarded as part of the New Testament") 5 o f Barnabas he says, “Barnabas like I Clement... became canonical in some circles: it is quoted by Clement of Alexandria as Scripture, and is referred to by Origen as a catholic epistle, while it is included in the Codex Sinaiticus among the books of the New Testament") 6 Secondly, I chose Clement and Barnabas because among the Apostolic Fathers, they seem to have considered soteriological issues rather more extensively than the other Apostolic Fathers. Therefore, since these letters were considered canonical by some important Christian communities, what Clement and Barnabas had to say about salvation must be seen as important elements in the soteriologies of those communities. The justification for this study, then, is that while some study has been made of early Christian soteriology, this has not been extensively applied to the Apostolic Fathers. Yet, Berkhof says the Apostolic Fathers are of “considerable importance, since they witness to the canonicity and int^rity of the New Testament Books and form a doctrinal link between the New Testament and the more speculative writings of the Apologists which appeared during the second century.") ^ H.E.W. Turner has rightly noted that “most writers on the subject 15 Kirsop Lake. The Apostolic Faffiers, 2 vols. (Cambridge, MA; Harvard University Press, 1912), vol.1, pp.6- 7. 16 ibid., 339. 17 Berkhof, 39. of the death of Christ offer little more than a superficial summary of the earlier period.”* s Yet Turner himself gives only passing references to Barnabas and Clement of Rome. Gustaf Aulen, whose book Christus Victor is a standard for the study of Patristic soteriology, never even mentions the Apostolic Fathers, and the earliest author he treats is Irenaeus (c. 140-200) who wrote in the second half of the second century, By contrast, this dissertation will explore in detail the soteriologies of two of the Apostolic Fathers - Barnabas and Clement of Rome .20 Clement and Barnabas were not trying to provide the young Church with a definitive soteriology. Other concerns, such as unity, obedience to ecclesiastical authority, resistance to and suspicion of Jewish and pagan influences, occupied much of the texts. It is usually said that the main theological effort of the early church was exerted in the sphere of Christology, and this is true, in so far as its most monumental results were seen in the formulae of the ecumenical councils.- * Therefore, although Barnabas and Qement were not concerned with laying down a definitive soteriology, their views on the way(s) of salvation were revealed in their texts, and although the doctrinal disagreements over Christologies gained the most notoriety, some of those questions were closely associated with issues of soteriology. The questions concerning the divinity and humanity of Christ naturally had direct bearings on the author’s soteriology. Could Christ be humanity’s Savior if he were not fully human or not fully i8Tumer, 11. 19 Gustaf Aulen. Christus Victor (New York: Macmillian, 1951). 20 See the bibliography at the end of this dissertation; a bibliography which is only partial. These were the books and articles which came closest to the scope of this study. General soteriologies of the early church or soteriologies of later ante-nicene authors are numerous 21 Gustaf Aulen says that "it is not always clearly understood that the Christological definitions were worked out in close connection with a quite definite view of Christ’s redemptive work, which, though it found no explicit place in the definitions, was present in the background throughout.” 42-43. 6 divine? Could he be Savior if he was a created being? Could he be Savior if he in fact did not possess flesh and blood or if in fact he only possessed flesh and blood? Was Jesus Christ man’s example or man’s substitute? Questions concerning ecclesiology also had consequences for understanding soteriology. Does salvation come only through the Church? Is participation in the sacraments the only assurance of salvation? Also there were questions raised concerning the efficacy of the sacraments administered by priests who had been ordained by bishops who had lapsed into heresy or who denied their faith during the persecutions, but then reclaimed their ecclesiastical sees. This question continued to trouble the Church in North Africa for hundreds of years.:- It must be remembered that Christianity was not produced on a tabula rasa. It was only one of many competing religious and philosophical systems present at its beginning. However, the Christian church and its teachings did in fact play an increasingly dominant role in the political, economic, intellectual and cultural life of the Latin West (the Italian peninsula, Gaul, the Iberian peninsula and Northwest Africa) and Greek East (particularly in the major cities of the emerging Byzantine Empire, i.e. Constantinople, .Alexandria, Antioch). By the fourth century the leaders of the church began to occupy offices of political importance to the emperors in the East. The church and its leaders also began to bring the various aspects of culture under their control. Music, art and literature, major pieces of any culture, were all produced in service to the church. The peoples of the Americas, the peoples of Europe, and some of the peoples of Asia and Africa are the inheritors o f much of this culture. Therefore, a study of a doctrine as important as how the adherents to this religion (which by the fourth century became the state religion) gained 22cf. W.H.C. Frend, The Donatist Church: A Movement of Protest in Roman North Africa. (Oxford; Clarendon Press, 1952). where Frend documents the long, bitter struggle between the leaders of the Donatist church and the ‘Orthodox’ church, which eventually precipitated edicts by both the Popes in Rome and the Emperors in Constantinople. 7 salvation merits our analysis, for it is part of the broader intellectual and cultural development of western civilization. Further, it is difficult to understand why scholars have given much attention to the soteriologies expressed by the New Testament authors and the Christian writers of the late second century, and have ignored the soteriologies o f the writings which were the only Christian literary link between these two ages. It seems obvious that the soteriologies o f this critical time would bear much study.-3 23 See the bibliography for some of the most recent attempts. Particularly helpful are Samuel Laeuchli’s "Prolegomenon to a Structural Analysis of Ancient Christian Views of Salvation," Disciplina Nostra (1979): 133-170. Laeuchli does an excellent study of soteriological themes found in the New Testament, and where those themes reappear in the patristic literature. J.F. Mitros’ "Patristic Views of Christ’s Salvific Work," Tttought 42 (1967); 415-447 is the most complete study of the soteriology of the early Christian writers. However it is weak on the Apostolic Fathers. M. Slusser’s "Primitive Christian Soteriological Themes," Theological Studies 44 (1983): 555-569 discussion of primitive soteriological themes is helpful. However, he gives no indication where these themes are found in early Christian writings. T.F. Torrence’s The Doctrine of Grace in the Apostolic Fathers (Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd LTD, 1948) is a standard work that many scholars commenting on the soteriology of the early church quote. In H.E.W. Turner’s A Study of the Development of Doctrine During the First Five Centuries (London: A.R. Mowbray & Co. LTD, 1952) there a good grasp of the issues and positions taken by the early writers, but is somewhat subjective in his conclusions. P.M. Young’s The Use ofSacrificiai Ideas in Greek Christian Writers from the New Testament to John Chrysostom. (Cambridge: Philadelphia Patristic Foundation, 1979) is little known work is a wide ranging and balanced study of the whole idea of sacrifice within the Christian community within their cultural and intellectual context. 8 CHAPTER I Methodological Approach The purpose of this dissertation is to discover and explore the soteriologies o f two of the Apostolic Fathers. However, before any work can begin on the texts themselves, some preliminary work needs to be done. I w ill first attempt to place these two authors in their historical and intellectual contexts - in their own particular time and place. For Clement this is the late first/early second century Rome. For Barnabas it is early second century Alexandria. I have chosen to study how Clement and Barnabas used words like ôiKaïoowri and acoTfip which carried soteriological meaning. However, before that work can be done, it must be preceded by three considerations: I) I w ill explore how these words were used by other religions or philosophies o f their day, i.e. Jewish, Gnostic, pagan. Stoic, New Testament Christianity. II) I w ill examine these other religions’ and philosophies’ ideas concerning salvation. III) I w ill also look at soteriological themes present in the early church to determine if these were reflected in the soteriologies of these two authors. It is only with these pieces o f information in place that a study of the soteriologies o f Barnabas and Clement can begin, so that questions o f influence from the intellectual world o f the early Roman Empire can be considered. The problems facing the scholar investigating a theological construct developed nearly two thousand years ago are numerous. 'W'hile we can possess a fairly accurate knowledge of how Barnabas and Clement used words like ôncaioCTuvr] (righteousness), dfiapTLa (sin), t t l o t l ç (faith), and liexdvLoa (repentance), still we are separated by barriers of time and culture which make our understanding of how these terms were used and understood by these early Christian authors incomplete. It is difficult to know the nuances of the particular authors in their understanding of these terms and ideas, for in some cases we do not know the intellectual and cultural background of these men, and how their own particular Sitz im Leben influenced their use and understanding of words, ideas and philosophical systems from which they worked. i For example, if it was possible for Barnabas to use ôiKaioaûi/ri differently from other second century Christian authors, then it is likely that his understanding of this word will be different from the twentieth century scholar’s understanding. The scholar of today must endeavor to work back through his own understanding of religion and Christianity; back through the Enlightenment, the Reformation, the Middle Ages, and even back beyond Augustine (in particular in his soteriological battles with Pelagius) to discover the intellectual and spiritual world of these authors. The historian, then, cannot assume that one author’s understanding of a term like ÔLKaLoaûixi was necessarily the understanding of that author’s contemporaries. Basil Studer and Brian Daley point out that the soteriological “metaphors” varied from one community, one writing, one set of personal or historical circumstances to another.: In their writings, Clement and Barnabas were addressing different issues, they were 1 In the introduction to his book Turner says that he is "concerned with the formative period of Christian thought and it would be idle to proceed to it with the preconceptions derived from later controversies and their assumptions. The [Early] Church had at best the religious tradition of the New Testament and the Apostolic church to guide its thought Turner, 13. 2 Basil Studer and Brian Daley, Soteriologie in der Schrift und Patristik (Handbuch der Dogmengeschichte 3/2a (Freiburg: Herder, 1978): 28. 10 addressing different audiences, and their intellectual backgrounds were different. These problems must be kept in mind while working on the texts. Not only have the conclusions of scholars concerning early Christian soteriology been varied, but the methodological approaches have been divergent as well. Some, like Gustaf Aulen, have approached the problem of finding a dominant soteriological paradigm through the study of what might be called “salvation language.” i Others have examined not only the particular soteriological terms, but they have discovered what might be called “soteriological themes.”- Edward Schillebeeckx’ work is an example of this approach, presenting a list of key New Testament soteriological concepts.^ James Mackey has marked how the experience of the “Spirit” and the “Kingdom of God,” both in Jesus and his disciples, contributed to their understanding of the process of salvation.^ However, he has considerably limited his study by obscuring or omitting essential themes of salvation found in both the New Testament and post-New Testament writings. To limit a study of New Testament soteriological themes by looking only at the texts which speak of the “Spirit” and the “Kingdom of God” truncates the study.5 Christianity arose in Palestine at a time when Jewish sects (Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, Zealots, Herodians) held widely different views on the resurrection, the Messiah, 1 ibid. 2 Mitros and Slusser. for example. 3 Edward Schillebeeckx. Christ: The Experience of Jesus as Lord (New York: Seabury. 1980). 468-511. "James P. Mackey. Jesus: The M an an d the l\Jyth (New York: Paulist Press. 1979). 97-120.159-61.187- 93. 5 New Testament author’s use of terms such as "Messiah." ‘Son of Man." Lamb of God." and others, in connection with discussions concerning soteriology must be considered in any study of New Testament soteriologies. 11 entrance into the “kingdom of God,” the existence of angels, etc.6 Some Palestinian Jews who were literate in Greek also had been exposed to Hellenistic philosophy through the reading of Hellenized Jewish writers (Josephus and Philo being later, famous examples), and through contact with non-Jewish merchants and philosophers, who brought with them from their travels ideas and philosophies which some Palestinian Jews became, at least, familiar. There is evidence that some of these literate Palestinian Jews became the leaders of, and some of the first authors for, the growing church. There is botli New Testament and non-New Testament evidence that some of these Christian believers, at an early time, left Palestine and soon came into contact with non- Jewish peoples outside of Palestine.? In their travels these Christians encountered divergent cultureTanairueueciuiuTui^ of the cosmos, some of which were far different from their own. Therefore, by the end of the first century (Gospel of John) and the early second century there is evidence that the already diverse streams of Christianity were being influenced by non-Christian philosophic teachings. Meeks says that “the first few decades after the death of Jesus were apparently a time of extraordinary rapid emergence o f new combinations of symbols and beliefs among Jesus’ followers and early posthumous 6 Judaism was hardly a single entity in the first century. There were Jewish communities from Spain to Babylon. The beginnings of Midrashic and Mishnah texts may have been begun at this time. There was at least Palestinian, Hellenistic, Babylonian and Roman Judaism. For a fuller discussion of the theological beliefs of the different Jewish sects, see Leah Bronner, Sects and Separatism during the Second Jewisti Commonwealth (New York, 1967): W.H.C. Frend, The Rise of Christianity (Philadelphia: fortress Press, 1984), 22-30: M. Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism: Studies in the Encounter in Palestine During the Early Hellenistic Period, trans. J. Bowden, 2 vols. (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975): G.F. Moore, Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era; The Age of the Tannaim, 3 vols. (Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1927): Jacob Neusner, “The Formation of Rabbinic Judaism: Yavneh (Jamnia) from A .D .70 to 100," Aufsheg undNiedergang derromischen Welt 11(1979), 3-42. Marcel Simon, Jewish Sects at the Time of Jesus (Philadelphia, 1967). 7 For the biblical evidence see Acts 9:1-2,30,32: 11:19: 13:4,5,13-14: 14:1,6,20,26: 16:11-12: 17:1.10,15: 18:1-2,19:20:1-6:21:1-9:28:11-14. Also Paul’s letters to the Romans, Corinthians and Galatians. For the non biblical evidence see Josephus Antiquities 18.3.3/ Suetonius Life of Claudius 25.4: Tacitus Annals 15.44.2-8: Sulpicius Severus Chronicles 2 9.3. 12 converts."8 However, it would be wrong to assume that these different philosophies were accepted by all or even most Christian writers.^ Indeed, almost from the beginning, there were theological disputes within the church, some of which grew to major proportions, and which produced literature from the various disputants. i o These writings were for the most part polemical, for the Christians were not just answering the criticisms of the pagan detractors of Christianity, but their theological positions were formulated through disputes within the Christian community itself. The letters of Clement and Barnabas, therefore, must be read critically; and through careful study the scholar may detect the different intellectual and philosophical influences on these writings. The early Christian’s conflict with Judaism is a helpful example. Many of the Christian writers (and especially the apologists) claimed that Christianity was the only true religion vis-a vis paganism and Judaism, and that Christians were the only true interpreters of the Jewish sacred literature. The Jews, it was argued, had totally, and sometimes intentionally, misunderstood their own sacred literature, and had, therefore, forfeited their right to it. The Jewish sacred writings now belonged to the Christians. It was also claimed that Plato and Aristotle had known some of the truth, but Christian theology had now replaced Pagan philosophy as the way to knowing God. Much of this argumentation by the Christian writers was to build a case for the antiquity of their religion and, therefore, its worthiness of consideration. ® Meeks, p .9 l. 9 For a discussion of some of these questions see Kurt Aland, Saints and Sinners, trans. Wilhelm C. Linss (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1970): Jaroslav Pelikan, The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1971); Francis M. Young, The Use ofSacrificiai Ideas in Greek Christian Writers from the New Testament to John Chrysostom, (Cambridge: Philadelphia Patristic Foundation, 1979). 10 New Testament evidence includes Romans 2-3:20; I Corinthians 1-14; Galatians 1:6-24; 3-5:12; II Timothy 3; Titus 1:10-16; James 5:19-20; II Peter 2; Jude. Post or non-New Testament evidence includes Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Barnabas and The Didache. 13 Equally important is to discover the intended audience o f each author. For some early Christian documents, such as I Clement, the audience was clear. However, in others, such as Barnabas, the intended audience was far less clear. For example, Barnabas’ peijorative statements concerning Jewish rituals, beliefs and understanding of salvation can be interpreted as a warning to those Christians not to become participants in Judaistic practices or beliefs. However, if the intended audience was Jewish, his statements concerning these issues can be seen as an attempt to persuade the Jews to abandon their religion, and embrace Christianity. Other contemporary examples are the letters of Ignatius of Antioch warning Christians not to become part of Judaism. And If these letters were written for Jewish audiences they were attempts to demonstrate Christianity’s superiority over Judaism. This is also a possible interpretation of Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypho. There is even a fourth possibility. The documents could be intended for a pagan audience - a pagan audience which both the Christians and the Jews were trying to convert. That the Diasporic Jewish community was still actively proselytizing has been well documented.! i Authors like Barnabas could have been in competition with the proselytizing Jews for the souls of the pagans. In summation, then, I will be looking at the words and ideas in Barnabas and Clement that carry soteriological significance, and I will be looking at these words and ideas, as the title of this dissertation suggests, in their literary, historical and intellectual context Marcel Simon, Wenis Israel: Etudes sur les relations entre Chretiens et Juifs dans l'empire Romain, (Paris, 1948), 135-425. Also see James Parkes, The conflict of the Church and the Synagogue. A Study in the Origins of Antisemitism (Cleveland, 1961), 107. On this Parkes relies upon the article of Israel levi, "Le proselytism juif," Revue des etudes juives 50 (1905): 1-9: 51 (1906): 1-31. Levi differentiates between the approach of the Halakha and that of the Haggada regarding proselytes, arguing that sympathy for the proselyte appears more strongly among the Aggadists and that it is this spirit which represents the ideal of Judaism, just at the spirit of Christianity is to be sought in the Gospels, not in the Corpus luris. 14 Finally, it should be noted that this study is historical rather than theological. It does not attempt to discuss the “correctness” of Barnabas’ and Qement’s views of salvation. Nor does it assume that any particular brand of Christianity was orthodox in the late first century. Rather, it attempts to elucidate Barnabas’ and Clement’s views on salvation and then to place these in the context of the intellectual history of the time. To better understand that intellectual context, the ancient pagan and Jewish understandings of terms such as owT^p and atoxTipia, and their beliefs concerning salvation must be considered. 15 C H A FIE R II The Use of ZuTTjp and ZuTripia The Ancient Pagan Writers Questions concerning soteriologica] issues in the first two centuries o f the common era were a part o f the Christian theological picture. How a person was saved, when a person was saved, who was eligible to be saved, what was a person saved from were questions that occupied much more time among Christian authors than Jewish or pagan authors. R.G. Tanner tells us that Greek philosophy for centuries “had argued over ethics" rather than issues o f salvation.' This is not to say that Greek philosophies did not have soteriological concepts, and it is their understandings o f salvation that will be considered next. By the end o f the fourth century B.C.E., because o f the conquests o f Alexander the Great, and because of the subsequent Hellenization that followed in the conquered lands. Greek was the language o f commerce and learning in parts o f three continents i.e., Asia, Africa and Europe. However, the Hellenism in each o f the conquered areas was superimposed on existing cultures. The elements o f these cultures were never completely eradicated by the conquering Hellenes. Therefore, even though people from different continents who spoke or read Greek could understand each other, their own particular understanding o f Greek words was colored by their own culture. And Greek, like any I R.G. Tanner, T h e Savior with the Swofd," Prudentia 20(1988): 15. Much of that discussion had been on what constituted ‘virtue,” and Aristotle’s four parts of virtue ... wisdom, justice, temperance and courage ... were the moral qualities that were seen in the great men. 16 living language continued to evolve, so that words and phrases continued to take on new or different meanings. This was true of ow-pp and owrripia. The words awTfjp and auTTipia had distinctly, though not exclusively, religious connotations for the early Christians, for these words were closely connected, by the early Christian authors, with Jesus and salvation from sin. For some other ancient authors, the ideas arising from the words owTfjp and awxripLa were not always religious. Alanna Nobbs, for instance, says that “the Greek word awrripia ... referred originally to wholeness, then to health and preservation from disease."- There was no indication of moral concerns, or of salvation involving repentance finom sin and a turning to a god. This “wholeness” did not necessarily involve divine intervention at all. This was not an “other worldly” experience, but simply a state of being which involved “wholeness” (whatever that may have been) and physical health. Harold Tarant, recognizing this difference between Christians and non-Christians in the understanding of the word, states: The initial problem is the scope of the term salvation: are we to take it in the general sense of the Greek equivalent soteria. as meaning any state of being saved, or are we to impose qualifications upon the manner of saving, the identity of the saver, and the situation or threats that one is being saved from? Shall we demand, for instance, that salvation shall be a religious process, that the saver be a God or other being of divine or semi-divine status, and that one should be saved from the evil of this world (be they sins or circumstances)? Might one also require that salvation applies only where there are others who will not be saved: where many are called but few aie chosen.3 In the Greek world the idea that a person needed some kind of salvation can be traced back at least to the writings of Plato. Tarant says that in the Phaedo there is a 2 Alanna Nobbs, T h e Idea of Salvation: The Transition to Christianity as Seen In Some Early Papyri,’ Prudentia 20 (1988): 59. 3 Harold Tarrant, “Salvation From God In the De Mundo and Numenius,' Prudentia 20 (l 988): 24. 17 suggestion that “philosophy saves the soul from the impediments and impurities of the physical world, affording them eternal enjoyment of a privileged position in the other world ( 114b-e)... but the language of salvation is not present, and there is no agent of salvation, neither God nor man, other than philosophy itself.”^ He goes on to say that the “absence of agents of salvation is one of the principal problems for anybody searching for parallels between philosophy and Christian theology... [and] in other philosophies the emphasis always falls on the need for the individual to save himself from whatever there is to be avoided, thus underlining the need for moral responsibility; even [in ]... Stoicism.”5 R.G. Tanner, on the other hand, says that the traditional Greek deities “had long been invoked as savior, and tragic heroes are at times made to use... formulary prayers incorporated in the dialogue and choral odes of Attic tragedy when beseeching gods to aid or protect t h e m . “6 The title of was often given to the successors of Alexander.7 W.W. Tam states that by sthe third century B.C.E., during the Hellenistic period, in times of natural disaster, while the ancients would petition Zeus or Apollo in vain, an appeal to King Ptolemy Soter brought a rapid response in supplies and aid.8 Ptolemy I was referred to as a ‘Savior’ in a document dated from his reign, and from c.250 B.C.E. the Ptolemaic propaganda defined its royal couples as owTfjpeç (saviors), ctJiXaoekcjjoi (loosely “lovers ^ ibid. 5 ibid., 24-25. 6 Tanner. 13. This is especially true in the writings of Aeschylus, e.g. Agamemnon ^ 356-8. 7 Tanner says that it was in this sense that‘a Hellenistic macedonian ruler did seem to give safety and preservation to his petitioning subjects in those disasters where their traditional deities seemed deaf to entreaty." Tanner, 13. ® W.W . Tam , Hellenistic Civilization (London, 1930); 46-51. 18 of fellow countrymen”), or eùepyéxaL (benefactors). “The king as acornp [had] the role of preserving, cherishing and defending such Greek cities as he himself or his forebears I had] founded to be self-governing communities with his kingdom’s boundaries.”^ Therefore, although the gods Zeus and Apollo, and Alexander and his successors were referred to as saviours, the salvation they provided was not from sin, but peace and protection from enemies and even natural disasters. The title awTqp was not reserved for the Hellenistic kings alone. Indeed, S. Angus writes that “the Athenians addressed... Julius Caesar as ‘their Savior and Benefactor.” lo B.F. Curran says that the Roman generals who conquered the lands ruled by these Hellenistic Kings “were granted the same honors and titles as had been granted to the Hellenistic leaders.”^ i He goes on to say that “in this capacity the Soter was the protector, guardian and savior of the particular community or people who offered him the title” and this resembled the Roman patron-client relationship. i - However, there was a thin line between religion and “secular life” in the classical world. Tarrant says that “occasionally one finds glimmers of a more obviously religious salvation-process in isolated Greek philosophers, and this is most evident in the fragments of Empedocles’ poem Purifications ... His salvation is such as the initiates of Orphic or Eleusian mysteries might seek.”' 3 Again, Tanner says that the title “savior” was 9 ibid., 46. 10 S. Angus. The Mystery-Religions and Christianity (New York: Sribners, 1975), 227. 11 B.F. Curran, ‘Soteriological Themes and Motifs in Roman Religion,” Prudentia 20 (1988): 35. 12 ibid. 13 Tarrant, 25. 19 ‘‘frequently applied to men like King Xerxes in Herodotus and to the hero H e r c u l e s . ” i ^ This is not to say that the “human saviors” were not directed by the gods. Tanner says that “the master of the Pythia oracle could readily be made to appear as the agent of Apollo and the Savior of Greece. He became the inspired partner of the God... advancing the divine purposes. This, as much as their role of protecting the Greek peoples of their new cities, may be an explanation of how Hellenistic Kings viewed the title of ‘savior.’”' 5 Some of the gods in the writings of the ancient Greeks were referred to as “saviors.” Tanner says that, “The title owTfjp ... is used of Apollo, and sometimes of Hermes, Aesculapius, and Dioscuri and Hercules.” • 6 S. Angus tells us that Zeus was also considered a savior.'7 One inscription reads “to Zeus Helios the Great Serapis, savior and giver of health.” In other inscriptions, “savior” or “salvation” had to do with health or other matters of this earth.' 8 There was, therefore, a concept of acoxfip in the Hellenistic world, but the gods and powerful men who were given this title were not sought out as saviors from sin. The people looked to them as protectors or givers of peace and health. I^ibid.. 14. cf. Hdt. 8.85. ibid., 15-16. Tanner goes on to suggest mat cont.ni of an oracular shrine was one of the necessary qualifications of any Hellenistic Ocôç kcù adj-n'ip (God and Savior). 16 ibid.. 16. I'’ Angus, 227. 18 ibid., 57. 2 0 The Ancient Christian Writers For the early Christian writers the title acoxiip was given to either Jehovah or Jesus Christ. For the Christians the kings and emperors were to be obeyed and honored, for they were the people who were responsible for peace and safety. Paul exhorted the believers in Rome on this subject in ch.13.1-7: Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore, whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil; be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience sake. For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God’s ministers attending continually to this very thing. Renders therefore to all their due; taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor. The author of I Tim 2.1-2 says, “Therefore, I exhort first of all that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men, for kings and all who are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and reverence.” And in I Pet 2.13-15a we read, “Therefore submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake, whether to the king as supreme, or to governors, as to those who are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and for the praise of those who do good. For this is the will of God.” The early Christians, therefore, knew how important the rulers were for their own safety, but these rulers were not called saviors as Jesus was Savior. The word ocoTfjp appears twenty-four times in the New Testament, and in each case it is applied either to God, the Father of Jesus Christ, or to Christ himself. According to Young the 2 1 word is used in Luke, John, Acts, Ephesians, Philippians, 1 and II Timothy, Titus, II Peter, I John and Jude. Forms of awrnp and aaixripia appear over 30 times in the writings of the Apostolic Fathers, and in each case the savior is either God or Christ, and that salvation is something which either has been obtained or is promised through Christ According to Edgar Goodspeed forms ofowTfjp and owrnpia appear in I Clement II Clement, Barnabas, Shepherd of Hermas, Diognetus, the Martyrdom of Polycarp and in the letters of Ignatius to the Ephesians, Philadelphians, Philippians and Magnesians.-° To early Christians Christ was awirip, not primarily because he could provide for their immediate physical needs, though they did look to him for that- ' Nor was it their belief that Jesus was divine that set him apart from the other gods and saviors. He was owTfjp because he saved them from sin. In conclusion, then, the Hellenistic understandings and use of ownip and acjTTipia were somewhat different from what we encounter in the early Christian writings. The “saviors” for the ancient non-Christians could be human or divine or human and divine. Who they were, however, was less important than what they did. The evidence examined clearly demonstrates that the people looked to the “saviors” as protectors from enemies and disasters, and providers of peace, security and health. The evidence also shows that it was believed that the human saviors were guided or blessed by the gods, and 19 Robert Young, Young’s Analytcal Concordance to the Bible (Grand Rapids, Ml; Eerdmans Pub., 1964), p.839. 20 Edgar Goodspeed, Index Patrisb'cus, (Naperville, III: Alec Allenson, 1907), 224. 21 Nobbs says that th e Old Testament background to the Christian usage represents a movement from the more physical aspects of salvation (for instance, deliverance from enemies), towards moral and spiritual deliverance." Nobbs, 59. 2 2 the salvation which they brought was manifested in civil or military arenas. The concept that mankind needed salvation from sin, or that the gods would be interested in saving mankind from sin, present in the literature of the Jewish people, is absent from the writings of the pagans, largely because there was no concept of sin that led to death. The early Christian authors, then, while not abandoning those pagan aspects of what a savior did, i.e. protecter from disasters and providers of safety and peace, reflected a Jewish concern for salvation from sin. And it was the concern for salvation from sin that we see reflected in the writings of the early Christian authors, including Barnabas and Clement 23 CHAPTER III The Use of AiKaioauvT] The Ancient Pagan Writers When early Christian authors discussed salvation, ÔLKaLoaûuri andoïKaicç emerged as key terms. In fact, for the New Testament authors and for Barnabas and Clement OLKaioowTi became one of the key elements necessary for salvation. However, these two words (in their various forms) had been used in a variety of non-religious ways by writers in Greek. John Reumann says that “the earliest Greek use of dik-terms in the 8th to 5th centuries B.C. pictures 'Dike' as a divine principle of ‘right’ in law and society ... OLKaicç is related to ... oaicç (“approved, lawful, religious”) ... and eùaepéç (“pius, reverent”).”! Liddell and Scott’s Lec/co/z says that for many of the ancient writers ÔLKaLos' had a primary meaning of “observan[ce| of custom or rule,” especially o f “social rule, well-ordered, civilized.”- They point to Homer, Theognis, Pindar, Euripides, and Plato where ÔLKaïoç carried the meaiiing of “equal, even, well-balanced.”3. Note the following examples. 1 John Reumann, "Righteousness in the Greco-Roman World," in The Anchor Bible Dictionary 5 vols., David Noel Freedman, editor-in-chief, (New York: Doubleday, 1992), vol.4, 742. 2 H.G. Lidell, and Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1843), 429. 3 ibid. 24 Homer says that Pallas Athena rejoiced at Nestor’s wisdom and judgment (oiKaioj) for offering her the golden cup.4 For Homer oiKaicç was seen as a virtuous or correct behavior toward the gods. Aiicaïoç was not a gift from the gods, but rather virtuous behavior that arose within the people who were aware of how the gods were to be approached and acted accordingly. Theognis speaks of that virtue by saying, “In justice all virtue is comprehended.”5 In the Pythian Odes Pindar speaks of steering the people “with the helm of justice (ÔLKaico).'’^ Here, ô itc aL o ç is used to convey a sense of “rightness." Euripides and Plato tell us that there were beliefs and actions which the entire community recognized as right. However in Plato the word was broadened to mean a variety of things, including a quality of the soul {Gorgias 477), piety {{Protagoras 330b-333e), and “the condition of a society or state in which each plays his appropriate part, does his own job" {Republic i.368e-372a).7 Euripides has the chorus in The Children o f Hercules singing “In justice (oLKaiov’) thy path lieth; This thy crown yield to none."» Plato, in The Republic, says, “For what we laid down in the beginning as a universal requirement when ^ Homer, O dyssey. 3.52, trans. A.T. Murray, Homer: The Odyssey, The Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1919), vol.1., p.72. 5 Theognis 147, cited from E. Harrison, Studies in Theognis, Together with a Text of the Poems (Cambridge, 1902), 7. 6 Pindar, Pythian Odes 1.85, trans. Sir John Sandys, The Odes of Pindar, The Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1915), p. 164. 7 J.A. Zeisler, The Meaning of Righteousness in Paul: A Linguistic and Theological Enquiry (Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press. 1972), 49. 8 Euripides, Children of Hercules 901, trans. Arthur S. Way, Euripides, The Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1912), vol.3, p. 324. 25 we were founding our city, this 1 think, or some form of this, is justice (ôiKaioawri).^ Xenophon, however, allows the word to denote worthiness. Xenophon, in Cyropaeclia, speaks of the worth (ôiicaior) of his suggestion, lo H.W. Smyth translates Aeschylus' use ofoiKr] as "righteousness” in a difficult passage where 6 i k t] seems to be referring to deeds or actions. ' • The variety of use for ôiKaiôw and ôiKaioaût'ri is further attested by Liddell and Scott who show that Theognis (47), Herodotus (9.60), Plato ( Republic 433a). LXX (Genesis 15.6). and Aristotle (Polirics 1.29) used ÔLKaLoaûiTi in a legal sense.'- Ziesler. referring to a work by Moulton and Milligan, says that they "”quote from a papyrus in the John Rylands Library (II 119.14) where the form eoiKaLwaev refers to the award of a verdict in court, and from another papyrus (P Tedt. II 144) where the perfect participle passive means ‘fixed’ or ‘declared just' (in fixing a contract).”' 3 It is also important to note that these papyri are placed in the first century, at the time when the first Christian authors were beginning to use the word in a religious sense. For these writers (and others) the word also meant ° Plato, Republic 4.446., trans. Paul Shorey, Plato in Twelve Volumes: The Republic: Volume 1,Books 7-5, The Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge University Press, 1930), vol.5, p.366. '0 Xenophon, Cyropaedia 2.2.26, trans. Walter Miller, Xenophonin Seven Volumes: Cyropaedia, The Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge; Harvard University Press, 1914), vol.5, p. 172. ' 1 Aeschylus, The Seven Against Thebes 584, trans. Herbert Weir Smyth, Aeschylus in Two Volumes. The Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge University Press, 1922), vol.i, p.370, 12 ibid. 13 Ziesler, 48. cf. J.H. Moulton and G. Milligan, The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament (London, 1914-29), I62 f. 2 6 “righteousness, justice... the business of a judge.”’ Ziesler notes that “Aristotle’s use of the passive suggests that the verb... is mainly used of meting out justice to wrongdoers.” 15 The flexibility of OLKaioauvri and ôiKaïoç was not limited to its secular uses. In fact, Ziesler reminds us that “it is doubtful whether [biblical Greek words which are fundamentally religious] always are purely secular in non-biblical Greek... Behavior [and legal] words do not stop being behavior [and legal] words because they have a religious orientation as well.”’ ^ Indeed, Gerhard Kittle asserts that “the very close connection between legal, ethical and religious terminology results from the central position occupied in early Greek thinking by o lk t j as right not merely in the legal, but also the political, the ethical and above all the religious sense.”’ i Ruemann points out however, that while ÔLKaioaûrri is used in a religious context, this use cannot be understood in the same sense the Jewish or Christian authors used the word. Just as a West Semitic deity sdq (cf. Egyptian Maat) may lie behind OT use (Genesis 14.18; Joshua 10.1)... so the figure of Dike or “Justice” (cf. Acts 28.4), though rarely possessing any cult served in literature and art to inform Zeus of evils which humans do {Op. 248-64) and to punish injustice (Pausanius 5.18.2). Hesiod’s emphasis on Dike has, indeed, been com part with the theme of righteousness in Amos the prophet (5.25; 6.12), but the latter’s thought is rooted in religion in a way that Hesiod's world of princes and rural citizens is not. ’ 8 I t ibid. 15 ibid., 47. 16 Ziesler, 51. 1''Gerhard Kittle, ed.. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament trans. Geoffrey W. Bromley (Grand Rapids, Ml: Eerdmans, 1964), p. 192. 18 Reumann, 743. 27 In conclusion, then, OLKaioawTi, ÔKaïow and ôiKaïoç were seen by ancient non- Christian writers in a variety of ways. However, as Reumann points out, “only at times was there a religious side, e.g. in connection with rewards and punishments for the soul after death or concerns with how the gods punish for acts contrary to their norm s.” ' ^ in his conclusion Reumann states, “D/A-words thus covered a number of things in Greco- Roman use... but the Old Testament sense of God’s vindicating righteousness was not among t h e m .”20 The legal and ethical connotations seem to prevail. This idea of ethical behavior being “just” beliavior was reflected in the writings of both Barnabas and Clement and in the writings of Hellenistic Jewish authors i.e. Philo, Josephus and the authors of the SeptuaginL The questions concerning influence will be taken up in the chapters dealing with the texts of Barnabas and Clement. Hellenistic Judaism Jewish authors writing in Greek in the first centuries (B.C.E. and C.E) represented a number of traditions. And while these were distinct from each other, it would be unwise to say that they did not have similar concerns. One of those concerns was the concept of righteousness. Therefore, for the sake of clarity I will give a brief examination of the major Jewish traditions concerning this problem. This is not intended to be exhaustive, but a brief overview of how righteousness was understood in these various communities. 19 Reumann, 743. 20 ibid.. 745. 28 The Septuagint2 i The Hebrew word most often translated “righteousness” in the LXX is “”tsedeq.” According to William L. Holliday “tsedeq” is used in a variety of ways in the Old Testament, and can mean the following: I) Be in the right, be right, have a just case (Genesis 38.26; Isaiah 43.26); carry one’s point, be vindicated (Job 11.2); be just, righteous (Psalms 19.10). II) In the nifal: be brought back to its rights, be vindicated (Dan 8.14). III) In the hifil: give someone justice, brihg justice (U Samuel 15.4); acknowledge that someone is right (Job 27.5); pronounce someone not guilty, innocent ( 1 Kings 8.32); help someone gain his rights (Isaiah 53.11 ). IV ) in the hitpael: prove oneself to be innocent (Genesis 44.16).-2 In the Septuagint, ôiKaioaûi/ri is used of both God and man, but it implies a covenantal relationship, and includes both ethical and soteriological elements. Reumann says that OLKaioauin] in the LX X “is a relational term which means faithful adherence to the structure of obligations established by the covenant”-3 Therefore, the word retained that sense of just relationships between two parties, but one of the two parties now is God. God had established his righteousness by his “resolute faithfulness to the covenant with 21 The Septuagint, often signified by "LXX" is a Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible. Justo Gonzalez says that "the LXX appears to have been in the making for more than a century, and there seems to have been no agreement among its various translators as to the methods and purposes. Justo Gonzalez, A History of Christian Thought, 3 vols. (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1970), vol.i: From the Beginnings to the Council of Chalcedon, p.41. 22 William L. Holliday, ed. A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, (Grand Rapids, Ml: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1971), 303. 23 Reum ann, vol.3„ 129. 29 Israel,” and Israel established her righteousness by being obedient to the commands of God.-^ Ziesler says that in the LXX ôitcaïooùi/ri “can be used for a wide variety of ways of acting, but all within the covenant. This also includes legal uprightness in judging and lawgiving, and also graciousness, kindness, whether on God’s part or man’s.”-5 This covenantal relationship between God and Israel, however, included the promise of God to deliver his people. In fact, Reumann points out that ôiKavoaûvr) “can become a summary description of God’s mighty salvific deeds on Israel’s behalf (Psalms 71.15-19; 98.2).”-6 Passages in Pseudo-Isaiah 50-7-9 and 5 l-4b-5 are offered as examples of God’s righteousness becoming “strongly associated with the ideas of tteliverance.”27 Kittle states that “this linking of righteousness and salvation is most deeply grounded in the covenant concept We will see this understandings o f “righteousness” in the writings of both Barnabas and Clement God’s righteousness is demonstrated in his saving activities to his people, and righteous acts are the ethical responses of man toward God. God has not abandoned his covenant with Israel, but the writings of Paul indicated that the covenant is now with the “new Israel” - those who believe in Jesus Christ. 2" ibid. 25 Zeisler, 68-69. 26 ibid. 27 ibid., 1130. 28 ibid., 195. 30 Philo and Josephus Hellenistic Judaism, while retaining the legal aspect of the word, seen in the writings of the pagan authors, narrowed the possibilities for the word ôiicaioaûi.'Ti. Philo and Josephus, two primary representatives of Hellenistic Judaism, had slightly different understandings of the word. Philo had a far more developed ethical conception than Josephus.-^ Reumann says that in Philo’s use of Jik-tsrms “the emphasis is heavily ethical.”) 0 Kittle points out that in Philo’s lists of ethical virtues oiKaioaOrTi is the only one which is always mentioned.) • He goes on to point out that “the work of ôiKaioaûrT] in the soul is described as healing , as peace, and as joy.)) Reumann says that in Flaccus 104, “Flaccus, the anti-Jewish prefect in Egypt (appointed c. A.D. 32) is overthrown by God; justice (dike), the ‘defender of the wronged,’ opposed him until he was butchered by assassins, dike willing that his wounds be equal to the number of Jews he has illegally put to death.”)) For Philo, then. ÔLKaioaûi/ri was a quality of a person who lived a virtuous and ethical life. 29 ibid., 194. 30 Reumann, 738. 31 ibid., 194. 32 ibid. 33 Reumann, 738. 31 While ôiKaioaÛKT) is rare in Josephus, it does appear in his lists of virtues.34 in Josephus’ Antiquities 18.117 he says that John the Baptist urged his fellow Jews to practice righteousness (ôiKcuooûi/r|) toward each other. In 6.265 Josephus says that the Jews, instead of practicing piety and righteousness (ÔLKaLoaûuiiç). break out into riots. And in 8.121 he reminds his fellow Jews that piety and righteousness (0iicaioowr|v) bring God’s blessings. Kittle says “in only one case [in the writings of Josephus] is there reference to the ôiicaïooûrri of God in the sense of judicial retribution.”35 We can conclude, then, that both Philo and Josephus used ôiicaioaûi-T| in much the same way that their non-Jewish contemporary authors did, i.e. to indicate behavior that is considered ethical. However, they also used the word in a sense of “merit.” God insists on obedience to the commandments, and those who do obey earn righteousness in God’s judgment. This a new element not seen in the pagan authors. Not only that, but the reference to OLKaioaui^ri as God’s judicial retribution cannot be ignored. The New Testament AïKaiGoûi-ri is found in twenty-one of the twenty-seven books which found their way into the New Testament, but 45% of all ^/tT-words are found in the Pauline corpus. And we can assume that Paul’s understanding of ÔLicaLoaûiTi was at least partially influenced ^ Kittle says that the term "can be used as a synon. for observance of the commandments, ibid., 194. 35 Kittle, 195. 32 by its use in the Septuagint, Paul’s Bible. Reumann says, “In general, Pauline usage (of dik-words] exhibits Old Testament -Jewish roots and picks up... formulas of Hellenistic- Jewish Christianity which expounded the meaning of Jesus death.”36 Reumann points to 2 Corinthians 5.19; 9.9, and 1 Thessalonians 1.3 as examples of Paul’s use of righteousness arising from the Old Testament. In these passages he either quotes or alludes to Isaiah 59.17 and Palms 112.9. This understanding resonates with what has been said by scholars concerning the use of the word in the Septuagint, i.e. the word is used in the context of covenant language. However, in the writings o f Paul oiKaioaiii/ri is always a gift from God or an attribute of God that is available to man by grace through faith. Being justified (ÔLKaLoûpevoL) freely by His grace through the redemption (dïïoXuTptixjecüç) that is in Christ Jesus. Romans 3.24. Therefore, having been justified (ÔLKaicoGévreç) by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom also we have access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God. Romans 5.1-2. Much more then, having now been justified (ôitcaiwGérreç) by His blood, we shall be saved (ato9r|a6pe9a) from wrath through Him. Romans 5.9. And the gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned. For the judgment (Kpipa) which came from one offense, resulted in condemnation, but the free g ift... resulted in justification (ôucaicopa). For if by one man’s offense death reigned through the one, much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness (oncaioauvTi?) will reigri in life through the One, Jesus Christ Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act (ÔLKaLwparos) the fiee gift came to all men, resulting in justification (OLKaiuaLi’) of life. For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one man's obedience many will be made righteous (oLKaioi). Moreover the law entered that the offense might abound. But where sin abounded, grace abounded much more, so that as sin reigned in death, even so grace might reign through righteousness (OLKaioaui’ri?) to eternal life (Cojf)v aiwvioi') through Jesus Christ our Lord. Romans 5.16-21. 36 Reumann, vol.5, 757. 33 Be reconciled to God. For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness (ôiKaïooûuri) of God in Him. II Corinthians 5.21. I do not set aside the grace of God; for if righteousness (ôiKaLoaûi’ri) comes through the law, then Christ died in vain. Galatians 2.21. But of Him you are in Christ Jesus, who became for us wisdom from God - and righteousness (oLKaioowri) and sanctification and redemption (drroXurpwoig). I Corinthians 1.30. These passages clearly demonstrate the connection made by Paul between salvation (or redemption) and righteousness. AiKaioowp was not owTripia but the necessity of ôiKaïooûi/ri forowTTipia is quite apparent. Reumann notes that the occurrences of ôiKaïooûi/q in the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke) "reflect the Jewish world of Jesus’ day with regard to righteousness. He spoke of the just and the unjust (Matthew 5.45) or righteous and sinners ... In the style of his day he urged his followers to greater righteousness (Matthew 5.20) and spoke in terms of piety (Matthew 6.1)."37 The Lukan (Acts 10:35) and Johannine (I John 2:29, 3:7,10) understanding of ÔLtcaioaûuri suggests that righteousness is something that man earns by his good works. What this implies is that oLKaioauuTi did not carry a fixed meaning in the writings of the New Testament authors, and that the issue is complex. We will see this same fluidity in the meaning of OLKaioaOi/r] as the texts of Barnabas and Clement are studied, where passages in each epistle speak of how a man obtains righteousness and salvation. 37 ibid., 752. 34 The Other Apostolic Fathers Bauer38, Lampe^^, Thayer^o and others demonstrate that the Apostolic Fathers used oLKaicç and oiKaioauvri almost entirely in a religious sense. Lampe notes that I Clement, II Clement and Shepherd of Hermas used ôitcaïooûi/ri with a "'primary connotation of righteousness ■ This use of SiKaioowT]. whether it was established by the authors of the Old Testament and New Testament or the non-canonical writers, set a pattern for the use of the word for Christianity for the next tew centuries. This is not to say that OLKaioauiT) ceased to be used in a social and legal sense, but in the Christian community it came to mean ""righteousness” in a religious sense. All the Apostolic Fathers did not understand ôiKaioaûni to mean the same thing, but for all of them, ÔiKaioaüvîi was something that Christians must have if they are to receive salvation. The following are the uses of ÔLicaïoç, ôiicaiôw, and OLKaioaurri by the Apostolic Fathers. These are taken from Goodspeed’s Index Parrisricus. 38 W alter Bauer, A Greek-English Lexiœn of the New Testament and Other Early Chhshan Literature, 2nd ed., trans. William F. Arndt and F. Wilber Gingrich (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979), 195-198. 39G.W.H. Lampe, A Patristic Greek-English Lexicon, (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1961), 368-371. “o Joseph Henry Thayer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, (Grend Rapids, Ml: Zondervan Pub House, 1889), 148-151. Lampe, 368. 35 I) Ô L K a ïo ç : A) Ignatius, Magnesians 12.1: The righteous man is his own accuser. B) Hermas, Visions 1.1.8: For the righteous man has righteous designs. C) Hermas, Vis 1.3.2: Th e... righteous word overcomes all wickedness. D) Hermas, Similitudes 6.3.6: [He] suffered righteously, according to his deeds. II) OLmioy: Hermas, Mandates 6.1.2: That which is righteous has a straight path. III) ùitcaiou: A) Hermas, Vis 3.7.6: They shared in the righteous Word. B) Hermas, Man 4.1.3: Lawlessness ought not to |bej in a righteous man. C) Hermas, Man 5.2.7: That man becomes empty of the righteous spirit D) Hermas, Sim 2.9: Both, therefore, share in the righteous work. IV ) oiicaico: A) Diogenes 5.9: The wickedness of many [is] concealed in the one righteous. B) Hermas, Vis 1.1.8: It is an evil deed for a righteous man i f ... C) Hermas, Man 6.1.1: They relate to the righteous and the unrighteous. D) Hermas, Man 6.1.2: Do you therefore believe the righteous? V) ÔLKaia: A) Ign, Ephesians 1.1: Which you have obtained by your righteous nature. B) Hermas, V75 2.3.1: For they will be corrected with righteous correction. C) Didache 5.2: Not cleaving to the good nor to righteous judgment. VI) oiKaioi': A) 11 Clem 20.4: Divine judgment punishes a spirit which is not righteous. B) Diog 9.2: The Holy for the wicked, the just for the unjust. V II) OLKaioi: A) 11 Clem 6.9: Righteous men... cannot save their children by ... righteousness. B) 11 Clem 11.1: Serve God with a pure heart, and we shall be righteous. C) 11 Clem 15.3: Let us then remain righteous and holy in our faitii. D) II Clem 17.7: The righteous... have done good, and endured torture. E) 11 Clem 20.4: For we should seem to be righteous. 36 F) Hermas, Sim 3.3: In this world, the righteous nor the sinners are apparent. G) Hermas, Sim 4.2: These trees... which are budding are the righteous. H) Hermas, Sim 8.3.8: Those ... are righteous, and walked with a pure heart. V III) oiKuiui/: A) II Clem 20.3: None of the righteous has attained a reward quickly. B) II Clem 20.4: For if God should pay the recompense of the righteous quickly . C) Hermas, Man 11.3: To see if he can break any of the righteous. D) Hermas, Man 11.9: Righteous men ... have the faith of the Divine Spirit. E) Hermas, Man 11.13: He does not come near to an assembly of righteous men. F) Hermas, Man 11.14: But when he comes into a meeting full of righteous men. G) Hermas, Man 11.15: When they come to the spirits of righteous men. H) Hermas, Sim 9.15.4: The second generation of righteous men. I) Hermas, Sim 9.17.5: Some... were cast out from &e family of the righteous. J) Didache 3.9: You shall walk with righteous and humble men. IX) ùLKaioLç: A) Hermas, Vis 1.4.2: The last part is for the righteous. B) Hermas, Vis 2.2.5: For repentance for the righteous has an end. C) Hermas, Sim 3.2: For the world is winter for the righteous. D) Hermas, Sim 4.2: The world to come is summer for the righteous. E) Hermas, Sim 8.9.1 : And did not cleave to the righteous. X) ôiKaiouç: II Clem 2.4:1 came not to call the righteous, but sinners. X I) oiKaioaOvT): A) Diog 9.3: What else could cover our sins but his righteousness? B) Diog 9.5: The righteousness o f the one should make righteous many wicked. X II) ûiicaioaùi/riç: A) Diog 9.1: Fashioning the time o f righteousness, which is now. B) Diog 10.8: Those who endure for the sake of righteousness the fire. C) Ign., Phil 2.3: Blessed are the poor who are persecuted for righteousness sake. D) Ign., Phil 3.1: These things, brethren, I write to concerning righteousness. E) Ign., Phil 3.3: He has fulfilled the command of righteousness. F) Ign., Phil 4.1 : Let us arm ourselves with the armor o f righteousness. G) Ign., Phil 5.2: Likewise [they! must be blameless before his righteousness. H) Ign., Phil 8.1: Let us persevere ... in the pledge o f our righteousness. I) Ign., PNl 9 .1 :1 beseech you all to obey the word o f righteousness. J) Hermas, Vis 3.1.6: Ask also concerning righteousness. 37 K) Hermas, Man 1.2: Keep these things, and you shall... put on righteousness. L) Hermas, Man 5.2.1: It leads them away from righteousness. M) Hermas, Man 6.2.1, 3^, 6,8-10: Discussion of “the angel o f righteousness.” N) Hermas, Man 8.9: Words of righteousness, truth, patience. O) Hermas, Man 10.1.5: And understand nothing completely about righteousness. P) Hermas, Sim 6.1.4: Put on all the virtue o f righteousness. Q) Hermas, Sim 9.19.2: Having no fhiit of righteousness. X III) ôiKaLoaûi’T] A) II Clem 12.1 : Let us wait for the kingdom of God... in love and righteousness. B) II Clem 13.1: Let us wish to please by our righteousness not ourselves alone. C) Hermas, Vis 2.2.6:They reform their way in righteousness. D) Hermas, Vis 3.6.4: They live for the greater part in righteousness. E) Hermas, Sim 5.1.4: If you fast to God you do nothing for righteousness. X IV ) ûLKaLoaùi’rii': A) II Clem 4.2: Not everyone... shall be saved, but he that does righteousness. B) II Clem 11.7: If then we do righteousness... we shall enter into his kingdom. C) II Clem 18.2: Yet I am striving to follow after righteousness. D) II Clem 19.2: And let us... turn ... from unrighteousness to righteousness. E) Hermas, Vis 2.2.7: You, therefore, who work righteousness ... F) Hermas, Vis 3.3: Blessed are all they who do righteousness. G) Hermas, Vis 3.9 .1 :1 ... instilled righteousness... that you should be justified. H) Hermas, Man 5.1.1: You shall have power... [to] do all righteousness. I) Hermas, Man 8 .2 :1 you reftain from doing evil, you do great righteousness. J) Hermas, Man 12.3.1 : Work righteousness and virtue, and fear of the Lord. K) Hermas, Man 12.6.2: Turn to the Lord... and do righteousness. L) Hermas, Sim 8.10.3: Accomplishing all virtue and righteousness. M ) Hermas, Sim 9.13.7: They had the same mind, and wrought righteousness. N) Didache 11.2: But if his teaching be for the increase of righteousness... XV) ÔLKaLoaOi’aiç: II Clem 6.9: Cannot save their children by their righteousness. X V I) ÔLKaLoûi'raL: Diog 5.14: They are spoken evil of and are justified. X V II) oiKdioxoi]: Diog 9.5: The righteousness of the one will make righteous many. X V III) èÔLKauô0r|aay: Hermas, Man 5.1.7: All have been made righteous... X IX ) ôncaiwGf): Hermas, Sim 5.7.1: And your flesh may be justified. X X ) 0iKcuw8f|Te: Hermas. Vis 3.9.1: You should be justified ... from all wickedness. 38 X X I) ûLKaLCüGfji.'Tai: A) Diog 9.4: It was possible for us... to be made righteous. B) Ign., Phil 8 .2 :1 desire to be justified by your prayers. X X II) ôeÔLKaLCü|j.aL: Ign., Rom 5.1: But not by this have I been made righteous. From this list it can be seen that, for the Apostolic Fathers, a number of things could be righteous, i.e. man ( Ignatius, Magnesians 12.1; Hennas, Visions 1.1.8; Hermas, Mandates 4.1.3), men (II Clement 6.9; HemziS Mandates 11.9,13,14,15; Hermes Similirudes 9.17.5), word (Hermes Visions 1.3.2; 3.7.6), spirit (Hermes Mandates 5.2.7), work (Hermas, Similitudes 2.9), judgment {Didache 5.2), man’s nature (Ignatius, Ephesians 1.1), designs (Hermas, Visions 1.1.8), and correction (Hermas, Visions 2.3.1). Those who received righteousness did so because of serving God with a pure heart ( II Clement 11.1), having the faith of the Divine Spirit (Hermas, Mandates 11.1), doing righteousness (II Clement 4.2; 11.7), deeds (I Clement 30.3), God (I Clement 8.4), “the angel" (Hermas, Mandates 5.1.7), and your prayers (Ignatius, Philippians 8.2.1). There are a number of passages where the concept of justice or judgment is present, but is the justice or judgment of God. cf. II Clement 20.4; Diogenes 9.2. The social and legal aspects of the word, seen in the ancient non-Christian authors, are absent in the writings of the Apostolic Fathers. The justice and/or judgment given to the Christians comes from God. However, the evidence presented here indicates a significant shift in the use of the word from a general legal and social term to an almost exclusively religious usage. Clearly, oiKaioauiTi was seen by many early Christian writers as a word which could convey ideas concerning salvation. The word is employed to convey a quality of being that was either possessed by God or Christ, or a quality of being that the Christian could attain through various means. The Apostolic Fathers conceived the word in a distinctly religious manner. They spoke of righteousness as something that was obtainable through various 39 Christian acts, rituals or beliefs. It came through God, Christ, the Holy Spirit, grace, baptism, fear of God, and good works. Barnabas even says that we are ourselves righteous. 40 CHAPTER IV POSSIBLE INTELLECTUAL INFLUENCES ON BARNABAS AND CLEMENT Judaism Old Testament In the Old Testament the ideas of salvation, redemption, and God’s deliverance from sin, slavery and enemies played an important role, from Genesis 2 to Daniel to Malachi to Deutero-Isaiah. Gerhard Hasel writes: A most fundamental Old Testament claim for God is his saving activity. Quantitatively God’s saving activity for Israel is attested from the gracious redemption from Egyptian bondage through the time o f the judges and kings and receiving new impetus in the salvation from Babylonian exile. But God’s saving action is not restricted to Israel’s national entity ^one, because in the Psalms the salvation of the individual is predominant The historical books make their owr contribution to the notion of individual salvation, furthermore, God’s saving and redeeming activity is not restricted to Israel alone. God saved Noah from the destruction of the flood. The divine saving purpose reaches out to all nations and all men (Jonah; Isa 40-66; Ezekiel). The divine “I” appears again with regard to the world and Israel, to believer unbeliever, in both judgement and salvation.' Exactly how God delivered an individual or nation went through some changes in the history of this people. However, some general observations can be made. Not only did God deliver nations and individuals from slavery and bondage, but the Old Testament writers speak of a deliverance from sin. This is portrayed through symbolic language and ritual. Leviticus 4 is an extended discussion of how the Israelites can remove sin from the camp. Verse 4 reads, “If the anointed priest sins, bringing guilt on the people, then let him offer to the Lord for his sin which he has sinned a young bull without blemish as a sin 1 Gerhard Hasel, Old Testament Theology: Basic Issues in the Current Debate (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 1972), 101. 41 offering.” The particulars of the offering are described, and “so the priest shall make atonement for them, and it shall be forgiven them” (v,20). Other examples are seen in the Psalms (“Blot out my transgressions. Wash me thoroughly from my iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin.” Psalms 51.lb-2), Isaiah (“You have lovingly delivered my soul from the pit of corruption, for you have cast all my sins behind your back.” Isaiah 38.17), Daniel (“because for our sins, and for the iniquities of our fathers, Jerusalem and your people have become a reproach to all who are around us ... O Lord hear! O Lord forgive!” Daniel 9.16,19), and Micah (“You will cast all our sins into the depths of the sea.” Micah 7.19). Although sin is not the only thing that Israel(ites) needed deliverance from, it continued as a theme throughout the Old Testament. W.E. Eichrodt says that “in Israel the nature of sin was seen unambiguously as conscious rebellion against God's order... and as such it affected men in their individual actions, and directed their moral will to the need for constantly renewed decision in concrete situations.”- Sin, guilt zmd God’s curses were a very real part of Jewish theology. It was sin that brought about alienation from God, “and the cause of all evil, the reason for a distortion in the order of creation, was alienation from God.”3 If Adam and Eve had not fallen (sinned), God’s creation would have continued in perpetual bliss. But man had sinned, and “guilt as an objective effect of sin, consisted in liability to punishment at the hands of God.”^ 2 W.E. Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament vol.2, trans. J.A. Baker (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1967): 401 -402. Eichrodt continues by stating that "it comes about that when the Old Testament speaks of sin the chief emphasis unquestionably falls on its current concrete expression." (emphasis his). 3 ibid., 404. " ibid., 413. 42 Very often in the Old Testament divine punishment is spoken of as “judgment,” and the reasons for the judgments of God, the kinds of judgments, the purposes of the judgments, and the ways in which these judgments came are various. I) Reasons for divine judgment: A) General disobedience (Genesis 3) B) Disobedience to the Decalogue (II Chronicles 7.19-22) C) Specific sins (Genesis 4.1-15) D) Continuing wickedness (Genesis 6.5; Psalms 5.9; 10.7; 36.1) E) Rejecting or ignoring God’s warnings (II Chronicles 36.16-17) F) Idolatry (Jeremiah 7.30-34) From Genesis to II Chronicles to the Psalms to Jeremiah we can see that the concept of divine judgment was a continuing theme in the Old Testament The following are a few results of this divine judgement from Old Testament texts: A) Expulsion from Paradise (Genesis 3.23-24) B) Destruction of Creation (Genesis 7,8) C) Spiritual blindness (Isaiah 6.9-10) D) Materia] loss (Malachi 3.11) Escape from this punishment, if there was escape, was one of the concepts of what the Jewish people called “deliverance” or “salvation.” And in the Old Testament this concept of salvation was accomplished in various ways.5 This is, of course, to be expected; the texts of the Old Testament written over a period of a few hundred years. The major concepts of deliverance or salvation as found in the Old Testament are listed below.6 I) Atonement: Eichrodt, citing early Old Testament texts, illustrates the concept of atonement as understood by the ancient Israelites: Here the removal of sin is accomplished by purely external procedures, which act ex opere operato to carry away the morbid sinful matter. Sometimes this is 5 Gerhard Hasel writes that “judgement and salvation both ... arise out of the holiness of God." 79. 6 It should be pointed out here that the O.T. ideas concerning salvation were not static and Jewish ideas, as in all religions, developed and changed. 43 washed away by special water o f purification (Leviticus 14.5; Numbers 8.7,19.9); sometimes it is burnt away in the fire (Numbers 31.22f; Isaiah 6.6), or a substance endued with power such as blood, overcomes the weakening of the character of holiness through sin (Leviticus 16.14-19; Deuteronomy 21. Iff); sometimes an animal carries it away (Leviticus 14.7,53; 16.2If), or there may in the end be nothing for it but to exterminate the sinner from the community (Joshua 7.25; Deuteronomy 13.6). Here the word ‘atonement’ acquires the meaning of the material removal of a harmful medium of power. How closely in Old Testament thinking atonement and forgiveness of sin belong together is illustrated by the conclusion of the story of Job.^ Job 42.8 reads, “Now therefore, take for yourselves seven bulls and seven rams, go to My servant Job, and offer up for yourselves a burnt offering; and My servant Job shall pray for you." And Eichrodt says that “for the singer of Psalms 32 trust in Yahweh’s favor is linked even more exclusively with the forgiveness of sin and guilt, in which the true saving work of God is accomplished."» On p.458 Eichrodt writes: Forgiveness was acknowledged as the central act of succor without which all other goods lost their value. Without it the change from doom to salvation, in which God would turn back to his people, was unthinkable. Thus the prophets... put in their mouths first and foremost an entreat}' for forgiveness, making this an indispensable precondition of salvation.^ II) Interceding with God: Those who interceded with God on behalf of Israel included Abraham (before the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah), Moses (when Moses came down from ML Sinai and found the people worshiping a golden calf, and God threatens to destroy all and start over with Moses alone) and Samuel (in the case of the sinful priests polluting the Temple). And in each case they are pleading with God to spare His people following a particularly grievous outbreak of sin, or an obstinate refusal to give heed to 7 Job 42.8f. 8 Eichrodt, 309. Eichrodt goes on to say that, ‘God’s forgiveness was the only means by which real fellowship with him could be m ade possible.” 9 Eichrodt, 458. 44 God’s call to repent. Amos (7.1-6), Isaiah (II Kings 19.4), Jeremiah (15.11, 42.4, 7.16, 11.14,14.11,15.1) and Ezekiel (13.5,22.30) also speak of the efficacy of someone interceding with God to stay God’s judgment III) Victory in battle: Pederson says that in early Israelite history salvation could mean victory in battle. i ° This aspect of “salvation” is seen in the recorded experiences of Samson and Jonathan.' ' IV ) Through strength: Salvation in early Israelite history could also be understood as having strength and acting with it, so that it made itself felL When David subdued the Philistines, Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites and Aramaeans, it was said that “Yahweh saved David wherever he went” (II Sam 8.14). V) Deliverance: Salvation was also used with terms expressing deliverance or rescue. On a number of occasions the Israelites needed deliverance from an enemy who was actually oppressing or threatening to oppress the people.' - The girl who was subjected to violence (Deuteronomy 22.27), the man who was persecuted by his enemies (Psalms 7.2, 40.14-15,59.3), he who never succeeded in anything he undertook, who was oppressed and plundered (Deuteronomy 28.29), who suffered misery and hunger (Psalms 34.7), all sought deliverance, salvation, escape from trouble. V I) Eschatological: At some point in the development o f the Hebrew understanding of salvation, most likely when prophesies of immediate deliverances failed to materialize, a soteriology carrying an eschatological message emerged. Hasel writes that, “The eschatological character of the prophetic message consists of a negation of the old historical 10 ibid. 11 When Samson killed a thousand Philistines with the jaw-bone of an ass. he said to God, "You have given this great salvation by the hand of Your servant" (Judg 15.18). And following Jonathan’s victory over the Philistines, the people declared that Jonathan “hath wrought this great salvation in Israel” (I Sam 14.45.). 12 cf. Judges 6.14, 12.2; I Samuel 4.3, 7.8, 9.16. 45 basis of salvation, and in that it does not remain with past historical acts, it suddenly shifted the basis of salvation to a future action of God.” > 3 He goes on to say tliat Gerhard Von Rad places this development in Hebrew soteriology near the end of the Old Testament era for he sees the prophets ‘‘as the closing interpreters of the transmitted events of salvation.” 14 Eichrodt, on the other hand, finds in Isaiah the seraphim singing praises to God for “the act of salvation as if it had already in very truth been fulfilled.”' 3 V II) Messianic Hope: Although the expected role of the Messiah in Old Testament soteriology receives little treatment in many contemporary liberal Old Testament commentaries, John Howard Raven believes that what he calls the “Messianic Hope” is a central theme in passages which speak o f deliverance. ' 6 However, his treatment of texts which he says speak to this Messianic hope is doubtful. That a Messiah was expected is testified in the Gospel of John 1.41, where Andrew tells his brother Peter, after spending a day listening to Jesus that he had “found the Messiah.” And in John 4.25 the woman at the well outside of Capernaum says to Jesus, “I know that Messiah is coming (who is called Christ). When He comes. He will tell us all things.” From these two passages it seems that the Messiah was thought of as either a teacher or a prophet or both. But there is no mention o f the Messiah being a Savior. And, indeed, in the Old Testament, the word translated “Messiah” is only used twice in the book of Daniel, which is variously dated 13 Hasel, 87. 11 ibid., 88. 15 Eichrodt, 31. 16 He says that, 'in the strict sense of the word, the Messianic hope dated from David.” He then attempts to demonstrate how later Old Testament writers either incorporated Messianic ideas into their writings or ignored that aspect of Jewish theology. 46 from the fifth to the second century. So to speak of a consistent messianic element in Old Testament soteriology cannot be defended. The Hebrew word “tsedeq” (LX X = ôiKaioaûvrj), i ? which is often used in passages which speak of salvation (Genesis 18; Deuteronomy 25.1; I Kings 8.32; Psalms 34.15; Isa 57.1), is used 263 times in the Hebrew Scriptures. 18 And while the majority of those uses are in a religious context, not all are. In its religious uses this word (“tsedeq”) is used to describe God (Psalms 36:6; Jereremiah 23:6), his word (Psalms 119:144; Pr 8:8), his work in judgment (Levitisuc 19:15; Psalms 35:24), his work in deliverance (Psalms 71:2, 143:11), and the sacrifices (which, in the Hebrew cultus, brought forgiveness from sin) offered to God (Deuteronomy 33:19; Ps 4:5). “Tsedeq’’ is both a spiritual quality that can only come from God (Isaiah 64:6; Ezekiel 33:13), yet a quality that a person can possess (Genesis 30:33; Job 6:29). Working from this basis, then, “righteousness” was an expression for which the Old Testament Israelites had many uses. And these are just some of the themes that emerge in the Hdrrew Bible concerning righteousness, and its part in salvation which was often viewed in terms of deliverance and judgment First Century C.E. Judaism The Jewish population within the Roman Empire in the first century C.E.was a formidable minority. Outside of Judea there were important Jewish communities 17 Young, 49. 18 cf. Young, appendix 51. 47 throughout the Empire. We are aware, through literary evidence (pagan Jewish, and Christian-0) of large concentrations of Jewish populations in the cities.- > Meeks says that “there was a substantial Jewish population in virtually every town of any size in the lands bordering the Mediterranean. Estimates run from 10 to 15 percent of the total population of a city - in the case of Alexandria, peihqrs even higher.”-2 There were Jewish populations in Rome, Italy and Sicily, in Greece and the Islands, and above all in the eastern provinces: Egypt and Cyrenaica, Syria and Arabia, Cilicia and Asia Minor. Further West, there were Jews in North Africa and S pain.23 All of these cities and countries were places where Christianity eventually established itself. And the Christians came preaching a religion in which the Jewish scriptures (predominantly in its LX X form) played a dominant role in 19 John Gager says, th e historians and ethnographers of the early empire, in whose works Judaism appears, are Pompeius Trogus. Strabo. Nicolaus of Damascus, and Diodorus of Sicily." John Gager, Tfie Origins of Anti-SemiHsm: Attitudes Toward Judaism in Pagan and Christian Antiquity, (Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1985). 68. Unfortunately Gager does not give the specific references from these authors. He continues to note that these authors speak of Jewish populations in their own countries and in different parts of the empire. What is interesting about the passages where these authors speak of Judaism is their ‘ complete lack of hostility toward Jew s and their religion." ibid. 20 The writings of the Apostle Paul and the canonical book of Acts speak of Jewish populations in the cities where Paul traveled. Christianity from its beginning was an urban religion, and some of the earliest converts to Christianity in the cities where the Christian missionaries went were drawn from the Jewish populations in these cities. 21 Meeks says that Philo’s figure of one million for Egypt, which would be a seventh of the whole (fiaccus 43) is doubtless too high (Smallwood. 1976.222). For Antioch see Meeks-Wilken 1978.8. The Jewish population of the province Asia may be estimated from the money for the temple tax confiscated by L. Valarius Fiaccus in 62 B.C. (Cicero To Fiaccus 66-69) - nearly one hundred pounds of gold, which by Smallwood’s calculation (19 7 6 .125f. and n.21) would amount to contributions by nearly fifty thousand adult males. Josephus’s report (from Strabo) of 800 talents from the same province seized by With ridâtes a quarter-century earlier {Antiquities 14.112f) seems much too large. 22 M eeks. 34. 23 The book of Acts alone speaks of Jews gathered in Jerusalem who are ‘Parthians and Medes and Elamites, those dwelling in Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia. Pontus and Asia. Phrygia and Pamphylia. Egypt and the part of Libya adjoining Cyrene. visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes. Cretans and Arabs." Acts 2:9-11. 48 their life and teachings, whose founder was Jewish, and whose first and most important writers were Jews, both Palestinian (the Apostle John) and Diasporic (the Apostle Paul). It must also be repeated that first-century Judaism was not monolithic in its beliefs and practices, but rather a quite diverse religion.-^ Meeks observes that in the first century one can speak of different Jewish groups representing “Jewish apocalyptic," “Jewish mysticism," and “Hellenistic Judaism."-5 These groups represented differing theological and political perspectives. For example, their understanding of who the Messiah was and what his work would be was quite varied. Their understanding of the Torah and the function it played in a person’s salvation also found different expressions. The Dead Sea Scrolls, the writings of Philo and Josephus, and the writings of first century rabbis testify to a theological pluralism in first-century Judaism. It also attests the theological richness of Hellenistic Judaism, and a Judaism which, while mirroring much of ancient Judaism, had changed and adapted to the various cultures in which the Jewish peoples now lived. However, Joyd Gaston, perhaps thinking that the differences might be overstated, cautions that “scholars have now learned to abandon the false dichotomy between Hellenistic and Palestinian Judaism, for there were too many Hellenistic elements among the rabbis and too many Palestinian loyalties in the Diaspora, as well as too much intercourse between the two for this explanation to work."-6 And Meek’s observation that “aU these categories have usually been defined as if the phenomena they referred to had been theological systems, to Meeks says that “discoveries and investigations in this century have revealed great diversity and rapid changes within Judaism in the early Roman Empire." 32. 25 ibid., 33. 26 Loyd Gaston, “Paul and the Torah," in AntiSemitism and the Foundations of Christianity, ed. Alan T. Davies, (New York: Paulist Press, 1979), 54. 49 be described by listing their... beliefs in prepositional form and displaying their logical connections and implications” must be heard. First century Palestinian Judaism was a thoroughly national religion. This can be traced as far back as the Maccabean revolts of the second century C.E. The character of those wars, and the literature which they stimulated, especially the histories and apocalyptic literature, clearly indicates that what the Jews of the second century C .E were fighting for was not just the reclaiming of political independence, or the reclaiming of religious independence, but the recovery of political and religious independence. Judaism did not suddenly become static, following the destruction of the Temple. What emerged from that conflagration and subsequent expulsion (in C.E. 135) of the native population, however, were two religions; one was a religion based on the reading and understanding of the Torah (Rabbinic Judaism), and the other a religion based on the stories of a “holy man” (recorded in the Gospels Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) and the chief interpreter o f his life and teachings, the Apostle Paul. And although the churches raised by Paul and his associates were communities “where the prophetic voice had precedence over the written word of the Torah,” the Torah was still heard.-& And in this respect these communities were very much closer, theologically, to the Essenes than to the Pharisees, the founders of Rabbinic Judaism.29 However, the Judaism which Christianity came into contact with outside of Jerusalem is difficult to reconstruct Horbury reminds us that “Jewish literature is unevenly 27 M eeks, 32. 28 Riches, 36. 29 The theological similarities between Paul and the Essene communities will not be discussed in this paper. However the possible influence of Essene theology on other early Christian authors will be; authors who some have suggested have theological ties with Paul. Therefore, the Essene>Paul>other early Christian authors dynamic will be explored. 50 distributed geographically (during this time), and presents Judaism under strikingly different aspects. [The]... evidence is vividly informative, but it sharpens the questions on the nature of the Judaism of the period already raised by the disparate Jewish literary sources."30 For instance, while the Jerusalem Talmud and the Babylonian Talmud represented later codifications of Rabbinic Judaism, with its emphasis on the “halakhah" and “haggadah” of their sacred Scriptures, Philo of Alexandria and Josephus, representing Hellenistic Judaism, wrote in the idiom of late Greek philosophy, especially neo-Platonism and Stoicism. E. Isaac has said that 1 Enoch, alone, “helps clarify the rich complexities of ... intertestamental Jewish thought."3 1 This is especially true when looking at soteriological issues. Performing good works, belief in the resurrection, and being faithful to the rituals of corporate worship were components of Jewish soteriology. Consider the following evidence. Michael Slusser, in his discussion of contemporary religious systems’ influence on Christian soteriology, observes that “some Jews, like the Essenes, looked forward to a final battle in which God would use the holy ones to overcome evil forever; some, like the Pharisees, expected that the just would be raised fiom the dead; most believed that in the coiperate worship by the whole people of God there was a secure remedy for individual sin.”3- Eichrodt says that for the Hellenistic Jews, “Abraham’s seed... were granted the possibility of atoning for their own sins and for those of others by their merits.”33 And in 30 William Horbury, T h e Jewish Dimension,” in Ear!/ Christianit/: Origins and Evolution to A.D. 600. ed. Ian Hazlett, (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1991), 45-46. 3' E. Isaac, The Old Testament Pseudeplgrapha, ed. James H. Charlesworth, vol. 1 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday and Co., 1983), 9. 32 Michael Slusser, "Salvation," in Encyclopedia of Early Christianity, ed. Everett Ferguson, (New York: Garland Publishing, 1990), 824-825. 33 Eichrodt, 464. 51 Makkot 32a we read that salvation could be secured by the proper performance of a single commandments 4 in both the Hebrew and Greek versions o f the Apocryphon o f Ezekiel, the criterion for judgment is the performance of moral deeds.S5 In the Apocalypse o f Zephaniah, every man is judged on the basis of his earthly deeds, and the righteous are delivered from Hades.s6 2 Baruch states that he who chooses to live according to the Law will receive eternal life.s7 Gaston states that “salvation and God’s grace were for all under the covenant who had not cast off the yoke of the Torah [Law)” and the God-fearers (gentiles who had accepted Jewish teachings) “had to establish their righteousness by the performance of certain works.”3 8 That this understanding of how a person was saved was found in the early church is evidenced by the polemics of the Apostle Paul against the use of the law as a means of salvation. Eichrodt tells us that, “As religious life was ever more strongly dominated by legal righteousness, and the message of the free gift of God’s favor was heavily muffled, the individual’s assurance of salvation was subjected to the severest strain, and finally came to a dead end in the utter helplessness of II Esdras and Paul the P h a r i s e e . ”39 34 Jerusalem Makkot 32a, trans. A. Krotoschin, 1866. Apocryphon of Ezekiel, 11, trans. J.R. Meuller and S.E. Robinson, The Old Testament Pseudapigrapha: Apocalyptic Literature and Testaments, ed. James Charlesworth, (Graden City, NY: Doubleday and Company, 1983), 489. Apocalypse of Zephaniah, trans. O.S. Wintermute, ibid., 503. 37 2 Baruch, 32.1, 38.1, 48.22, 51.3,4-7. 54.15, trans. A.F.J. Klijn, ibid., 618, 619. 38 Gaston, 58. On the other hand D. Rossler argues that in Jewish apocalyptic one’s standing before God is determined by one's attitude to Torah as a document of election D. Rossler, Gesetz und Geschichte (Neukirchen, 1960). If he is correct it simply is another demonstration that salvation was not conceived by all Jewish people in the same manner. 39 Eichrodt, 464. 52 In the Sibylline Oracles, bk.3 (c.l90) (J.J. Collins identifies bk.3 as Jewish in origin^O), the state o f salvation is envisaged in earthly political terms, as a transformation of the earth and the exaltation of the Temple.41 Book 5 of the Oracles speaks of a restored and glorious Jerusalem.^: In each case the restoration is upon the earth. Von Rad says that the eschatological salvation that Jahweh proposed for his people was that “both the exiles of 587 and 721 are to return home" and “Jerusalem is to be rebuilt (Jeremiah 33.4ff.)."43 Other Jewish writings, however, spoke in terms of heaven as the final escape from this world. The last major section of I Enoch (late 2nd cent B.C.E.) is an admonition to righteousness, which predicts that the wicked shall be condemned to eternal punishment in Sheol, whereas the righteous shall have a blessed resurrection to enjoy the bliss of heaven forever.44 Belief in eternal life was by now firmly fixed, and Eichrodt states that, “From the second century fB.C.E.| onwards, evidences multiply that the concept of eternity had been accepted into the community’s life of faith. Even though it was never able to enjoy universal recognition, it was still felt by the religiously most vital section of the community to be the indispensable final note in their assurance of salvation.’’45 in the Fourth Book o f 40 Sibylline Oracles, trans. J.J. Coll'ns, in the Old Testament Pseudeplgrapha, 356. Collins says. The main historical interest of Sibylline Oracles 3 lies in its attestation of a Jewish community that could hail a Ptolemaic king as a savior figure or Messiah." 41 Sibylline Oracles, bk.3, trans. J.J. Collins, vv.70l -6 i, 767-95. 42 ibid., bk.5, vv.249-55, 420-27. 43 Gerhard Von Rad, Old Testament Theology vol.ll The Theology of Israel's Prophetic Traditions (New York: Harper and Row, 1965), 211. 44 / Enoch, trans. E. Isaac, vv.95-105. 45 Eichrodt 526. 53 Ezra (c. lOOC.E.) we read that after the resurrection (5:45; 7:32) and the judgment (7:33- 35) the wicked will go to the furnace of Hell, but the righteous to the Paradise of delight (7:36). It is not clear where that Paradise is, but one can assume that it would be the writer’s equivalent of heaven. We discover similar understandings of these late Jewish thoughts on salvation in both Clement and Barnabas. Berkhof says that in the Fathers "it is not the grace of God, but rather the free will of man that takes the initiative in the work of redemption."46 He goes on to say that "There is a tendency to stress the necessity of good works, especially works of self-denial, such as liberal almsgiving, abstinence from marriage, and so on, to attach special merit to these, and to coordinate them with faith as a means of securing the divine favor.”47 I f Berkhof is correct in his conclusions, we might expect to see evidence of this understanding of salvation in early Christian literature. And both Clement and Barnabas speak of the neccessity of both good works and faith as elements of assuring salvation. The question as to whether this understanding of salvation is the result of a Jewish influence will be answered as the texts of the letters are examined. But it is not just in the soteriologies of Clement and Barnabas that similarities to Judaism are evident As Clement and Barnabas are placed in their intellectual contexts, and as their use of Old Testament literature, themes, peoples, stories and ritual practices are examined, it becomes clear that these two writers drew quite freely from Judaism as they addressed fellow Christian believers. "6 Berkhof, 205 “7 ibid., 165,203,204. 54 New Testament Christianity As Christianity spread throughout the Mediterranean world and beyond, the new believers were recruited from the cultures in which they lived.48 A cursory reading of the New Testament texts gives evidence of conflict over the different styles of worship, and different understandings of some of the early sacraments.49 Some of the Christian communities founded by Paul were tom apart by inner strife. Paul's first letter to the church in Corinth is filled with admonition concerning fights over whose baptism was superior (ch. 1:10-17), church discipline (ch.5:l-8), litigation between believers (ch.6:l-8). disorders at the Lord’s Supper (ch. 11:1-34), and the use of the gift of "tongues” (ch. 14:7- 25). Prend says “wherever one looks, whether Asia, Syria, or Rome, one finds differing and indeed contrasting interpretations of the faith among those who were accepted as members of the Christian community.”5 o This is reflected in the writings of the early *8 Works which focus on the social context of early Christianity are, Robert Banks, Paul's Idea of Community: The Early House Churches in Their Historical Setting, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980): Peter R.L. Brown, "Sorcery, Demons, and the Rise of Christianity: From Late Antiquity into the Middle Ages," in Witchcraft Confessions and Accusations, ed. Mary Douglas (London: Tavistock, 1970): William H.C. Frend, The Donatst Church: A friovement of Protest in Roman North Africa (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1952): Frend, "Town and Countryside in Early Countryside,” in The Church in Town and Countryside, ed. Derek Baker (Oxford: Blackwell, 1979); John G. Gager, Kingdom and Community: The Sodal World of Early Christianity (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1975); Abraham J. Malherbe, Social Aspects of Early Christianity (Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State University Press, 1977); Wayne A. Meeks, The First Urtan Christians: The sodal World of the AposVe Paul (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1983). ^9 Acts 18 speaks of Apollos, an Alexandrian Jewish convert preaching in Ephesus, but who "knew only the baptism of John [the Baptist]." 50 W .H.C. Frend, The Rise of Christianity (Philadelphia; Fortress Press, 1984): 142-143. Frend goes on to discuss how different "schools” of thought grew up around the major cities in Asia Minor, Syria and Rome. What is surprising is his ignoring of Alexandria, for it was in Alexandria that the champions of the allegorical school of interpretation found the most receptive audience. 55 Christian authors. Pelikan says that there was ambiguity “in the fathers of the second and third centuries on the questions of justification, grace, and forgiveness.^^ i Converts to Christianity in the first century from such diverse places as Palestine, Alexandria and Rome brought with them different views of God, the universe and man's place in it Their culture and personal experiences were a determining factor in how they perceived divinity, the acts of divinity, and what that divine person expected from his or her followers. They were city dwellers and peasant farmers.^: They were merchants, politicians, housewives and slaves. Floyd Filson has said that “the apostolic church was more nearly a cross section o f society than we have sometimes thought ”5 3 Meeks cites E.A. Judge “who points to the pervasive but seldom-mentioned importance of amicitia and clientela in Roman society to support his conviction that ‘Christianity was a movement sponsored by local patrons to their social dependents.'"54 And W. Eck states that “If one takes account of the whole body of sources relevant to this set of questions, and avoids arbitrary genei alizations from a few of them, the inference is unavoidable that the adherents to the Christian religion present a virtually exact mirror-image of the general social stratification in the Roman Empire. And that was so from the beginnings depicted in the Pelikan. 29. 52 Meeks says that within a decade the movement [Christianity] had crossed the most fundamental division in the society of the Roman Empire, that between rural people and city dwellers, and the results were to prove momentous." Meeks, 11. 53 Floyd Filson, T h e Significance of the Early House Churches,” Journal of Biblical Literature 58 (1939):111. 54 Meeks, 52, quoting E.A. Judge, T h e Early Christians as a Scholastic Comrnunity," Journal o f Religious History (1960b): 8. 56 New Testament documents.’’55 These people, on accepting Christianity, understood the stories about Jesus Christ and what it meant to be a Christian quite differently from each other. We do know that the Apostolic Fathers were familiar with some of the writings which eventually made their way into the New Testament canon. However, there seems to be a growing consensus that the theological emphasis found in the Gospel o f John, over against the theological emphasis found in the writings of the Apostle Paul, was the most powerful influence on the writings of the early Christian writers. Gonzalez, for example, says that, “Ignatius is closer to John than to Paul in the interpretation of the work of C hrist.’'56 Whereas John speaks o f Jesus as the “Logos,” and the “true Light that enlightens every man,” Paul speaks of Jesus as the predestined Lamb of God, the propitiatory sacrifice and the God/man who became sin for m a n k i n d . 5 7 Ladd says that “the idea that the death of Christ dealt with the problem of human sin and brought men into fellowship with God is one of the central ideas in the New Testament.”58 His comments on the importance the death of Christ plays in the writings of Paul are as follows: The subject of Christ’s death plays so important a role in the structure of Pauline thought that it merits a thorough study. The centrality of the theme may be illustrated by its prominence in the first confessional statement of faith, a confession that was not created by Paul but which was received by him from the primitive church. “For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures (I Corinthians 15.3). In 55 Werner Eck, ‘Das Eindringen des Christentums in den Senatorinstand bis zu Konstantin d. Gr.,” Chiron 1 (1971): 381. 56 ibid.. 75. 57II Corinthians 5.21 reads, T o r He [the Father] made Him [the Son] who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him." 58 G.E. Ladd, /t Theology of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing, 1974), 423. 57 almost every letter Paul refers in one form or another to the death of Christ Paul uses considerable variety of expression, sometimes referring to Christ’s death (Romans 5.6ff; 8.34; 14.9,15; I Corinthians 8.11; 15.3; II Corinthians 5.15; Galatians 2.21; I Thessalonians 4.14; 5.10), his blood (Romans 3.25; 5.9; Ephesians 1.7; 2.13; Colossians 1.20), his cross (I Corinthians l.lV f; Ephesians 2.16; Philippians 2.8; Colossians 1.20; 2.14) or his crucifixion (I Corintiiians 1.23; 2.2; Galatians 3.1; II Corinthians 13.4).S9 Ladd goes on to demonstrate how the death of Christ was, for authors of the New Testament texts: I) Sacrificial: The death o f Christ was “a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God” (Ephesians 5.2 ).60 II) Vicarious: “While we were yet sinners, Christ died for us” (Romans 5.8); He “died for us” (1 Thessalonians 5.9); He was delivered up “for us all” (Romans 8.32); He gave himself “for us” (Ephesians 5.2); He became a curse “for us” (Galatians 3.13). III) Substitutionary: Because Christ has died for all, “therefore all have died” (II Corinthians 5.14); It is the man “Christ Jesus, who gave himself a ransom for all” (I Timothy 2.5,6). IV ) Propitiatory: It was Christ “whom God set forth to be a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness” (Romans 3.25). V) Redemptive: “In [Christ] we have redemption through his blood” (Ephesians 1.7). This emphasis on the blood o f Jesus was not unique to Paul in the New Testament, for we hear it in the gospel of John (John 6; I John 1.7), the Apocalypse (Revelation 1.5; 12; 11) and Peter (I Peter 1.2,19). And in the Synoptic Gospels, as Jesus and his Apostles share the Passover meal, Jesus says, “This is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sin” (Matthew 26.28). 59 ibid. 60 Ladd covers these in greater detail on pp.325-334. 58 However, Gonzalez says of the Apostolic Fathers that in their total theological outlook “one senses a distance between the Christianity of the New Testament - especially that of Paul - and that of the Apostolic Fathers. References to Paul and the other apostles are ftequent; but in spite of this the new faith [became] more and more a new law, and the doctrine of God’s gracious justification becomes a doctrine of grace that helps us act justly.”61 Berkhof says that the early Christian authors, “while revealing some preference for the Johannine type [of kerygma], with which they may have been best acquainted, yet did not definitely attach themselves to any one of these types.”6- T.F. Torrence also notes this in his The Doarine o f Grace in the Apostolic Fathers.^^ Turner wrote that “the monumental genius of S. Paul had little permanent influence on the theology of the early Church. His writings are used rather as a quarry of proof-texts than as a coherent system accepted as a whole.”64 And it will become evident as we move through this study that the Apostolic Fathers were much more comfortable with the Johannine picture of Christ as a/the revealer of the Father, than they were with Christ the Crucified presented by Paul. It would be wrong to say that John did not speak to the Passion of Christ, and that Paul did not recognize Christ as a teacher and revealer of the Father.^s The evidence simply suggests that Christ the Teacher was the Christ who was preeminent in the writings of the Apostolic Fathers. 61 Gonzalez, 96. 62 Berkhof. 39. 63 Thomas Forsyth Torrence. The Doctrine of Grace in the Apostolic Fathers (Grand Rapids; Eerdmans. 1959). 6» Turner. 24. 66 Half of John's Gospel deals with the last week of the life of Christ, and he spends chs. 18-19 writing about the crucifixion, and Paul in Ephesians 4.21 speaks about being taught by Christ. 59 The ultimate soteriological hope of the early Christians was that even though they may die or even be martyred before Jesus came the second time, if faithful, they would be part of the resurrection. The author of the gospel of John (John 11.25-26), Peter and John (Acts 4.2), Paul (Acts 17.18), the author o f I Peter (I Peter 3.21) and the author of Revelation (20.6) are all New Testament witnesses to the importance o f the resurrection for the believers. Paul’s teaching in I Corinthians 15.13-19 gives an indication of how important the resurrection was in the beliefs of the Christians: But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ is not risen. And if Christ is not risen, then our preaching is vain and your faith is also vain. Yes, and we are found false witnesses o f God, because we have testified of God that He raised up Christ, whom He did not raise up - if in fact the dead do not rise. For if the dead do not rise, then Christ is not risen. And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; [and] you are still in your sins! Then also those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men the most pitiable. Among the Apostolic Fathers I Clement (24.1,2,3; 26.1; 42.3), II Clement (19.3), Barnabas (5.6.7; 21.1), the Didache (16.6), Polycarp’s letter to the Philippians (7.1) and Ignatius’ letters to the Philadelphians (8.2; 9.2), Smymians (3.1,3; 5.3; 7.2; 12.2), Magnesians (11.1) speak of the continued importance of the resurrection of the believers in the Christian community. And it can be assumed that, since they knew of the resurrection from the texts of the New Testament authors, that their understanding of how and when the resurrection, as well as the benefits of the resurrection, were gleaned, in part, from the New Testament texts.66 66 cf. Matthew 22.23-33; John 5.29; 11.25: Acts 17.18: 24.15; Romans 6.5; Philippians 3.10; Hebrews 11.35. 60 Gnosticism There is still much scholarly ddmte as to when Gnosticism emerged in the Hellenistic world, and what were its origins. While some support a date earlier than the second century, others believe that the Christian Gnostics did not exist until the second century. Hedrick says that some (he does not identify who) argue that Gnosticism was strictly a second-century phenomenon and propose other ways to account for Gnostic motifs and features found in pre-second-century literature such as the Pauline correspondence, the Deutero-Paulines, the Pastorals, the Gospel o f John, and the Dead Sea Scrolls.^? Other scholars argue that these rather sophisticated second-century religio-philosophical systems did not become that way overnight, since it would appear that a certain amount of time is required for their developmenL^s Berkhof says that Christian Gnosticism was rooted in Judaism, but it ultimately developed into a mixture of Jewish elements, Christian doctrines and Greco-Roman speculative thought Some Gnostics conceived the relationship between the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament as one of opposition.69 However, it has now been documented that some of the Gnostic writings found in the Hammadi Library were in fact built upon Jewish apocalypticism.^o What makes this intriguing is that many of the Gnostic 67 Hedrick. 2. 68 ibid. 69 Berkhof, 45. 70 G. A.G. Stoumsa has said that "scholars have long considered the Gnostic soteriological attitude to be totally ahistorical and non-temporal... W e now know how inaccurate this description is. The close relationship between Gnosis and Jewish apocalypticism leaves no doubt as to the importance of Heilsgeschichte for Gnostic consciousness." G.A.G. Stroumsa, Another Seed: Studies in Gnostic Mythology (Leiden; E.J. Brill, 1984), 81. 6 1 writings viewed the God of the Old Testament as evil, for he is presented as the creator God, and it is the physical creation which brought evil to a perfect spiritual world. Others see Gnosticism as the acute Hellenization of Christianity. Rejecting their Jewish roots and embracing Platonic dualism (the philosophical distinction between a real [visible] and ideal [unseen] world), Gnostic Christians attempted to fuse Christianity with Greek culture and philosophy. The result was Christian Gnosticism. And although Christian Gnosticism is the focus of this section of this paper, it must be remembered that Gnosticism also found expression in Jewish and pagan forms as well.71 The Gnostic writings found at Nag Hammadi present us with both Christian and non- Christian Gnostic writings. Rudolph says that this “corroborates the thesis of the non- Christian origin of Gnostic teaching.”72 Justin and Irenaeus detected a Jewish origin. However, this conclusion may have been colored by the well-documented anti-Judaism of these men. And if they could condemn both Gnosticism and Judaism by linking them together theologically, so much the better. Hippolytus and Clement of Alexandria, on the other hand, saw the precursors of Gnosticism in Greek philosophy. Early Christian Gnosticism possessed no unified teaching. James Robinson says that the “Nag Hammadi library is a collection of religious texts that vary widely from each other as to when, where and by whom they were written. Even points of view diverge to such an extent that the texts are not to be thought of as coming from one group or m ovem ent."73 Francis Young reminds us. however, that "orthodox" Christians viewed Christian Gnosticism as an internal threat, “Valentinus and other Christian Gnostics providing an attractive ‘existential’ interpretation of Christianity which suggested that the Demiurge or Creator God was evil, and that Christ brought spiritual salvation, the knowledge (gnosis) necessary to achieve escape from his clutches.” Francis Young. “The Greek Fathers.” in Early Christianity: Origins and Evolution to A.D. 600, ed. Ian Hazlett. (Nashville; Abingdon Press. 1991). 140. 72 Rudolph. 192. 73 Robinson. l. 62 It was not until the second century that Gnostic schools began to emerge within both Christianity and Neo-platonism.?^ At that time their teachings were openly proclaimed, and at once had an amazingly wide circulation and acceptance. Gnostic teachings concerning the dualism of the body and spirit led to asceticism on the one hand, and to libertinism on the other hand. For the Gnostics, the things of this world were not just worthless, but essentially evil by nature. “Things” were evil because they existed in a tangible form. Therefore, Christ could not have come in the flesh, and the stories of his sufferings and death, which were recorded in the Gospels, could not have been real. For them it was inconceivable that the true God would allow Himself to be clothed with humanity. The writer of the gospel of John opposes this teaching at the beginning of his Gospel. John 1.1,3,14 reads, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God... All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made... and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, and glory as of the only begotten of the Father.” However, the Gnostics spiritualized the resurrection.?^ The writer of II Timothy 2:16- 18 writes: Avoid empty and worldly chatter, those who indulge in it will stray further and further into godless courses, and the infection of their teaching will spread like a gangrene. Such are Hymenaeus and Philetus; they have shot wide of the truth in saying that our resurrection has already taken place, and are upsetting people’s faith. Even though it would be impossible to say with certainty that the writer was referring to Gnostic teachings, the belief that the resurrection had already taken place is advocated in The Treatise on the Resurrection, which is part of the Nag Hammadi Library. 7-» ibid.. 2. 7s ScG I Corinthlansl 5. 63 Kurt Rudolph reminds us that Gnostic thinking, whether in its Christian. Jewish or Pagan form(s), “was dominated by dualism, which in the ancient world was found in Platonism, [and] in Iranian and Zoroastrian religions.”76 Michael Williams says that “the Platonic tradition is an important common denominator.”^? And Elaine Pagels says that “the gnostics stood close to the Greek philosophic tradition.”?^ Gnostic teachings, then, pre-date Christianity, and must be thought of as independent of and prior to Christianity. Rudolph has summed up the essence of Gnostic theology in the following. Beginning with the biblical account of creation, and faith in an absolute, transcendent God, most of them advocated the knowledge (gnosis) that this world is the product of a foolish creator, an inferior ‘demiurge’, who set to work without the permission o f the ‘unknown God (agnostos rheas). He was assisted in the creation of the world by a lower angel or planetary being. In order to terminate the process of creation once it had begun, the supreme God had only one choice; to employ cunning counter-measures. He initiated these among human beings as the center of creation. Without the knowledge or consent of the demiurge, he provided humans with an other-worldly, divine substance called either ‘Spirit’ or ‘Soul’ or ‘Spark.’ This substance enabled humanity (that is, the ideal Adam) to see through the work of the inferior creator and to pCTceive the true goal of humanity as the return to the realm of the supreme God - often depicted as the Kingdom of Light.?9 It can be seen from this that part of Gnosticism’s appeal was a way of escape from this world - a way of salvation. In this dualistic cosmology, people could, through knowledge, free themselves from their physical body, and return to a spiritual communion with a/the 76 Kurt Rudolph, ‘Gnosticism,’ in Earty ChrisSanity:Origins and Evolution to A.D. 600, ed. Ian Hazlett, (Nashville: Abindgdon Press, 1991), 187. 77 Michael Williams, ‘Stability as a Soteriological Theme in Gnosticism" in The Rediscovery of Gnostidsm vol.2 Seüiian Gnostidsm ed. Bentley Layton (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1981), 826. 78 Elaine Pagels, The Gnostic Gospels (New York: Random House, 1979), 27. 79 Rudolph, 187-188. 64 “S p irit ”80 Stroumsa says that “the Gnostic, imitating his savior, would strip off the garments of ignorance and put on a shining lighL”8 1 Pagels says that “the gnostic tended to mistrust the body, regarding it as the saboteur that inevitably engaged him in s u f f e r i n g .” 82 Many Gnostics taught that the man who recognizes his true self can free himself of all bodily passions and rise through the circles to be in God. Prend says that the paganism and Judaism of the first century A.D. out o f which Gnosticism came, “were occupied w ith... aspirations towards salvation and the same problems of the place of humanity in the universe.83 The Gnostics claimed to provide “spiritual resurrection that devours the physical as well as the fleshly resurrection, ”8 4 This belief, of course, flew in the face of much of the “orthodox” Christian teachings concerning the resurrection - which was thought of as the resurrection of the body. Elaine Pagels says that for the Gnostics, “the resurrection is the moment of enlightenment: ‘It is ... the revealing of what truly exists... and a migration {metabole - change, transition) into new ness.’”8 5 And it was this denial of a bodily 80 Frend says that this knowledge was a "secret knowledge that [only] the gnostics possessed. It was acquired, however, not by perseverance in moral rectitude, but by sudden illumination that enabled them to understand the ways of God, the universe, and themselves. Frend, 199. This was a belief held by both Christian Gnostics (Clement, Miscellanies 2.3.10.1) and Pagan Gnostics (Poimandres 4). 81 Stroumsa, 92. 82 Pagels, 144. She says in the same passage. "Nor did the gnostic trust the blind forces that prevail in the universe: after all, these are the forces that constitute the body.” 83 Frend, 201. 84 The Treatise on the Resurrection to Rheginius, Foerster, comp.. Gnosis, vol.2, p.73. 88 ibid.; quoting Treatise on Resurrection 4 7 .18 -4 9. 65 resurrection, an important element in Christian soteriology, that contributed to “orthodox" Christianity’s rejection of Gnostic teachings. The real appeal of Gnosticism, however, was its offer o f salvation.86 Pelikan has said that “Gnosticism may be defined as a system which taught a cosmic redemption of the spirit through knowledge."87 Pagels says, “Whoever comes to this gnosis - this insight - is ready to receive the secret sacrament called the redemption... Before gaining gnosis the candidate worshiped the demiurge, mistaking him for the true God: now, through the sacrament of redemption, the candidate indicates that he has been released from the demiurge’s power."88 Ireneaus summed up his understanding of Gnostic soteriology in the following manner The knowledge of the ineffable ^eatness is itself perfect redemption... Knowledge is the redemption of the inner man. This, however, is not corporeal, since the body is corpor^; nor is it animal, since the soul is the result of a defect, and is, as it were, the habitation o f the spirit. The redemption must therefore be spiritiial; for they claim that the inner, spiritual man is redeemed through loiowledge, that they possess the knowledge of the entire cosmos, that this is true redemption.89 Gnosticism offered an explanation of the wretched state of the world. The origin of the world itself was considered to be a terrible calamity, and evil, therefore, was the ruler of the earth, and the only hope seemed to reside in escape. Pagels says that “evil" for the Gnostics was not what it was for the Christians. She says that “when gnostic ... inquired about the origin of evil they did not interpret the term ... primarily in terms of moral evil. The Greek term kakia (like the English term “ill-ness") originally meant ‘what is bad’ - 8® Gonzalez, in fact, says that "Gnosticism above all is a way of salvation." 127. 87 Pelikan, 82. 88 Pagels, 37. 89 Ireneaus, Against the Heretics i .21.4. 6 6 what one desires to avoid, such as physical pain, sickness, suffering, misfortune, every kind of harm. When followers of Valentinus asked about the source of kakia, they referred to emotional h a r m . ” 9 0 Humanity’s plight was that it had “been duped and lured into the trap of trying to be content in the impossible world, alienated from their true home. ”91 For the Gnostics salvation was not a matter of tieedom from sin and the accompanying guilt, but of liberating the soul or the spirit from the carnal body or matter {hyle). The primary mission of Christ was not to deliver mankind from sin, but to bring and impart knowledge. He was a “messenger” to humanity. We find implicit, if not explicit, evidence that the New Testament authors fought some of these teachings.^: The author of the gospel of John battles a teaching (popularized later by Cerinthus) which distinguished between the human Jesus and the divine Christ as a higher spirit which descended on him at the time o f his baptism, and left him again before the crucifixion.93 Rudolph says that “the state of the world, the problems of creation and salvation, the status of Christ the Savior in relation to God and to the man Jesus of Nazareth, the relationship between faith and knowledge, death and resurrection, good and evil, tradition and interpretation - all are subjects which the Gnostics set for discussion. Since their position often diverged widely from the dominant Christian tradition, they provoked a response.”^4 90 Pagels, 143. 91 Robinson, 4. 92 See for example Colossians 2:8ft; I Timottiy 1:3-7, 4:1-3; II Timothy 2:14-18; Titus 1:10-16; II Peter 2:1-4; Jude 4,16. 93 John 1:14, 20:31; I John 2:22, 4:2,15, 5:1,5,6; II John 7. 94 Rudolph, 193-194. 67 The Gnostic’s dualism (between body and spirit) caused great concern, for that dualism affected the Gnostic Christology, which effected their soteriology. Pagels and Helmut Koester say, “We discover a duality that is sustained throughout the Dialogue (of the Savior): first, an emphasis on realized eschatology; second, juxtaposed with this, clear evidence of futuristic eschatology.”95 Therefore, beginning fmm a dualistic understanding of the cosmos, where material things were evil and spiritual things were good, it was unthinkable for the Gnostics to believe in the Incarnation, which was central to the “orthodox” Christians. It would, likewise, be an abomination to accept the teaching of a physical crucifixion. The “catholic” Christians argued that if these presuppositions were true, then Jesus cannot have been an example for Christians who are suffering for their faith, mention of the blood of Christ as cleansing one from sin becomes unintelligible, and the Eucharist is void of any meaning. These conclusions were, of course, not acceptable to men like Clement, Barnabas, Ignatius and Ireneaus. For the Gnostics, Jesus came to teach a knowledge, which, if learned, would qualify the recipient of that knowledge for salvation. And that salvation did not involve the body. The Jesus that came did not come as a baby. He did not die on a cross. He was not physically resurrected, and he did not physically ascend to heaven. The stories of the incarnation in Matthew and Luke, and the stories of the crucifixion in all four canonical gospels must be literally wrong. 95 Elaine Pagels and Helmut Koester, “Report on ttie Dialogue of tfte Savior in Nag Hammadi and Gnosis eds. Martin Krause, James M. Robinson and Frederick Wisse (Leiden, E.J. Brill, 1978), 68. 6 8 Hellenistic Philosophy Everett Ferguson says that “the religion of many in the Hellenistic and Roman periods, especially among the educated, was philosophy.”lOo The philosophers “participated in the political and cultural developments associated with the internationalization of Greek culture following the conquests of Alexander the Great... and gave expression to ethical concerns about relationships within the... new political and cosmological structures. Christian origins belong to the history and phenomenology of these Hellenistic religions.”! 01 However, pagan philosopher's and early Christian’s understanding of what religion was, and the duties of the followers of a religion, were widely different. Stoicism and Cynicism (and later neo-Platonism) were the dominant Hellenistic philosophies to emerge from the Hellenization of the Mediterranean world. 1 02 However, to speak of philosophical or religious systems is not possible. Henry J. Rose tells us that “the religions of ancient Greece had no creed and, although certain actions were irreligious and therefore generally condemned as displeasing to the supernatural powers, there was nothing like a code or system of morality which must be accepted by everyone who worshipped Athena or Zeus.”i We see nascent creedal statements in the New Testament, 100 Everett Ferguson, Backgrounds of Early Christianity (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing), 255. 101 Luther H. Martin, T h e Pagan Religious Background,” in Eariy Christianity: Origins and Evolution to A.D. 600, ed. Ian Hazlett (Nashville; Abingdon Press, 1991), 52. Martin reveals that the various Hellenistic religions were religions which reflected the Hellenistic culture. As such these religions were concerned with political, cosmological and ethical concerns. These found expressions in the pietistic religions (like Stoicism), mystery religions (like Demeter and Dionysus), and the various strains of religions based on ■gnosis.” 102 Francis Sandbach says that The end of the fourth century [B.C.E.j saw the making of the positive philosophies, Zeno’s Stoicism and Epicurus' materialist hedonism.” Francis Henry Sandbach, "Hellenistic T ho ug ht” in The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, p.467. 103 H J. Rose, Religion in Greece and Rome (New York, 1959), 9. 69 and formal credal statements emerged fairly early in the Christian com m unities.’ This seems to be a fundamental difference between these two intellectual communities. Although both pagan and Christian authors were vitally interested in “truth”, for the Christians it was the truth regarding Jesus Christ This struggle to come to an understanding of the person of Jesus Christ continued to trouble the leaders of the early Church. The need to define the humanity and divinity of Jesus Christ was the impetus behind the calling of the Council of Nicea, out of which came the Nicene Creed. And a reading o f the Nicene Creed reveals a overwhelming concern for a correct understanding of the person of Jesus Christ. Most of the language in that creed dealt with the divinity and humanity of Jesus. Nothing like this is found in pagan philosophy. The majority of early Christian authors believed that salvation consisted of a deliverance from this world to a paradise. However, Sandbach says that “Otherworldliness played no part in Hellenistic philosophy... A transcendent God and a human soul exiled in this world are conceptions... alien to the Stoics [and1%»icurians. Both ideas were rejected for the philosophical reason that it could not be understood how the immaterial could either affect or be effected by the m aterial.”’ os Finally, Sandbach says, “the numerous religious associations were effectively social clubs, but their divine presidents may yet have had a meaning for the members. Zeno and Epicurus both found it worthwhile to accommodate the gods.”’ 06 And while the early Christians did value the social interaction found in their communities, the center of their ■'O'* cf. Ferguson Encyclopedia of Early Christianity, p .242-243 105 Sandbach, 468. 106 ibid., 469. 70 religion was their belief in Jesus Christ, participation in the rites o f the Eucharist and baptism, and the discovery or reminders o f what was necessary for salvation. Martin says that “the classical Greek understanding o f fate, the manifestation o f cosmic order in human affairs, was revived in Hellenistic culture to provide a comprehensive explanation” for the disorder of the w o r l d . He goes on to say that piety, the mysteries and gnosis were the three dominant intellectual/religious responses to the cultural and political disorder brought about by the conquests o f Alexander. > os Nock says, “To the ancients the essence o f religion was the rite, which was thought o f as a process for securing and maintaining correct relations with the world o f uncharted forces around man, and the myth, which gave the traditional reason for the rite and the traditional (but changing) view o f those f o r c e s .” >09 i have dealt with Gnostic religions elsewhere in this dissertation. Here I w ill deal with the dominant philosophy o f the first two centuries C.E., Stoicism, and mystery religions, and in particular their understandings of the issues surrounding salvation. Stoicism A quick look at the Stoic beliefs concerning man and God(s) reveals some similarities with early Christian teachings. The Stoics believed that man possessed an immortal and a divine soul. William Davidson, in tracing Stoic beliefs back to Socrates says, “O f the immortality o f the soul, [the Stoic) affirms, he is personally convinced, but he does not 107 Martin, 57. 108 ibid. 109 A.D. Nock, Conversion (Oxford, 1933), 161. 71 profess that he can prove it by irrefutable argument - absolute demonstration is impossible in the m a tte r.lo And the soul was immortal because it, like everything that exists in the world, partook of the divine substance. Seneca says, “And why should you not believe that something of divinity exists in one who is a part of God? All this universe that encompasses us is one, and it is God. We are associates of God; we are His members.”! i • Epictetus expresses the thought, “but if our souls are so bound up with God and joined together with Him as being parts of His being, does not God perceive their every motion as being a motion of that which is his own of one body with Him.”i i - And Marcus Aurelius says that not only does man possess a divine soul, but his intelligence is divine as well. He says, “And thou hast forgotten, too, that every man’s intelligence is a god and is an efflux of the deity.” i ’ 3 Davidson says that the Stoics believed that, “Man shows in himself the divine - especially, in his soul; and, indeed, according jto] Zeno, he was originally formed out of the divine substance - is con-substantial with the divine.”' ' ^ And because of the Stoic doctrine of reabsorption into the “primal fire,” everything was indestructible, including the human soul. Seneca writes, “Then we also, happy souls, who have been assigned to eternity, when God shall see fit to reconstruct the universe, when all things pass, we, too, a little element in a great catastrophe, shall be resolved into our 110 William Davidson. The Stoic Creed (Edinburgh: T& Clark, 1907): 10. 111 Seneca, Moral Epistles to Ludlius 92., trans. Richard M. Gummere, Seneca: Ad Ludlium Epistulae Morales, 3 vols.. The Loeb Classical Library (London: William Heinemann, 1920), vol.2,467. 112 Epictetus., Discourses. 1.14.6, trans. W.A. Oldfather, Epictetus: The Discourses as Reported by Arrian, 2 vols. (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1925), vol.1, 103. 113 Marcus Aurelius, Meditations 12.26, trans. C.R. Haines, The Communings with Himself of Marcus Aurelius Antoninus, (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1916), 335. Ill Davidson, 89. 72 ancient elements.”' 15 Marcus Aurelius says. “The day that you dread as though it were your last is the birthday of eternity.” ! 16 Seneca said that death brought about a “vivid, definite future life of bliss, a state in which we shall revel in ineffable light, and have the mysteries of nature revealed to us, and in which we shall hold intercourse with the gods and with the spirits of the blessed.”! ! 7 This belief in the immortality of the soul was shared by the early Christians, the Jews (except the Sadducees) and the adherents to the various mystery religions. How the Stoics viewed deity itself is important.! ! 8 Davidson says that “to the later Stoa (Epictetus, Seneca, etc.)... the deity assumed a personal spiritual aspect.”! !9 The Stoic’s came to believe that “a man’s lot and circumstances of life are both in the hands of the Deity. He is part o f the whole; and God cares for the whole, and, therefore, for the parts.”! 70 The Christian’s belief in the imminence of God is reflected in the writings of Seneca who said, “God is near you, with you, within you. A holy spirit within us as spectator of our evil and our good.”! : i Seneca, however, was not consistent on this point, for he says that the gods “are supreme commanders in the universe, controlling all things ” 5 Seneca, Cons. Polyb., fin.\ cf. Ep. 14;21. ii6Marcul Aurelius. Meditations 102. ibid., 98. See Seneca, Epp. 26, 55, 63,102, 120. 11® R. Stob says that Stoicism ‘is a monistic system and a pantheistic system. Monotheistic it is by no means.” R. Stob, “Stoicism and Christianity,” The ClassicalJoumal 30 (1934-35), 219. 119 ibid., 103. Stob says that “the ultimate substance ... lacks personality and spirituality." 218. 120 ibid., 211. 121 Seneca, Ep. 41.1-2. cf. Matthew 1.23; Luke 7.21; John 1.14 73 by their power and acting as guardians of the human race, even though they are sometimes unmindful of the individual.”! - - And Cicero says, “The gods care for great things but neglect the little.”!-3 Philip P. Hal lie tells us that “the Stoics defined God as a rational spirit having itself no shape, but making itself into all things.”! 34 Although the Christians constantly fought over the bodily presence of Jesus Christ there seemed to be no ddjate over the belief that God is a spirit. The writer of the Gospel of John has Jesus saying in 4.24, “God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.” Therefore, the language used by both the Stoics and Christians was similar. W.E. Heilman says that Tertullian (late 2nd century) borrowed “from the Stoics in psychology and use of the methods and terminology of I^ a l argumentation in his writings.”! 35 While this may be true, Sandbach reminds us that “it must be admitted [that the Christiansl modified the meaning of the vocabulary they took over (from the Stoics.]”! 36 Wenley says that Christians “absorbed the Stoic Logos , the Stoic moralism, the Stoic-Kiilonian allegorical method [of interpretation].” In short, he says, Christianity is “impossible without Stoicism.”!37 However, the understandings of the Stoics and the Christians of what evil is are quite dissimilar. The Stoics believed that the world is perfect, but they also recognized that evil 122 ibid., 95.50. 123 Cicero, De Nature Deœrum 2 .1 67 . 124 Philip P. Hailie, 'Stoicism,” in The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, p.20. 125 W.E. Heilman, Christianity and the Classics (New York: University Press of America, 1990), 11. 126 Sandbach, 177. 127 R.M . W enley, Stoicism and Its Influence, (Boston: Marshal Jones, 1924), 26. 74 does exist, and since everything in the world is necessary, then evil is a necessary element in the perfect world. This is reflected in the writings of Marcus Aurelius who said, “When some piece of shamelessness offends you, ask yourself. Can the world go on without shameless people? Certainly not! - Then do not ask for the impossible... When once you remember that the genus cannot be abolished, you will be more charitable to the individual.”'-8 The early Christians, however, saw evil, which they called sin, as unnatural intrusions into the perfect world that God had created. Evil was not necessary, and God sent His Son into the world to eradicate sin from the world. The Apostle Paul in Romans 5.21 says that through one man, Adam, sinned entered into the world, and death through sin. but just as “sin reigned in death, even so grace might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.” John the Baptist in John 2.29 says that Jesus is “the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.” The problem of sin in people’s lives, and how God has dealt with that problem is the focus of much of Paul’s letter to the Romans. He says in Romans 3.23-23, “A ll have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,” and are “justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God set forth to be a propitiation by his blood.” In Galatians 3 Paul says to his readers that they were under a curse, but “Christ has redeemed us from the curse... having become a curse for us.” And the author of Hebrews says in 9.12, “Not with the blood of goats and calves, but with His own blood He entered the Most Holy Place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption.” The cause of death, then, at least for Paul and his disciples, was the sin of Adam, and the consequences of that sin had fallen on all of Adam’s descendants, and the only hope of escape from sin and death was believing that the death of Christ delivered people from it. ’ 28 M arcus Aurelius, Meditations 9.42, Haines, 299. 75 What the Christians called “sin” (dpapTia) the pagans called immoral behavior or crimes, and these activities were to be avoided. People were to live virtuous lives. H.F. Stander has this to say about the Stoic understanding of virtue. The Stoic ethics defined virtue as the end or goal of life. A virtuous person is one who lives in accordance with nature or the logos. All people are interrelated, since they have the same origin, destiny, and logos', slavery and social inequality were thus inconsistent with Ae law of nature and the Stoic system. The Stoics regarded it as their duty to participate in civic affairs and they placed much value on friendship. They believed that evil came from vice, and that in turn from the passions. One ^ould attempt to achieve a state o f apathda, in which one is free from negative posions, and replace them with good passions (eupcaheia). The Stoics divided all things into three catagories: the good (defined as virtue), the bad (defined as vice), and the amphora (which are indifferent as far as virtue is concerned. 1-9 But the concept that Zeus or Apollo or Athena could bleed and die. and that death and blood somehow delivered human beings from a penalty of death for their immoral behavior or crimes was totally foreign to them. Like the Christian God, the pagan gods did intervene in the affairs of mankind, but their purposes (discussed above) were far different from those proposed by the Christian authors. This concept of sin and redemption from sin through the death of a god was inconceivable to the Stoics. It must be understood that soteriological issues were far more critical among Christians than they were among the Stoics. Wenley says that “Stoicism was not preoccupied with the doctrine of ‘Last Things,’ but with this present dubious life and how to render it tolerable.”! 3 0 Wolfson says that “the Stoic conception of cosmic history [was] a cyclical process which goes on infinitely, by necessity and for no purpose. 13 1 The issues 129 Stander, 870. 130 Wenley, 126. An examination of post-exilic Jewish writings, however, especially in the eschatological writings, reveal a preoccupation with salvation issues, and how God will bring a glorious end to the sufferings being endured by his people. 131 Harry A. Wolfson, "Philo Josephus,” in The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, p. 155. 76 surrounding the Christian debates and discussions concerning salvation never became a major bone of contention among the Stoic philosophers. Likewise, the whole idea of repentance for sins was alien to the Stoic philosophers. Wolfson says that “in Greek philosophy, repentance is regarded as a weakness rather than as a virtue.”* 3- It was unbelievable for the Stoics that a religion would declare that it was the unlearned, the immoral (sinners) and the ignorant who would be granted access to the divine. This was the very opposite of what the classical philosophers (and their Hellenistic interpreters) taught and believed. The virtuous man, the learned man, the wise man was the person who gained deliverance from this world. To declare the opposite was unintelligible, and those who taught such absurdities, like the Christians, were to be scorned or pitied. For the Stoics, the aim of man was not escape from sin, but becoming virtuous. To this end the Stoics developed a doctrine of “natural law,” which, they said, was imprinted into our being and by obeying that “natural law” we become virtuous.*33 Ferguson says that, according to Zeno, “the goal of life is virtue; everything else is indiffèrent” ' 34 “An emphasis was placed on the proper attitudes in sacrifice, worthy conceptions of the gods, rational worship, and upright conduct.” ' 35 Since man is rational, and the rational principle pervades the universe, the virtuous man lives in accord with reason. The common formulation of this conception was “to live according to nature.” This was the best of all possible worlds, and nature was the perfect environment into which all are bom. Thus to 132 ibid.. 154. 133 j. Seltzenberger. Die Beziehungen c/er Fruhchristlichen Sittenlehre zur Ethik derStoa: Bine Moralgeschichlich Studie (Munich: M. Hueber, 1933): M Spanneut, Le stoïcisme des Peres de l'Eglise: De Clement de Rome a Clement d'Alexandrie (Paris: Editions du Seuil, 1957). 13^ Ferguson, 282. 135 Ibid., 255. 77 live in accord with nature meant to live reasonably. Stob says, “Nature being divine, and man being a part of nature, his task is to steer his course according to n a tu re .36 In conclusion, then, we can agree with Martin who says that “early Christian alternatives shared in the rich possibilities of Hellenistic religious culture, from Christianized examples of pietistic soteriology to the redemptive claims of the Gnostic traditions.” 137 This alliance with the pietistic and mystery manifestations of Hellenistic religions is seen, of course, in the early Christian writer’s emphasis on moral behavior and the central place played by the Eucharist in early Christian ritual. When considering possible pagan influences on the Apostolic Fathers, the various Pagan philosophies’ understandings of the cosmos, divinity and knowledge cannot be viewed as monolithic.' 38 If we allow for ideological and theological interplay between Christianity and Judaism, we must allow it for the other intellectual and philosophical belief systems of the day. Some of the early Christian writers thought that they recognized this element of borrowing from other belief systems in the writings of the classical philosophers and commented on it Indeed, Tertullian said that Seneca was “often in agreement with us” (meaning the Christians).' 39 Justin said that Christ had been “Known in part even by Socrates.”' 40 Aristobulus claimed that both Plato and Pythagoras had read Moses. And Pelikan tells us 136 Stob, 220. 137 Martin, 62. 138 p.E. Matheson writes, ‘It is a striking testimony to the wide range of Stoic influence that it should have found its highest expression in a Roman Emperor and a Greek slave, both finding common ground in the Stoic doctrine and the language of the later Greek world.” P.E. Matheson, Epictetus, Ttie Discourses and Manual (Oxford, 1916): 13. i39Tert. Anim. 20.1. 1*10 Justin Martyr, 2 Apology 1 0 .8. 78 that “Justin saw Moses as the source for the doctrine of creation in Plato’s Timaeus ... land] Plato’s Phaedrus was likewise traced to the Bible by Origen/i^i Mystery Religions Many o f the mystery religions, whose origins can be traced to ancient fertility rites, embraced some form of a life-death-life cycle, in which the initiates participated. Salvation was achieved through entering into this cycle, symbolically, with the god(s). By this act the initiate became united to the god(s), and shared in the divine power and immortality. Ramsey MacMullen says that “in all the ‘Oriental’ cults in general, whether of Atargatis, Mithra, Isis, or Cybele, the element of resurrection has received emphatic attention in studies old and new.”i In one inscription from Italy, worshippers of Dionysus received “promises of afterlife.” 1-^3 Isis says to Apuleius, “’You shall live in blessedness,’ and when life is over, he may continue to worship her. He is the envy of everyone for being reborn ‘in a sort of way.’”' A worshiper of Mithras in the first century wrote on one of the walls of the Santa Prisca Mithraeum in Rome that “you [Mithras] have saved us by shedding of eternal b l o o d . ” ' *^5 MacMullen writes that one of the priests of the Sabazius cult depicted his departed wife in a fresco, “banqueting among the blessed. There in that ibid; Justin Martyrr Apo/ogy 59.60; Origen, Aga/nsfCe/st/s 6.19. MacMullen. 55. 1^3 ibid. 144 ibid. 143 ibid., 54. 79 scene was immortality portrayed’’ This belief in the resurrection was shared by the early Christians, and we have discovered language by the Stoics which implied that physical death was not the end of a man’s life, but the beginning of a glorious existence with the gods. While this belief was not the same as the Christian resurrection, it implied a hope in a life after the physical one here on earth. The gods give promises of healing as well as promises of immortality. MacMullen says that the chief business of religion in classical and Hellenistic times, “was to make the sick well” and “a simple test can be made through the inscriptions.”!^? He points out that many of the mystery religion gods were addressed in epithets and hymns as “the Healer,” or they were given thanks for a specific cure. MacMullen goes on to say that “Isis and Serapis... emerge as specifically great healers, workers of endless medical m i r a c l e s . ” Again, the inscriptions gave evidence that when the followers of mystery religions prayed, “they prayed for health, f i r s t . ” ' ^ 9 One mystery religion which gained adherents in the ancient world was the Eleusinian mysteries. The Eleusinian mysteries began as a local cult, but were absorbed by Athens at some point before the late sixth and fifth centuries. As Athens’ influence increased, initiation into the mysteries was opened to all who spoke Greek. • so There was a further increase in followers of Eleusis following the conquests of Alexander, and there was still great interest in the first century B.C.E. to the second century C.E. 1^6 MacMullen, 54. Ramsey MacMullen, Paganism in the Roman Empire (London: Yale University Press, 1981 ), 49. ibid. 149 ibid. 150 ibid., 200. 8 0 The Eleusinian mysteries were a particularly important religion of this type, and the initiation rites were “designed to purify initiates in preparation for the Greater mysteries."! 51 These rites included fasting, sacrifices, sprinkling or bathing, singing of hymns, and bearing a sacred vessel. Some of the rites of the mystery religions are similar to the gospel accounts of the death and resurrection of Jesus, and in his words in John 6.152 These words attributed to Jesus became major texts in the soteriologies of some of the later Christian authors. Ferguson sees the Christian rites of initiation, i.e. baptism and the communion meal, as borrowings from the mystery religions. >53 However, Gonzalez argues that because the mystery religions did not reach their full development until the second or third centuries, which is the time when the majority of their characteristics in common with Christianity appear, that “such traits can be more easily explained as the influence of Christianity on the mysteries than the opposite." >54 However, Christian borrowings from the mystery religions cannot be discounted. Mystery religions were certainly in existence before Christianity. What needs to be determined is how early the rites of baptism (or washings) and the communion meal appear in the mystery religions. And since the mystery religions were so secretive, it is difficult to make that determination. Therefore, our knowledge of the mystery religions is very incomplete. And what we do know of their teachings reveals a rich diversity of thought and ritual. It is, therefore, not 151 ibid., 201. 152 John reports Jesus saying in ch.6, ‘Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and M y blood is drink indeed. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him.” w .53-56. 153 Ferguson does an excellent job in looking at the theologies behind the similar acts of worship between the mystery religions and Christianity. 154 Gonzalez, 58. 8 1 possible to speak of a single teaching or belief which all the mystery religions held to be true. Their teachings were even more diverse than any of the other religious or philosophical movements of the day. Finally, we must turn our attention to the various understandings of the mystery religions’ concepts of terms like “savior” and “salvation.” S. Angus writes that “all the Mystery-gods were primarily savior-gods,”t55 and there is clear evidence of this in the inscriptions. 156 However, salvation could involve a number of things. MacMullen says that religion in the ancient world “served to strengthen the existing social order,” and that the terms “’Savior’ ... or ‘salvation.’ had to do with health or other matters o f this earth, not of the soul for life etemal.”i57 j.h.W .G . Liebeschuetz says that “the immediate effect o f initiation [into a particular cult) is a restructuring of this life."^ 58 (emphasis mine). Other inscriptions equated “salvation” with the endings of “plagues or earthquakes... unspecified benefits bestowed,” and “the Goths s c a t t e r e d . ” : 5 9 Angus, however, says that these savior-gods gave help in the future world as well as in the present world. To initiation was ascribed a sacramental efficacy which atoned for a man’s past, gave him comfort in the present, a participation in the divine life, and assured to faith an hereafter of such dazzling splendor that the trials and conflicts of this earthly existence were dwarfed into insignificance. The Mysteries held out to men 155 S. Angus, The Mystery-Religions and Christianff/ (New York; Scribners, 1975), 137. 156 Again MacMullen reports that Asclepias is given the title th e Savior," Zeus Helios the Great Serapis is "savior and giver of health," and Mithras has "saved us by the shedding of eternal blood." 49,51,54. 157 MacMullen, 57. 158 j.h.W .G . Liebeschuetz, Continuity and Change in Roman Religion (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1979), 2 2 1 . 159 ibid., 59. 8 2 the salvation which was too eagerly and pathetically sought... The cry for salvation was loud, persistent, and universal. >60 In conclusion, Gardner says that “the deity o f society was a Geoç auTfjp and the society sought through fellowship with him to reach a state o f ocorripia, safety or salvation, a salvation belonging alike to the present life and that beyond the grave... It was the deities of the Mysteries who were in an emphatic sense the saviors of those who trusted in them, and they saved by allowing the votary to have a share in their lives."'6 1 Angus says, "Men sought deliverance from the uncertainties of social life, the upheavals of political life, from the burden of grief and sorrow, from the reign of death, the universal power of demons and the malefic astral deities, from the oppressive tyranny of fate, the caprice of Sors, or Fonuna, the pollution of matter, the consciousness of guilt, the wasting of disease, from the taediwn vitae; and from all the ills that ‘made human life a hell.’"'6 - Therefore, we see many parallels between the Christians and mystery religions both in what they believed their God(s) could do for them, and in the rites which identified them as followers of their religion. 160 Angus, 137,138. 161 Gardner, The Religious Experience of St. Paul, 82 .84. 162 Angus, 226. 8 3 C lIA F IE R V SOTERIOLOGICAL THEMES IN THE EARLY CHURCH By the time Clement and Barnabas wrote their epistles (c. 100) we are into the second and third generation of Christians.' And while this may still be considered a stage of infancy for the Christian church, it does not mean that the Christian writers had not progressed in their theological acumen. Creeds and baptismal formulas had already appeared.- And beliefs concerning how a person is saved had begun to take shape. We can refer to these different beliefs about salvation as “soteriological themes.” These “soteriological themes” were ones that Clement and Barnabas may have heard, read and/or been influenced by. These themes are part of their intellectual context, as are the soteriological ideas found in the pagan, Jewish, Gnostic and New Testament writings. This chapter, therefore, while drawing on New Testament writings, will also analyze some o f the non-canonical Christian ideas on the issues of salvation that appeared in the first two centuries. This will include both the Second Century Apologists, as well as the Apostolic Fathers. As the themes are discussed, it will become apparent that some of them were shared by more than one contemporary Christian writer, i.e., authors of canonical books. Apostolic Fathers, Second Century Apologists. While some of these themes were first 1 Questions concerning the dating of I Clement and Barnabas will be discussed in the chapters dealing with the authors. 2 cf. Everett Ferguson, “Creeds,” Encyclopedia, 2 42,243. 84 seen in extant writings in the late second or third century, this does not mean that they were not present earlier. It is known that the Apostolic Fathers were familiar with the writings of other Christians for they quote them quite often. Barnabas’ and Clement’s use of the four canonical gospels and some of the epistles of the New Testament are well documented.^ They were obviously exposed, then, to these author’s understandings of salvation. It is impoitant to be acquainted with these before we approach our texts, just as it is important to discover soteriological themes and ideas in the pagan. Gnostic and Jewish worlds. “After a long period in which questions of basic soteriology received little attention, perhaps because is was assumed that we knew all that was necessary, theologians are showing a renewed interest in talking not only about how we may appropriate salvation but also what tliis salvation is which we are offered.”4 So wrote Michael Slusser in 1983. That renewed interest, however, was short-lived, for there still remain large lacunae in the historian’s picture of the early understanding and growth of this doctrine in what was to become a very important religion in the Roman Empire. Gustaf Aulen’s Christus Victor and H.E.W. Turner’s The Patristic Doctrine o f Redemption, while remaining important works in this field of study, still have not covered all the ground that needs to be covered. While some scholars have concluded that there was no agreement as to what salvation 3 Barnabas’ and Clement’s use of the New Testament documents will be discussed in the chapters dealing with them. 4 Slusser, 555. 85 actually was in the ancient church^ others have detected four 6, five or even six themes.8 Most soteriological themes found in patristic literature can certainly be traced back at least to what came to be the texts of the New Testament. The Apostles John, Paul, Peter and other New Testament writers are quoted quite often by other early Christian writers in attempts to solidify their theological positions on a number of issues, including soteriology. But as the texts of Clement and Barnabas are examined it will be seen that there are also strong echoes from the Old Testament. WTiile there is some over-lapping in the salvation themes proposed by modem scholars (for example, Turner’s “Christ the Illuminator” would correspond to Slusser’s “Revelation” theme which would in turn correspond to Mitros’ “Christ-the-Teacher “ theme) who have taken a look at early Christian soteriology, the issues identified by Mitros seems to the be the most complete.^ It is convenient, then, to subsume the soteriological views of different authors into a group of themes. While this may conceal some of the variations even in the thought of one writer, it does allow us to manage the mass of SLaeuchli, 133. 6 Turner says that the four classes of soteriological ideas are "Christ the Illuminator." "Christ and Victor and the Doctrine of Recapitulation," “Christ the Giver of Incorruption and Deification," and “Christ the Victim." pp. 148-168. 7 Slusser’s five themes are "Victory," "Atonement," "Eschatological Judgment," "Exemplar," and "Revelation." pp.558-567. 8 Mitros' list is "The Pedagogical or Christ -the-Teacher theory," ‘The Mythological or Transaction theory," "The Recapitulation theory," "The Physical or Platonic theory," "The Realistic or sacrificial theory," and "The Satisfaction theory." pp.4l 6-444. 8 1 am deeply indebted to the previously mentioned article by Michael Slusser, and an article by Joseph F. Mitros for this chapter of the dissertation. Mitros, 415-447. 86 information. In what follows, therefore, I shall follow Mitros’ analysis and present the major themes he defines, giving a short synopsis at the beginning of each. The Pedagogical or Christ-the-Teacher Theme of Salvation According to this theme Christ saved people by imparting to them new knowledge, by giving a new law and by setting an example in his own life of how to live in conformity with this law. By the first century the idea that man could somehow be elevated from tl>e troubles of this world through knowledge already had a long history. It could be traced back at least to the teachings of Plato. According to Platonic (and to a lesser degree Stoic) philosophy, the world had become unintelligible to man because man had become defective, and the defect was his ignorance. Many of the early Christian writers, who were familiar with Hellenistic philosophy called that defect sin. Apologists such as Tatian, Justin Martyr and Theophilus saw the essence of sin as ignorance of what was good, and, therefore, rebellion against God. Salvation, for them, consisted in the liberation of men Ifom those defects through illumination by ChrisL i ° However, knowledge as an agent or the agent of salvation also had strong roots in Jewish tradition, as well as in the New Testament The Hebrew words for “know” in the Old Testament {bin, daath, yada and nakar) are used 677 times, and the words for “knowledge {binah, deah, daath, yada, maada, manda and ayin) are used 103 times (a total of 780 uses), and they are found in every book of the Old Testament except Obadiah and 10Justin Martyr, Dialoguewith Trypho 18.3, ^^.2; Apology 12-19,23, trans.Thomas B. Falls, Sa/nf Justin Martyr, (New York: Christian Heritage Library, 1948), pp. 145,164,43-45, 58-59. 87 Haggai.i > Indeed, a section of the Hebrew Bible is traditionally titled the “Wisdom Literature.” One of the ways of speaking about relating to God was to “know Him.” To know God might mean life, but it could also mean death; for no one could see God and live. Examples of the importance of knowledge in Jewish soteriology (which is usually couched in terms of deliverance) are found in two passages in Hosea. In Hosea 4:6 the prophet says: My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge. Because you have rejected knowledge, I also will reject you... Because you have forgotten the law of your God I also will forget your children. In Hosea 6:6 knowledge even takes precedence over the sacrificial system. And it was the sacrificial rituals performed in the Temple, both daily and annually, that cleansed Israel from her sins. Hosea has God saying: I desire mercy and not sacrifice. And the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings. However, it was not only in the canonical Hebrew literature that knowledge was an important piece of Jewish spiritual life. Knowledge of God, his will and his law were important elements in the Judaism o f the Qumran community* - and in the various manifestations of Jewish Gnosticism. Mitros says that the Apostolic Fathers, “loyal to their Jewish religious background... saw in Christ another Moses, the Giver of the New 11Young, 575-577. 12 The vast amount of literature found in clay jars, hidden in caves above the Dead Sea point to a religious community who were directed by the written word. Frend says that they spent their time "studying the Law and the revelation of the Holy Spirit by the prophets." W.H.C. Frend, The Rise of Christianity, (Philadelohia; Fortress Press, 1984): 27. 88 Law. Practical knowledge of the New Law, that is, obedience to it, would bring life and immortality. 13 The ideas of truth, knowledge and enlightenment are part of the writings of the New Testament as well. In John 1:9 Jesus is described as t o <|)W9 t o dXTjOuw 6 (kuTi^ei irdi.’Ta di^ptüTToy (the true light that enlightens every man). And in John 14:6 Jesus identifies himself as oXfiOeia (the truth). According to Hennas Christ brought us a new knowledge not only of God but also of His law; as a matter of fact he himself is the New LawJ4 In this system “Jesus saves by being the knower who makes God known, the fount of that knowledge for all, as his Father shows him all things. His followers are given knowledge of God in three main ways: through Jesus’ teaching, through knowing Jesus himself as Immanuel, and through the Spirit of Jesus poured out upon them after the His resurrection,’’ 15 Jesus Christ has saved men by revealing God to them in His words, deeds and His own person. Turner says that the idea of Christ the Teacher was the Apostolic Father’s “principal contribution to the doctrine of Redem ption.”’ 6 Turner posits two reasons for this emphasis. First he says that portraying Christ as Teacher was the prominent feature of New Testament teaching. However, this would be overstating the case, for while it cannot be 13 Mitros. 418. Mitros suggests that the Fathers were not dogmatic about this belief, for he says that they were "neither theologians nor philosophers. They were shepherds of souls" and than they "were more interested in promoting good Christian living that in theorizing about it." 1< Hermas, Similitudes 5,5,3; 8,3,2. trans. Kirsopp Lake, The Apostolic Fathers 2 vols., The Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1914), vol.2: 165,195-196. isSlusser, 563. 16 Turner, 43. 89 denied that this picture of Christ is present in the New Testament (by John), Turner ignores or chooses to dismiss the relatively large (by comparison) portions of texts which portray Christ as Savior through his death and resurrection (by Paul). Secondly he says that this picture of Christ "représentas] the principal feature in nascent Christianity which made so strong an appeal to the ‘God-fearer’ or Gentile back-bencher of the Jewish synagogues of the Dispersion.”’ We do, however, see this language in the writings of the Apostolic Fathers. For example, in Clement 36.2 and 59.2 it says, "Through Him our spirit which is without intelligence and filled with obscurity spreads into the light... Through Him the Master has willed to make us taste the immortal knowledge... Through Jesus Christ God has called us from darkness to light, from ignorance to the knowledge of His glorious N a m e . ” ’ 8 And Barnabas, in 13.7 speaks of reaching a “perfection of our knowledge.” The idea of the cross and atonement is not missing in this soteriological model, but it is interpreted in the context of Jesus as teacher, Ignatius says that the cross of Christ is among the three mysteries of “a loud cry which were wrought in the silence of God.”’ 9 He also states that the Word proceeding from silence is Jesus Christ who reveals the one God.-O This lent itself particularly well to elaboration along Platonist lines, with Jesus 17 ibid. 181 Clement. 36.2, 59.2, trans., Kirsopp Lake, The Apostolic Fathers 2 vols.. The Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge; Harvard University Press, 1914), 71, ill. Ephesians 19. tAagnesians 8.2. 90 giving knowledge to minds darkened by superstition.- ' Slusser says that in this context "the suffering and death of Jesus becomes a last and most difficult yet most revealing parable... In recognizing that it is God who suffers and dies in our Jesus, we recognize the Father in him, and the riddle disappears leaving the plain and nearly incredible mystery.”- - This interpretation of the events at the end of the life of Chiist was the one used often for pagan audiences which in many cases would be familiar with the main Hellenistic philosophical systems. Still “both crucifixion and resurrection could be expressed in a Greek philosophical framework only with the greatest difficulty.”-3 For this reason, then, many of the early Christian authors emphasized the rational-theoretical aspect of Christianity, and portrayed Jesus as the greatest Teacher of the human race, revealing the most sublime wisdom mankind could ever achieve. Mitros argues that “it was not Christ as man and His Incarnation, but rather Christ ‘the Second God’ that fescinated these Christian sages.”34 He goes on to say, “Pagan philosophers objected to Christianity that it was something new that could not be compared with the centuries-old wisdom of the ancient. Answering their objections, the 1 Christian writers] admitted that the Divine Logos indeed appeared in its fullness in Christ late in human history, but nevertheless they contended that it had been working in the universe and in mankind from the beginning.Whatever was good true and wise either in the Old Testament or in pagan 21 Slusser says that by this interpretation “not only could [Jesus'] existence be understood as an ikon of and a ladder to the transcendent divine One, but the reawakening in us could take the form of the refurbishing of our inmost selves, where we are images of God by participation, beings with a dual citizenship in this world and in the world above.” 564. 22 Slusser, 563. 23 ibid., 564. 2'* Mitros, 419. 91 philosophers had come from the same Logos who had scattered its seeds of wisdom in every human soul.”-5 Justin Martyr, in an attempt to answer these very questions writes: We have been taught that Christ is the firstborn of God, and we have declared that he is the Logos, of whom every race o f men were partakers, and those who lived according to the Logos are Christians, even though they have been thought atheists, as among the Greeks, Socrates and Heraclitus, and men like t h e m .26 Whatever either lawgivers or philosophers uttered well, they elaborated by finding and contemplating some part of the Logos.-? A growing emphasis on Christ as Logos and Teacher came very close to the teachings of the Gnostics with their emphasis on truth, wisdom and knowledge. The Christian Gnostic is led by the Logos beyond faith, because knowing is superior to believing. Knowledge perfects man as man. The Christian journey certainly begins with faith, but it matures to knowledge, contemplation and love which leads to immortality and deification.?8 in Gonzalez’s view Clement of Alexandria (c. 150-215) believed that “over and beyond the simple faith that all Christians have, one can also achieve a more profound understanding of eternal truth, a superior ‘gnosis’ that is reserved to those few and privileged spirits who constantly exercise themselves in an intense search after t r u t h . ” ?9 In this concept Jesus is reduced to the Logos, and the Logos is reduced to an imparter of knowledge. Indeed, Origen said, “Happy are they, who no longer need the Son of God as a physician who heals the sick, nor as shepherd, not as redeemer, but as wisdom, and as 25 ibid. 26 Justin Martyr, First Apology 1.45, trans. Thomas B. Falls (New York; Christian Heritage, 1948), 83. 27 ibid.. 2.10, p. 129. 28 Clement of Alexandria,Strornafa, 1.99; 6, 18, 114; 7.5. 29 Gonzalez, 199. 92 word, and as righteousness.”3° Therefore, Christian Gnosticism is Christian only in the sense that it identifies the Logos as Jesus Christ Non-Christian Gnostics would find very little of the teachings of Clement and Origen to be objectionable. The whole idea of rising above the carnal body and into eventual deification through knowledge is basic to Gnosticism. And while Origen was later condemned as a heretic for other reasons (Second Council of Constantinople - 553), the idea of Christ as the Logos, and the Logos being the bringer of a special, esoteric knowledge had too many supporters to be dismissed.31 The Christus Victor Theme of Salvation In this theme Christ gained victory over Satan and liberated mankind from the dominion of Satan by offering Himself as a ransom to be paid to the prince of darkness. Whereas the “Christ the Illuminator” theme pictured Christ as a serene and pacific teacher of moral and ethical values to which all could agree, this theme grows out of conflict between the forces of Satan and God for the souls of mankind. The conflicts in the previous theme were between the “flesh” and the “spirit” and between “knowledge” and “ignorance.” In this theme the conflict is between “good” and “evil” - “darkness” and “light.” More specifically it is between two supertiuman entities, both of which are claiming the souls of men. In some interpretations of this theme, the evil entity, titled Satan, was perceived to have equal power and claims to men’s souls.3: 30 Origen, Contra Celsum, 2.52. cf. 3 .7 ,1 .6 8 , 8.17. 31 Clement of Alexandria’s writings, for example, are markedly aristocratic and esoteric in nature. The True gnosis" which he speaks of is ethical as well as intellectual, cf. Gonzalez, 199-200. 32 This perception of the power of Satan or "evil" is seen in the soteriology of the Manichees: the sam e Manichees that St. Augustine both followed and then fought. Their cosmos was dualistic with an eternal struggle of the two opposed principles. "Light" and “Darkness." cf. Gonzalez, vol.2, pp.l7-20. 93 This theme, however, was not unique to the Christians, for part of the self-identification of the Qumran community and Gnosticism grew out of a theology dominated by conflict between the forces of evil and good; between the righteous and the unrighteous. Slusser says that ‘'it seemed obvious to people that this world was an arena of conflict between God and that which prevents the divine plan from being r e a l i z e d .” 3 3 in this theme, then, Satan (the personification of the “e v ir) was perceived to have power equal, or at least similar, to that of God, and God must pay a ransom to win back the souls of men; that ransom was the death of His Son Jesus C h r i s L 34 Slusser says that Ignatius, Irenaeus, Tertullian and Hippolytus were particularly fond of this m o d e l .35 This theme of salvation was widely used in early Christianity, since both Jews and Greeks knew a world dominated by hostile powers. This theme became harder to maintain after Neoplatonic philosophy became the dominant approach among Christian thinkers, for the relatively “other-worldly” spiritual (as opposed to carnal) Platonic doctrine would find it difficult to suppOTt a belief in a personification of evil. However, the divine Father and Son were victorious because Christ defeated Satan by rising victoriously from the dead. Slusser says that “Resurrection is the trophy of victory in this theme, an integral part of the defeat of death... Maintenance of the tradition of Jesus’ rising on the third day has a function in this theme also, the delay serving to certify the death, and hence the genuineness of the conflict”3 6 33 Slusser, 558. 3“» Mitros says that this theory is also called the ‘transaction theory” because the payment of ransom was supposed to be the result of some kind of contract between God and the spirit of evil. 35 Slusser says that one might describe it as a "spondaic” model in comparison with heavier emphasis on humanity or on divinity. Slusser. 559. 36 ibid. cf. Athanasius, On the Incarnation 26. 94 'i'hat Christ was victorious over Satan is portrayed in the New Testament in the book of Acrs where the author says that Paul was sent ‘^o open |thej eyes [of the nations] that they might turn from darkness to light and from dominion of Satan to God, that they might receive the forgiveness of sins."37 Jesus is portrayed as being victorious over evil by his triumph over Satan in his three-fold temptation, and in the casting out of impure spirits.^* And, finally, just before his passion Jesus is reported to have said, “Now is the sentence of condemnation being passed upon this world; now is the prince of this world being evicted ”3 9 The early Christian writers whose soteriologies included this theme elaborated upon it by declaring that Christ accomplished his victory over Satan by his incarnation, life, death, descent into Hades, resurrection and ascension. But it was specifically the death of Christ which was presented as the most important act of his victory over the demons. Mitros says that the idea that Christ, through his life and death, destroyed the angel of death is found in Barnabas, Justin, Melito of Sardis, Origen, Lucian of Antioch, Athanasius, Irenaeus and TertuUian.40 He goes on to say that certain Fathers “viewed the crucifixion of Jesus as an event that opened the gate leading Him to the kingdom of tlie demons. There He preached to the just who had died before His coming.In Barnabas this model is seen in 14.5 and 15.9. The conflict between “light” and “darkness” is reflected in 18.1; 19.1; and 20.1. 37 Acts 28.18 38 Matt. 4.1-11; Luke 4.1-13. 39 John 12.31. "3 Cf. Martin Werner. Tf?e Formation of Dogma (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1957), 98f. Mitros, 423. 95 Finally, Martin Werner recounts the solemn moments in the life o f Christ in which conflict with evil forces “heightens the sweetness of Christ’s ultimate victory over t h e m . ”42 I) Birth: Barnabas, Ignatius, Justin, Irenaeus, Methodius and Origen detected the conflict between the divine good and demonic evil beginning at the Incarnation. Origen and M ethodius'^ 3 saw the very conception of the Logos in the womb of Mary as itself as a victory over the demons, while Ignatius and Justin^^ interpreted the star leading the Magi to the birthplace of Jesus as a victory over astrology. Irenaeus, again in answer to the Docetists, says, “The Word of God was made flesh in order that He might destroy death and bring us to life, for we were tied and bound in sin, we were born in sin and lived under the dominion of d e a th .” 4 5 And in Barnabas 14.5 he says that in the matter of redemption, Christ “was prepared for this purpose.” II) The Temptations: The victory over Satan in these passages^^ are obvious. III) The Death of Christ: In the Gospel of John 14.30, just before the events leading up to the crucifixion Jesus says, “the ruler of this world [has come], and has nothing in me.” And in I Corinthians 2.8 Paul speaks of the ignorance of the rulers o f this age who”have crucified the Lord of Glory.” When the Fathers looked at this passage there was some disagreement as to who these “rulers” were. Cyprian and Lactantius^? saw these rulers as ^2 Martin Werner, Die Entstehung des Ctihstiichen Dogmas, 249-66. OugenAgainst Celsus 1.60; MethodiusSympos/t/m 3.6. ^ Ignatius, Eph. 19.1; Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 78 .9. Ireneaus, Against the Heretics 37. ‘*6 Matttiew 4.1-11; Mark 1.12,13; Luke 4.1-4. Cyprian, Quod idola non sunt dii. 14; Lactantius, Divine Institutes 4 .1 6 . 96 being Caiaphas, Herod and Pilate. The Ascension of Isaiah, Ignatius, Tertullian and Origen said that these rulers were demonic f o r c e s . ^ * However, while there may have been disagreement as to who the “rulers” of the world were, there was unanimity as to the outcome of the struggle. IV) Resurrection: For the Fathers, the Resurrection of Christ was just an important a piece of the total victory over evil as the Incarnation and Death of Christ. The Resurrection proved that Satan’s ultimate weapon over man, death, had now been met with an even more powerful weapon; resurrection from death. God the Father through Christ had provided for man an answer to eternal death ... eternal life. In Barnabas 21.1 he says that “he who does these things shall be glorified in the kingdom of God ... for this reason there is a resurrection.” And Clement speaks of the believers being “fully assured by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ.” V) Descent into Hades: The language used here was perhaps the most colorful in its description of Christ’s victory over Satan. Turner says that “the vocabulary of violence, from robbery to earthquake, is used to express the shattering effect upon the demons of our Lord’s Descent ad infernos. ” 49 For the early Christian writers it was important that Christ not only demonstrate his superiority over Satan here on the Earth, but to also be able to Ascensio Isaiae 9,14; igoatms. Ephesians 19.1: Tertullian,/^gawstMaraon 5.6.; Origen, On Principles 3.2.1. '*9 Turner, 51. Turner does, however, point out that the New Testament language about Christ's descent into Hades focuses on the preaching to the spirits in prison rather than releasing of the spirits from demonic powers. In the New Testament cf. Acts 2.27, 31-32; Rev 1.18. This language is also reflected in the Acfs of Thomas 10; Hippolytus, Test. Dorn. 1.28; Hilary ofPoitiers On the Trinity 4.42. 97 bring defeat and humiliation to Satan in his own r e a l m . s o Two of the Fathers who used this imagery were Justin and Irenaeus.51 V I) Ascension: The idea of the victor ascending into heaven following victory here on earth has a rather long history. Many of the pseudopigraphical books {Ascension o f Isaiah (3.16-20), Gospel o f Peter (36-40) speak of it In the Testament o f Benjamin we read: “And [Christ] shall ascend from Hades and shall pass from earth to heaven. I know how lowly He shall be upon the earth, and how glorious in h e a v e n . " 5 : O f the Apostolic Fathers, Barnabas says, “We keep the eighth day for rejoicing, in the which also Jesus rose from the dead and having been manifested ascended into heaven.“53 Paul’s epistle to the Ephesians ch.4.8 reads, “When [Christ] ascended on high. He led captivity captive, and gave gifts to m e n . ”54 Paul is quoting Ps 68.18 which is a Psalm glorifying God’s victory over His enemies. Indeed, the Ascension Psalms, songs sung by the celebrants 50 The descent into Hell or Hades was a subject of central importance for Jewish Christianity. It is seen, for example in the Gospel of Peter and in the Apocryphon of Jeremiah, it constitutes, however, a dogmatic development which was to be accepted by the common tradition, and finally included in the Creed, cf. W. Bieder, Die Vorstellung von der Hollenfahrt, 128: H. Schlier, Christus and die Kirche im Epheserbrief, 3-18; 8 . Reike, The Disobedient Spints and Christian Baptism, 115-118. 51 Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 52.4; Ireneaus, Against the Hereftcs 4.34.1. The Christian origen of the text is certain. Beider is inclined to regard it as a Christian interpolation introduced into the canonical Jeremiah, but it is hard to see where is could have been inserted. It seems more probable that it is an example of a Christian midrash on the prophet. Testament of Benjamin 9.5. 53 Barnabas 15.9. A passage in the Apo/ogy of Aristides probably belongs to the same line of thought: "After three days He cam e to life again and ascended into heaven." 15. 51 Also, Jesus’ seemingly odd declaration to Nicodemus in John 3:13 that, "No one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven, that is, the Son of Man,” is stated in the context of his crucifixion which brings deliverance from condemnation and judgment (w . 18-20). "And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life.” (vv.l4,l5). 9 8 and/or Priests as they ascended to the Temple,were part of the ritual on the holy days, sung in celebration of God’s work for Israel in the past over her e n e m i e s .55 The Recapitulation Theme of Salvation According to this theme, Christ rescued men from evil by recapitulating (repeating and summing up) in Himself the whole human race. He restored it to the state of innocence and immortality by becoming the second Adam, that is, by identifying Himself with mankind through some mysterious sohdarity, and by giving birth to a new humanity. Conflict between a divine Good and an opposing evil is discovered in this theme as well. Demons and evil spirits, which were part of the cosmos of the inhabitants of the Roman Empire, are very evident here. Irenaeus is given credit for articulating the recapitulation theory of salvation, though he may have borrowed the idea from Paul, in Paul’s discussion of Christ as the second Adam in Rom 5.56 The clearest summation of Irenaeus’ argument is found in the following passage; When he became incarnate and was made man he recapitulated in himself the long history of man, summing up and giving us salvation in order that we might receive again in Christ Jesus what we Md lost in Adam, that is, the image and likeness of God... What then did the Lord bring at his coming? Know that he 55 Examples are Psalms 43,46,48,76,84,87, and 120-134. 56 Mitros says, 'In the classical text of Romans 5.12-21 Paul describes the work of salvation by Christ, the Second Adam, as the restoration of mankind to the state the First Adam had lost. A mysterious solidarity between mankind and Adam is presupposed by the Apostle. Owing to this solidarity of mystical Identity with the First Adam all men have become sinners, subject to death: owing to their solidarity or mystical Identity with Christ the Second Adam, all men become just and receive life... The Pauline doctrine of recapitulation was based on the Jewish idea of corporate personality. Adam as well as Christ represented not only themselves as Individuals but also the human family." 427,428. 99 brought all newness, by bringing himself, who had been foretold. For this was announced, that a newness would come, to renew and give life to men.57 This understanding of the work o f Christ, then, was a call to the believers to imitate Christ in their lives. Pelikan says that “Ireneaus’ doctrine of recapitulation can be read as the most profound theological vindication in the second and third centuries of the universal Christian ideal of the imitation of Christ For Irenaeus, the imitation of Christ by the Christian was part of God’s cosmic plan of salvation which began with Christ’s imitation of the Christian or, more precisely, with Christ’s imitation of Adam.”58 The Platonic Theme of Salvation In this theme Christ saved humanity by His Incarnation. By assuming human nature. He achieved a mystical identification with all man. As a result all men are sanctified. Mitros says that “the Greek world of ideas supplied a counterpart for the concept of corporate personality in Judaism, i.e. the Platonic idea of real universal s. In the light of this philosophical doctrine, the salvific work of Christ was interpreted as the sanctification and divinization of all men through the assumption by Christ in the incarnation of the real universal of human nature in which all necessarily participate. Strictly interpreted, the I Platonic) theory of salvation would render any other work of Christ, besides his incarnation, superfluous.”59 If Mitros is correct in his assessment, the uniqueness of this theory is readily apparent For while the other theories mentioned thus far have emphasized one or another aspect of ^'^Ueneaus, Against the Heretics 3.18.1; 4.34.1. 58 Pelikan, 144. 59 ibid. 100 the life or death of Christ, they have not precluded disparate aspects of his work as Savior. Even the Apostle Paul, who has been interpreted for hundreds of years as allowing only the death of Christ as being meritorious in His work as Savior, allows His life, death and resurrection to be elements in the work of Christian s a l v a t i o n .6 0 The appeal of this theory is also seen in the status it gives to holy living. While other Christian writers mention the importance of living holy lives as being part of the Christian experience, it is only one element among others, e.g. justification, reconciliation, new birth, glorification. There is no mention of sanctification in what looks like part of an early Christian litany found in Rom 8.29-30 which reads, “For whom [Godj foreknew. He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.” Mitros goes on to say that the Fathers, realizing that this belief would “make any personal cooperation of the individual in the work of salvation purposeless and useless,... combined the theory with other interpretations of salvation, and insisted... on the necessity of man’s cooperation with grace.”^ i What is different from the previously discussed themes, however, is that this theme of salvation comes rather late in the time of the Fathers. It is seen in Athanasius and Gregory of Nyssa in the East and Hilary and Victorinus in the West There is absolutely no hint of this theory in the writings of the Apostolic Fathers. It is in the writings of Victorinus that we see this doctrine most clearly articulated. When (Christ] took flesh, he took the universal idea of flesh; for as a result the whole power of flesh triumphed in his flesh ... Similarly he took the universal idea 60 In Rom 4.25 Paul speaks of Jesus being 'raised for our justification.' And ch.5.9-10 reads, “Having been justified by His M o o d ... we shall be saved by his life. 61 Mitros, 428-429. 101 of soul... therefore man as a whole was assume^ and having been assumed was liberated. For human nature as a whole was in him, flesh as a whole and soul as a whole, and they were lifted to the cross and purged through God the Word, the universal of all universals.6: The Reconciliation Theme of Salvation In this theme Christ has restored men to God’s presence by offering Himself to God in a voluntary sacrifice on the cross for the sake of the human race. This is undoubtedly the most common soteriological theme sounded in the early church, found in both the New Testament writings and in the writings of many of the Fathers. In both Matthew (20.28) and Mark (10.45) Jesus declares that He came to give His life as a s a c r i f i c e .63 Mitros says that scholars are convinced that Christ is speaking of his death in sacrificial terms rather than of a ransom paid to s o m e b o d y .64 However XuTpou (lit “the price for redeeming”) is used in the LXX as the ransom paid for slaves (Leviticus 19.20). for captives (Isaiah 45.13), and even for a life (Exodus 21.30; Numbers 35.31). If, therefore, Christ is paying a ransom to someone, who is that someone? The texts point to a ransom being paid to God himself. In Ephesians 5.2 Paul declares that Christ offered himself up as a “Trpoachopov ku I Ouoiau tw 9eü (an offering and a sacrifice to God). And in Romans 3.25 Paul says that God set Jesus forth on the cross as a “iXar/OTripioi/” (propitiation) so that He (the Father) might prove that He is both just and merciful. In the LXX this is the word used to describe the lid of the ark of the covenant This ark “was 62 Victorinus, Aga/nsf Anus 3.3. 53 Other New testament passages which use sacrificial language are Matthew 26.27-28; I Corinthians 5.7; Ephesians 5.2; Hebrews 9.26, 10.12-14. 5» Mitros, 430. 1 0 2 sprinkled with the blood of the propitiatory victim on the annual Day of Atonement (this rite signifying that the life of the people, the loss of which they had merited by their sins, was offered to God in the blood as the life of the victim, and that God by this ceremony was appeased and their sins were expiated. ”6 5 The Apostolic Fathers ((Clement 21.6; 49.6), Ignatius {Romans 6.1; Ephesians 1.1) and Polycarp {Philippians 8.1 )) speak of Christ dying for our sake and on our behalf that we might be restored to life, but only Barnabas (7.3) interpreted the death of Jesus in sacrificial terms. It took the second century Apologists Justin, Irenaeus and Tertullian to emphasize the death of Christ in sacrificial terms. Following this use in the Apologists, the death of Christ as a sacrifice had a long and rich history through to Augustine.66 In conclusion, then, there were many different views of how a person was saved being expressed in the early church. The parts played by God the Father, Jesus, and the believer vary from one author to the next. The primary questions centered on “why” Jesus had come, and “what” the Christian needed to do in response to the actions of God. Jesus is variously portrayed as bringing salvation by his teachings, his life, his blood, and his sacrifice. Therefore, in some of the teachings Jesus is the believers’ example, while in others he is their substitute. Not all of what scholars have called themes of salvation are found in the writings of the Apostolic Fathers themselves. Some of these themes are found in the writings o f later, second century and third century Christian authors. However, these ideas concerning the issues of salvation expressed by these later authors were in discussion before they were committed to writing. Understandings committed to writing in the second and third G5 Joseph Henry Thayer. A Greek-English Lexiœn of the N ew Testament, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan. 1885), 301. 66 The final theory that Mitros proposes is what he calls the “Satisfaction Theory.” This theory, however, differs very little from the “Reconciliation theory.” 103 centuries were presumably articulated in the first and second centuries. > Indeed, some of these ideas are found the writings of the Apostolic Fathers. ' cf. the discussion In ch.5. 1 0 4 CONCLUSION We have discovered that although the Apostolic Fathers’ use of words such as atdTHp and acurripia changed from the use of non-Christian authors, the whole idea of a person’s need for some sort of salvation can be traced back at least to fifth century Athens. We discovered in the writings of Plato the idea that deliverance from this world is something to be desired. However, the salvation envisioned by Plato is not a deliverance from sin. Tarrant points out that in the writings of the classical Greek philosophers “the language of [Christian] salvation is not present, and there is no agent of salvation, neither God nor man, other than philosophy itself.”' Therefore, salvation, at least for Plato, does not contain a divine element, but rather is something that can be accomplished through a person’s acquisition of knowledge. And although the element of yvwoiç is present in the discussions of salvation in Judaism, Gnosticism and the “orthodox” Christianianity, it is a knowledge that comes from the divine mind.- This knowledge is not something that humanity inherently possesses. For the Christians, this knowledge was brought to humanity through Jesus. 1 Tarrant, 24. 2 cl. the place of knowledge in the writings of the Gnostics in ch.4. 105 In the Hellenistic period the title of oojriip was given to the successors of Alexander, and later, to the Roman Emperors. However, these divine men were not saviors from sin. but were protectors from natural disasters, and deliverers from enemies. Salvation, in the writings of the non-Christian writers of this period, now involves an agent (kings, emperors) and it has an element of protection. This aspect of salvation is clearly reflected in Clem 36.1 where he says, “This is the way, beloved, in which we found our salvation, Jesus Christ,... the defender and helper of our weakness.” Judaism developed an idea of salvation, based on good works, that went beyond that invisioned by the pagan philosophers. That emphasis on good works, v/hich is prevalent in post-exilic Judaism, is seen the writings of many of the early Christian authors.3 Berkhof says that in the early Fathers “it is not the grace of God, but rather the free will of man that takes the initiative in the work of redemption.”^ He goes on to say that “there is a tendency to stress the necessity of good works, especially works of self-denial, such as liberal almsgiving, abstinence from marriage, and so on, to attach special merit to these, and to coordinate them with faith as a means of securing the divine favor.”5 We will see this same understanding in the writings of both Barnabas and Clement Barnabas 17.1 speaks of the “things” necessary for salvation, and spends chs.l9 and 20 listing things to do and not to do. As 1 analyze passages from Clement it will become apparent that the performance of good deeds was also a part of his soteriological understanding. Therefore, 3 cf. pp.58-65 for the discussion on post-exilic Jewish soteriology. Note specifically the discussions of E. Isaac in his Old Testament Psudepigrapha, ed. James H. Chariesworth, and Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament, vol. 2. “ Berkhof. 205. 5 ibid., 165. 203. 204. 1 0 6 although Jesus is the Savior in the writings of these two authors, both allow the believer to work for his/her salvation. References to stories and teachings found in the Gospels, the book of Acts, and other New Testament authors testify to the Apostolic Fathers’ familiarity with the New Testament Modem scholars have detected influences of these New Testament authors in the writings of the Apostolic Fathers. However, Turner says that “one of the most interesting features of the patristic period is the steady retreat from anything which could be described as authentic Paulinism.“6 Gonzalez says that in the Apostolic FathCTS, “one senses a distance between the Christianity of the New Testament - especially that of Paul - and that of the Apostolic Fathers. References to Paul and the other apostles are frequent; but in spite of this the new faith becomes more and more a new law, and the doctrine of God’s gracious justification becomes a doctrine of grace that helps us act justly.”? Berkhof says that the Fathers, “while revealing some preference for the Johannine type [of kerygma], with which they may have been best acquainted, yet did not definitely attach themselves to any one of these types. Turner says that “the monumental genius of S. Paul had little permanent influence on the theology of the early church. His writings are used rather as a quarry of proof-texts than as a coherent system accepted as a whole.”? And it will become evident as we move through this study that Clement and Barnabas were 6 Turner, 24. ? Gonzalez, 96. cf. E. Aleitfi, Paulusverstandnis in deralten Kirche (Berlin: A Toppelmann, 1937): W. Roslan, Die GrundbergrHfe der Genade nach der Lebre der AposVoischen Vater (Rettenburg: A Bander. 1938. 8 Berkhof, 39. cf. Thomas Forsyth Torrence, The Doctrine of Grace in Uie Apostolic Fathers (Grand Rapids, Ml: Eerdmans, 1959). 9 Turner, 24. 107 much more comfortable with the Johannine picture of Christ as the revealer of the Father, than they were with Christ the crucified presented by Paul. However, it would be wrong to assume that the Apostolic Fathers recognized or chose one theological viewpoint exclusively over another. For although John did emphasize the work of Jesus as the revealer of the Father, it would be wrong to say that John did not speak of the Passion of Christ Likewise, although Paul’s emphasis was on the effects of the crucifixion, it would be wrong to say that Paul did not recognize Christ as a teacher and revealer of the Father, lo The evidence simply suggests that Christ the Teacher is the Christ that was preeminent in the writings of the Apostolic Fathers. The intellectual world in which Barnabas and Clement of Rome lived and wrote was intellectually rich, diverse and dynamic. Stoic, Jewish and gnostic believers placed a high value on committing their beliefs to writing. Christianity was another voice in that world. As Barnabas and Clement are placed in their historical, geographical and intellectual contexts we will discover the influences of their world in their writings, and more specifically in their soteriologies. 10 Half of John’s Gospel deals with the last week of the life of Christ, and he spends chs. 18-19 writing about the crucifixion, and Paul, in Ephesians 4.21 speaks about being taught by Christ. 10 8 CLEMENT OF ROME INTRODUCTION Christianity came early to Rome. In the New Testament the writer of the book of Acts 2.1-42 notes that on the Day of Pentecost in the year of the crucifixion of Christ, there were “Jews and proselytes” from Rome who heard the sermon of Peter. It is possible that some of the reported 3,000 converted that day were from Rome. The author of Acts also mentions that the Apostle Paul, on what has traditionally been called his second missionary journey (c.49-52), met with a certain Christian Aquila and his wife Priscilla. These two “had recently come from Italy... because Claudius had commanded all the Jews to depart from Rome.” (v.2). Suetonius, mentioning this same event notes that at this time Claudius “expelled from Rome the Jews, who were assiduously creating disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus”!. Paul wrote to the church at Rome c.55 C.E., near the end of his third missionary journey (Acts 18.23-21.14), and was taken to Rome following his arrest (Acts 25.11-12). Tacitus says that Nero affixed the blame for the great fire of 64 C.E. on the Christians who lived there.- The Christian church, therefore, was established at Rome by the end of the first century, the time of the writing of the epistle attributed to Clement of Rome. As one of the earliest extant Christian documents, the epistle of Clement takes on particular importance. Like the epistle of Barnabas. Clement does not address issues of salvation, but after the 1 Suetonius, Claudius 25. Ralph W. Mathlson, ■Rome," in Encyclopedia of Early Christianity, ed, Everett Ferguson (New York; Garland Publishing, 1990), 799. 2 Tacitus. Annals 15.44. 109 troubles besetting the church at Corinth. However, as in the epistle of Barnabas, some aspects of the soteriology of Clement are revealed in the letter as he addresses the issues of unity and obedience to the established officers of the church in Corinth. To discover the important elements of Clement's soteriology, I will focus primarily on Clement’s use of the following terms: I) ÔLKaioaûuTi: righteousness II) aipa; blood (of Christ) III) è pyoi^: work IV) XuTpov: ransom Of the two major classifications of second century Christian literature (i.e. the Apostolic Fathers and the Second Century Apologists), much more attention has been paid by modem church historians and theologians to the Apologists, perhaps because the Apologists are theologically richer. The letter of Clement of Rome to the church in Corinth was more pastoral than apologetic, and has suffered from this same relative indifference. It has been eighteen years since Vigiliae Chrisname carried an article on Clement of Rome.3 and it has been twenty-nine years ( 1966) since an article has appeared in Studia Pamsrica discussing some aspects of Clement or his theology.4 Further, Clement's soteriology has never been the subject of a major study, hence the importance of the present work. D.A. Hagner's The Use of the Old and New Testaments in Clement of Rome, which appeared in 1973, is a discussion of the influences of Judaism and first-century Christianity on Clement. Not only does Hagner list the references to Old and New Testament texts, but he discusses the significance of the authors chosen by Clement. Louis Sanders’ L ’Hellenisme de S. Clement de Rome et le Paulinisme, though somewhat dated (1943), provides an 3 D.W.F. Wong, “Natural and Divine Order in I Clement," Vigiliae ChrisUanae 31 (1977). " S.G. Hall, ‘Repentance in I Clement," Sftrd/a Patristica 8 (1966). 110 adequate discussion of the influence of Hellenistic thought on ClemenL The Chrisrobgical Awareness ofClemeni o f Rome and Its Sources, by H.B. Bumpus, is also an excellent study on literary sources which Clement may have drawn upon in his writing. And, finally, Johannes Quasten's Pairology provides a good overview of Clement and his times, while also providing an excellent bibliography, though dated. Still, a focused study on the soteriology of Clement has yet to appear. I l l CHAPTER VI The Historical Context of Clement Authorship According to Irenaeus, who supplies us with the oldest list of Roman Bishops. Clement was the third Bishop of Rome, but he gives no dates for this.' According to Tertullian, the Apostle Peter ordained ClemenL- Eusebius sets the twelfth year of Domitian’s reign as the beginning of Clement’s reign, and the third year of Trajan as the end of Clement’s tenure as Bishop of Rome (c.92-101).3 Internal evidence suggests that these dates (92-101) are approximately correct. Clement himself seemed to refer to a persecution in progress as he wrote of “the suddenly bursting and rapidly succeeding calamities and untoward experiences that have befallen us...”'^ We know that persecution broke out against the Christians in 95-96 under Domitian. Further, Hegesippus (c. 180) states that Clement responded in writing to the quarrels that existed in the Corinthian Church during the reign of Domitian.5 • Irenaeus., Against Heresies 3 .3 .3 . 2 Tertullian. On the Prescription Against Heretics 32. 3 Eusebius. Church History. 3 .1 5 .3 4 . Clement of Rome l.i. trans. Kirsopp Lake. {The Apostolic Fathers, 2 vols. (Cambridge: Harvard University Press. 1912). vol.2. 27. 3 Eusebius. 4.22 1 12 We know nothing of the early life of Clement^ Many scholars believe that Clement was of Jewish descent because of the frequent references to the LXX and the comparatively few citations from the New Testament Quasten believes that Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp of Smyrna and Hermas, all of whom he positions in the early second century, present fairly immediate echoes o f the preaching of the Apostles.7 The writings are generally pastoral in character, and in both content and style are related to the writings of the New Testament Irenaeus states that Gement was personally acquainted with both Peter and Paul, but this cannot be proved.* Both Origen^ and Eusdrius’ ° identify Gement as the one whom Paul praises as his collaborator in his Epistle to the Philippians (4:3), but this opinion lacks corroboration. It must also be remembered that the introduction of the letter reads, “The Church of God which sojourns in Rome to the Church of God which sojourns in Corinth.” Therefore, we have no internal evidence who the author actually was. Kirsopp Lake points out that “the actual name of the writer is not mentioned in the letter itself; indeed, it clearly claims to be not the letter of a single person, but of a church.”! I It was later tradition that attributed it to Clement, Bishop of Rome. It appears from the use of numerous rtietorical devices that the letter was to be read in public, and indeed Bishop Dionysius of Corinth (c.l70), in a letter to Pope Soter, states ® Johannes Quasten. Patrology, 3 vols. (Utrech-Brusseis: Spectrum Publishers, 1950), 91. 7 Ibid. s Lightfoot says that Clement’s references to the earlier martyrs were ones which he himself had witnessed. But, again, this conclusion can only come from Inference. 9 Origen., Commentary on John 6 .3 6. 10 Eusebius, Church History 6.3.15. Lake, 3. 113 that “today we observed the holy day of the Lord and read out your letter, which we shall continue to read from time to time for our admonition, as we do with that formCTly sent to us from Clement.”! - Eusebius also writes: There is one recognized epistle of Clement, long and wonderful, which he drew up for the Church of the Corinthians in the name of the Church of the Romans when there had been dissension in Corinth. We have learned that this letter was publicly read in the common assembly in many churches both in the days o f old and in our time.! 3 These statements by Dionysius and Eusebius, we discover that in the second century and in the early fourth century Clement’s letter was considered an important piece of Christian literature. Eusd)ius’ statement indicates that it was not just in Corinth that the letter was read, for he states that it is read in “many churches.” What did the believers hear when Clement’s letter was read? What did the readers want the hearers to hear? These are perhaps unanswerable questions, yet it would be reasonable to suggest that not only did they hear Clement’s admonitions, but his theology as well. And it is in Clement’s theology that we find glimpses of his soteriology. 12 Eusebius. 4.23.11. 13 ib id . 114 CHAPTER VI! Possible Intellectual Influences on Clement Judaism Modem scholarship has, in its endeavor to understand the theology and intellectual background of Clement, emphasize influences in the document that range from Palestinian Judaism to Hellenistic Stoicism to Christian Gnosticism; and there is no clear agreement on the question. The evidence of a Jewish influence, however, is impressive. D A. Hagner says that Clement’s use of the Septuagint and his complete mastery of its contents and theological motifs, indicates without question his own personal background within the Hellenistic synagogue of the Diaspora,* Hagner goes on to say that the writer of I Clement was either bom a Jew or a “Greek who had drunk deeply of Jewish thought and practice,”and that Clement sets forth a characteristically Jewish piety.- O. Knoch is in agreement with this, and says that the Hebrew Bible in its Septuagint form was the most important source for the Christianity of I ClemenL^ Graydon F. Snyder says that the author “knows the Septuagint well” and “to support his argument, he uses the Jewish 1 D A. Hagner. The Use of the Old and New Testaments in Clement of Rome (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1973), 198. 2 ibid. 3 0 . Knoch, Eigenart und Bedeutung der Eschatologei im Theologischen Aufiiss des ersten Clemensbriefes (Bonn, 1964), 56. 115 scriptures extensively.”4 Van Unnik also points to convincing parallels between I Clement and a host of post-exilic Jewish literature, including I Enoch, Testaments o f the Twelve Patriarchs, Assumption o f Moses and Psalms o f Solomon, which he says came from Palestinian-Jewish sources rather than Hellenistdc-Jewish sources.^ He goes on to say that Clement 20 in particular formed part of the Jewish catechetical instruction, with its many images of the Creator God.6 M . Dibelius is in harmony with van Unnik’s position, and says that Clement brought over many Jewish prayers, hymns and expressions, as well as exhortations, into the Christian community.^ This linkage with the LXX will be seen when some of the individual passages are studied in detail. K. Beyschlag says that Clement’s writings show a knowledge of Jewish homiletic tradition which relied heavily on repeating the history or experiences of the Patriarchs.^ This is especially evident in chs. 4, 7-11 and 20-21. E. Werner, taking his cue from Lightfoot, suggests that Clement was a Jew whose Hellenization was complete.^ Von Hamack says that first-century-Jewish soteriology made room for a salvation or righteousness that could be obtained by good works. He also says that Clement’s religious background, before becoming a Christian, was moralistic Judaism, and he points Graydon F. Snyder, “Clement of Rome," in Encyclopedia of Early Christianity, ed. Everett Ferguson (New York: Garland Publishing, 1990), 216. 5 W.C. van Unnik, ‘Is I Clement 20 Purely Stoic?,” Vigiliae Chhstianae 4 (1950), 184. 6 ibid, 7 M. Dibelius, “Der Brief des Jakobus," Kritischexgetischer Kommentar uber das Neue Testament (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck and Utrech, 1964), 38. 8 K. Beyschlag, Clemens Romanus und der FruhkathoUmmus (Tubingen, 1966). 9 E. Werner, “Post-Bibllcai Hebraisms in the Prima Clementis," HarryAutryn Wolfson Jubilee v .ll (Jerusalem, 1965), 817. 1 1 6 to the repeated references to a righteousness that is obtained by good works. And while the idea that a person could earn salvation was not uniquely Jewish, Clement’s extensive use of Old Testament images and people, suggests that the Old Testament may have been the source for this view o f salvation. The evidence that E. Isaac has unearthed, along with the earlier discussion of evidence of possible Jewish influence on the epistle, hints that Clement’s doctrinal development, including his doctrine of salvation, contained some elements o f Jewish thought 10 The internal evidence from the Epistle itself and the work done by scholars clearly indicate a significant influence of the LXX on the Epistle. References to many of the books of the Old Testament can be found in Clement including Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, 1 Samuel, 1 Kings, Esther, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel. Daniel, Joel, Amos, Jonah, and Malachi. The stories of Cain and Abel ( ch.4), Jacob and Esau (ch.4). Joseph (ch.4), Moses (chs.4, 12, 48, 53), Aaron and Miriam (ch.4), Dathan and Abiram (ch.4), David (chs.4,13), Noah (chs.5,9), Jonah (ch.5), Enoch (ch.9), Abraham (chs. 10, 17), Lot and his wife (ch. 11), Rahab (ch. 12), Job (ch. 12), Isaac (ch.31), Jacob (ch.32), Daniel (ch.45), and Esther (ch.55) are recounted. Clement used these quotes and stories from the Jewish scriptures (along with stories of Peter, Paul and Jesus) to draw lessons for the believers at Corinth. In ch.7.1 he says, “We are not writing these things to you, beloved, for your admonition [alone], but to remind ourselves.” And in v.5 he says, “Let us review all the generations, and let us learn that in generation after generation the Master has given a place of repentance to those who will turn to him.” After reviewing the stories of Abraham, Lot and his wife, and Rahab in ch. 10-12 he begins ch. 13 by saying, “Let us, therefore, be humble-minded...” And in E. Isaac, The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, ed, James H. Charlesworth, vol. 1 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday and Co., 1983), 9. 117 ch. 17 he evokes the names of Elijah, Elisha, Ezekiel, Abraham, Job and Moses, and says “Let us be imitators of those who went about... heralding the coming of Christ” (v .l). Nonetheless, to speak of a single Jewish doctrine of salvation in the first century G.E., just as to speak of a single Christian doctrine o f salvation in the first century C.E. is to ignore the richness of Jewish theological writings of the day. Also, it must be remembered that, just as Christianity was influenced and shaped by the cultures in which it existed and grew, so was Judaism. “Theological purity” cannot be claimed for any religion or philosophical belief system of the first century C.E. First Century Christianity The influence of what came to be considered New Testament texts is also seen in the epistle - though the use of these texts for the support of his arguments are not as pronounced. The New Testament texts either quoted or alluded to in the epistle are Matthew, Mark, Acts, Romans, I Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, I Timothy, Titus, Hebrews, and I Peter. With that in mind, the question must be asked, what form of Christianity was being practiced in Rome at the end of the first century? What Christian writers and writings had reached Rome? And what of Qement? Was he the head of a particular faction in Rome, and, therefore, defending a particular theology or ecclesiology? Perhaps these questions cannot be answered with the available evidence, but we can approach some answers by comparing his language and ideas to earlier Christian writings. There is internal evidence that Clement was familiar with some of the writings traditionally attributed to the Apostle Paul, the Epistle to the Hebrews, and the Synoptic Gospels. Clement makes direct references to the Apostle Paul, quotes from some of his epistles, and makes extensive use o f the Epistle to the Hebrews. Snyder says that Clement 11 8 “alludes to I Corinthians most often, but knows also the synoptic Gospels, Acts, Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, I Timothy, Titus, Hebrews, and I Peter.”! i Clement’s teachings are in agreement with the teachings of these documents, and are even expressed in the very words of these authors. However, “in two instances, the author quotes from what he calls “scriptures” that cannot be identified.”! - In 17.6 Clement quotes Moses as saying “But I am as smoke from a pot.” And in 23.3 he says, “Let the Scriptures be far from us in which he says ‘Wretched are the double-minded, who doubt in their soul...” Neither of these quotes are found in what we know to be the Jewish sacred literature or Christian texts. Hagner points to Clement’s knowledge of I Corinthians, and says that Qement borrowed from it! 3 Knoch says that the Roman Church in particular and its traditions were the most important source for the Christianity of 1 Qement. He points to numerous doxologies (20:12; 32:4; 38:4; 43:6; 45:7; 50:7; 61:3; 65:2) which are used at particularly solemn points as striking examples of the influence of the Roman Church’s liturgy upon the epistle’s language.! 4 However, Knoch offers no evidence that these doxologies were particular to Rome, nor does he establish that Roman Christianity had established a “tradition” by the time of the writing of I Qement He also ignores the impressive quotations from the LXX, which far outweigh the number of allusions or quotes from texts which came from part of the New Testament. And while the thoughts of the Apostle Paul in his first letter to the Corinthians are reflected in Qement it is evident that he is familiar Snyder, 216. 12 ibid. 13 D.A. Hagner, The Use of the Old and New Testaments in Clement of Rome, Supplements to Nov. Test, vol 34 (Leiden, 1973), 198. 11 Knoch, 56. 119 with and quotes other first century Christian authors, especially the author of the book of Hebrews. Wong detects in both the language and dependence on the New Testament literature a New Testament influence, and states that “Clement... has not significantly departed from the apostolic tradition.”! 5 But he fails to spell out what the “apostolic tradition” was, nor does he, like Knoch, establish proof that there was a tradition established in Rome that was so firmly entrenched that all the Christian churches in Rome followed it No “theological tradition” can be shown to exist at the end of the first century, and if liturgy is given birth by or at least is informed or given direction by theology, then an established liturgy is impossible to speak of. There simply is no evidence in the early Church of a single monolithic theological statement to which all Christians agreed. Doctrinal beliefs (including soteriological issues), ecclesiastical and liturgical practices, and the questions arising from them, were, from the beginning, so complex that to speak of an “apostolic tradition” at this point in the history of the church is to create positions that cannot be honestly defended by scholars. Stoicism While many scholars see Clement’s Christianity being influenced by a Jewish or Christian background, others stress the influence of Hellenistic Stoicism. These arguments, however, are not as strong as the arguments for the Jewish and earlier Christian influence on Clement. 15 W ong, 86. 1 2 0 If Clement was a literate, Hellenized Jew, as both Werner and Lightfoot contend' 6. then it is possible that he would have been familiar with the different philosophical teachings in the Hellenistic world, including Stoicism. Adolph von Hamack' ?, Richard Knopfi 8 and Louis Sanders' 9 see Clement's argument on natural order as clear evidence of Stoic influence upon the epistle. Wilhelm Jaeger, while detecting a whole system of Christian virtues emerging in Clement, states that Clement’s Christianity was closer to Stoic moralism than New Testament Christianity.^^ He concludes that Clement made use of Greek philosophical theory and interpreted it in the Christian sense in order to give it a special appeal to his Corinthian readers.- ' Hendrik F. Stander. while admitting that “modem scholars may draw attention to the parallels between Stoicism and Christianity,” and that some early Christian theologians “derived their terminology from Stoicism.” concludes that these early Christian authors “placed these terms in an entirely different world view and thus gave them a completely different significance.”- - He points to Tertullian (late second century) and Lactantius (fourth century) as early Christian authors who “drew subjects and principles from i6Seen.33. 17 A. von Harnack. Einffuhaing in die alte Kirchengeschichte, das Schreiben der romischen Kirche an die korinthesche aus der Zeit Domintians (I, Clemensbn'ef, (Liepzig, 1929). 18 Richard Knopf. Die Lehre der zwoif Apostel, die zwei Kiemensbriefe, (Tubingen. 1920). 18 Louis Sanders. L'Heiienisme de sait Clement de Rome et le Paulinisme, (Lovanii. 1943). 20 W . Jaeger. Earty Ctiristianity and Greek Paideia (Cambridge; Harvard U. Press. 1962). 19. 21 ibid. 22 Hendrik F. Stander. ‘Stoicism." in Encyclopedia of Earty Christianity (New York: Garland Publishing. 1990). 870. 121 Stoicism and used them in defense of Christian doctrine," but he does not mention Clement o f Rome.-3 W.C. van Unnik says that for Hamack e ra /, Clement 20 “is considered to be one of the aown-wimesses for Stoic influence upon this letter. It is a clear proof that I Clement has left the sphere of the Bible and that the ‘theologia naturalis’ makes its joyeuse entree in the church.”^ 4 The language that these scholars point to is found in 20.1-11a. Hamack, Knopf, Sanders and van Unnik all agree that Clement is urging peace and good order for the Corinthian congregation, which is the main concern of the l e t t e r . 2 5 in the first nineteen chapters the author of the epistle points to figures from the Old Testament, the Apostles, Christ himself and Christian martyrs as models of obedience and humility. However, it is in chapter 20 where the author o f the epistle appeals to the ordered harmony o f nature as a model for the Corinthian believers to follow. The heavens moving at his appointment are subject to him in peace. Day and night follow the course allotted by him without hindering each other. Sun and moon and the companies of the stars roll on, according to the direction, in harmony, in their appointai courses, and swerve not from them at all. The earth teems according to his will at its proper seasons, and puts forth food in full abundance for men and beasts and all the living things that are on it, with no dissension, and changing none of his decrees. The unsearchable places of the abysses and the unfathomable realms of the lower world are controlled by the same ordinances. The hollow of the boundless sea is gathered by his working into its allotted places, and does not pass the barriers placed around it, but does even as he enjoined on it; for he said “Thus far shalt thou come, and thy waves shall be broken within thee.” The ocean, which man cannot pass, and the worlds beyond it, are ruled by the same injunctions of the Master. The seasons of spring, summer, autumn, and winter give place to one another in peace. The stations of the winds fulfil their service without hindrance at the proper time. The everlasting springs, created for the enjoyment and health, supply sustenance for the life of men without fail; and the smàlest of animals meet together in concord and peace. All these things did the great Creator and Master of the universe ordain to be in peace and c o n c o r d . 2 6 23 ibid. 24 W.C. van Unnik, "Is I Clement 20 Purely Stoic?" Vigiliae Chhstianae 4 (1950), 183. 25 E.g. 2.2: 3.4; 11.2; 16.5; 19.2; 20.1,3,10; 34.7; 49.5; 50.5; 61.1; 65.1. 26 Lake, 43-45. 1 2 2 Van Unnik, while recognizing language used by Stoics, points to evidence not considered by Hamack, Knopf and Sanders, .ne point that van Unnik makes is that while the language is that used by the Stoics, there is a marked difference. He says: Among the Stoics the order seems more or less established in itself and makes men tinnk Jiat there must be behind it an organizing power, and that it is from the order of nature that this divine power can be known; in I Clement the order is established by the command of the Creator and reveals the will of God, the keynote of the passage being not so much the order in nature as the command of God... The point of view of the Stoics is anthropocentric, that of I Clement theocentric.-? Van Unnik points to phrases in ch.20 like “by his direction,” assigned them by him.” according to his appointment,” fulfillment of his will,” and finally, the “Creator and Master of the universe ordeied to be in peace and concord.” These phrases, according to van Unnik, make ch. 20 not purely Stoic, van Unnik is not saying that there is no Stoic influence, but for Clement the author of the peace and harmony is God. Van Unnik also speaks of some impressive parallels with Jewish literature which “are never mentioned [by Hamack, Knopf and Sanders] and for some reason or another overlooked. ”-8 van Unnik quotes passages from the First Book of Enoch chs. 2-5 and 41.5-8, Testaments ofthe Twelve Patriarchs, Test. Naphtali 3, the Assumption of Moses 12.9-10, and the Psalms o f Solomon 18.12-14, to demonstrate the parallels between Clement 20 and Jewish literature. And while it cannot be demonstrated that the author of Clement was familiar with these works, van Unnik points to the work of R.H. Charles on the influence of the First Book of Enoch on patristic literature.-^ Therefore, van Unnik concedes that “the tinge of Stoic language is unmistakable,... and there being a parallelism 27 ibid., 184. 28 ibid.,1 84-185. 29R.H. Charles, The Afxcrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, (Oxford. 1913), vol.2, 181. 123 with the ruling philosophy in Rome, he brought his ideas up to date by presenting them in a Stoic form.”30 Wong says that while the author of Clement “undoubtedly adheres to traditions of Hellenistic rhetoric and Stoic political philosophy, [the] precedents in the Judeo-Christian tradition should not be overlooked.”31 However, since Jewish and Christian as well as Stoic authors wrote about the value o f peace and harmony, it is difficult to assign a “purely” Stoic label to Clement 20. I have already demonstrated the Jewish and earlier Christian influence on Clement, and since writers from these two religions were concerned about the issues of harmony with nature, it can be argued that Clement's concern for these issues came ftom them. What must be kept in mind, however, is the possibility that Jewish and Christian concern for harmony with nature also came Irom a Stoic influence. However, while the scholars who argue for a Stoic influence have not detected that influence in any other part of the epistle, the use of Jewish and earlier Christian writers is seen throughout. Therefore, the most I can concede is that the peace and harmony o f the universe were common metaphors used by leaders of different philosophical or religious movements, either for the good of the religion (Judaism and Christianity) or because peace and harmony were viewed as morally good (Stoicism, Judaism and Christianity). 30 van Unnik, 185. 31 Wong, 87. 124 CHAPTER V III The Use of SiKoioauvri in Clement Clement used a form ofôÎKaïoç orôiKaLoaùvri orôiKuiôw forty-six times. nineteen of which were citations from the Septuagint.1 Ten of the uses are in passages which give insight to Clement’s soteriology. They are as follows: I) 3.4: Because of the sins of the people righteousness ami peace (ôiKaioaûi’ri kœ 'l eipiiiTi) are far removed. II) 9.3: Enoch was found righteous in obedience (èv utraro^ ôiK'aïoç). III) 10.6 cit: Abraham believed (ÉTTioTcuoei') God and it was counted unto him for righteousness (oi ko i oo ûwi ). IV) 13.1 cit: Men are to seek out God and are to do judgement and righteousness (TTOLdv Kpipa KafSncaicabi/riv). V) 30.3: A Christian is Justified by works (epyoLç ôiKaïoûpeuoi). VI) 31.2: Abraham was blessed because he did righteousness (ÔLKaLoaûuriL' TTOifjoaç). VII) 32.4: We Christians are not made righteous by ourselves (où ôi éauTwr ôitcaïoùpeBa), but through faith (oià Tfjç TTiaxecdç) God has justified (éôiKaitO(JEv)all men. V III) 33.7,8: All the righteous (ôÎKaïoi) have been adorned with good works (èpyoïç dyaBoiç), and therefore the we Christians are to work the work of righteousness (èpyaaûpcGa epyov Ôiicaiouaùiniç). ' cf. Goodspeed, 53-54. 125 IX) 48.2: The gate of righteousness (ôiKaiocûvT|ç) is opened by practicing love for the brethren. X) 48.8: Christians make straight their way in holiness and righteousness (ôiKaioaûvT]) by accomplishing all things. A mere listing of the passages where oiicaioaOi^ appears does not give us a clear understanding of how Clement understood it to function. However, a study of the passages above yields some interesting but confusing aspects of Clement's soteriology. In 10.6 and 32.4 Clement states that it is irîaTiç (faith) that brings about CLKaioaui/ri (righteousness). Knowing that Clement was familiar with the writings of the author of the epistle to the Ephesians.- we can assume that he was familiar with the statement in Ephesians, “For by grace you have been saved through faith (rriaTcw?)." Clement quoted in 10.6 Paul’s quote from Habakkuk 4:2, found in Romans 1:17 and Galatians 3:11, “0 ô l k c l o ç èic TriaTecoç (qocTai (the just man by faith will live)” for he quotes it himself in 10.6. Clement 10:6, then, would agree with the Pauline understanding of soteriology (at least the Pauline soteriology found in Romans and Galatians). This source of righteousness, i.e. faith, becomes all-inclusive in 32:4, for there God has justified (declared righteous) all men through faith. The argument is further strengthened in the same verse for he says that où ôl éaurojv ôiKaLoùpeGa (we are not made righteous by ourselves). Further, the righteousness that came to Abraham was accounted to him. The verb (èXoyiaGri) in 10.6 is in the passive voice as well. This was something that was done for Abraham or “set to his account.” 2 Clement’s language in 46.6 about 'one God, one Christ and one Spirit" echoes Ephesians 4.4-6 where the writer of that epistle speaks of 'one Spirit ... one Lord ... [and] one God." It is possible that this was ritual language used by Christians in many areas of the Empire. However, Goodspeed notes that Clement’s language in 59.3 resonates with Ephesians 1.18 as well. 1 2 6 On the other hand, in seven other passages (9.3; 13.1; 14.1; 30.3; 31.2; 33.7; 33.8) the obtaining of righteousness is tied directly to the Christian’s behavior. In other words, the righteousness that he needs for salvation is something that he earns. In these passages ÔLKaioaûiTi is used in the context of troiéw. (doing; 13.1; 31.2), epyoi" (works; 30.3; 33.7; 33.8) or {nraKop (obedience; 9.3; 14.1). The other passages above also link the obtaining of righteousness to the Christian’s behavior. In 3.4 righteousness is far removed because of the d p a p T ia (sin) of the people. In 48.1 the gate of righteousness is opened by practicing love for the brethren. It is Clement’s use of ÔLKaioaûi/r] in this sense of righteousness bringing rewards that is the greatest departure from the pagan use. I again quote Reumann who says that “only at times was there a religious side” to the p la n ’s use of ôiraioaûi'q “in connection with rewards and punishments for the soul after death or concerns with how the gods punish for acts contrary to their norms.”3 Does righteousness come through faith or works and obedience or both or something else? I will attempt an answer following an examination of the evidence for other salvation words. 3 Reumann, 743. 127 CHAPTER IX Clement’s Use of aï^a The blood of Christ as an agent of salvation is a predominant theme in the writings of some of the first-century Christian authors, especially in the writings of the Apostle Paul. Paul speaks of the blood of Jesus as a bringer of salvation in the epistles to the believers in Rome (Rom 3:25; 5;9), Corinth (1 Corinthians 11:25), Ephesus (Ephesians 1:7; 2:13) and Colosse (1:14,20). Luke also attributes to Paul a number of speeches which mention the blood of Jesus as being involved in the salvation process (Acts 17:26,20:28). All four Gospels, esf>ecially the gospel of John, mention the blood of Jesus as an agent of salvation (John 6). This aspect of Clement’s soteriology is a clear departure from the pagan concepts of salvation. As I stated on p.72, “the concept that Zeus or Apollo or Athena could bleed and die, and that death and blood somehow delivered human beings from a penalty of death ... was totally foreign to them.” There are passages in Clement which reflect the soteriological themes found in Romans, Corinthians, Ephesians and Colossians above. But they also reflect late Jewish tradition as well. What might be called the “inter-testamental” understanding of salvation among the Jews is seen in much of the apocalyptic and testamental literature that was produced during the post-exilic times and the beginning of the writings of the New Testament, Blood offerings as part of worship are seen throughout Old Testament literature. One only need look at the sacrificial system of the Jewish cultus. And whether one believes that the stories in Genesis reflect earlier beliefs or are stories created by later 128 authors to validate later cultic practices, there is evidence that sacrifices for sin. the shedding of blood, has a long history for the Jewish people.’ And it must be remembered that the Jews were not the only middle-eastern peoples whose religious practices included sacrifices. In Jewish history atonement was achieved mainly through sacrifices.- In the Hebrew Bible, life itself was in the blood; and blood is, therefore, the symbol of life.3 Indeed, once a year, on the r>ay of Atonement, the High Priest acted out a ritual involving the blood of a goat which removed of sin from the people. therd)y allowing God to remain in their midst.'* It was vital, therefore, for the Jews to repeat this ritual annually to assure the continued presence and blessing of God. We will see Clement drawing from both Jewish understandings and the New Testament canonical writings of what blood sacrifice does. I will first look at the passages where Clement seems to acclaim the blood of Jesus as the means of salvation. Analysis of Chapter 7.4 dTeyi'aw^ieu eiç t 6 aîpa t o O XpioToO tcai yvaipeu, côç è a r i u rip io v t w îrarpl aÙToû. ÔTL 8ià TTii' fi[i€Tai.’orai’ xdpiu ÛTriii'eyKei.’. 1 The Jewish background is set forth by LW . Barnard, T h e Early Roman Church, and Jewish-Christianlty,” Anglican Theological Review 49 (1967), 372-378. c1. P. HaupX, Journal of Biblical Literature XIX (1900), 61. H. Winkler, Religionsgeschirhtiicherund Geschtlicher Orient (1906), 29ft; A. Jeremias, Encyclopedia Biblica IVcol.4120: A. Jeremias, The Old Testament in Light of the Ancient East 2 (1911), 49. 2 Numerous passages in the Hebrew Bible speak directly to this issue. The clearest discussion is found in Leviticus 16. 3 Leviticus 16:11-14, H.B. Bum pus states, ‘Indeed, over and over again we read that atonement is achieved in the symbolic act of sacrifice, in which the blood of animals is offered to God as a sign of total abandonment to His will and as a sign of total humility in the presence of the all-high God." H.B. Bumpus, The Christological Awareness of Clement of Rome and Its Sources (Cambridge: University Press of Cambridge, 1972), 49. 129 Let us fix our gaze on the blood of Christ, and let us know that it is precious to his Father and brought the grace of repentance to all the world. This is one of the three references by Clement to the “blood of Christ” as a means of salvation. One of die things Clement says here is that the blood of Christ brings the “grace of repentance.” This phrase (“grace of repentance”) can be of late Jewish origin, since it is also found in I Maccabees 9.45; Josephus Am 16.258; Wisdom 1.10 and Sirac 4.5. And this repentance motif has echoes in the Wisdom literature of late Judaism. Two examples: And thou make thy sons to be of good hope because thou gavest repentance when men have sinned. > And: And thou overlookest the sins of men to the end that they might repent It also has resonances with Wisdom 10.11 where God gives the opportunity for repentance. Further examples are Zaduk 10.16; Sirac 44.16, 17.24, 18.21; Testament of Solomon 2.13; Ezra 9.12; 2 Baruch 85.2; 1 Enoch 65.11,63.1-11. Hall says that by citing examples of repentance from the Jewish Bible as authoritative, Clement seems to be saying that without repentance and forgiveness of sin there is no salvation.- He cites the experiences of Noah and Jonah as examples of this repentance, forgiveness, salvation process (7.6,7), and states that when the Ninevites “repented they received forgiveness of their sins from God... and gained salvation” (7.7). We can see, then, in this passage, causal relationships between sin, repentance, forgiveness and salvation. Bumpus points out that the call to repentance as the beginning ^Wisdom, 1 2 .9 . 2 Hall. 31. 130 of salvation is emphasized commonly in late Jewish literature.3 He goes on to say that "the whole structure of [Clement 7] suggests a Jewish-Christian theology of the Cross and emphasizes the part that man has to play in the plan of salvation by acceptance of the grace of repentance. ”4 Also strong in late Judaism was the notion of the atoning value of conversion- repentance through which reconciliation of man to God was achieved. Rabbi Eleazar ben Hyrkonos (c.90 CE) taught that man ought to repent before his death and gain reconciliation with God, and that if all Israel were to repent and turn to God, the Messianic salvation would appear. Therefore, Bumpus, speaking of Clement’s working of this idea, says that “it is not too difficult to see that the idea of sacrificial atonement would soon be united with the notion of personal response in order to secure reconciliation, and also to maintain that the death of Christ gave men the grace of repentance.”5 However, the part blood plays in New Testament soteriology. and its influence on Clement, must be taken into account because the phrase to a'lpa toO XpioToO (the blood of Christ) is a very powerful image in the writings of the New Testament authors. This phrase is one of the expressions of the early Christian community to signify the salvific power of the death o f Jesus.6 Notice the following examples. Then Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. John 6.53-54. 3 Bumpus, 91. < ibid. 5 ibid. 6 John 6:53-56; Acts 20:28; Romans 3:25, 5:9; Ephesians 1:7; Colossians 1:14; Hebrews 9; Revelation 1:5. 131 Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood. Acts 20.28 [Jesus] whom God set forth to be a propitiation by His blood. Romans 3.25. Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him. Romans 5.9. In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace. Ephesians 1.7. He has delivered us from the power of darkness and translated us into the kingdom of the Son of His love, in whom we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins. Colossians 1.13-14. Not with the blood of goats and calves, but with His own blood He entered the Most Holy Place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption ... how much more shall the blood of Christ... purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? Hebrews 9.12,14. Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler over the kings of the earth. To Him who loved us and washed us from our sins in His own blood. Revelation 1.5. Rudolph Bultmann indicates that the blood expression is very primitive in Christianity.7 It is found early, even in the Last Supper narrative of Luke, where the wine signifies the blood of Christ.8 Even earlier the Apostle Paul characterizes the Last Supper as Koiwuvia éanv t o O aiparcç t o O XpiaToO (participation in the blood of Christ).^ In Clement the beneficiaries of the shedding of the blood of Christ are the whole world. i ° We find similar language in Matthew (20.28; 26.28) and Mark (10.45; 14.24), although the 7R. Bultmann, Théologie des Neuen Testaments, 3rd ed. {Tubingen: Mohr, 1953), 47tf. 8 Luke 22:20. 9 1 Corinthians 10:16. 107.7. 132 expression ttoAAw v (many) is used in these passages rather than the more explicit “the whole world” of Clement 7.4. Yet an examination of the context of the passage in Clement reveals that it is not the “blood of Christ” but “repentance” which is the main theme. Chapter 7.3-8.5 can be outlined as follows: I) 7.3: Repentance is necessary. II) 7.4-S.4: Repentance is possible. A) Examples of repentance and God’s offer to conversion: 1 ) The blood of Christ has won the grace of repentance for the whole world. 2) The opportunity for repentance has been given back by God through all generations to those who turn to him. 3) Noah preached repentance to those who heard him and they were saved. 4) Jonah warned Nineveh and the people were saved by doing penance. 5) God Himself admonishes to repentance: a) Ezekiel 33:11:1 do not wish the death of a sinner, but his repentance. b) Isaiah 16:20: Wash yourselves and become clean. B) Wishing all to participate in repentance. He established it by His almighty w ill.' i Three New Testament authors reveals that repentance was a part of their soteriological framework as well.' - Luke twice quotes Jesus (Luke 13:3,5) saying to the people that unless they repent of their sins they will perish. In II Corinthians 7:10, Paul states that godly sorrow works repentance to salvation. And the writer of Hebrews declares in ch.6 that there is no repentance for those who have tasted the goodness of God, and have since turned their back on Him. 11 Hall, 32. 12 Luke 13:3,5: Acts 3:19; Revelation 2:5. 133 Therefore, the evidence suggests that it is possible that Clement drew from both Old Testament and New Testament works in forming his own understanding of the part repentance plays in the process of salvation. Clement's argument is as follows. In ch.3.4 he says that the sins of the Corinthians have caused righteousness and peace to be far removed. The “ôid toOto” in v.4 is referring to the sins mentioned in w .2-3 of ch.3. Sin, therefore, is the cause of the separation. Sin is removed by offering repentance to God. God w ill give forgiveness when repentance is offered, and salvation follows. And this repentance, Clement says in ch.7.4, is brought “to all the world” through “the blood of Christ.” And the blood of Christ “is precious to the Father,” for it is the final sign of the call to repentance. For Clement, then, both the blood of Christ and repentance are part of his soteriological understanding, but the context of the passage clearly indicates that repentance is the major part. There are two more passages in Clement that speak of the “blood of Christ” and its role in salvation; chs. 12.7 and 21.6. The passage in ch. 12 is the most direct linking of the blood of Christ to salvation, yet even here the blood of Christ, according to Clement, plays a secondary role to faith and/or obedience. In chapter 12 Clement says, “For her faith and hospitality Rahab the harlot was saved... foreshadowing that all who believe... shall have redemption through the blood of the Lord.” (w .1,7). Also, this text (12.7) is at the end of a discussion of Old Testament figures, beginning with Enoch and ending with Rahab, whose obedience is being extolled. In ch.21 Clement speaks o f “the Lord Jesus Christ, whose blood was given for us,” but he “gives salvation to all who live holily ... with a pure mind.” In both of these passages salvation is spoken of. and in both passages the blood of Christ is mentioned. However, it is not the only agent o f that salvation. In ch. 12 the blood of Christ is coupled 134 with faith and hospitality (<()iXo^ci/iar, lit. “love to strangers”), and in ch.21 it is the blood of Christ and a holy life that beings salvation. We can conclude from these three passages (7.4; 12.7; 21.6) that Clement couples the ideas of salvation and the blood of Christ. However, this blood does not stand alone as the only agent of salvation. Echoes of the Old Testament ideas of sacrifices/repentance are found in the passage in ch.7. And in ch. 12 the blood of Christ plus faith and love brought salvation. Analysis of Chapter 21.6 In ch. 21 the blood of Christ takes an even more recessive role, for although the “blood of Christ is given for us” (v.6), God “gives salvation to all who live in holiness.” TÔV icLiptoy ’Iriaow XpioTov. où to a'lpa ÙTièp fjpcjv èô60r]. erTpaTTcoP. Let us reverence the Lord Jesus Christ, whose blood was given for us. Verse 6 consists of five exhortations that Qement says the Christians are to give heed to: I) Let us reverence the Lord Jesus Christ. II) Let us respect those who rule over us. III) Let us honor the aged. IV) Let us instruct the young. V) Let us lead our wives. While the first three exhortations may be considered as attitudes that the Christians are to assume, and the last two to be specific duties, the point remains that the blood of Christ is merely mentioned as perhaps a reason to reverence him. It is not used in a soteriological context. 135 Verses 7,8 continue these exhortations, and v.8 ends with the instruction that the children are to learn TTüjç o (jxSpoç aùroû KaXôç kqi ^léyaç kqi aojCcju’ rrdi'Taç toùç èv aÙTtd ôoLCüÇ di'aoTp€(()onér'OU9 èv KaGapâ ôiai/oig (how beautiful and great is the fear of him, and how it gives salvation to all who live holily in it with a pure mind). Salvation is given to those who live ôoitoç (holily) in the <|)opoç (fear) of the Lord with a KaGapg oeavoia (pure mind). Furthermore, if Ka9ap6ç is being used in an ethical rather than a physical or ritual sense, then ethical purity and holiness of life which are the agents of salvation. And those two qualities seem to be secondary outgrowths of the more fundamental cj^opcç (fear) of God. This “fear" of God is defined by Clement in the next chapter as making “thy tongue cease from evil and thy lips that they speak no guile. Depart from evil and TToiriaov dyaBor' (do good). Seek peace and pursue it. The eyes of the Lord are upon the ÔLKaîouç (righteous)." (w .3-6). We see here, again, the coupling of “works" and “righteousness" in a soteriological context. In this passage, then, salvation is available to the righteous, and the righteous are defined as those who, by their works, make themselves ethically clean or pure. Salvation is not a gift from God, but is something that is acquired by those who live “holily" with “pure mind(s)." Clement perceives that those who give heed to and obey the exhortations listed in ch.21 have somehow earned merit in God’s eyes. This is a clear departure from the Pauline formula which states that the person who becomes a follower of Christ is declared righteous and responds with good works. In Clement’s soteriological scheme (at least in ch.21) the Christian does good works to become righteous. 136 CHAPTER X Clement’s Use of epya Eleven passages reveal that Clement used elements other than the blood of Jesus and repentance in his scheme of salvation. Clement speaks of inraKofi (obedience) in 9.3. icaSapà ôidi’oia (a pure mind) in 21.8, and epya (deeds) in 30.3 as agents of salvation. In 33.8 he says f|pwv epyawpeGa spy or' ôiKaLoaûvTiç (let us work the work of righteousness). In 50.5, identifying himself with his intended audience, he tells the Corinthian believers that we will be papKctpioi (blessed) if we ènoioûper' (perform) the commandments of God, and that by doing this forgiveness of sin is granted. In 58.2 he reminds the Corinthians that by TToifiaaç (having performed) the decrees and commandments given by God. they will be enrolled and chosen in the number of those who are saved. In other passages (35.2-5; 46.2; 48.4; 56.1 ) it is the theological message more than the particular language which reveals a number of cognate elements other than the blood of Jesus and repentance as contributing to salvation. The eleven texts noted above, then, fall naturally into two major groups, and they will be examined as follows: I) Comparing 9.3 with 10.6, and 30.3 with 32.3-4. The rationale for this is that these two pairs of passages share the same context while containing quite diverse statements about how salvation is to be had. II) The rest of the passages individually. 137 A Comparison of 9.3 and 10.6 In chs. 9-12 Clement exhorted the readers to obedience; and he endeavored to strengthen his reasoning by listing Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Lot and Rahab as examples of those who have rendered obedience to God. He also spoke of the rewards that each received as a result of their obedience. In 9.3 Clement says that Enoch was èu uTraico^ ÔLK'aïoç (righteous in obedience), but in 10.6 he says that Abraham’s ttlotlç (faith or belief) was the agent of his ôiKaioauvTi (righteousness). Is Clement, then, saying that righteousness is gained by obedience or by faith or both? Is righteousness gained by different people in different ways? The troublesome point is that this passage parallels Hebrews 11, which Clement quotes. In Hebrews 11 Enoch is listed as an example of those who gained righteousness by faith, while Clement lists Enoch as an example of those who gained righteousness by obedience. Hd>rews 11:5a reads, ttlo tc l ' Ei/wx p-CTexéGri TOÛ p.f] Loeu' Qdvaiov (by faith Enoch was removed [translated] so that he did not see death). So for Clement salvation is, at least in the case of Enoch, gained by obedience, while for the writer of Hebrews, faith was the means of Enoch’s salvation. It appears that Clement has taken a passage from Hebrews which commemorates the faith of some of the Old Testament figures and used the passage to extol their obedience. It is true that Clement does mention the faith of Abraham and Rahab, but even there that faith is coupled with either obedience (10.1,2) or hospitality (12.1). Clement’s anxiousness over the schism and immorality in the Corinthian Church caused him to emphasize obedience. 138 A Comparison of 30.3 with 32.3-4 Chapter thirty brings to an end another exhortation by Clement for “holy living" that began in 28.1. In 30.1 Clement lists those activities or behaviors that Christians are not to engage in. He says that Christians are to flee from “evil speaking, and abominable and impure embraces, drunkenness and youthful lusts, and abominable passion, detestable adultery and abominable pride." Clement goes on to say that not only are Christians to refrain from these practices, but to “do all the deeds of sanctification," for Christians are èpYouç SiKaioupev'CL (justified or made righteous) by deeds (v.3). But in 32.4 Clement says this: KQi f)peîç 0 ÙU, Old QtdXijiiaToç aùxoû èv XpiOTw ’ Iriaoû icXr|0éirreç, où ôl éauTÔji' ÔLicaLoù|ie0a, oùôè ôiù xijg ripcTépaç acxfiaç f) aurépeiaç ij ëpywr cou KaTeLpyaadpe0a èv ooioTriTi Kapôiaç, dXXà ôid Tijç TrioTecdÇ. And therefore we who by his will have been called in Christ Jesus, are not made righteous by ourselves, or by our wisdom or understanding or piety or the deeds which we have wrought in holiness of heart, but through faith. Therefore, we have the following: In 30.3 We Christians are èpyoLç ÔLtcaïoùpei/oi (justified by our deeds). In 32.4 We Christians are où ôiKaïoùpeùa ... Sià ... ëpywr (not justified by our deeds). In one text the epya of the Christians are specifically mentioned as an agent of righteousness, and later the epya of Christians are specifically mentioned as one of the things that will not bring righteousness. A further complication arises in 31.2 where he asks “Why was our father Abraham blessed (r|ùXoyf|0r|)? Was it not because he wrought (TToif|oaç) righteousness and truth through faith?" This statement seems to contradict what 139 Paul has to say about Abraham. In ch.3 of Paul’s letter to the Galatians he asks his readers to consider the experience of Abraham. In v.2 he differentiates between the “works (gpywi/) of the law” and the “hearing of faith (nioTewç). In v.3 he differentiates between the “Spirit” and the “flesh.” In v.5 he again differentiates between the “works of the law” and the “hearing of faith.” Qearly in ch.3 of Galatians Paul sees “works” and “faith” as opposed to each other. Then in v.6 he quotes Gen 15.6, “Abraham believed (èiriaTeuaev) God and it was accounted to him for righteousness (ÔLKaioaûi'riv).” In v.8 he says that “God would justify (oiKuioi) the nations through faith (Tiiaxetüç). And in v.9 he says that “those who are of faith are blessed with believing Abraham (cl €k Trîaxecjç èuXoyoOi'xaL oùv xw ttloxw ’ APpadp). Paul is quite clearly drawing a dichotomy between “works” and “faith.” He is making two points in this passage. He is saying that blessings and justification come from faith. And he is saying that blessings and justification and righteousness do not come from works. Abraham was blessed because of his faith, and those of faith will also be blessed. Clement, on the other hand, says that Abraham was blessed because he worked righteousness and truth through faith (ÔLKaïooùyriv Kai dXf|9eiay 6id iTLaxecüÇ TîoiTjaaç). Whereas Paul quotes Gen 15.6 which says that Abraham “believed in the Lord, and [God] accounted it to him for righteousness,” Clement says that righteousness is something that Abraham worked. Where Paul draws a sharp distinction between “works” and “faith,” Clement couples them together. Therefore, his statement in 32.4 that “w e ... are not made righteous by ourselves ... or (by) deeds (epyojy)... but through faith” seems all the more confusing. In 32.4 he, like Paul in Gal 3, differentiates between “works” and “faith” as a way to detain ôiKaiooûyr|. Some important questions arise in light of this evidence. Which did Clement believe? Did he simply not understand or recognize that he was contradicting himself? It is 140 difficult to say ‘*yes,” for it is clear that Clement was well read in both Jewish literature and the writings of the New Testament This study has already demonstrated that the author o f this letter was ready to allow various elements into the process o f salvation, i.e. works, the blood of Christ, faith, hope, and repentance. It is in this context that he can say in ch.30.3 that Christians are justified by their deeds. For Clement, righteousness is obtained in many ways. It seems that Clement is wrestling with the same dilemma the Apostle Paul was in Rom 5 and 6. Paul ends ch.5 by stating that even though “sin reigned in death, even so grace might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." Paul has spent ch.5 speaking of the “free gift" of justification through the obedience of Jesus Christ cf.w.15,16,19. Yet he is fearful that some may use that freedom as an excuse to continue in sin, so he continues by saying, “What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? Certainly not!" (ch.6.1). This is the same language Clement uses in ch.33.1 following his declaration that Christians are not justified by their deeds in 32.4. Ch 33.1 reads, “What shall we do. then, brethren? Shall we be slothful in well-doing and cease from love? May the Master forbid that this should happen, at least to us, but let us be zealous to accomplish every good deed with energy and readiness." What we have in Paul and Clement is a tension between dependence on Christ for salvation, and the need to continue to do good deeds. However, the difference is that Paul rejects good deeds as an element in salvation (cf. Ephesians 2.8-9), while Clement allows them. 141 Analysis of Chapter 33.8 In 33.8 Clement introduces the term 'ép-yov Sitccuocrwriç (the work of righteousness), and, whatever that is, it is something that the Christians are urged to work (épYaacüp.e0a). Since this term “the work of righteousness” is a hapax legomenon in patristic literature, and does not appear in any other first- or second-century Greek text, either Christian or non-Christian, its meaning must be deduced from the context' Chapter 33.1 begins by speaking of the need of Christians to do good works. In v.2 Clement asks the Corinthians rhetorically if they should be slothful in dyaGoiTOLia? (well-doing). He continues by saying that the Corinthian believers should be zealous to accomplish every epyoy dyaGoi' (good deed). Clement then spends w.2-6 recounting the work of God at creation, and how pleased He was at his own creative powers. Verse 7, then, returns to the theme sounded in v. 1: “Let us observe that all the oiKaioL (righteous) have been adorned with êpyoïç dyaGôç (good works).” Clement then urges his readers to follow God’s will without delay, and work the work of righteousness. Chapter 34 speaks of the reward of doing these good works. The believers are to be prompt in dyaGcTroLiar' (well-doing), for the Lord is coming (v.3) with (pioGôç, lit. “dues paid for work”-) rewards (salvation?), and to pay each according to his epyoi’ (work). And 1 ct. Goodspeed, Index Patristicus. 2 Thayer, 415. 142 finally, in 34.4, the Corinthians are not to be lazy or careless in irdy epyou’ dya06r’ (every good work). What conclusions, then, can be drawn from the evidence of this passage? First, as in chs. 13.1, 21.8; 30.3; 31.2; 35.2; and 48.4. there is a coupling of the terms BiKaiocrûi/r| (righteousness) with either epya (works) or rroiew (to do). Clearly Clement, at least linguistically if not theologically, is interested in linking together for the Corinthian believers the concept of righteousness and good works or deeds. Second, in chs.33-34, the context of 33.8, and which gives us another look at Clement’s soteriology. a form of the words epya or noiéw is used twelve times. I) 33.1 : dyaOoTTOLiaç II) 33.1; epyov HI) 33.2;epyoi? IV) 33.5: rroiTiowpev V) 33.5: eiToiTiaer’ VI) 33.7: ëpyoïç VII) 33:8: èpyaowpeOa V III) 33.8: èpyoi’ IX) 34.2: dyaGoTToiiat/ X) 34.3: êpyor XI) 34.4: ëpyov Righteousness, in these passages, is clearly coupled with good works which I believe is a synthesis from the various influences on his theology, plus his own understanding. In Judaism (see discussion earlier), the concept of salvation was closely tied to the idea of or the actual performance of sacrifices. In the New Testament writings, especially in the book of Hebrews, salvation is closely tied to the sacrifice of Jesus. That theme is almost entirely forgotten in Clement, for although the blood of Jesus is mentioned in his letter, it is not a strong element in his soteriology. The requirement of sacrifices for union 143 with the divine, either physically or metaphysically, which is seen in the Jewish. Pagan and Christian literature, is replaced by the requirement of good works. Good works by Christians assume, in Clement, a major role in the attainment of salvation. Analysis of Chapter 58.2b OTi 6 TîoLfjaaç èv TaireLyo He who with lowliness o f mind and eager gentleness has without backsliding performed the decrees and commandments given by God shalt be enrolled and chosen in the number of those who are saved through Jesus Christ A number of issues arise in this text First what does Clement mean by “enrolled” and “chosen?” ’EuTeXaypéyoç is another hapax legomenon in patristic literature, and èXXoyipoç is used only by Clement here and in 44.3 (eXXdyLpov’) and 57.2 (èXXdyipoiç). In these other two texts Clement is dealing with organizational and ecclesiastical matters rather than theological and not helpful in understanding any soteriological significance he might be attributing to this word. However, here Clement speaks of owCopéi/oç did 'Iqaou XpioToû (being saved through Jesus Christ). Whatever that phrase means to Clement, it is, in his understanding, not fully efficacious, for he says that those who experience that salvation (or who are included in the number) are those who also iroifiaaç (perform) the decrees and commandments given by God. The diKaiwpoTa (decrees) that Clement speaks of are, in 144 patristic literature, used only here and in 2.8 and three times in Barnabas.) In the two references in Clement, and in two of the three references in Barnabas, the ôiKaiwpaTa are ordinances given by God to his people in the past, i.e., the Jews of the Old Testament. I) Clement 2.8: rd irpoardypaTa koI rd ÔLKaicjpaTa t o O icupiou èm Td trXdTri Tf|ç Kapôiaç ùpüju èyéyTTaTTTo. (The commandments and ordinances of the Lord were written on the tables of your heart). II) Clement 58.2: t o û Geoû Ô€Ôo|iéua ôncaiiopara (The commandments given by God). III) Barnabas 1.2: t o û 0eoû oiKaiupdTuv clç ûpâç (The commandments of God to you). IV ) Barnabas 21.5: ’0 ôè 0£Ôç ocûv ûpîv ... Twv OLKaLcojidTcov aÛToû (May God give to you his commandments). In the Septuagint the Hebrew “choq,” “chuqqah” and “mishpaf" are all translated oiKaLwpaTa,^ and in many of those passages the word is used in the context of speaking of specific ordinances to be observed on the annual holy days, or ordinances dealing with the Mosaic laws concerning ritual purity. Therefore, to state that Clement is using the word in a different sense than its use in the LXX would be difficult for there is no linguistic evidence to indicate that he is. The strong connection with Jewish literature throughout the epistle adds to the evidence that Clement is here using Old Testament imagery in making his point There was among the Jews a belief that they were God’s “chosen” people, and that their names were “enrolled” in a divine book of life. This belief that God had chosen a particular people earned over into the writings of the New Testament^ Furthermore, there is not found in Clement any polemic against the Old Testament laws and ordinances of the Jews, such as that seen in other early Christian writers. Therefore, if Clement is using this 3 Barnabas 1.2:16.9; 21.5. cf. Goodspeed, 54. ''cf. Thayer, 151. 3 See I Peter 2:9; Revelation 17:14 145 word (ôiKaicô^iaTa) differently from its Old Testament usage, the exegete is left to guess what it might be. Is Clement saying that the performance of laws or ordinances which dealt with Jewish holy days and/or ritual purity are necessary requisites for salvation? He clearly states that those who do these things are the ones that are enrolled and chosen in the number of those who are saved. The difficulty in understanding Clement’s use of ôncaicôpaTa is not eased by his use of TTpoaTdypaTa (commandments), for this word presents similar problems. Clement uses TTpooTdypaTa here and in 2.8, 3.4, 20.5,, 37.1 and 40.5. In 2.8, 3.4 and 40.5 there is, again, strong Old Testament imagery, if not actual quoting of an Old Testament passage. Yet if Clement is speaking of the Decalogue (or commandments) he probably would have used evTaXpa or éiToXfi, the words used by the New Testament authors when speaking of the Decalogue.. How does he use TrpooTdypara then? There are two possibilities. First, since Clement couples the word irpoardypaTa twice with OLtcaitopaTa, it can be suggested that he is using the two words to enforce each other, a common practice in Old Testament literature, though mostly used in the poetic (or wisdom) literature i.e.. Psalms, Proverbs and Ecclesiastes. In other words, he may not be differentiating the two words at all. However, that still leaves one without an understanding of what decrees/commandments he is referring to. Secondly, since there is Old Testament imagery in three of the passages, and considering one of the major themes of Clement is a call to moral behavior, and considering that he says that these decrees and commandments were given by God, 1 believe that Clement is indeed referring to the Decalogue, and that he chose to use oiKaiwpuTa rather 146 than the more common New Testament usage of ewaaXtra. If this interpretation is accepted, then the “enrolled” and “chosen” that Clement speaks of here are those who, as in the Old Testament, perform the decrees and commandments given by God. 147 CHAPTER X I Clement’s Use of Xuxpov Thayer says that the literal meaning of Xurpov is '"the price paid for redeeming, ransom."I He says it was used a number of times in the LX X . In Leviticus 19.20 it is the price paid for the ransoming o f slaves. In Isaiah 14.13 it is the price paid for captives, and in Exodus 21.30 and Numbers 35.31 Xuxpov is the price paid for the ransoming of a life.- In the New Testament Xuxpoi/ is variously translated in the NKJB as “ransom,” “redeem,” and “redemption,” and in its verb form “deliverer.”3 The author of I Peter, while giving it a Christian twist, retains the original meaning by stating in I Peter 1.18 that the Christians “were not redeemed (èXuxpwGqxe) with corruptible things, like silver or gold...” What needs to be noted here is that the passages in Matthew, Mark, Titus, Hebrews and I Peter all speak of Jesus himself being the “ransom.” Indeed, he came to be the ransom, and by this act (being crucified) he paid the price for redemption. The Apostle Paul twice in I Corinthians (6.20; 7.23) reminds the believers in Corinth that they “were bought with a price.” And in 7.23 he says, “You were bought with a price, do not become slaves of men” (emphasis mine). 1 Thayer, 348. 2 ibid. 3 The New King James Version (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1992). 148 Analysis of 12.7 Clement’s three uses of Xurpov are significant to his understanding of how a person is saved. The first use is in ch. 12.7. O ld ToO aïpaxGç t o û Kupiou Xûrpwoiç èorai ndoiv t o l ç nioTeûouoii/ k o I éXTTiCouou’ èm t ô v Geôv. Ail who believe and hope on God shall have redemption through the blood of the Lord. Clement is recounting the story of Rahab in this passage, and says that the scarlet rope that she hung out of her window was a sign (aripeioi’) to the invading army that her home should be spared destruction. Clement says that the scarlet rope foreshadowed the blood of Jesus. In this passage Clement couples faith, hope and “the blood of the Lord" as elements which bring redemption. In this passage the blood of Christ acts as the agent (“through the blood of the Lord") through which faith and hope become effective to redemption. This coupling of Xurpou and alpa is a reflection of the “Christus Victor Theme of Salvation" where Christ liberated mankind by offering Himself as a ransom. In this passage Jesus is the “ransom," and he has accomplished that through his blood. It is an understanding of salvation seen in the writings of the New Testament (Matthew 20.28; Mark 10.45; I Timothy 2.6. O f course it could be argued that Clement arrived at this understanding on his own, but the language seems to point to an influence from the writers of the New Testament. 149 Analysis of 55.2 éTTiaTdp,e0a ttoXXoùç èv TrapaôeôtüicÔTaç éairroùç eiç ôeap.d. ôtcjç éxepouç XuTpwaoirrai. ttoXAoI éauroug TrapéôcüKay eîç oouXctiav. koI Xapôirreç raç xipaç aùxojv éxépouç è(j;wp.Loai/. We know that many among ourselves have given themselves to bondage that they might ransom others. Many have delivered themselves to slavery, and provided food for others with the price they received for themselves. Clement’s language here reflects the classical understanding of Xuxpou, coupling it with oeopd (bondage), Xuxpwoovxai (they might ransom), SouXetav (slavery), and xipdç (price). However, in this passage, it is not Christ who is being offered up as a ransom, but the believers themselves who are ransoming others, and they are doing this by going into bondage, and even slavery. Whether Clement is speaking literally or metaphorically is not entirely clear. In v. 1 he speaks of past kings and rulers who have given themselves up to death so that “they might rescue their subjects through their own blood, or who have left their homes to end sedition. In verses 4 and 6 he speaks of Judith and Esther. Therefore, we can assume that Clement is reminding the believers in Corinth of the sacrifices some believers have made for others, even to the point of going into bondage and slavery. Analysis of 59.4 In ch.59.4 Clement calls on the Lord to be “our help and succor.” He then begins to be a little more specific as to what he wants the Lord to do. He calls on him to “save those... in affliction, have mercy on the lowly, raise the fallen, show thyself to those in need, heal the sick,... feed the hungry, ransom (Xùxpwoai)our prisoners (oeopLouç), 150 ...” In this passage the ransoming that needs to be done is for those who are in prison. This is obviously a ransoming that the believers themselves cannot accomplish, for Clement calls on the Lord to perform this act. Also, the language here does not speak of the Lord already ransoming his followers, but a call to ransom them from their present situation. Therefore, we can conclude from these three passages that, for Clement, XuTpor had not become fixed into a meaning tied to what Christ had already done for his people, or that ransoming was something that only the Lord does. His use of it is flexible enough to allow him to use it to speak of: I) Ransoming, meaning salvation, coming through the blood of Jesus through faith and hope. II) The followers of Christ being able to ransom each other by themselves going into bondage and slavery, and by paying the price necessary. III) The work of ransoming done by the Lord on the cross (cf. 12.7) was not a finished work, but there were other aspects of ransoming that his followers still needed him to perform. 151 CONCLUSION In the second and third centuries, when a veritable plethora of Christian writings appeared (many being pseudopigraphical),' most of the earlier doctrinal questions (some of which are discussed in the writings of Paul and John) had not been resolved i.e., the nature of Christ, the nature of sin and forgiveness, what constituted salvation, and how to relate to secular authority. The early Christian authors’ theological understandings on these issues were naturally rather indefinite, imperfect, incomplete, and sometimes even seemingly self-contradictory. Charges of heresy began to be heard, and invectives were hurled between the theological combatants.: Clement seems to move freely from statements about salvation through the blood of Christ, by love, by grace, by repentance, by faith and by works with no noticeable intellectual difficulty. This was seen most clearly in the comparison of chs.9.3 and 10.6. Clement seems to believe that all of these are elements of the soteriological process. They are not mutually exclusive. While in 30.3 Clement affirms that Christians are èpyoLÇ ôiKaLoûpei'OL (made righteous by their deeds), in 32.4 Christians are où ... ôiKaïoùpcGa ... Old ... ëpycüi/ (not justified by their deeds). In one text the epya of the Christians are 1 Frend. 917-935. 2 The Apostle Paul, twice in Gal l (vv.8,9) pronounces a curse on those who are preaching another gospel. Paul says avaOeua etmo (let him be accursed). 152 specifically mentioned as agents of righteousness, and later, in the same passage, the epya of the Christians are specifically excluded as an agent of salvation. Clement's use of ôiKaLoaûvri (righteousness) also seems to carry with it several possible interpretations. But the ex^esis of the texts above clearly points to a coupling of ÔLKaLoaùiTi with the ideas of epya (works) and mraicofi (obedience). In other words, this righteousness is something that will come about through the accomplishing of good works, some of which are spelled out. Berkhof says that “There is a tendency to stress the necessity of good works, especially works of self-denial, such as liberal almsgiving, abstinence from marriage, and so on, to attach special merit to these, and to coordinate them with faith as a means of securing the divine iavor."3 An examination of the texts has proven Berkhofs analysis to be correct. When this is compared to post-exilic Judaism, some similarities become apparent. In Makkot 32a we read that salvation could be secured by the proper performance of a single commandment.4 In both the Hebrew and Greek versions of the Apocryphon o f Ezekiel, the criterion for judgment is the deeds performed in mortality.^ In the Apocalypse ofZephamah, every man is judged on the basis of his earthly deeds, and the righteous are delivered from Hades.6 And finally, 2 Baruch states that he who chooses to live according 3 ibid.. 165.203.204. '^Jervsalem Makkoî32a, Krotoschin. 1866. ^Afioayphon of Ezekiel, trans. J.R. Meuller and S.E. Robinson, v.i i. ^ Apocalypse of Zephaniah, trans. O.S. Wintermute. 3.5-9. 153 to the Law will receive eternal life.^ There are, therefore, some theological similarities between post-exilic Judaism and Clement in their soteriology, with an emphasis on works o f deeds. Scholars have detected three possible intellectual influences on the author of the epistle. The arguments for a Jewish influence are impressive. They include: I) Clement’s use of the Septuagint^ II) Clement’s use o f Jewish prayers, hymns and exhortations.^ III) Clement’s use of post exilic literature. IV ) Clement’s use of Jewish homiletic tradition, lo The arguments for a New Testament influence are readily apparent by Clement’s use of New Testament texts throughout the letter. This include the gospels, some of the letters of Paul as well as the pastoral epistles. He usess these writings to exhort the believers in Corinth to obedience, unit}' and harmony. I did not discover a pagan influence in Clement’s soteriology. While both Clement and pagan philosophers were concerned with correct or moral behavior, Clement tied that behavior to attaining salvation. The pagan philosphers simply did not do this. The arguments put forth for a Stoic influence are not convincing, and are based on a selective use of sources. It is much more likely that the Stoic influence is indirect at best, coming through Hellenistic Judaism. 2 Baruch, trans. A.F.J. Klijn, 32.1, 38.1, 48.22, 51.3,4-7, 54.15. 8 For a sampling of the Old Testament texts used by Clement of. the chapter dealing with intellectual influences on Clement. 9 of. n.7 in ch.2. 10 cf. n.8 in ch.2. 154 An argument can be made for an influence from the mystery religions, for both Christainity and the mystery religions were concerned with salvation ‘‘belonging alike to the present life and that beyond the grave.i However, Clement’s consistent use of both Old Testament and New Testament texts throughout the epistle as points as points of reference for the “truth” he was presenting, rather than pointing them to some mystical experience with God, relfects a Jewish and New Testament Christianity influence rather than that of the mystery religions. Finally, Clement has never been considered as one of the second-century apologists, and his purpose in writing was not primarily theological, but pastoral. Most commentators have seen the Epistle of Clement as a letter of exhortation to the believers in Corinth for unity in matters of ecclesiology, and a plea for moral behavior. This being the case, Clement is not concerned with precise theological statements, but drew on his own background and experience for his understanding of soteriology. On the other hand, it would be naive to believe that Clement does not bring to this work certain theological presuppositions, and these are seen from time to time in the letter. But these theological statements appear as part of his exhortations. He is not dogmatic in his understandings, for he does not appear to be battling any theological foes, but rather ecclesiastical foes. Yet we do see Clement’s theology, and because of the time in which he wrote, and the influence and wide circulation of his letter, his soteriology helps the scholar to a better understanding of how some o f the first non-canonical writers understood a doctrine that in the ensuing centuries was to have a major role in some to the most celebrated conflicts and produce some of the most colorful writings of the late Roman Empire. Angus, 226. 155 PLEASE NOTE Page(s) not included with original material and unavailable from author or university. Filmed as received. 156-160 UMI THE EPISTLE OF BARNABAS INTRODUCTION The study of the Epistle of Barnabas is beset with problems because of a lack of internal evidence concerning the authorship, the time of the authorship, the place in which it was written, and the audience for which the epistle was intended. In addition, the Epistle of Barnabas, so highly valued by other early Christian authors, suffers from a relative lack of attention by modem scholars. i O f the Apostolic Fathers, only II Clement has been given less modem scholarly analysis.- Before an examination of the text of Barnabas can be done to discover its thinking on the issues of soteriology, an attempt must be made to place the epistle in its broader, literary, intellectual, chronological, geographical and cultural contexts. And although it may be difficult to do this with certainty, there are internal indications which may help the scholar answer some o f the questions conceming its context 1 Clement of Alexandria (Stromata 2.20), and Origin (Against Celsus l .63) regarded The Epistle of Barnabas as Sacred Scriptures. The Codex Sinaltlcus regards It as canonical. 2 Among the scholars who have written about Barnabas are, Basil Studer, Dieu Sauveur. La redemption dans la foi de l’Eglise ancienne (Paris: Cerf, 1989) Studer looks at the concept of "savior” In the early church, and not just the views of Barnabas; Hans Lohmann, Drohung und Verheissung, Exegetische Unversuchungen zur Eschatologie bei den Apostolischen Vatem (Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1989). Lohmann’s work looks at Ignatius, Polycarp and II Clement as well as Barnabas; R.A. Kraft, "Barnabas' Isaiah Text and the 'Testimony BooK Hypothesis'Joumel of Biblical Literature 79 (1960): 336-350 and 80 (1961): 371-373; S. Lowy, T h e Confutation of Judaism In the Epistle of Barnabas'Journal of Jewish Studies 11 (1960): l - 33; J.A. K\e\sx, The Didache, The Efxstle of Barnabas, in Ancient Christian Writers (1948), Vol.6. 161 CHAPTER XII HISTORICAL CONTEXT OF BARNABAS Authorship Though the author of this epistle reveals much about himself, who he is specifically is not revealed. The epistle possesses neither an introduction nor a conclusion, and there is no evidence of the writer answering earlier correspondence to him, but there are points of agreement among modem scholars conceming the author of Barnabas. The author of this epistle is not the Bamabas mentioned in the New Testament as the companion of the Apostle Paul. I Kleist says that “it is generally agreed... that he was not the Apostle of the same name” for, he says, “no Apostle could have brushed the Mosaic Law aside as a deception of an evil spirit.”- It is Barnabas’ commentaries on Judaism and Judaism’s “misunderstanding” of the Old Testament that most modem scholars point to as the primary reason for rejecting the Bamabas of the New Testament as the author of this epistle. Quasten argues that “modem research has decidedly established that the Apostle Bamabas was not the author of this letter, because of the decidedly harsh and absolute repudiation of [the Jewish misunderstanding of] the Old Testament... The Old Law was not intended for [the] Jews. ‘Moses received it, but they were not worthy.’ [The letter] was intended for the Christian from the beginning ... Because o f this pronounced antipathy to everything 1 Luke writes of a Barnabas, the surname of a certain Joses, as a companion of Paul in Acts 4,9,11,12,13,14 and 15. He Is also appears In Paul’s epistles to the Corinthians, Galatians and Colossians. 2 James Kleist, Ancient Christian Writers vol.6 (Westminster, MD; Newman Press, 1961), 33. 162 Jewish. Barnabas [of the New Testament] cannot possibly come into consideration as the author of the Epistle.”3 Quasten goes on to say that a “wide chasm, furthermore, yawns between the teachings of SL Paul, to whom Bamabas was a missionary companion, and the views voiced in the Epistle of B a m a b a s .”4 However, while Quasten may be correct conceming the obvious differences between Paul and the Epistle of Bamaoas in terms of their understanding of how salvation is accomplished, it must be remembered that both the letters of Paul and the Epistle of Bamabas have been associated with early Christian anti- Judaism.5 To argue that the Bamabas mentioned in the New Testament cannot possibly be anti-Judaic is to argue from silence, for the Bamabas of the New Testament left no writings which would reveal his theology. Furthermore, no scholars have yet explored the possibility that Paul’s antipathy towards Judaism is reflected in the letter of Bamabas, whether the author of the letter is the Bamabas o f the New Testament or not L.W. Barnard agrees with Kleist and Quasten that “the authorship of the Epistle is unknown.”6 3 Johannes Quasten, Patrology vol.l (Westminster, MD; Newman Press, 1950), 89. " ibid. 5 Rosemary Reuttier, pertiaps the most important (and controversial) post-Holocaust writer on Christian anti- Semitism states that “Paul’s position was unquestionably that of anti-Judaism." She also places Barnabas among the early Christian writings “devoted to the anti-Judaic theme." Rosemary Reuther, Faith and Fratricide: The Theological Roots of Anti-Semitism (Minneapolis: Seabury Press, 1974), 104,118. cf. J. Alvarez, “Apostolic Writings and the Roots of Anti-Semitism," Studia Patristica 13 (1975) [= Texte und Untersuchungen 116]: 69-76. However, while all agree that the author of Barnabas is expressing anti- Judaic sentiments, not all scholars are convinced that Paul is anti-Judaic in his writings, cf. John Gager’s analysis of modem scholarship’s response to Ruetheris thesis i.e. Pauline anti-Judaism in his book. The Origins of Anri-Semitism: Attitudes Toward Judaism in Pagan and Christian Antiquity (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985), 24-34. 6 L.W. Barnard, T h e Epistle of Bamabas and the Dead Sea Scrolls: Some Observations," Scottish Journal of Theology 163 Peter Schineller says that “Scholars admit that next to nothing is known about the author ... [However, he is] not the companion of S t P a u l . ” 7 R.A. Kraft points not so much to the anti-Judaic remarks in the Epistle as a reason for rejecting the New Testament Bamabas, but says that “the awkwardness with which ... smaller units are incorporated into the present form of the epistle points to the whole-sale use by [Bamabas] of available blocks o f tradition."8 Finally, J.B. Lightfoot observes that “while there is evidence that some early Christian authors considered the Bamabas of the New Testament to be the author, later criticism,... with very few exceptions, has pronounced decidedly against this view, which indeed is beset with many difficulties.”9 What is ironic, says Lightfoot, is that “there is no indication, direct or indirect, that the writer desired to be taken for the Apostle Bamabas.”i o Quasten also says that “the letter nowhere asserts that Bamabas is its author, nor does it lay any claim even to an Apostolic origin.”! i Ferguson agrees, and says, “modem scholarship has rejected the attribution of the Epistle of Bamabas to the Bamabas of the New Testament”’ - 7 Peter Schineller, T he Kerygma of the Letter of Barnabas," The Bible Today (Feb, 1971), 253. 0 R.A. Kraft, The Apostolic Fathers, vol.3, Bamabas and the Didache (New York: Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1965), 21. Kraft presents convincing evidence that Bamabas is the product of a school of thought in early Christianity centered in Alexandria. He says that "both Bamabas and the Didache, as we now have them, show clear evidence of being products of a developing process." The evidence for that hypothesis will be presented in the discussion on the place of authorship. 9 J.B. Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers, parXA, S.CIement of Rome (New York: Macmillan and Co, 1890), 5 04. 10 ibid. 11 Quasten, 89. 12 Ferguson, 138. 164 However, a few early Christian authors attributed this letter to Bamabas. Clement o f Alexandria, as he quotes from the letter (which he does often) gives credit to the Apostle Bamabas {stromaia. 2.20). Origen calls it KaGoXitcfi èmaroXfi and numbers it among the books of Sacred Scripture {Against Celsus 1.63). The Codex Sinaiticus ranks the epistle among the canonical books of the New Testament and lists it immediately after the Apocalypse of St. John and before the Shepherd of Hermas.i 3 Scholars have pointed out that the author’s extensive quotations and allusions to stories from the Old Testament are an indication of a Jewish background. The author of Bamabas used many of the Old Testament books, including Genesis (in 5.5; 6.12,18), Exodus (in 4.7,8; 6.8,10,13), Leviticus (8.3,6,7,9,10), Numbers (in 9.1), Deuteronomy (in 4.8; 9.5), the Psalms (in 2.10; 5.13; 6.6,16; 9.1), Proverbs (in 5.4) Isaiah (in 2.5; 3.1,3; 4.11; 5.2,14; 6.1-5,7; 9.1,3), Jeremiah (in 2.7; 9.1-2,4), Ezekiel (in 6.14), Daniel (in 4.4,5), Zechariah (in 5.12). He was also familiar with Jewish ritual, speaking of the sacrificial system, holy days and the covenant Kraft says that the use of Halakic, Haggadic, Midrash and Hellenistic-Jewish propaganda shows that the author worked from a background “which is closely related to Hellenistic J u d a i s m . ” He goes on to say that “the very language employed throughout Bamabas to describe the Christian hope is directly and thoroughly rooted in the language of God’s dealings with I s r a e l . ” 15 Bamard argued that the author was a converted Jew, and stated that “in favor of the view that the writer was a converted Jew is the strongly Jewish character of his argument 13 For a listing of the major witnesses of the text, both Greek and Latin, cf. Kraft pp. 17-19. 14 Kraft, 20. 15 ibid., 33. 165 and his familiarity with Jewish rites.”^ ^ The author is familiar with not only the stories of the Old Testament, but with the cultic parts of Old Testament Judaism. In this context Bamabas mentions the Day of Atonement (7.1-11) and the sacrifice of the red heifer (8.1- 2). These stories and experiences of the Old Testament Jews are all^orized. Bamard points out that “the allegorical method of interpreting the LXX which is carried to extreme lengths was doubtless taken over from Philo.” 17 Quasten also sees the use of the allegorical method of interpretation in the Epistle as the influence of Riilo of Alexandria. Bamard contended that the author is not only a converted Jew, but a converted Rabbi, and the says that “the Rabbinic character of the Epistle is further illustrated by the division made by the author into Haggadah (1-17) and Halakhah (18-20), by its literary style and frequent use of the rhetorical question as a didactic device.”^ 8 These arguments, based on literary style, clearly point to an author who has more than a passing knowledge of Judaism, and one who is immersed in Jewish writings. 16 Barnard, 45. 17 ibid.. 46. 18 ibid. 166 Some scholars even point to Bamabas as an example of early Jewish Christianity.* ^ However, it must be said that the very concept “Jewish Christianity’’ is a modem and, therefore, troublesome classification. A reading of the growing body of work dealing with the issue reveals very little agreement as to what can be called “Jewish Christianity.” The term “Jewish Christianity” implies, at the very least, a Christianity that is Jewish in some manner. However, any further assumptions must be made with caution. Are Jewish Christians ethnic Jews, or is Jewish Christianity a type of Christianity which, while identified as Christian, has developed a belief system distinct enough to eam the label “Jewish Christianity?” And if this is a distinct type of Christianity, is the Epistle of Bamabas an example of that Christianity?”-*) The earliest Christians did come from a Jewish milieu, and there is evidence that some of them raised questions conceming the Jewish religious customs of fasting, circumcision, their relationship to the law and the place of the Temple in worship. These questions were not easily resolved, and were points of conflict as witnessed in the writings o f the Apostle Paul (Galatians 1-5) and the Acts of the Apostles (ch. 15; 21-17-40). For some Jewish Christians these practices carried with them soteriological consequences. 19 It is not the purpose of this dissertation to discuss ‘Jewish Christianity” in full. For analysis of. G. Hoennicke, Das Judenchhstentum in ersten undzweiten Jahthunderte, Berlin: Trowizsch, 1908: J. Thomas, Le Mouvement baptiste en Palestine et Syrie (150 av. J.-C. - 300 ap. J.-C.), Gembloux: Duculot, 1935; H.J. Schonfield, The History of Jewish Christianity : From the First to the Twentieth Century, London: Duckworth, 1936; H.nJ. Schoeps, Theologie und Geschechte des Judenchristentums, Tubingen: Mohr, 1949; J.A. Fitzmyer, T h e Qumran Scrolls, the Ebionites and Their Literature," ThS 16 (1955): 335-372; J. Munck, ■Jewish Christianity in Post-Apostolic Times," New Testament Studies 6 (1959-1960): 103-116; M. Simon, Recherches d’histoire Judeo-Chretienne, Paris: Mouton, 1962; P. Vielhauer, "Jewish Christian Gospels," New Testament Studies, Vol.l, pp.l 17-165; H.D. Betz, "Orthodoxy and Heresy in Primitive Christianity,” Interpretation 19 (l 965): 299-311 ; M. Simon, "Problèmes du Judeo-Christianisme," Aspects du Judeo- Christianisme: Colloque de Strasbourg 23-25 Avril 1964, Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1965: l- 17; S. Pines, The Jewish Christians of the Early Centuries of Christianity According to a New Source, Jerusalem: Central Press, 1966; F. Manns, "Bibliographie de Judeo-Christianisme," Studium Bibiicum Frandscanum, Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing Press, 1979; R.A. Pritz, Nazerene Jewish Christianity, Leiden; Brill, 1988. 20 A valuable discussion of Jewish Christianity is provided by Glen A. Koch in Encyclopedia of Early Christianity, 4 88-491. 167 Acts 15.1 reads, “And certain men came down from Judea and taught the brethren, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.’” The context of the passage in Acts reveals that it was Jewish Christians (in Jerusalem) who were raising these questions. They are identified as Christians, for they were allowed to come and “teach the brethren.” The text also indicates they were representatives from the leaders in Jerusalem, for when addressing the leaders in Jerusalem, following his rehearsal of what had taken place (described in v .l) Paul says in v.lO, “Now therefore, why do you test God by putting a yoke on the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?” We have clear indication here that the questions concerning believers continuing to practice Jewish ritual were already being raised. These questions, and the tensions which they caused, did not go away. O f the church Fathers, Irenaeus (Against the Heretics 2.16.1), Justin Martyr (Dialogue with Trypho 16), Tertullian (An Answer to the Jews 1), Hippolytus (Expository Treatise Against the Jews 7) and others speak o f tensions between gentile and Jewish Christians. The Gospel o f the Nazarenes, the Gospel o f the Ebionites, and the Gospel o f the Hebrews give scholars a more direct reading of Jewish Christian thought. A.F.J. Klijn and G.J. Reinink, while admitting that it is impossible to draw a general outline of early “Jewish-Chrisdanity,” have identified a rejection of the virgin birth, the repudiation of the Apostle Paul, a rejection of the sacrifices at the Temple in Jerusalem, the taking of special oaths, frequent purifications, the partial or total repudiation of the prophets, praying in the direction of Jerusalem, and living according to the Jewish Law as beliefs held by Jewish Christians.- • However. Klijn and Reinink remind us that we have here a description of the belief system o f a group of people who are being described by 21 A.F.J. Klijn and G.J. Reinink, Patristic Evidence for Jewish-Ctiristian Sects (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1973). I will argue later that Barnabas has an Egyptian authorship, and Klijn and Reinink have concluded that only the Ebionites (of the five sects which they identify are specifically Egyptian. However some of the beliefs held by the Ebionites are shared by other Jewish-Christian sects, cf. their conclusions on pp.67-73. 168 their avowed enemies, and, therefore, may not be actual beliefs held by “Jewish Christians.’’- - However, if these are beliefs which some or most of those who come to be identified as “Jewish Christians” held, they are not expressed in the epistle of Barnabas. There is no mention in Barnabas of the virgin birth, special oaths or frequent purifications, or praying in the direction of Jerusalem. The Apostle Paul, if not quoted, is alluded to; the sacrifices are now rejected, for Jesus has come as the great Sacrifice; the prophets are quoted often, and the law is not binding on Christians. The questions raised by the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem concerning fasting, circumcision, the relationship of the law, and the place of the Temple in worship are also not practices which are urged in Barnabas. By the definition of Klijn, Barnabas” femiliarity with Judaism does not make him a Jewish Christian. The evidence from the text o f the epistle is quite convincing that the author was a former Jew. The author’s obvious knowledge o f Jewish beliefs and rituals, his understanding of the meanings of the sacrificial system described in the Old Testament, the similarity in style to contemporary Jewish apocalyptic all point to an author who was either bom a Jew and raised in a Jewish setting, or a gentile who at some point converted to Judaism and immersed himself in Judaism, so much so that he could use the Old Testament to support his arguments against his former belief system. 22 Klijn and Reinink state that th e Jewish-Christianity ascribed to the Corinthians is an invention of early Christian authors." And that th e Symmachians [another group accused of being Jewish Christian] were a product of the imagination of early Christian authors." ibid., 68. I don’t believe that Klijn and Reinink are saying that Jewish-Christianity did not exist, for the evidence is too compelling. Their caution is simply not to take what is said about the different “Jewish-Christian” sects at face value. 169 Time of Authorship Barnabas’ discussion in ch. 16 of the destruction of the Jewish “temple” seems to be the point of departure for many scholars who deal with the time of the authorship.-^ Ch. 16.1-10 reads: 1 .1 will speak with you concerning the Temple, and show how the wretched men erred by putting their hope on the building, and not on the God who made them, and is the true house of God. 2. For they consecrated him in the Temple almost like the heathen... 3. Furthermore [the Lord] says again, “Lo, they who destroyed this temple shall themselves build i t ” 4. That is happening now. For owing to the war it was destroyed by the enemy; at present even the servants of the enemy will build it up again. 5. Again, it was made manifest that the city and the temple and the people of Israel were to be delivered up... 6. But let us inquire if a temple of God exists. Yes, it exists, where he himself said that he makes and perfects i t For it is written, “And it shall come to pass when the week is ended that a temple of God shall be built gloriously in the name of the Lord.” 7 .1 find then that a temple exists. Learn then how it will be built in the name of the Lord. Before we believed in God the habitation of our heart was corrupt and weak, like a temple really built with hands, because it was full of idolatry, and was the house of demons through doing things which were contrary to God. 8. “But it shall be built in the name of the Lord.” Now give heed, in order that the temple of the Lord may be built gloriously. Learn in what way. When we received the remission of sins, and put our hope on the Name, we be&me new, being created again from the beginning; wherefore God truly dwells in us, in the habitation which we are. 9. How? His word of faith, the c^ling of his promise, the wisdom of the ordinances, the commands of the teaching, himself prophesying in us, himself dwelling in us. by opening the door of the temple (that is the mouth) to us, giving repentance to us, and thus he leads us, who have been enslaved to death into the incorruptible temple ... 10. This is a spiritual temple being built for the Lord.-^ In V. 1 he specifically refers to the temple as “the building” (x fiv oiKooop.Tir’). However, in the same verse he says that God himself is the “house of God” (loç orra oÏKov’ 6eoû). In v.2 the temple is the building in which the Jews devoted themselves to 23 For some reason Richardson and Shukster state that "most [scholars] agree in excluding from discussion ... the passages in Barnabas that might be thought to conceal an indication of the date." ibid. As the discussion will demonstrate most scholars do in fact use the passages in Bamabas for a basis of their discussions concerning the date of the epistle. 24 Trans, from Lake, 35-37. 170 God. However, in v.3 Bamabas quotes Jesus as saying , “Lo, they who destroyed this temple shall themselves rebuild i t ” This seems to be a paraphrase of words attributed to Jesus in John 2.19, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” And John, parenthetically, says in v.21 that Jesus “was speaking of the temple of his body.” The same language of destruction followed by restoration is used in ch. 16.1-3 of the Bamabas text Therefore, by paraphrasing John 2.19, Bamabas was aware of John’s commentary two verses later, and if John specifically refers to Jesus as the Temple, and Bamabas is paraphrasing the verses where John does that, then it can be concluded that Bamabas is referring to Jesus as the Temple as well. Verse 5 seems to be speaking again of the physical temple, though this is not certain, for there are a number of things in this text that argue against a literal understanding of the “temple.” Verses 3-5 reads: Furthermore, [the Lord] says again, “Behold, they who destroyed this temple shall themselves build it.” That is happening now. For owing to the war it was destroyed by the enemy; at present even the servants of die enemy will build it up again. Again, it was made manifest that the city and the temple and the people of Israel were to be built up again. First, the author says in v.4 that the rebuilding of the temple is already happening (yri'ETai), and that “at present (uOv) even the servants of the enemy will build it up again (di/oLK-oùpi'aouaLv).” This cannot be a reference to the physical temple, for it was destroyed in C.E. 70 and never rebuilt. Further the context suggests that the city and the temple and the people of Israel, destroyed in “the war” (to TioXe|ieÎF) are all included in a rebuilding. Again, one might assume that the war being referred to is the Bar Kokhba revolt where, indeed the city and the people of Israel were destroyed. However, although the city was eventually rdJuUt, the temple was not, and the Jews were forbidden to enter the city. 171 In V.5 Bamabas, quoting Enoch, says that this destruction is a fulfillment of Scriptures, and that in the last days “the Lord shall deliver the sheep of his pasture |the people of Israel?}, and the sheep-fold [the city?], and their tower [the temple?} to destruction." If those who maintain that (1) the epistle was written after 70 C.E., and that (2) the temple referred to in ch. 16 is the physical temple, then Bamabas’ assertion in v.6 that the temple does indeed exist becomes undecipherable.-^ Verse 6 reads: “But let us inquire if a temple of God exists. Yes, it exists, where he himself said that he makes and perfects it" Bamabas makes it clear that the temple in v.6 is something that God is making and perfecting, and in w.6-8 Bamabas argues that the believers in Christ become the temple when they become Christians. “Now give heed, in order that the temple of the Lord may be built gloriously. Leam in what way. When we received the remission of sins, and put our hope on the Name, we became new, being created again from the beginning." (v.8). Finally, in v. 10 he says that “this is a spiritual temple being built for the Lord." Therefore, to argue that the temple being discussed in ch. 16 is only the physical temple in Jerusalem is not attested by the text itself. Perhaps Bamabas has taken the destruction of the temple, and made a number of all^orical interpretations to fit the argumentfs) he is making. For here in ch. 16 the temple becomes not only the physical temple in Jerusalem, but God, Jesus and the believers. Quasten, Danielou, Hamack, and Lietzmann believe that the author is speaking of the destruction of the physical temple either in 70 C.E. (Quasten. Danielou) or following the Bar Kokhba revolt in 135 C.E. (Hamack, Leitzmann). In his discussion of the authorship of the epistle Quasten states that “it is absolutely certain that the Epistle was 25 Richardson and Shukster, while dismissing textual evidence from the epistle that other scholars have used i.e. ch.16. they state in their conclusion that "Bamabas was written on the basis of information that the Temple might soon be rebuilt." ibid., 55.. Richardson and Shukster have, therefore, concluded, along with many other scholars, that the Temple being discussed in ch. 16 is the physical temple in Jerusalem. 172 penned after the destruction of Jerusalem; chapter 16 proves this c le a rly .T h e author of Bamabas does, indeed, mention the destruction of a temple in ch. 16, and Quasten believed that the writer is speaking of the destruction of the Temple by the armies of Titus and Vespasian in A.D.70. Kleist agrees, placing the time “between the destruction of Jerusalem in the year 70 [C.E. j and the second catastrophe in Hadrian’s time.”:? Danielou says that “the Epistle was composed after the fall of the Temple, since it contains an allusion to this event, but it comes soon enough afterwards for there still to be a possibility of the Temple’s being rebuilt (16.7). This can only apply to the reign of Hadrian (C.E. 117-138), and the text ought to be placed somewhere about the year 120.”-8 Smallwood, agreeing with Danielou, says that “the [epistle) was written between the destruction of the Temple and the revolt of Bar Kokhba.”-9 This is not, however, a unanimous opinion. Quasten mentions that Funk believes the author of the epistle is referring to “the supernatural temple of God’s church” (emphasis his).30 If Funk believes that the destruction Bamabas refers to is the persecution falling on the church, it could be placed during the reigns of Nero (54-68), Domitian (81-96), Nerva (96-98) or Trajan (98-117), for there was persecution of Christians under each of these Emperors, Nero’s persecution 26 Quasten. 89.W 27 Kleist, 29. 28 Danielou, 33. He goes on to say that the Epistle "reflects a moment in the history of Jewish Christianity in Egypt at which the Roman persecution of Trajan's day seemed to have died down, and the conflict was chiefly with the Jews. From this point of view it is contemporary with the Preaching of Peter , also quoted by Clement of Alexandria (Stromata 5.5.42). 29E.M. Smallwood, The Jews Under Roman Rule, (Leiden: Brill), n.6, 430. 30 Quasten, 90. 173 of the Christians was confined to Rome, and did not extend to Egypt. Therefore the time in question would fell in the reign of either Domitian, Nerva or Trajan. Barnard states that, “this Epistle in all probability was written from Alexandria some time in the reign o f Hadrian (A.D. 117-138).”3 1 Quasten alludes to both Hamack and Lietzmann who believe that the epistle was penned following the destruction o f the city in the Bar Kokhba revolt, which would place the time of writing after 135 C.E.32 The evidence, therefore, suggests that the letter of Bamabas was written following the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. Bamabas was given to allegorical interpretations, so we may assume that he used the actual destmction of the temple in 70 C.E. and gave it an allegorized interpretation. We do not find any evidence of this in ch. 16. Therefore, although the exact date of the letter cannot with certainty be deduced from intemal evidence, it seems reasonable to place the letter near the end of the first century or the beginning of the second century. Place of Authorship Quasten says that “the use of the allegorical method of interpretation in the Epistle points to Alexandria as the home of the a u t h o r .“ 3 3 And while the use of the allegorical method of interpretation can point to an Alexandrian authorship, that, alone, cannot be taken as final proof that the Epistle comes from Alexandria. Scholars have suggested that there were three main “schools" of interpretation in the early church, centering around 31 Barnard, 45. 32 Quasten, 91. 33 ibid., 89. 1 7 4 Rome (practical, legal), Antioch (typological) and Alexandria (allegorical).34 It cannot be argued, however, that no Christian writers at Antioch or Rome used the allegorical method of interpretation. The argument of Quasten implicitly assumes that nowhere else in the Christian community was the allegorical method of interpretation being utilized.^) And while Alexandria is recognized as the center of allegorical interpretation of Scripture for both Jewish (Riilo) and Christian (Clement of Alexandria, Origen) authors, allegorical interpretation of ancient texts was not confined to Alexandria Quasten, however, strengthens his argument of an Alexandrian authorship by saying that “the influence of Philo (c.40) [of Alexandria) is unmistakable. This is not to say that Philo’s influence was confined to later Alexandrian authors ... That influence of Philo, in part, would also explain why the Epistle was regarded so highly among the later theologians of Alexandria, Clement and Origen.”36 MacLennan says that “it is clear from most of the recent and earlier research on Philo and his environment that Philo made a significant impact on Jewish and, later, Christian thought in the city.”37 Danielou says that Clement of Alexandria’s quote of Bamabas in stromata 2.7.35 and Origen’s quote in Against Celsus 1.63 indicate an Alexandrian authorship. Clement does in fact quote Bamabas more than once, but this is hardly evidence of an Alexandrian authorship. At best it indicates the epistle of Bamabas was known in Alexandria Likewise. Origen’s quote of Bamabas in Contra Celsim 1.63 is not an indication that Origen believes that the Epistle originated from Alexandria Origen’s reference to the ^ cf. Gonzalez, 92-96. 35 Danielou, in fact, perceives in Bamabas what 'may be called figurative orfypoiogicar methods of interpretation along with "moral allegories in the rabbinic manner." Danielou. 34. 36 Quasten, 89. 37 R.S. MacLennan, Early Texts on Jews and Judaism (Atlanta; Scholars Press, 1990): 31. 175 epistie as “the general Epistle of Bamabas" indicates that the letter was one which Origen felt comfortable quoting as an authoritative voice, and that the readers of Origen would, then, accept the epistle of Bamabas as authoritative. But this does not mean that the letter would have to have an Alexandrian authorship. If Danielou wants to find confirmation of his belief of an Alexandrian authorship of Bamabas he will not find it in Clement or Origen. Other scholars are less sure of an Alexandrian authorship. Kleist, less emphatically than Quasten, says that the argument that “[the author of the letter] was an Alexandrian is plausibly inferred firom his excessive fondness for the allegorical method of interpreting the Scriptures."38 Walter Bauer is even less sure of an Alexandrian authorship, and says that “its origin in Egypt is no more than a possibility.”39 Hamack, addressing the much wider question of early Alexandrian Christianity, says that "we can with more-or-less- probability suppose that certain very ancient Christian writings (e.g.. The Epistle o f Bamabas ...[et aliaf) are of Egyptian or Alexandrian origin. Finally, although the use of allegorical method of interpretation is compelling evidence o f an Alexandrian authorship, there is no intemal evidence from the text to support that conclusion, and no contemporary or near contemporary writers place the author of the epistle in Alexandria. Therefore, the conclusion that Bamabas has an Alexandrian authorship must remain tentative. 38 Kleist. 33. 39 W alter Bauer. Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress Press. 1971). 47. 40 A. Harnack. The Missionary Expansion of Christianity in the First Three Centuries, ed. and trans. J. Moffatt. 2nd ed. vol. II (New York, 1908): 159-160. For evidence of churches in second-century Alexandria see A. Calderini. Dizionario dei nomi geografici e topograpici dell'Egitto greco-romano (Milan:Cisalpino- Goliardica. 1935). 165-178. Also A. Adriani. Reporrio d’arte dell'Egitto greco-romano . Series C. 2 vols.. (Palermo:Fondazione. 1966): 1:216-217. 176 The Audience of the Epistle Unlike the letters of the Apostle Paul and the Pastoral Epistles, the introductions of which carry greetings to particular churches or individuals,the Epistle o f Bamabas has no such greetings. Ch. 1.4-5 gives no indication who the recipients of the tract are. Bamabas simply says that he is sending this letter to “sons and daughters, in the name of the Lord” (1.1). Where these fellow believers are, either in the same community or in another part of the empire, is not indicated. Quasten's observation, then, that “the content is general and gives no indication of being directed at particular individuals” is well taken.^: There is no intimation that the letter was intended for a particular person or a particular group of people. There are, however, some possibilities which can be considered vis-a-vis the letter’s anti-Judaism. The first is that the Epistle was intended for a church or churches, and the anti- Judaic portions of the letter can be viewed as warnings to the Christians not to listen to the teachings of the Jews. However, this warning would not need to be sounded unless this was actually happening or there was the danger of this happening. Although there were the “Jewish Quarters” in Alexandria, we have no evidence that the Jewish populations in the cities of the rest of the Empire were restricted to “ghettos.” In most communities the Jewish portions of the population lived, had commerce, and socialized with their non- Jewish neighbors. We also know that both Jews and Jewish-Christians were actively '*1 cf. Romans 1.1-7; I Corinthians 1.1-3; II Corinthians 1.1-2; Galatians 1.1-5; Ephesians 1.1-2; Philippians 1.1-2; Col 1.1-2; I Thessalonians 1.1; I! Thessalonians 1.1-2; I Timothy 1.1-2; II Timothy 1.1-2; Titus 1.1-4; Philemon 1.1-3. "*2 Quasten, 85. 177 proselytizing during this time.^3 In the New Testament the Apostle Paul speaks of Jewish Christians who claimed that new Christians, both Jewish and non-Jewish, must follow the demands of the law.44 Fnend presents this picture of Jewish proselytizing in this era. Josephus, like Riilo a generation before, believed strongly in the universal mission o f Judaism. In Against Apion [2.39.280-86], he tells the Alexandrians that they would receive a warm welcome from their Jewish brethren if they joined them. His appeal to the pagans was pitched high [ibid., 2.291-95]. “Distinguish between piety and impiety,” worship not in temples made with hands, but spiritually, as exemplified by the prophets... On one ground or another Judaism ... was presenting itself as a universal religion. It did not fall entirely on deaf ears. Juvenal, writing of Rome c. 125, shows that conversion to Judaism could be gradual but involved families over two generations [Satires 14.96ff]. But the results were thorough. Justin Martyr was to refer (c.l60) to these converts being among Christianity’s worst adversaries {Dialogue with Trypho 122.2].45 He goes on to say that “both Jews and Christians were competing for converts. It would be a mistake to think that after the fall of Jerusalem Judaism turned in upon itself.”46 Earlier Frend says that ‘Philo was... a fervent missionary for his faith. He saw the Jews as the suppliants for the remainder of humanity, for which task they had been chosen by God [Embassy 1.3]... Conversion to Judaism was a sign of the individual’s progress towards God, an illumination like initiates experience on entering a mystery.”47 Dio Cassius says in History 57.18.5a that the Jews in Alexandria were “converting many of '‘3 cf. Reuttier, 123: John Gager, The Origins of Anti-Semitism, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985), 30. Gager cites Josephus, Antiquities, 18.55-84: Tacitus, Annals, 2.85.4: Suetonius, Tiberius, 36 (cf. Claudius, 25.4): Dio Cassius, History, 57.18.5a: and Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 8.4: 23.3-5: 123.1., to demonstrate the anti-Judaic tone in the writings both pagan and early Christian writers. 4^ cf. Galatians 3. 45 Frend, 15,126. 46 ibid., 125. 47 ibid., 36. 178 the natives to their ways.” Therefore, If Bamabas could discredit Jewish practices, and better, Jewish understanding or ywûaiç of their own holy Scriptures, he would have made a major blow to their credibility. Again, it seems that Bamabas would not go to the trouble of discrediting Jewish understanding of their own Scriptures if the Jews were not endeavoring to convert the non-Jewish portion of the population on the basis of their understanding of their Scripture, or if the Christians were not attracted to Jewish views. The argument against the Jews would be especially telling if the letter was sent to Alexandria, where a Hellenistic appreciation of true yvûaiç was highly valued. Indeed, Bauer observes that “quite significant is the high esteem enjoyed by the concept ‘knowledge’ and the term ‘gnosis’ in Bamabas. We find the progression repeated: ‘wisdom, insight, knowledge, gnosis’ (2.3; 21.5). Christians are to add ‘perfect knowledge’ to their faith ( 1.5).” 48 in other words, if Bamabas could show that the Jews did not even have “gnosis” of their own Scriptures (in this case the LXX version of the Old Testament) then the appeal of Judaism would be that much less among the Hellenized portion of the population. If the leaders of the Jewish religion did not themselves possess wisdom, insight, knowledge and gnosis they would not be worthy of a hearing. Another possibility is that the letter was aimed at the Jews. Daneilou supports this theory and presents the following argument The work has not been generally admitted to be Jewish Christian in character, principally because of its anti-Jewish tone. Thus, for example, the Epistle stresses that it was the Jews who put Christ to death. But no more than with the Gospel o f Peter, where the same charge is found (11-12), does this prevent the Epistle from being Jewish Christian. Similarly, criticism of the sacrifices of the Old Law, and polemic against official Judaism already existed among the Essenes; a fortiori, therefore, it is hardly surprising to discover it also among Jewish Christians.49 “8 Bauer, 48. ->9 ibid., 33,34. 179 He concludes that “the whole Epistle expresses the efforts o f a Jewish Christian to induce Jews to forsake [their] ritual observances, and to show them that Judaism finds its true realization in Christianity.” The text of Bamabas, however, does not support this interpretation, for ch. 1.1-3 makes it abundantly clear that he is addressing people who are already Christians, blessed by the Spirit “which has been poured out upon you from the Lord,” not people who have not yet decided to be Christians. It is possible that Bamabas was addressing Christians who came from both pagan and Jewish backgrounds who had not separated themselves from their former beliefs, pagan or Jewish. But Bamabas would not say what he says in ch. 1.1-3 to Jews who, according to him, have absolutely no understanding of the Scriptures. Kleist concludes that Bamabas is writing to Christians, but he admits that “we do not know... what specific group of Christian readers he addressed his words of w am ing.”50 Bamard. however, confidently asserts the Epistle was “addressed to a Christian community elsewhere in Egypt (1.4-5) which was in danger of felling back into Judaism as a result of the activity of militant Judaisers who had been impressed by the promise held out by Hadrian to the Jews that the Jemsalem Temple would be rebuilt (16.3- 4 ).”51 This conclusion, though, is flawed for Bamard confuses the terms “Judaism” and “Judaisers.” Judaism was the name given to the various peoples who worshiped Jehovah. “Judaisers” is a name that has been given to those Jewish Christians who still held to the teachings of Moses (cf. Galatians 2.13-14). Gager says that the “Judaizing Christians [were] those who saw no need to tie their acceptance of Christianity to a repudiation of 50 Kleist, 29. 51 Bamard, 45. 1 8 0 Judaism.”52 These are not the same people. Therefore, it is unclear if Barnard wants to say that the Christians to whom Bamabas is writing are in danger of falling back into “Judaism” as practiced by the Jews in the community where the recipients of the letter are, or if they are in danger of falling into a “Jewish Christianity” as practiced by the Jewish Christians in their community. The internal evidence, however, makes it clear that, at least, the intended recipients of the letter were Christians. The letter begins, “Hail, sons and daughters, in the name of the Lord who loved us in peace.”5 3 He goes on to speak of the grace (1.2) ar.d spirit ( 1.3) which they have received from the Lord. However, these were either gentile Christians who were being exposed to Jewish teachings or converted Jews who were being proselytized by Jews in their community. The amount of time Bamabas spends discrediting Judaism is evidence o f this conclusion. His desire is that they hold onto their faith in Christ as their Redeemer, that they not allow the Jews to lay claim to their “Bible” and that they do all that is necessary for salvation. 52 Gager, 7. 53 The letter ends with the author saying, ‘May you gain salvation, children of love and peace. The Lord of glory and of all grace be with your spirit." 21.9. 181 CHAPTER XIII Possible Intellectual Influences on Barnabas The Religious Context of Second Century C.E. Alexandria Alexandria was Hellenistic from its beginning, and nurtured by the Ptolemies from the fourth to the first century B.C.E. It became the epitome of Hellenistic culture in its language and learning. i Alexandria was cosmopolitan, and the intellectual landscape of first century Alexandria can be seen in the religious life of its various inhabitants. The many peoples who came to settle Alexandria, from the Greeks to the Jews to Persians to Cretans to the Romans brought their religions with them.- Some were mercenaries for the Ptolemies, others came because of business opportunities, and following the conquest of Alexandria by the armies of Rome, the Romans came to take care of the interests of the Roman govemmenL O f the religions attested to in Alexandria. Fraser identifies the following: I) The Olympian and other Greek deities. II) The cult of Alexander and the Ptolemies. 1 Some of the different elements of what constituted Hellenistic culture have been discussed earlier in the introductory material on the different intellectual currents active at the time of the Apostolic Fathers. For a discussion on Ptolemaic Alexandria cf. Philip Michael Fraser, Ptolemaic Alexandria (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972): F.E. Adcock, M.P. Charlesworth, and S.A. Cook, eds., Cambridge Ancient History, 12 vols. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1923-39), vol.7,142-54; vol. 12.619-28. 2 Philip Michael Fraser, Ptolemaic Alexandria (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972): 88,89. 182 III) The cult of Serapis and the other Egyptian deities.^ IV) Judaism. However by the first and second centuries C.E., the worship of Olympian and other Greek deities had practically disappeared^, and although the cult of Alexander and the Ptolemies was officially banned by the Romans, they continued to exists The cult of Serapis enjoyed a revival in the first century C.E.6, and the Jews continued to be an important element in the religious fabric of Alexandria.? The arrival of the Roman armies 3 Fraser argues, through the analysis of archaeological evidence, that ‘although Alexandria had a large native population, this has left virtually no trace in the field of religion [and] we know nothing of the religious life of the Egyptians [and] it seems probable that this silence corresponds to a lack of religious activity on the part of the Egyptian population.” ibid., 189. This argument, of course is true only for the early Ptolemaic period, for he says that ‘Alexandrian religion (in the early Ptolemaic period], as we are able to study it, is the religion first and foremost of the Greek population of the city.” ibid., 190. This would mean, therefore, that the followers of the cult of Sarapus and the other Egyptian deities would be the Greeks who became followers of these cults. Fraser says that in the Roman period, “the worship of the Olympian gods declined, and its place was taken by various forms of local religion.” ibid., 802 3 Fraser notes that “the Ptolemaic dynastic cult was abolished (though the cult of Alexander the founder continued, as did that of Ptolemy Soter at Ptolemais, and thus there disappeared from the capital all the pomp and ritual associated with that cult.” ibid., 803. ® Fraser states that, ‘ It was probably not until the revival of the cult of Serapis in or about the middle of the first century A.D. that this great host of people found the common object of its religious emotion, which continued to hold its loyalty until the triumph of Christianity.” ibid., 301. ? Fraser notes that following the creation and acceptance of the LXX by the Jews of Alexandria as Sacred Scripture, “there was no language barrier between Jew and Greek [the “official” language of Alexandria] in daily life, but also that the claim for religious separateness was much weakened. If the common liturgical language of the Jews was mainly or entirely Greek, arguments could be advanced for Jewish tolerance of other cults" and “the synagogal dedications of Ptolemaic Alexandria show that this accommodation was made in a manner acceptable to both parties.’ ibid., 298. 183 and politicians brought Roman military 8. economic ^ and political hegemony, and the city continued to be a “lively commercial, literary, and political center in the Roman Empire." > o The Romans also brought changes in the religious canvas. Fraser argues that with the conquest by Rome came the development of solar pantheism,' i and the spread of religious speculation in general. ' - The Jewish Population of Second Century Alexandria The Jewish peoples were active participants in the culture and learning of Alexandria. Fiend says that the Flellenistic civilization that developed under the Ptolemies and Seleucids “became increasingly attractive to the Jews” and “Alexandria was by far the most important center of the Dispersion."' 3 8 Again Fraser notes that. T h e Roman legions replaced the Gabiniani and assorted troops of the later Ptolemaic period; and the classics Alexandrina, based no doubt in part on the surviving sound ships of the Ptolemaic navy, rode in the harbor. Of this loss of sovereignty there was no ultimate mitigation, and its consequences were universally felt, for better or worse, by town- and country-dweller alike." ibid., 796. 9 Fraser says that, ‘Alexandria, previously one of the granaries of the Aegean world, now became the main granary of R om e,... Thus at one blow the Alexandrian economy became dependent on the demand of the Imperial capital." ibid., 800. ’ 0 MacLennan, p.27. " Although the Jews continued to be monotheistic, Fraser states that, ‘In considering the development of the monotheistic belief in Egyptian gods, it must be stressed that, in so far as the beginning of this trend can be dated to any particular period, it appears to belong mainly to the second and third centuries A .D .', 803. What Fraser does not discuss is the possibility of the arrival of monotheistic Christianity being a possible contributing factor in the rise of monotheistic belief in the Egyptian gods. 12 ibid., 191. 13 Frend, pp.l6,34. 1 8 4 While these Diasporic Jews were influenced by Hellenistic philosophy, they continued to demonstrate a strong interest in their own sacred writings. The production of the LXX, and Philo’s allegorical interpretation of the Old Testament, give clear evidence of the continued interest in the Old Testament by the Jews of Alexandria. i Frend presents the importance o f Alexandrian Judaism in the following quote: It was to exercise a greater influence on the development of a distinctive early Christian culture than any other center including Rome. In the first half of the first century A.D. the Jews were a majority o f the population in two of the five districts into which the city was divided, and there were Jews elsewhere in the city ... From the second century B.C. onwards the Alexandrian Jews were consciously the mediators of Hellenistic-Jewish culture to the Greek world. In the Wisdom o f Solomon, the Letter o fAristeas (to his brother Philocrates, c.278-270 B.C.), the translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek in the Septuagint (LX X ), and through Philo and his school for whom Greek was “our language,” they proved themselves tlie leaders of Jewry in the Hellenistic w o r l d . 15 Although the Jews in Alexandria maintained much of their own religion, they were very involved in the Hellenistic culture of Alexandria. '6 Frend says that the “educated members [of the Jewish community] were fully the equal of their counterparts in the intellectual life of the city.”' ? Judaism in Alexandria in the second century is attested to by Frend styles Philo as "a Platonic philosopher' who was ‘Greek to the core, in language, education, and manners, and his Bible was the Septuagint For him there was no incompatibility between Hellenism and Judaism. The Bible... was to interpreted allegorically, and the historical aspects ... were lost among the spiritual and moral sentiments whereby Philo sought to demonstrate the harmony and rationality of the universe." Frend, 35. 15 Frend, 34-35. During the reign of Ptolemy VI Philometor (170-145 B.C.E.) a great many Jews came to Egypt to escape the wars between the Seleucids and Maccabees. Philometor welcomed these Jews and appointed many of them to high office. Fraser notes that "in this and the following generations the Jewish population of the city grew vastly." ibid., 299. Also see Philo/nF/accum 8. IS Frend reminds us that the Jews of Alexandria had their own senate (gerousia), treasury and record office, as well as their own schools and synagogues. Frend, 34, 35. 17 ibid., 35. 185 both Jewish sources and non-Jewish sources.’ ^ They include the use of the Septuagint,’ ^ Papyri,-0 the Talmud,- ’ and Philo and Josephus.-- Alexandria was a city of periodic unrest, and in the early decades of the second century B.C.E. much of the unrest was directed towards the Jews.”3 Many of the Jews, in attempts to avoid this hostility, tried to assimilate themselves intellectually into the dominant Hellenistic culture of the community.-^ This led some Alexandrian Jews, like Philo, who were very comfortable in a Hellenistic setting, to write apologetic literature.-5 However, Tcherikover says that the 18 The information in the following sentence are taken from the footnotes found in MacLennan's work, pp.29- 31. 19 Although many legends have grown up around the origin of the Septuagint we know that the Pentateuch portion of the Septuagint is of third century origin, and the whole was completed by 132 C.E., as indicated by remarks made in the prologue to Sirach (Ecclesiasticus). It quickly came to be an important translation for Alexandrian Jews, not only for their own worship services, but in their discussions with fellow non^ewish Hellenists concerning their (the Jews) Scriptures. For the importance of the Septuagint in Alexandria see H. Koester, Introduction 7:252-255; Schurer, The History of the Jewish People in theAgeofJesus Christ (175 B.C.-A.D. 135), Revised and edited by G. Vermes, J. Miller, and M. Goodman, (Edinburgh: T& Clark Ltd., 1986):474-480; S. Jellicoe, The Septuagint and Modem Study, (Oxford: The Clerendon Press, 1968). 20 A collection of papyri from this period 100-140 C.E. is contained in the second volume of Tcherikovers Corpus Papyrorum Judaicorum. 21 For an example of how to use the Talmud as a source for second- or third-century Alexandria, see E.R. Goodenough, Jewish Symbols, vol.2, 85-87. 22 See the discussion of Josephus and Philo in M. Stone, Jewish Writings, 185-282, and bibliographies. See also the more recent study, B. L. Mack and R.E. Murphy, "Wisdom Literature," in R.A. Kraft and G.W.E. Nickelsberg, Early Judaism, 387-395. See the comments on Josephus in Cohen, M accabees, 144-147. Also see the comments about Philo’s wide appeal in the Diaspora in Goodenough, Jewish Symtxils, 12.289. 23 MacLennan says that there is evidence that after the death of Philo “something negative began to happen to the Jewish community in Alexandria. This lively and populous community of Jews grew restive and, for reasons unknown to historians, rebelled against the Roman protectors." MacLennan, 36. 2-1 Gager, Origins, 54. 25 MacLennan says that since Greek was the language of most of the Jews in the Diaspora, "this led to the development of apologetic literature within the various Diaspora Jewish communities. Philo was so enthusiastic about the Greex translation of the Bible that he announced that it was inspired {Mos. 2 .26-44) 186 “hatred of the Jews |remained a | permanent feature in the political credo of the Alexandrians in the Roman period” [and] “it would be a waste of time for an Alexandrian writer to explain to his fellow citizens why Jews ought to be hated.”-6 in the same way as the Hebrew, which indicates a positive acceptance of Greek as a language which can be used for biblical and theological discussions." MacLennan. 34-34. 26 V. Tcherikover, A. Fuks, M. Stern, eds., Corpus Papyrorum Judaicorum. 3 vols. (Cambridge; Harvard Press, 1957-1964): 2.57. He continues by stating that The anti-Semitic feelings of the Alexandrian population could, therefore, easily be used as a means of political propaganda for other purposes.” 187 CHAPTER XIV Evidence of a Jewish Influence in the Epistle The question of the influence of Alexandrian Judaism, especially that of Philo, on Bamabas is not settled. Prigent and Kraft, ' while admitting that the author of Bamabas had a thorough acquaintance with Judaeo-Hellenistic exegetical traditions, argue against Philo’s influence. However, Quasten says that the author of Bamabas wanted to expound and prove to his readers the value and meaning of the revelation of the Old Testament And Runia identifies three points of contact between Bamabas and Riüo that cannot be ignored. Bamabas’ emphasis on yuwaLç. his method of scriptural interpretation, and the numerous thematic and ex^etical points of contact between Bamabas and Philo. Runia says that the “continuity here with Philo is highly significant Further evidence of the Jewish influence on the epistle is found in his use of the Old Testament which he quotes liberally. In the first chapter the author says, “For the Lord made known to us through the prophets things past and things present and ... things to come” (1.7). And in ch.2.4 he says that the Lord has made things plain “through all the Prophets.” Bamabas’ approbation of the Old Testament is evidenced by his quoting or alluding to what he calls the “prophets” twenty-three times. Bamabas either quotes or alludes to texts in the Torah, Wisdom literature. Historical section, and the Prophets. However, all of these Old Testament authors are simply referred to as “the prophet” or 1 p. Prigent and R.A. Kraft, ‘Epitre de Barnabe, Sources Cretiennes 172 (Paris, 1971). 2 Runia, 92-93. 1 8 8 “another propheL” What is more important, however, is that these Old Testament writers were cited by Bamabas as authoritative voices in support of his arguments. Quasten described the Epistle as an allegorical explanation of the Old Testament doctrines and commandments.^ Here we see a more direct influence of Philo, for just as Philo used allegory in his commentaries on Genesis, Bamabas also used all^ory in his interpretation of Old Testament texts. An example of Philo’s allegorical method of interpretation is found in the well known passage from The Allegories o f the Sacred Laws: “And the heaven the earth and all their world was completed” (Gen 2.1). Having previously related the creation of the mind and o f sense, Moses now proceeds to describe the perfection brought about by them both ... And, speaking symbolically, he calls the mind heaven, and the natures which can only be comprehended by the intellect are in heaven. And sensations he calls earth ... The ornaments of the mind are all the incorporeal things, which are perceptible only by the intellect'* Bamabas’ use of this same type of allegory for stories in the Old Testament is found throughout the epistle. However, two examples here will suffice. The first is from ch.9.7-8, and the second from ch. 11.9-11. Leam fully then, children of love, concerning all things, for Abraham, who first circumcised, did so looking forward in the spirit to Jesus, and had received the doctrines of three letters. For it says, “And Abraham circumcised from his household eighteen men and three hundred.” What then was the knowledge given to him? Notice that he first mentions the eighteen, and later a pause the three hundred. The eighteen is I (=ten) and H ( ^ ) - you have Jesus - and because the cross was destined to have grace in the T he says “and three hundred. ”5 And again another prophet says, “And the land of Jacob was praised above every land.” He means to say that he is glorifying the vessel of his Spirit What does he say next? “And there was a river flowing on the right hand, and beautiful trees grew out of it, and whosoever shall eat of them shall live forever.” He means to 3 Quasten, 85, 86. An example of this allegorical interpretation is the circumcision of 318 of Abraham’s servants. Through the manipulation of the Greek letters which represent numbers he is able to conclude that The number 318 signifies the redemption through Jesus Christ’s death upon the cross." ibid. 'I Philo. The Allegories of the Sacred Laws 1, in Yonge, C .D ., The Works of Philo Judaeus, 3 vols., vol.l, 53. 3 T and "H” are, in the Greek, the first letters of the word Jesus. And the Greek symbol for 300 is 1". 189 say that we go down into the water full of sins and foulness, and we come up bearing the fruit of fear in our hearts, and having hope on Jesus in the Spirit, ch.l 1.9-11.6 In his concluding argument Bamard says that the author of Bamabas “remained in outlook a Jew and brought with him into the Christian fold the exegetical methods and traditions of the [Hellenisticl synagogue.”7 In conclusion, then, Bamabas’ familiarity with and quoting of Old Testament texts to support his arguments demonstrate the influence of Judaism on the text. The question of whether the soteriology of Bamabas was influenced by Judaism will be addressed as the texts of Bamabas are analyzed. Parallels with the Qumran Community Bamard says that “the Judaism of the Egyptian metropolis in the early decades of the second century [A.D.] was of a mixed character - not solely Greek and Hellenistic but also containing ideas which can be paralleled in pre-Christian Palestinian sectarian Judaism.”8 Danielou believes that the Epistle of Bamabas is evidence of part of this Jewish mix found in Alexandria, and that the Epistle o f Bamabas, written from Alexandria, is a Christian example of a literary genre paralleled in the literature of the Essenes, a 6 trans. from Lake, 373, 381-383. 7 ibid., 59. 8 Bamard, 51. He then quotes G.D. Kilpatrick who says, “It is natural to make a division in the Judaism of this time, one side being Greek in speech and Alexandrian in culture, the other Aramaic in speech and Rabbinic in culture... The two Gospels (i.e. St. matthew and S t John) warn us against identifying the linguistic frontier between the Greek and Semitic worlds with the cultural frontier between Hellenism and Judaism.” G.D. Kilpatrick, The Origins of the Gospel according to St. Matthew ( 1946), 1 0 5 -i 06. 190 decidedly non-Hellenistic Jewish sect.9 Danielou points out that in both Essene literature and in the Epistle of Bamabas, ‘"prophesies are applied to contemporary events regarded as fulfilling the eschatological promises. The only différence is that the Epistle of Bamabas applies the method not to one continuous text, but to a collection of testtmonia. i o An example from Bamabas is found in ch.4. We ought, then, to enquire earnestly into the things which now are, and to seek out those which are able to save us. Let us then utterly flee from all the works of lawlessness, lest the works of lawlessness overcome us, and let us hate the error of this present time, that we may be loved in that which is to come. Let us give no freedom to our souls to have power to walk with sinners and wicked men, lest we be made like them. The final stumbling block is at hand of which it was written, as Enoc says, “For to this end the Lord h ^ cut short the times and the days, that his beloved should make haste and come to his inheritance.” And the Prophet also says thus: “Ten kingdoms shall reign upon the earth and there shall rise up after them a little king, who shall subdue thi% of the kings under one.” Daniel says likewise concerning the same: “And I beheld the fourth Beast, wicked and powerful and fiercer than all the beasts of the sea, and that ten horns sprang from it, and out of them a little excrescent hom, and that it subdued under one th i^ of the great horns.” We see Bamabas looking at his present world, declaring it evil, and pointing his readers to a final deliverance from it Phrases like “the error of this present time,” “the final stumbling block,” and “ the Lord has cut short the times and days,” point to a belief that the prophesies which are being fulfilled are leading to an immanent eschatological consummation. While this language of present day evil, and the soon coming of a final conflagration is also reflected in the New Testament, it is especially found in the literature from the Qumran community. Scholars have uncovered interesting and convincing parallels between Bamabas and some of the texts from Qumran. The first is the method o f biblical exegesis: Bamard says that although Bamabas has adopted '"in toto the allegorical method of interpretation... of 9 Danielou, 34. The question of the relationship between Essene literature and the epistle o* Barnabas will be analyzed later in this dissertation. 10 ibid. 191 P h i l o embedded in the writer’s fanciful allegorization is another method of interpretation which has been found at Qumran. This is the quotation of Old Testament texts followed by an application to contemporary events which were believed to have a profound significance for those who could understand and interpret them." i • Danielou points out that in some writings found at Qumran such as the Midrash ofHabakkuk “prophesies are applied to contemporary events regarded as fulfilling the eschatological promises." ‘ - Bamard then quotes three passages from Bamabas and says that “this method of interpretation is strikingly reminiscent of that found in the Qumran Commentaries of the Books of Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk and Psalm 37 and in the Damascus Document where the Old Testament texts are frequently quoted followed by a contemporary interpretation. "> 3 The passages from the Epistle of Bamabas which illustrate this are as follows; Therefore we ought to give hearty thanks to the Lord that he has given us knowledge of the past, and wisdom for the present, and that we are not without understanding for the future. And the Scripture says, “Not unjustly are the nets spread out for the birds." This means that a man serves to perish who has a taiowledge of the way of righteousness, but turns to the way of darkness. 5.3-4. Furthermore he says to them, “Your new moons and the sabbaths I cannot away with." Do you see what he means? The present sabbaths are not acceptable to me, but that which I have made, in which I will give rest to all things and make the beginning of an eighth day, that is the beginning of another world. Wherefore we also celdjrate with gladness the eighth day in which Jesus also rose Irom the dead, and was manifest, and ascended into Heaven. 15.8-9. There are two passages from the Qumran texts which demonstrate this method of Bamard, 46-47. 12 Danielou, 34. Danielou says “the only difference is that the Eprstfe applies the method not to one continuous text but to a collection of testlmonia.' ibid. 13 ibid., 47. 192 interpretation. 14 The first is the Commentary on Psalm 37.8-9 (fragment A Col.i). The second is the Commentary on Nahum (4 Qp Nah ii.II): “Refrain from anger and abandon wrath; fret not thyself, it tencteth only to evil- doing. For evil(toers will be cut off.” This applies to those who return to the torah and do not refuse to repent their evil-doing. Those, however, who are defiant about repenting their iniquity will be cut off. “Where is the abode of the lions, which was the feeding place of the young lions.” [This refers to Jerusalem which has become] an abode for the wicked men of the heathen. The second parallel is the idea of community. “One of the major differences between the Dead Sea sect and the Apostolic Church is that the former was an exclusive esoteric group which carefully guarded its special doctrines and shunned contact with outsiders, and especially with those who did not reach its standard of purity, while the early Christians, following the example of Jesus, took the Gospel to all and sundry and in particular consorted with sinners. This is obvious even to the casual reader. However, in ... Barnabas we find advocated those ideas of exclusiveness, found in the writings of the ()umran community, which are in striking contrast to the practice of the Apostolic Church.”: 5 The three examples from Barnabas follow: We ought, then, to inquire earnestly into the things which now are, and to seek out those which are able to save us. Let us then utterly flee from all the works of lawlessness, lest the works of lawlessness overcome us, and let us flee the error of this present time, that we may be loved in that which is to come. Let us give no freedom to our souls to have power to walk with sinners and wicked men, lest we be made like them. 4.1-2. It should be pointed out here that while Barnard presents some convincing evidence for parallels between Barnabas and the Qumran texts, the Epistle of Barnabas is not the only early Christian text to have demonstrated evidence of the influence of the Qumran community. Throughout tne gospel accounts Matthew (1.22-23), Mark (11.15-19), Luke (7.24-30) and John (19-24-37 repeatedly point to events in the life (and death) of Jesus as fulfillments of Old Testament prophesies which they then quote. The book of Revelation, of course, is the most striking New Testament text which exhibits this type of interpretation, and is replete with either direct quotes from the Old Testament or allusions to it, followed by a contemporary interpretation to current events. ’ 5 ibid. 193 “Thou shall not eat”, he says, “the lamprey nor the polypus not the cuttlefish.” Thou shall not, he means, consort with or become like such men who are utterly ungodly and who are already condemned to death, just as these fish alone are a ccu rst and float in the deep water, not swimming like the others but living on the ground at the bottom of the sea. 10.5. Thou shall not join thyself to those who walk in the way of death. 19.2. The examples from the Qumran literature which demonstrate the parallel are two passages from the Manual of Discipline l.QS.v: This is the rule for all the members of the community - that is, for such as have declared their readiness to turn away from all evil and to adhere to all that God in His good pleasure has commanded. They are to keep apart from the company of the froward. He that so commits himself is to keep apart from all froward men that walk in the path of wickedness; for such men are not to be reckoned in the covenant inasmuch as they have never sought nor studied God’s ordinances in order to find out on what more arcane points they may guiltily have gone astray, while in r^ard to the things which stand patently reveal^ they have acted high-handedly. However, this idea of community was not unique to the Qumran community and the author of Barnabas, for while it is true that the general tenor of the New Testament is to reach out to peoples with the story and teachings o f Jesus, there are texts which sound very much like what we hear in both Barnabas and in the Qumran texts. For example II Corinthians 6.14-18 reads as follows: Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness? And what accord has Christ with Belial? Or what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For you are the temple of the living God. As God has said: “I will dwell in them And walk among them. I will be their God, And they shall be my people.” Therefore “Come out from among them And be separate, says the Lord. Do not touch what is unclean. 194 And I will receive you.” I will be a Father to you. And you shall be My sons and daughters. Therefore, to say that the early Christian church was always open to all peoples is to ignore the hostility that many Christians faced either when they became Christian or as they endeavored to maintain their faith. Nor does it take into account the hostility that many Christians themselves demonstrated towards peoples of other faiths... especially peoples of other faiths whom the Christians regarded as hostile to them. Persecuted communities (either religious or racial) will try to establish their own identity, and for the early Christians, one of their responses to the hostility directed toward them, and a way of identilying themselves vis-a vis Jews and pagans was simply to separate themselves from them, not only on a religious level, but on a social level as well. One cannot read far in the letters of the New Testament without discovering that it was concern about the internal life of the Christian groups in each city that prompted most of the correspondence.! 6 This parallel between (Qumran and Barnabas concerning the idea of community, then, is seen in other Christian texts from the same period. However, taken with the other three parallels, this idea of community in the Qumran texts cannot be ignored. Knowledge, was, as has been discussed earlier in this dissertation, an important element in many of the religions/philosophies of this era. However, Barnabas’ use of and understanding of knowledge is also seen in the Qumran texts. Danielou says that "‘the sense of yvwaiç in the Epistle of Barnabas is exactly parallel." i ^ 16 Wayne Meeks, The First Urtan Christians: The Sodal World of the Apostle Paul ( New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983), p.74. Danielou, 34. He points out tfiat this [gnosis] is the knowledge of eschatological realities. In the case of the Midrash of Haloakkuk the purpose is to impart knowledge of the mystery, the hidden meaning of the prophesies - that is to say their fulfillment in the Teacher of Righteousness and in [Barnabas to] contemporary events which are also events of the End." ibid. 195 The author of Barnabas and the authors of the Qumran literature understood knowledge in two ways. A) They both argue that the special knowledge given to the initiates of their community has practical benefits. Therefore the knowledge given to us of this kind that we may walk in it is as follows ... Bar. 19.1 With those however that have chosen the right path everyone is indeed to discuss matters pertaining to the knowledge of God’s truth and His righteous judgments. The purpose of such discussions is to guide the minds of the members of the community, to give them insight into God’s inscrutable wonders and truth, and to bring them to walk blamelessly each with his neighbor in harmony with all that has been revealed to them. l.QS.ix.17 seq.is B) Sometimes this knowledge interprets events of the past in the present and in the eschatological future. Therefore we ought to give hearty thanks to the Lord that He has given us knowledge o f the past, and wisdom for the present, and that we are not without understanding for the future. Bar. 5.3. Howbeit God, in his inscrutable wisdom, has appointed a term for the existence of perversity ... Then truth will emerge triumphant in the world... Like waters of purification He will sprinkle upon him the spirit of truth, to cleanse him from all the abominations of falsehood and of all pollution from the spirit of filth; to the end that, being made upright, men may have understanding of transcendental knowledge and of the lore of the sons of heaven and that, being made blameless in their ways, they may be endowed with inner vision. I.QS.iv. 18 seq. i ^ The final parallel is that “both [Barnabas and the Qumran texts] exhibit an antipathy towards the Jerusalem Temple and its cultus .”-o Both Barnabas and the Qumran community viewed the Temple in Jerusalem, in particular, as having no validity, for the Geza Vermes, The D ead Sea Scrolls in English, 4th ed. (London: Penguin, 1995), 83. 19 ibid. 20 Barnard, 52. 196 keepers of the Temple, i.e. priests, scribes,etc., had become apostate. This denial of the continued validity of the Temple in Jerusalem is also reflected in two New Testament documents. In Luke 23.45, in the description of the crucifixion, just before Jesus dies, he says, ‘'Then the sun was darkened, and the veil of the temple was tom in two.” The significance of this statement for the readers of Luke was that the holiness and sanctity of the Temple, the place where the people of Israel, through the blood of their sacrifices symbolically found forgiveness and cleansing from their sins, was no longer valid. The author of the book of Hebrews goes much further in his dismissal of the temple and its services. Notice the following statements from ch.7.26-27; 9.8-14; 9.24; 10.19- 20. For such a High Priest was fitting for us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and has b ^ m e higher than the heavens; who does not need daily, as those high priests [of the Temple] to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for die people's, for this He did once for all when he offered up Himself. The first tabernacle... was symbolic for the present time in which both gifts and sacrifices are offered which cannot make hirn who performed the service perfect in regard to the conscience - concerned only with foods and drinks, various washings, and fleshly ordinances imposed until the time of reformation. But Christ came as High Priest of the good things to come, with the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hands, that is, not of this creation. Not with the blood of goats and calves, but with His own blood He entered the Most Holy Place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption. For Christ has not entered the holy place made with hands, which are copies of the true, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us. Therefore, brethren, having boldness to enter the Holiest by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way which He consecrated for us, through the veil, that is. His flesh ... The significance of these parallels in the Epistle and the Qumran texts should be obvious. Not only is Barnabas writing in the context of Hellenistic Judaism and its various understandings of salvation, but he is also aware of a sect of Palestinian Judaism and its 197 understanding(s) of salvation.21 There is the possibility that both Barnabas and the Qumran community are drawing from a common source, and although that cannot be discounted, there is no evidence of that to this point. In conclusion, then, the evidence of the influence of both Hellenistic Jewish and Palestinian literature is unmistakable. Not only does Barnabas draw heavily on the stories and Scriptures of the Jewish people, but he uses them in ways similar to those employed by Philo, the epitome of Hellenistic Judaism. On the other hand, the influence of a tradition also seen in Qumran Judaism can also be seen in the text of the epistle. This familiarity with and use of these traditions are reflected in the soteriology of the author. We will see this in the exegesis of the texts carrying soteriological significance. 2’ Danielou says that Barnabas’ “references to Jewish apocalypses, I Enoch (4.3) and II (4) Esdras (12.1): the application to Christ of the term the ‘Beloved’ (3.6) as in the Ascension of Isaiah: the specifically Jewish expression [dikaiwmata] (1.2: 2.1 )’ make it plain that “in the case of Barnabas’ treatise cf the Two Ways ... the Essene characteristics are ... prominent.” 35. 198 CHAPTER XV The Use of 8iKaiooi3yTi in Barnabas Barnabas’ soteriological ideas can be examined by looking at key phrases and words in the text which carry soteriological significance.! The words which are most appropriate to study are: I) ôLicaLoaûiTi (righteousness) II) auTTipia (salvation) III) epya (works) IV) alpa (blood) V) ow^w (to save) VI) Xurpou (redemption). The texts which contain these words will be studied in their contexts, and some of these texts will be studied together. 1 will begin with the texts containing the noun, adjective or verb forms of oiKaioowr]. Analysis of 1.6 and 11.7 The Epistle of Barnabas uses forms of oiKaioauvri 16 times. However, only seven of those uses speak to the issue of how a person is saved.- The first of these is in ch. 1.6. 1 The chapters which carry words, phrases and ideas concerning salvation are 1 ,4 , 5 ,1 1 ,1 2 ,1 3 ,1 4 ,1 7 ,1 9 and 21. 2 Barnabas’ use of the word in 1.4, 3.4, 6.1, 6 .7 ,1 0 .1 1 ,1 2 .4 ,1 4 .7 ,19 .6 and 20.2 carry no soteriological significance. In most of these texts Barnabas uses the word to speak of God's justice or of righteous people. 199 Tpta ouL" ôoypaTd èaTiv» KUpi'ou. ([wfjç êXirt'ç, dpxi'i Kai réXoç TTi'aT€coç fipwi/. KOI ÔLKaioaui-T). Kpiaewç dpxn Kai xéXoç. dydTTr] eù4)poaiii/riS' ^al dyaXXidaecüç êpycov ôiKaLaoaûix^ç papTupia. There are then three doctrines of the Lord: the hope of life is the beginning and end of our faith; and righteousness is the beginning and end of judgement; love of joy and of gladness is the testimony of the works of righteousness. In this text Barnabas writes that the first thing and the last thing that faith gives to believers is a hope of life. Here is the coupling of ttîcttlç (faith) and Cwij (life). The hope of life (Cwf|) arises from “our faith” (Triaxecüç f|pûv). And though he does not in this text speak specifically of “eternal” life, but simply “the hope of life,” in ch. 11.11 he says, dKouoT] xoùxcüv ,., Kai iTiax€c6ai], Cfjoexni eiç xôv aiw m (whoever hears and these things shall live for ever). It needs to be pointed out that in 11.11 it is not just believing that brings the promise, but it is the person who both “hears and believes.” Also, ch. 12.1 answers the question “when” this eternal life was brought to mankind. It reads, “Similarly, again, (the Lord] describes the cross in another Prophet, who says, ‘And when shall all these things be accomplished? saith the Lord, When the tree shall fall and rise, and when blood shall flow from the tree.’ Here again you have a reference to the cross, and to him who should be crucified.” This text (12.1) will be dealt with in more detail later, but here it illustrates the various elements in Barnabas’ soteriology. This is the first of the three “doctrines” in 1.6. What Barnabas means by righteousness being the “beginning and end of judgment” and the “love of joy and of gladness” being the “testimony of the works of righteousness” is more Æfficult. A possible, partial explanation of what Barnabas means when he speaks of righteousness being the “beginning and end of judgment” may be found in 11.7. In ch. 11.7b we read that “oià xoOxo o ù k duaaxfiaovTai dacpâç év Kpîaei oùôè dpapxcoXoi èv pouXq ôiKaiwr, ô x l yivwoKci (cOpicç bàbv OLKaicuv, ical 6ô6ç daepoii’ 2 0 0 dTToXeîTaL" (the wicked shall not rise up in judgment, nor sinners in the council of the righteous, for the Lord knows the way of the righteous, and the way of the ungodly shall perish). Here, in 11.7, as in 1.6, Barnabas links the concepts of “righteousness” (or “righteous”) and “judgment” Using the literary form found often in the Hebrew Psalms, sometimes referred to as “Hd)rew parallelism,” Barnabas, essentially, says the same thing twice in the same verse.3 In 11.7b the author says: The wicked shall not rise up in judgment nor sinners in the counsel of the righteous Unlike the verse in ch.l, however, which does not place the concept of judgment in a linear, chronological line, 11.7 does. There is a judgment coming, and the wicked (whoever they may be) will not rise up (dvaaTTjaourai), nor will sinners be included in the “counsel of the righteous.” The word translated “counsel” in 11.7, PouXri, in the New Testament, can mean a council, i.e. a body of people who make a decision, or the actual decision or judgment itself. For instance, in introducing Joseph o f Arimathea, Luke 23.51 says that he (Joseph) did not consent to the “council (pouAfj) and deed” of the Sanhédrin concerning the judgment of Jesus.^ In Luke 7.30, following Jesus’ judgment concerning the person and ministry of John the Baptist, the text says that the “Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel (PouXfji/) of God.” In Acts 2.23 and 4.28 it is clear that it was God the Father’s purpose (PouXf) -2.23; pouXq-4.28) to send Jesus to face judgment 3 Psalms 147, as an example, is replete with this literary form. Luke 23.50-51 reads, "And behold, there was a man named Joseph, a council member, a good and just man. He had not consented to their counsel and deed." The "councif that v.50 is referring to is the Sanhédrin. Mark 15.43 refers to him as "a prominent council member." At this time in the history of the Palestinian Jews, the only council worth mentioning, and the only one which had any influence on the sitting Roman governor was the Sanhédrin. 201 anddeath.5 For Bamabas there will be ajudgment at some point in the future. Council will be held; there will be a “council of the righteous” ( 11.7b). The wicked will not take part of that council or judgment, according to Bamabas, for two reasons. First, they will already be dead and will “not rise up” ( o ù k di/aanjacvrai = they will not be resurrected), and the judgment is against them ( m i ôoôç doewi/ dncXeiTai = and the way of the ungodly shall perish). The righteous, on the other hand, will participate in that judgment. Therefore, righteousness for Bamabas in 1.6 is indeed the beginning and the end of judgment, for the righteous (those who possess righteousness) take part in the future judgment as judges, but it is a judgment that they do not face, and in that sense their righteousness is an end of judgment. This is a judgment, furthermore, that has soteriological ramifications, for if in 11.7 Bamabas is painting a picture of the ultimate dichotomous fates of the righteous and the wicked (which he does throughout the letter) where the wicked shall perish, then the righteous shall not perish, but live eternally. The message, then, that Bamabas sends the recipients of this letter is that the possession of righteousness will free the believer from fear of the judgment to come, for righteousness is the end of judgment for them. The last of the “three doctrines” that Bamabas mentions in 1.6 is that the “love of joy and of gladness is the testimony of the works of righteousness (epywr ÔLKaioaüi’riç papxupia).” According to Bamabas, of the many duties the Christian is called to perform (which he later lists in ch. 19), there are specific works: “works of righteousness.” And these “works of righteousness” are performed with a love of joy and gladness. The 5 Acts 2.23,24 reads, ‘[Jesus], being delivered by the determined counsel and foreknowledge of God, you have taken by lawless hands, have crucified, and put to death; whom God raised up, having loosed the pains of death, because it was not possible that He should be held by i f Acts 4.27,28 reads, ‘For truly against Your holy Servant Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, and the Gentiles and the people of Israel, were gathered together to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose determined to be done." 2 0 2 question is this: Are these “works of righteousness” meritorious in a salvific sense? We cannot say for certain, for the phrase “works of righteousness” does not appear elsewhere in Bamabas. However, the immediate and larger context does help. We have already discovered that the “hope” that Bamabas speaks of in this same verse is the hope of eternal life. Also the judgment mentioned in this verse is a future judgment which will decide the ultimate fate of both the believers and non-believers. I f then, the first two “doctrines” (hope and righteousness) of the three that Bamabas relates here are salvific in essence, then it would not be unreasonable to suggest that tire third “doctrine” carries soteriological significance as well. Finally, with regards to the phrase “works of righteousness" (epywr ÔLKaLOoÛLTiç), Bamabas is not averse to including the concept of “work” in his understanding of salvation.6 In ch. 19.10 (which will be analyzed below) he speaks of “working with your hands for the ransom of your sins” (ôià t Q v Lpôju aou épydai] CLÇ Xûrpwoiv dpapTcoji' aou.).7 There is a work (or works) that a person may do if he/she hopes to gain salvation. Chapters 1.6 and 11.7, then, demonstrate a plurality of elements in Bamabas’ understanding of how a person is saved. We have demonstrated that in these two passages hope, righteousness and works of righteousness play a role in a person’s salvation. However, these are not the only soteriological elements present in the letter as the analysis of further passages will demonstrate. At the very least, we can say that there is a willingness by the author of the letter to include various components in his understanding of how salvation is obtained. 6 Barnabas' use of and understanding of "work" in his schem e of salvation will be discussed later. 7 This text will be examined more closely later, but it gives clear evidence of Barnabas' willingness to include within his soteriology man’s ability to work for his salvation. 203 Analysis of 4.12 6 tcûpioç dT7poaü)TToXT]pnTTüjç lepiucî toi» Koapou. cKaaToç ko Gùç èïïOLrioei' KopieiToi. èài/ fi dyaGôç, f) ûiKaïooûi/ri aùroû iropriyfiaeTai aÙToD. èdu» fi TTOi’ripèç, 0 piaGôç Tfjç iToyT)piaç èpirpooGev' aùroû. The Lord will judge the world “without respect of persons.” Each will receive according to that which he did. If he be good his righteousness will lead him, if he be evil the reward of iniquity is before him. The juxtapositioning of the fates of the righteous and wicked, seen in 1.6 and 11.7, is also found in 4.12. where we find again a coupling of “judgment” and “righteousness”. The verse begins by saying that the “Lord will judge the world without respect of persons.” However, not all will receive the same judgment, for “each will receive according to his deeds (KaGwg èiroiriaei').” What each person will receive is a “reward” (piaGôç), for v. 12 ends by saying that if a person, by his deeds, is found to be evil, then the “reward (pioGog) of iniquity is before him.” He who is “evil” (TTorqpôç) is juxtaposed to the person who is “good” (dyaOôç), and for the “good,” his “righteousness will lead him.” For Bamabas the reward of those who do good is eternal life, and those who do evil is (teath, for he says in 21.1 (another text which describes the opposite fates of the righteous and wicked) that those who perform righteous deeds “shall be glorified in the kingdom of God, and he who chooses the others shall perish with his works.” What must not be overlooked here is the belief that all people will be judged according to what they have done. The “evil” will receive their “reward” of damnation because of their deeds (or works), and the “good” will be rewarded with eternal life because of their deeds;ëK:aaToç kg Bôç èTToir)aer' KopieÎTai (“Each will receive according to that which he did.”). The “good” will be led by his righteousness, and the “evil” have the reward of iniquity before them. 204 Where Bamabas speaks of the reward of the evil being before him, the word translated “before" is an adverb that can be used to indicate either place or time.8 In other words, the reward that is before the evil person is before him either in the sense of it being placed physically before him or in the sense of it being at some point in the future. However, the context again makes it clear that this reward is something that awaits the evil person in the future, for the verbs “judge" (Kpiveî ), “receive" (KopielTcu) and “lead" (TTpoTiYTjaeTai) are all in the future tense. This use of 0iKaiooui/r| is a reflection of how it was used in the Jewish community. In the earlier discussion of the Jewish understanding of righteousness Reumann noted that Israel established her righteousness by being obedient to God. And in the Toraî Kohanim (p.55) we read that by the accomplishment of a religious act, man acquires merit for himself. Therefore the Jewish understanding of a person's eternal reward being closely tied to his behavior is seen in this passage (4.12) of Bamabas. Analysis of 4.10 ({)ûycd|ier' drro ndariç p.aTai6TrjToç, liLatjaupeu TeXeiùjç rà ëpya rfjç irouripâç ôôoû. pri icaG’ éauToùç èi/oworreç poi/d^eTe wç fj8r| ÔeôiKaiwpéroi, dA è m TÔ aÙTÔ auvepxdper’oi nepl to û icoiidj aup(|)épovToç. Let us flee from all vanity, let us utterly hate the deeds of the path of wickedness. Do not by retiring apart live alone as if you were already made righteous, but come together and seek out the common good. This is the only passage in Bamabas which uses the verb related to ôiK-aïooûi/ri. ôiKaiocj, and it is a passive perfect participle, ôeôiKaiwpéroi. Here, righteousness is not 8 cf. Thayer, 208, under epTrpoaflev 205 primarily a quality that the Christian inherently possesses, for in this passage the believer is not “declared righteous", but the believer has been “made” righteous. What is implied here by the context and the form of the verb is that a solitary life(style) is being practiced by some who believe that they have already been made righteous. The passive form of the verb implies that this is an action that has been done to the believer. This is the continuation of a concqrtion of equating solitary living with the holy life, already seen in the lives of Jesus, John the Baptist and the Essenes. Bamabas suggests that there are some who are separating themselves from the rest of the believers, if not from the rest of society, because they believe that they have reached some exalted level of holiness or righteousness. There is, therefore, some evidence here of the continuation of “ascetic thinking” in the Egyptian church c.70-135 G.E., which is well before the time of Anthony the Monk (c.250- 350). Bamabas’ language here suggests that there was a belief that at some point in their Christian experience, the believers might be made righteous or make themselves righteous. The question remains; Who, for Bamabas, makes the Christians righteous: God or themselves? Let me suggest that, in light of Bamabas’ emphasis on good works in relation to the issue of salvation, it can be argued that this righteousness was eamed by the believers themselves who did, indeed, attain some level of self-eamed righteousness. However, it may not be an either/or question with regard to how a person comes into possession of righteousness, but a both/and. For we shall see as we continue to examine Bamabas’ soteriology that while never denying the work of God in Christ in the area of salvation, there is nevertheless a strong element of self-eamed salvation. For Bamabas. salvation occurs when both God md the believer are active in the process. Given these considerations, 1 would argue, therefore, that ôeôiKaiwpéi'oi should be read in the middle voice, and that part of the verse could read, “Do not by retiring apart live alone as if you 2 0 6 have already made yourselves righteous.” This, then, is an early example of the soteriological tradition which says that both God and the believer needed to participate in the process of salvation. Analysis of 5.4 In ch.5.4 Bamabas draws a dichotomy between “the way of righteousness” and “the way of darkness.” Chapter 5.4b reads: ÔTL ÔLKaïuç dTToXeiTaL dvGpüJTîoç, ÔÇ excjv 6 8 0 Ü ôiKaioaùi-Tiç yrw oir éauTÔi’ e iç o ù à v OKÔTouç dîroouvéxei. A man deserves to perish who has a knowledge of the way of righteousness, but turns aside into the way of darkness. Since Bamabas’ use of the phrase “way of righteousness” is (for him) a hapax le^omerwn. part of our understanding of what it means must be discovered by looking at the phrase in its literary context Whatever this “way of righteousness” is, it is possible to gain a “knowledge” (yi/ûoiç) of it, and the person who rejects this knowledge deserves to perish. This is what Bamabas calls “the way of darkness.” And this is not the only text in Bamabas where the concept of “darkness” is used in a soteriological context In ch. 14.5 he says, “For j Jesus) was prepared for this purpose, that when he appeared he might redeem our hearts from darkness.” And in the next verse he says, “The Father enjoins on (Jesus) that he should redeem us from darkness, and prepare a holy people for himself.” In these three texts (5.4; 14.5,6) darkness is opposed to the “way of righteousness,” it is something that dwells in our hearts, and it is to redeem us from this darkness and the darkness of our hearts that Jesus was specifically sent by the Father. The opposition of darkness and light, darkness being evil, and light being good, is a theme that is heard in other contemporary or near-contemporary writings. Pelikan says 207 that “several Gnostic writings spoke of “the man of light” as the one who understood his heavenly origin and destiny.”9 And Puech says that for the gnostics the return of the ‘inner man’ from the dungeon (images of darkness) of this world to the kingdom of light was accomplished by his “knowledge of who we were and what we have become.”! o However, before we can say that the opposition of “light” and “darkness” in Bamabas is an influence of the Gnostics, it must be remembered that this imagery is found as well in the writings of the Old Testament and the New Testament The very beginning of the Old Testament itself, the story of Creation, is a recounting of God bringing light to an earth that was “without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep ...Then God said, ‘Let there be light”; and there was light. And God saw the light, and it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness." Gen 1.2-4. Repeatedly, in the Old Testament the messages of the prophets are that when God comes to judge the earth, or his people or the enemies of his people, the sun, moon and stars will be turned to darkness or they will not shine. Job 12.25 reads, “(The evil] grope in the dark without light.” cf. Job 10.22; Isaiah 5.30,13.10; Ezekiel 30.18; Joel 2.31. New Testament examples are numerous. Luke 11.34, “The lamp of the body is the eye. Therefore, when your eye is good, your whole body is full of light. But when your eye is bad, your body also is full of darkness.” John 1.4,5 reads, “In His was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.” Finally, 1 John 1.5-7 reads, “ God is light and in Him is no darkness at all. If we say that we have fellowship with Him, and walk in darkness, we lie and do not 9 Pelikan, 91. ’ 0 Henri-Charles Puech, et. al.. The Jung Codex: A Newly Recovered Gnostc Papyrus (London, 1955), 29. 208 practice the truth. But if we walk in the light as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another.” The soteriological argument Bamabas makes here is that those who reject the “knowledge” of this way of righteousness will perish. This thinking is reflected also in ch.21.1 where Bamabas says, “For he who does these things shall be glorified in the kingdom of God, and he who chooses the others shall perish with his works.” There is no middle ground for Bamabas. There is the “way o f righteousness” and the “way of darkness.” And if the “way of darkness” is the way of those who perish, then the “way of righteousness” is the way of those who do not perish, but gain everlasting life, or redemption. The eclectic nature of soteriology in Bamabas makes it difficult to determine whether he is reflecting, in his statements conceming the “way of light” and the “way of darkness,” gnostic, Jewish or earlier New Testament teachings or some already existing, syncretistic, soteriological belief. It is entirely possible, given the nature of the Alexandrian religious climate in the second century C.E., that the author was reflecting an acceptance of the various religious teachings in Alexandria which contained statements about good and bad being compared to lightness and darkness respectively. This idea of the “two ways” of goodness and evil, or here lightness and darkness is a common theme in early Christian literature. The “two ways” in Bamabas are more specifically spelled out in chs. 18-20 where he says that there are “two Ways of teaching and power, one of Light and one of Darkness.” (18.1). He then spends chs. 19 and 20 contrasting these two ways, one of which will lead to “the appointed place” (19.10) while the other way will lead to “etemal death and punishment.” (20.1). Chapters 1-6 of the Didache also speak of the “two ways” of life and death. The language of the “two ways” in the Didache is very similar to that found in Bamabas. The questions regarding which document came first, and whether one is a copy of the other is 209 still open to discussion. Ferguson points out that not only did Christians use this literary device, but some Jewish communities as well. He says, “this manner of setting forth moral instruction is based on Jewish patterns of teaching (as seen in the Rule of the Community among the Dead Sea Scrolls), if not on a Jewish document”! • The appearance of this literary device in Bamabas strengthens the arguments of those who see a Jewish influence in the epistle, more particularly the Jewish community at Qumran. We have both in Bamabas and in the writings at Qumran an antipathy to the Judaism centered on the Temple in Jerusalem. The strong moral teachings found in the Qumran documents are paralleled in the Bamabas Epistle. Finally Bamabas ends his epistle by contrasting the two ways of light and darkness, a literary form found in the Rule o f the Community at Qumran. These parallels, taken together, cannot be ignored as evidences of, if not influence, at least common theological heritages. Analysis of 13.7b Chapter 13.7b reads: ['APpadpl p6i/oç TTioTeùaaç èréBri eiç ÔLKaioaûi/riv'. [Abraham]... alone was faithful, and it was counted him for righteousness. Bamabas spends ch. 13.1-6 endeavoring to prove through the experiences of the Patriarchs (and their wives) Isaac, Jacob, Joseph and Rebecca, and the sons of Joseph, Ephraim and Manassas, that the blessings of the covenant with God were, from the beginning, directed towards the Gentiles, and not the Jews. In v.7, after referring to Genesis 15.6 which speaks of how God accounted righteousness to Abraham because of his faith (’APpadp ... povoç TriaTeûoaç), he says that Abraham is the “father of the I Ferguson, 262. 2 1 0 Gentiles who believe (TrioTeuoirrwv) in God in uncircumcision.” Barnabas is saying that Abraham is accounted righteous by God because he alone had faith. Abraham’s spiritual descendants are the Gentiles who are TiLOTeOcvreç, for they, and not the Jews, believe in God. Bamabas was not the first Christian author to refer back to the experience of Abraham as an example of how a person comes into a relationship with God. In his argument of how a person is saved the Apostle Paul spends some time in Gal 3 exploring the experience of Abraham. In Gal 3.7 Paul says that “only those who are of laith are sons of Abraham.” And in v.9 he repeats his words in v.7. “So then those who are of faith are blessed with believing Abraham.” There is no differentiating between Jews and Gentiles. All those who have faith are children of Abraham. Paul, summing up his argument in w.28-29 of the same chapter says, “There is neither Jew nor Greek... for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.” However. Bamabas takes the experience of Abraham and gives it a different interpretation. In v.7 he says. “Behold I have made thee, Abraham, the father of the Gentiles who believe in God in uncircumcision." (emphasis mine). And the context suggests that it is the gentile believers alone who are the recipients of this righteousness, for the next verse (ch. 14.1) reads, “So it is. But let us see whether the covenant which he swore to the fathers to give to the people - whether he has given it. He has given it. But they were not worthy to receive it because of their sins.” In other words, Abraham is the spiritual father of the Gentiles alone who believe in God. The Jews are excluded from the covenant, and the gift of righteousness, because of their sins. And these Gentile believers are further removed from the “unbelieving Jews” for they “believe in God in 2 1 1 uncircumcision.'" Only the uncircumcised Gentiles have faith, and are, therefore, the spiritual descendants of Abraham. This is the argument. Abraham received righteousness from God because of his faith (v.7a). The righteousness that the Gentiles (read Christians) receive is also because of their faith (v.7b). For Bamabas, paraphrasing the Apostle Paul, who is quoting Gen 15.6, says that the method of receiving that righteousness is through faith. The text clearly implies that God counted Abraham righteous because of his faith. While Paul employs this text from Genesis to argue that a person receives righteousness apart from any works of the law, Bamabas uses the text to exclude the Jews from the covenant. Paul’s argument was about how a person is saved. Bamabas spends ch. 13 (and ch. 14) arguing about who is saved. Bamabas’ obvious hostility towards the Jews has colored his soteriology. He is not arguing whether righteousness alone or righteousness plus something else is needed for a person’s salvation. It has already been demonstrated that Bamabas allows both righteousness and good works to be pieces of his soteriology. In ch. 13 he says that the Gentiles alone have proven themselves to be faithful, and deserving, therefore of the same righteousness given to Abraham for his faith, for only the faithful are the true children of Abraham. Jews must abandon their Judaism and put their faith in Jesus Christ to receive the righteousness of God 2 1 2 CHAPTER XVI The Use of èpya in Barnabas Analysis of 4.1 <})UYCjp.ev OUI’ TeXeicüÇ diTÔ irdurcju t û v epycoL' T fjç duop.îaç. Let us then utterly flee from all the works of lawlessness, lest the works of lawlessness overcome us. Bamabas spends ch.3 quoting Isaiah 58.6-10, an Old Testament passage which describes what the author of Isaiah 58 believed was “true fasting,” i.e. ministering to the flotsam and jetsam of society, and using that text to accuse the Israelites of either intentional misunderstanding of the text or ignoring the text Chapter 3 ends and ch.4 begins by saying, “So then, brethren, [God]... m a^ all things plain to us beforehand that we should not be shipwrecked by conversion to their law ... We ought, then, to enquire into the things which now are... and let us hate the error of this present time.” (3.6-4.1). Chapter 3 ends with a warning not to be converted to the “law” of the Jews, and chapter 4 begins by urging the believers, in light of what has been said in chapter 3, to flee from the “works of lawlessness, lest the works of lawlessness overcome” them. It can be argued, then, that, for Bamabas, this law of the Jews that he speaks of in ch.3.6, which w ill “shipwreck” the believers’ conversion to Christianity, is the lawlessness of 4.1, for the lawlessness that Bamabas speaks of in ch.4.1 is spelled out in the rest of the chapter. After quoting Enoch (v.3), the “Prophet” (v.4) and Daniel (v.5) conceming “the final stumbling block,” wicked, powerful and fierce beasts, and kingdoms rising and falling, he says in v.6,7, “You ought then to understand... take heed to yourselves now, 213 and be not made like unto some, heaping up your sins and saying that the covenant is both theirs (the Jews] and ours [the Christians]. It is ours: but in this way did they finally lose it when Moses had just received i t ” He goes on to explain that when Moses threw down the tables (of commandments], “their covenant was broken, in order that the covenant of Jesus the Beloved should be sealed in our hearts in hope of his faith.” Therefore, in this chapter, for Bamabas, the “works of lawlessness” is explained as believing that the covenant with God is for both the Jews and Gentiles. This the believers are to flee, for there is a danger of those “works of lawlessness” overcoming them, i.e., believing that the law is still part of the covenant relationship with God, However, this is not to be understood as a call to flee the law, for in ch. 19, where Bamabas is describing “The Way of Light” he says in V.2, “Thou shalt not desert the commandments of the Lord.” The continuing validity of the law is not called into question by Bamabas, but rather the Jews use of the law. Analysis of 17.1 Chapter 17.1 is the other text where Bamabas speaks of “things” being necessary for salvation. Chapter 17.1 reads: 'E(j)’ ooor qi/ èu ôumTtü KOi drrXoTqTL SqXôaai upii/, pou f] (jjuxq rq èniGupiç pou pf] TTapaXeXoiTTémi t l tû u di/r|tc6uotou eiç awTqpiai'. So fer as possibility and simplicity allow an explanation to be given to you my soul hopes that none of the things which are necessary for salvation have been omitted, according to my desire. Chapters 18 and 19 are Bamabas’ introduction to the “two Ways of teaching and power, one of Light and one of Darkness.” Chapter 19 is Bamabas’ description of the “Way of Light,” and it is a list of things to do and not to do to gain the kingdom of God. 214 The term “you will” (“thou shalt”) appears forty-two times in ch. I9.i In order to “journey to the appointed place” (19.1) the believers are to do, not do, be, and not be a variety of things. This is followed by a description of the “Way of Darkness” of ch.20. However, these chapters are preceded by chapter 17, which begins by saying “my soul hopes that none of the things which are necessary for salvation have been omitted.” What these things are are listed in chapter 19. Following chapter 20, which describes the “Way of Darkness,” chapter 21.1 says that the person who “does” (noiwv) these things shall be glorified in the kingdom of God, and he who chooses the others shall perish with his works (epyajv)- The requirements of chs. 19 and 20 do not seem to be optional. A person is required to do the things in ch. 19 and avoid doing the things in ch.20 to gain salvation. Those who do those things shall be saved (“glorified in the kingdom of God”), while those who “choose the other” will not be saved (“perish with his works”). Chapter 17.1, then, is an introduction to the “two ways” a person might follow. The choices made conceming these two ways will help determine if the person will be saved or not saved. Analysis of 19.1 Chapter 19.1 reads: H OÜV 6ÔÔÇ TOÛ 4kot6 The Way of Light is this; if any man desire to journey to the appointed place, let him be zealous in his works. 1 These includes “things” to do (ôoÇdacts' t6f ac Aurpcoadnciw ck Ocu'otov) and not to do (où -opi’ciwK). 215 In ch. 18 Bamabas introduces the two ways of “teaching and power” ... the way of Light and the way of Darkness. “And there is a great difference between the two ways. For over the one are set light-bringing angels of God, but over the other angels of Satan. And the One is Lord from eternity to eternity, and the other is the ruler of the present time.” Chapter 19, then, describes what the Way of Light consists of. It is the longest chapter in Bamabas and is filled with both moral teachings- and the reciting of one-half of the Jewish Decalogue.3 This Way of Light, for Bamabas, is the “way” to joumey to “the appointed place.” Although not mentioned by name, it can be assumed that “the appointed place” is both the kingdom of God and etemal life, for two reasons. Chapter 20.1 describes the Way of Darkness as “crooked and full of cursing, for it is the way of death etemal with punishment” (emphasis mine). And that “the appointed place” is heaven is attested in ch.21.1 which, following ch. 19 describing the Way of Light and ch.20 describing the Way of Darkness, says, “For he who does these things shall be glorified in the kingdom o f God, and he who chooses the others shall perish with his works.” (emphasis mine). What can we conclude, then, about Bamabas’ inclusion of good works with regards to the issue of salvation? Chapter 4.1 is a recitation of Isaiah 58 of the things which true followers of Christ are supposed to do. Chapter 17 speaks of the “things” necessary for salvation, which are spelled out in ch. 19. Chs. 19-21. which must be seen as a literary unit, are two of the clearest statements from Bamabas conceming the place of good works in his soteriological scheme. Chapter 19.1 unequivocally states that the person desiring to gain “the appointed place” must be zealous in his works. And since, for 2 Bamabas' injunctions against fornication (rropveuaeis), adultery (poiÇeuaeis) and sodomy (n^ai5cK{)0oprjae!s) in v.4, and abortion (4>oveuo£is t c k v o v ev (J)6opa) and infanticide (yevvrjOev a:roKT£veis) in v.5 may not have been universal, but they were, at least, to Barnabas. 3 The seventh (v.4), ninth (v.4), third (v.5), sixth (v.5) and tenth (v.6) are either quoted or alluded to. 216 Bamabas, there are only two ways, a Way of Light and a Way of Darkness, then the Way of Darkness would be the destination of the person who is not zealous in his good works, and is subject to “death etemal and punishment” (20.1). This conclusion, then, is confirmed, for ch.21.1 says that the person “who does (iroiwi') these things [the good works listed in ch. 19] shall be glorified in the kingdom of God.” Again, the implication is that those who do not do these things will not be glorified in the kingdom of God, and since there are only two ways, that person will go the Way of Darkness with its accompanying death and punishment We have already discussed how the juxtapositioning of concepts of a “Way of Light” and a “Way of Darkness” speaks of a possible influence from the Qumran community. And when we look at the list of “things” that people must do to enter into the “Way of Light” we discover that many of those things are admonitions or commandments found in the Old Testament. 217 CHAPTER XVII The Use of Xurpovin Barnabas Analysis of 19.10 A form of Xutooi' is used three times in Barnabas. The first occurrence is ch. 19.10 where the author o f the epistle speaks of x^ipwi/ oou cpydoq eiç XûrpwoiK dpapTiûv' aou. (working with your hands for the ransom of your sins). The immediate context of 19.10 is judgment (Kpiai?), more particularly the immediacy of judgment. Ch. 19.10a reads: prqoGdori ^pépar icpiaeoj? i 'u ic t ô ç k q I fipépaç (“Thou shalt remember the day of judgment [both] day and night "). And the believers are to prepare for that day of judgment in a number of ways. They are to “seek each day the society of the saints, either laboring by speech, and going out to exhort, and striving to save souls by the word, or working with your hands for the ransom of your sins.” The part of v. 10 that especially concerns our study here is the last part Barnabas says that the believers are to work with their hands for the ransoming of their sins. The word translated “ransom” here (Xurpov), means “the price for redeeming, ransom paid for slaves.”! In I Clement 12.7 (XÛTpwoiç); 55.2 (XuTpwoorrai ); 59.4 (XuTptoaai), II Clement (17.4 (XurpwocTai), Ignatius (Phil 11.1 (XurptoSeipoai^). the ’ Thayer, 384. 218 Didache (4.6 (XuxpcooLv) and Hermas (Man 8.1 (XurpoOcGai), as well as passages found in the New Testament,- Xtirpov speaks o f the saving activity of God. However, here in 19.10 Barnabas says that the Christians themselves are to “save souls by the word, or working with your hands for the ransom of your sins.” Therefore, although Barnabas retains this New Testament emphasis of “ransoming with a price” where he uses the word in 14.5,6 and 19.2, here in 19.10 it is not Jesus who redeems Christians; Christians by their own hands (good works?) pay the price, obtain redemption, and find forgiveness for their sins. “Working with your hands for the ransom of vour sins. What this passage indicates is that the believers are to take an active role in the preparation for the coming of the day of judgment “Working with your hands” is an activity a believer is to engage in as he/she prepares for that day of judgment However, this “working with thine own hands” metaphor, is not just an exhortation for the person to work hard to help others and themselves to be ready for that day. The believer is to work with their own hands “for the ransoming of [their] sins.” Therefore, the very act of ransoming or redeeming is now something that both God and the believer can do. Ransoming is now not only an act o f God through Jesus Christ (cf. New Testament passages cited above), but it is an act that the believer engages in as well. That Jesus is still part of the ransoming in Barnabas’ soteriology is seen in ch. 14.5,6. 2 Matthew 20.28; Mark 10.45; Luke 1.68. 2.38, 24.21; Hebrews 9.12; Titus 2.14; I Peter 1.18. aTOXurptcCTis is found in Luke 21.28; Romans 3.24, 8.23; I Corinthians 1.30; Ephesians 1.7,14,4.30; Colossians 1.14; Hebrews 9.15. 219 Analysis of 14.5,6 In ch.5.4 Bamabas drew a contrast between ôiicaLoaûrTi (righteousness) and QKOToç (darkness). Those who turn away from the knowledge of righteousness, and follow the way of darkness deserve to perish. In ch. 14 Bamabas returns to the idea of darkness, and reveals that Jesus is the one who will redeem (v.5 = XuTpwoduei/oç and v.6 = XuTpwadper'cv) those who find themselves or their hearts in a state of darkness. However, not only is Jesus the one who will redeem people from darkness, but in both verses Bamabas declares that it was for this very purpose that he was sent. V.5 reads: ÔÇ eiç toD to fiToipdaGri, (m axxrbç (fiaveiç, rd ç fiÔT] ôeôairai-Tipér’aç fipwu KapÔiaç ... XuTpwadpevoç èK toû aicÔTouç. For he was prepared for this purpose, that when he appeared he might redeem from darkness our hearts which were paid over to death. Likewise v.6 repeats v.5: YeypaTTTai ydp, nû? a ù rû 6 iraTfip èuréXXerai, Xurpwadpei/or f^dç èic to û OKOTOuç ÉTOLpdoai éairrû Xaôu d y io i’. For it is written that (the Father] enjoins on [Jesus] that he should redeem us from darkness and prepare a holy people for himself. For whatever other purpose Jesus came, Bamabas believes that one specific purpose was to redeem those who were in darkness. But not all who were in darkness. Chapter 14 is one of the many chapters devoted to anti-Judaic polemic, and the language strongly suggests that the redemption brought by Jesus is for the Gentiles only, to the exclusion of the Jews. V .l reads, “(The Jews] were not worthy to receive” the covenant given to Moses. V.4 reads, “Moses received (the tablet of stone], but (the Jews] were not worthy.” These two verses go beyond anti-Judaic, for it is not just the religion of the Jews 2 2 0 which is being attacked here, but the Jewish people. God did send the covenant, and Moses did receive iL These two verses (14.5,6) along with 5.1,10; 12.1 and 19.2 are the only verses which either directly mention or allude to Jesus as being involved in the salvation of those who will be saved. One interesting point that needs to be made here is that, for Bamabas, salvation is something that will come at some point of time in the future. It is something that is promised, and if all the right pieces are put together i.e. reliance on the blood of Christ, good works, and the “things” listed in ch. 19-20, then a person can have the assurance of salvation. This is in strong contrast to the language of salvation found in the letters of the Apostle Paul. For Paul salvation is something that has already been accomplished. 2 2 1 CHAPTER XVIII The Use of ai^a in Barnabas Analysis of 12.1 Ch. 11.11-12.1 says the following: [The Prophet says) we go down into the water full o f sins and foulness, and we come up bearing the fruit of fear in our hearts... ‘And whosoever shall eat of them shall live for ever.’ He means that whosoever hears and believes these things spoken shall live for ever... When shall... these things be accomplished? saith the Lord. When the tree shall fall and rise, and when blood shall flow from the tree.’ Here again you have a reference to the cross, and to him who should be crucified. This is one of the two verses where Bamabas indicates that the blood of Jesus is an agent of salvation. The antecedent of the question asked in 12.1 is 11.11 where Bamabas speaks of the redeemed living for ever. And the answer to the question, “When shall... these things be accomplished? “ is found in the next few words, “... when blood shall flow from the tree” which he indicates is “a reference to the cross.” The blood of Jesus is, for Bamabas, here, one of the things that brings that part of salvation described as “living for ever.” The blood of Jesus, then, for Bamabas, is another element in his soteriology, along with good works. Bamabas’ inclusion of the blood of Jesus and the cross is a reflection of the language used by the gospel writers, as well as Paul (Romans, Galatians, I Corinthians). Peter (i Peter 1.2,19) and the authors of Ephesians and the Apocalypse conceming the blood of Jesus in the process o f salvation. This is also an example of the “Reconciliation Model of Salvation” where Jesus, through the shedding of His blood on the cross, reconciled the humanity to God. 222 Analysis of 5.1 Bamabas says in ch.5.1 that believers are sanctified (dyi/ia8w^ei') by the remission (d It is in this verse that we find the clearest evidence of the influence of Judaism in the letter of Bamabas. The word translated “sanctified” comes from dyvi^w which is used in the New Testament in John 11.55; Acts 21.24,26 and Acts 24.18 in its Jewish ceremonial sense. Thayer says that this is the word the Jews used when they spoke of “cleans[ing| themselves from levitical pollution by means of prayers, abstinence, washings, sacrifices.”! In the LXX it is the word used in Numbers 6.3 to speak of the “Nazirites or those who had taken upon themselves a temporary or a life-long vow to abstain from wine and all kinds of intoxicating drink. This imagery is again invoked in Bamabas 8.1-2a which reads as follows: But what do you think that it typifies ( t u t t o v ) , that the commandment has been given to Israel that the men in whom sin (apapTiai) is complete offer a heifer and slay it and bum it, and that boys then take the ashes and put them into vessels and bind scarlet wool on sticks (see again the type [t û t t o ç J of the cross and the scarlet wool) and hyssop, and that the boys all sprinkle (paiTiCeir) the people thus one by one in order that they all be purified (dyriCwi/Tai) from their sins (dpap ruLi’). Observe how plainly he speaks to you. The calf is Jesus. However, not only do we see the influence of Jewish ceremonial law here in 5.1, but in the New Testament as well. Other early Christian authors wrote that the sacrifices ■> Thayer, 7. 2 ibid. 223 offered in the Jewish Temple were tj'pes (tOttg?) of Christ.^ And in James 4.8,1 Pet 1.21 and I John 3.3 dyi/i(u has been given a distinctly Christian meaning. In these passages the Christians are urged to purify their hearts. What Bamabas is saying here is that the Christians are purified by the remission (d The idea of sending sin away and the sprinkling of blood as parts of a purification ceremony is also drawn from Old Testament imagery. In the Old Testament on the Day of Atonement two goats were brought to the Temple and lots were cast on them. One goat was slain, and the blood of that goat was taken into the Most Holy Place of the Temple. There the High Priest would take hyssop, dip it into the blood and sprinkle it on the Ark of the Covenant This act symbolically cleansed the Temple of the sins that had been accumulating there over the year by the people coming to the Temple with their sin offerings. The High Priest would then symbolically place those sins on the head of the other goat, the Scape Goat, who would be taken into the wilderness, thus removing sin from the people and the Temple.s Bamabas is obviously familiar with this ritual, and has taken it and given it a Christian interpretation. These ceremonies in the Old Testament are the TÙTTOÇ that he speaks of in ch.8.1-2 which are fulfilled either in the life and death of Christ or in the life of the early Church. 3 cf. I Corinthians 5.7; Hebrews 7.23-27; 9.12-10.19. « ibid.. 88. 5 A full description of the Day of Atonement and its purpose is found in Leviticus 16. 224 In conclusion, in ch.21.1 he says that the promise of eternal life is fulfilled “when blood shall flow from the tree” which is “a reference to the cross, and to him who should be crucified.” And in ch.5.1 Bamabas says that the Old Testament ceremonies involving sacrifices which “purified [the people] from their sins” were types of Jesus, for “the calf is Jesus.” Therefore, the blood of Jesus both brings eternal life, and purifies the believers from their sins. This is language seen in earlier and later Christian authors in discussions of the place of the cross in matters of salvation. 225 CHAPTER VTII The Use of owCu in Barnabas Analysis of 5.10 ei yap pf] fiXBev ér aapKi, oùS’ d r irwç o l di'Opcoiroi èoûGpoar pXéTToi’reç aÙTÔr. For if he had not come in the flesh men could in no way have been saved by beholding him. Twice in this chapter, in v. 10 and in v. 11 Bamabas says that Jesus came “in flesh” {èv oapici), and in both verses people beholding his coming in flesh accomplished a certain aspect of salvation. Verse 10 suggests that people needed to behold him (pXéTTorreç aÙTÔr), and if they did not they could “in no way have been saved.” It could be argued that Bamabas is speaking of “spiritual insight,” but the context does not warrant such an interpretation, for he speaks of Jesus coming “èr oapKi”, not coming in a spiritual body which can only be seen with spiritual eyes. Verses 11 and 12 reads “The Son of God came in the flesh for this reason, that he might complete the total of the sins of those who persecuted his prophets to death ... For God says of the chastisement of his flesh that it is from them: ‘WTien they shall smite their shepherd, then the sheep of the flock shall be destroyed.’” However these verses are to be interpreted, at least two things may be said. First, this verse is another in a long list of verses which heap guilt and shame on the Jews. Jesus had to come to “complete their sins.” And these are the people who 226 “persecuted his prophets to death.” The “chastisement of his flesh” is from them. They have destroyed themselves by slaying their shepherd. However, the slaying of the shepherd not only completed the condemnation of the Jews, but, Bamabas says in ch.7.2, “[He| suffered in order that his wounding (nXpyp) might make us alive.” Therefore, ch.5.11,12 and ch.7.2 both speak of the death of Jesus as an important thread of the soteriological fabric that Bamabas is weaving. Secondly, 7.2; 5.11,12, coupled with v.lO, leaves little doubt that this death of Jesus was in the flesh; that he was no 4>dvraopa. For Bamabas, the actual physical death of Jesus is an important element in his understanding of how a person is saved. Salvation is dependent on Jesus coming in the flesh, and it is dependent on him dying in flesh. And it can be argued that his insistence on Jesus coming and dying in the flesh is a refutation of those who said that He did not. However, for Bamabas, and those who believed as he did, if Jesus did not come in the flesh, the eucharist becomes unintelligible. The words of Jesus in John 6 about people needing to eat his flesh and drink his blood to be a part of the resurrection looses its meaning if the Jesus of the Gospels was not physically present. The writers of Matthew 26.26-28, Mark 14.22-25 and Luke 22.19-20 have Jesus at the Passover meal saying to his disciples “Take eat; this is My body [and] this is My blood of the new covenant” And it apparently was important for the Christians to believe that the bread and wine were, in fact, the body and blood of Jesus, for he said that his blood was “shed for the remission of sins.” Therefore, if there was, in reality, no body or blood, then there is no forgiveness of sins, and no salvation. Bamabas’ language of Jesus coming èv oapici, then, is a reaffirmation of a basic Christological tmth for the early Christians which had soteriological implications. 227 CONCLUSION Bamabas’ soteriological understanding was either able to accommodate many elements with regard to the question of “how” a person is saved, or is somewhat confused, or both. To say that the author of the Epistle of Bamabas articulates a soteriology which is colored by his overall theology is to place him with every early Christian author, from Paul to Augustine. And while the Epistle of Bamabas is not a manual on how a person is saved, his thinking on soteriological issues does appear. Nor is his understanding of salvation isolated in one or two texts, but is revealed from various angles at different parts in the epistle. This study has demonstrated that, for Bamabas, righteousness (ôitcaiooùi/r|) is an important part of salvation. How a person receives the righteousness necessary for salvation is also revealed in some places. Bamabas speaks of the believers working for their salvation, (cf. 4.1; 17.1; 19.1; 21.1). In other places faith ( t t l o t l ç - 13.7b), knowledge (yrwoi? - 5.4), goodness (dyaOôç - 4.12), and the blood (aï pa -12.1) of Jesus are discussed as important elements in this process. The believers who do receive salvation are spoken of as being saved (owCw - 5.10), redeemed or ransomed (kurpow - 19.10), or receiving etemal life and joumeying “to the appointed place.” His language in chs. 4.1 (“those who do these things ”), 17.1 ("the things which are necessary fo r salvation ”) and 21.1 (“he who does these things shall be glorified in tlie kingdom of God) testify to a soteriological understanding that includes many elements. This is not to 228 mention the list of “things” in ch. 19, under the heading “Way of Light” Chapter 19 reads as follows: The Way of Light is this: if any man desire to journey to the appointed place, let him be zealous in his works. Therefore the knowledge given to us of this kind that we may walk in it is as follows: - You shall love your maker, you shall fear your Creator, you shall glorify Him who redeemed you from death, you shall not be simple in heart, and rich in spirit; you shall not join yourself to those who walk in the way of death, you shall hate all that is not pleasing to God, you shall hate all hypocrisy; you shall not desert the commandments of the Lord. You shall not exalt yourself, but shall be humble-minded in all things; you shall not take glory to yourself. You shall form no evil plan gainst your neighbor, [and] you shall not let your soul be forward. You shall not commit fornication, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not commit sodomy. You shall not let the word of God depart from you among the impurity of any men. You shall not respect persons in the reproving of transgressions. You shall Ire meeK you shall be quiet, you shall fear the words which you have heard. You shall not bear malice against your brother. You shall not be in two minds whether it shall be or not “You shall not tate the name of the Lord in vain.” You shall love your neighbor more than your own life. You shall not procure abortion, you shall not commit infanticide. You shall not withhold your hand from your son or from your daughter, but shall teach them the fear of God from their youth up. You shall not covet your neighbor’s goods, you shall not be avaricious. You shMl not be joined in soul with the haughty but shall converse with humble and righteous men. You shall receive the trials that befall you as good, knowing that nothing happens without God. You shall not be double-minded or talkative. You shall obey your masters as a type of God in modesty and fear; you shall not command in bitterness your slave or handmaid who hope on the same God, lest they cease to fear the God who is over you both; for he came not to call men with resp%t of persons, but those whom the Spirit prepared. You shall share all things with your neighbOT and shall not say that they are thy own property; for if you are sharers in that which is incorruptible, how much more in that which is corruptible? You shall not be forward to speak, for the mouth is a snare of death. So far as you can, you shall keep your soul pure. Be not one who stretches out the hands to take, and shuts them when it comes to giving. You shall love”as the apple of your eye” all who spealc to you the word of the Lord. You shall remember the day of judgment day and night, and you shall seek each day the society of the saints, either laboring by speech, and going out to exhort, and striving to save souls by the word, or working with your hands for the ransom of your sins. You shall not hesitate to give, and when you give you shall not grumble, but you shall know who is the good paymaster of the reward. “You shall keep the precepts” which you have received, “adding nothing and taking nothing away.” You shall utterly hate evil “You shall give righteous judgment” You s l^ not cause quarrels, but shall bring together and reconcile those that strive. You shall confess your sins. You shall betake yourself to prayer with an evil conscience. This is the Way of Light.6 The passage begins by saying that “This is the Way of Light” and says that “if any man desire to journey to the appointed place, let him be zealous in his works.” And the 6 trans. from Lake, 401-405. 229 rest of chapter 19 lists what those works are. While much of the language in chapter 19 is from the Old Testament (with parts o f the decalogue even being repeated) it also resonates with the New Testament Chapter 19 is a list of moral behaviors which Christians need to follow, but Bamabas has given this morality salvific importance. I f the Christian ever hopes to receive salvation, he/she must follow these instructions, for chapter 21.1 says “He who does these things shall be glorified in the kingdom of God, and he who chooses the others shall perish with his works." The Epistle is strongly rooted in Judaism, both in language and theology. The elements of a Jewish influence in the epistle are: I) Bamabas’ use of the LX X - His extensive quoting of Old Testament passages are exclusively from the LXX. II) Bamabas’ familiarity with Jewish sacrificial system and holy days. This is seen in chapter 7.3-S.2 where he speaks of sacrifice for sins (7.3), offering upon the altar (7.3). eating the goat which was offered (7.4), a burnt offering (7.6), the slaying and burning a heifer (8.1), hyssop (8.1), sprinkling (8.1), and purification of sins (8.1). This is language used to describe the sacrificial system in the Temple, which the Israelites believed purified them and their camp from sin. In fact, ch. 7.6,8 repeats part of the instructions given to the priests on the Day of Atonement “Take two goats, goodly and alike, and offer them, and let the priest take the one as a burnt offering for sins." The blood of this goat was taken into the Most Holy Place of the Temple. The High Priest took a branch of hyssop, dipped it into the blood and sprinkled the blood over the Mercy Seat The other goat the scape goat, was declared to be accursed, and was “cast into the desert." The ritual at the Temple on the Day of Atonement which the priests were to follow were designed to cleanse the “camp" from sins. Bamabas says throughout these two chapters that both goats are types of Jesus. He is both the sacrificial goat for sin, and the scape goat, in that he bears the sins of “Israel." 230 III) His use of Halakic (18-20) and Haggadic (1-17) materials. IV ) A language which is rooted in God’s dealings with Israel. Numerous stories about and instructions given to “God’s people” in the Old Testament are retold, and are offered as lessons for the Christian community. V) The allegorical method of interpretation taken over from Philo. Many of the stories, and some o f the language from the Old Testament are said to have meanings which a literal reading of the text do not reveal. V I) Parallels with the Qumran community (cf. 17.1; 19.1). This study has demonstrated that much of Bamabas’ “soteriological language” (salvation from sin, darkness and death) also finds strong parallels in Judaism, both Palestinian and Hellenistic. Yet the recipients of his letter cannot mistake his disdain of Judaism. More than once in the letter those who are saved (redeemed) are those who avoid Judaism. The experiences of the Jews are used to illustrate both the Jews’ misunderstanding of God (and His word), and that it was the Gentiles who were to be the recipients of God’s covenant from the beginning. However, we must acknowledge Bamabas’ familiarity of the New Testament, which is demonstrated by the repeated quotations from the New Testament corpus. Echoes of the New Testament language of the blood of Jesus being an agent of redemption is found in Bamabas’ use of Xuxpou and alpa. The influence of the Apostle Paul is especially evident in 13.7 and 4.3. In conclusion, we cannot speak of Bamabas’ soteriology, but rather his soteriologies. Bamabas does not have a soteriology in the sense of it being a single, unified teaching. As stated earlier, while the epistle is not about soteriological issues, the salvation of Christians is important, and he repeatedly returns to language about salvation throughout the epistle. And many of the other important issues which he raises in the 231 epistle are tied into his understanding of what salvation consists of. It is important that his Christian audience live moral lives. It is important that they shun Judaism. It is important that they exercise faith. It is important that they believe in the blood of Jesus. It is important that they obtain righteousness. And all of these things are necessary for a person to be saved. Bamabas does not seem to be concerned about presenting a truth about salvation, but he is concerned that his readers have salvation. And there is no indication from the ancient sources that anyone questioned what Bamabas had to say about how a person is saved. 232 CONCLUSION Even as early Christianity began to emerge as a religion distinct from Judaism, its Jewish roots were still very apparent. There were a number of reasons for this. Many of the early, important, Christian authors were Jewish, e.g. Paul, John, the author of Hebrews, the author of Revelation. I would add I Clement and Bamabas to that list. We have no certain evidence of who the authors of these letters were, only traditions handed down to us. 1 However, the internal evidence from the letters indicates à Jewish background for the following reasons. Christian authors began to appropriate the Jewish Scritpures for themselves early on2, and the degree of familiarity with the rituals, language, and history of Israel found in these letters speaks of a Jewish authorship. The internal evidence from both Cement and Bamabas reflect a Jewish influence, both Hellenistic and Palestinian (and for Bamabas, Qumranian). We looked at the frequent quotes from the LXX from the Torah to the Prophets, and the references to the experiences of the Israelites from the Old Testament, from Adam to Cain and Abel to Noah to David to Daniel. That evidence is quite impressive, and cannot be discounted. Clement in 7.5 as he begins to review the experiences of some of the Old Testament figures says, “Let us review all the generations. ' Irenaeus {Against Heresies 3.3.3), Tertullian {On the Prescription Against Heretics 32), and Eusebius {Church History 3.15.34) name Clement, third Bishop ot Rome as the author of I Clement. Clement of Alexandria (in Stromata 2.20) says that the author of Bamabas is the Barnabas mentioned in the New Testament. And although Origen regards it highly, he does not say who the author is. 2 The experiences of Old Testament figures from Adam to Abraham to Moses to David to Isaiah are told throughout the New Testament, and their stories were recorded, according to Paul, Tor our admonition, on whom the ends of the ages has come." (1 Corinthians 10.11). 233 and let us leam that in generation after generation the Master has given a place of repentance to those who will turn to him / And in ch. 17 he says, “Let us be imitators of (Elijah, Elisha, Ezekiel, Abraham, Job and Moses] who went about... heralding the coming of Christ.” Bamabas’ use of the allegorical method of interpretating stories from the Old Testament is evidence of the influence of Hellenistic Judaism’s handling of the sacred Jewish literature. His liberal use of and quotations from the LXX, along with paralells with the theology of the Qumran community are further evidences of a Jewish influence. Conceming the soteriology contained in these letters, both letters speak of the faith T T L O T iç ), obedience (ûnatcoq) and works (tù epya) of Old Testament figures, as well as their need for righteousness (ôiicaLoowql as necessities for salvation. Both Clement and Bamabas see people and prophesies from the Old Testament as pointing to Jesus or the church. For example, Clement, in ch. 16, and Bamabas in ch.5, says that Isaiah 53 was a prophesy of the cmcifixion of Jesus, which was necessary for salvation. In Clement, intermingled with a quotation of the text of Isa 53 are the phrases “He it is who beareth our sins;” “he was wounded for our sins;” “with his bmises were we healed;” “the Lord delivered him up for our sins;” “he himself shall bear their sins;” “he bore the sins of many.” In ch.5 Bamabas says that “the Prophets... prophesied of him ... that he might destroy death ... in the flesh.” And in ch.6, after quoting passages from Psalms and Isaiah, he says, “therefore he was destined to be made manifest and to suffer in the flesh for his Passion” and that this “was foretold.” (v.7). In ch.7 the scapegoat on the Day of Atonement, an annual ritual in the Temple designed to cleanse the nation from sin, is given a Christological interpretation. Bamabas says, “See then the type of Jesus destined to suffer” ... and “those who will see me, and attain to my kingdom must lay hold of me 2 3 4 through pain and suffering." (w . 10,11). This understanding of this rather complex Jewish ritual, along with his discussion of Jewish sacrificial rites (ch.8; “the calf is Jesus" [v.2J), circumcision (ch.9) and Jewish food laws (ch. 10) betrays a Christian converted from Judaism. We also discovered, in both letters, a familiarity with literature which came to be part o f the New Testament corpus. Both Clement and Bamabas quote texts from the New Testament as authoritative, and the New Testament understandings of the purposes of the incarnation, i.e. Jesus as teacher and Jesus as sacrifice, are reflected in both of these letters. We spent some time looking at the soteriological teachings of Gnosticism, Stoicism, and the teachings of the pagans and mystery religions. In particular, the argument of Hamack, Knopf and Sanders that Clement 16 is Stoic was analyzed, and 1 concluded that although Stoic language is used, it is language that is not unique to Stoic philosophers, but is shared by Judaism as well. We discovered that some elements of the Hellenistic understanding of who a savior (owTfjp) was and what salvation (owrripia) consisted of are reflected in the writings of the early church. However, while both Clement (“Through him we fix our gaze on the heights of heaven" 36.2) and Bamabas (“If any man desire to joumey to the appointed place" 19.1) say that salvation was a deliverence from this world, we do not find this in the pagan religions. Likewise, while both Christians and pagans looked for deliverence from wars, famine and ill health, the Christians also looked for deliverence from sin. Both Clement and Bamabas speak of the need for repentence and forgiveness from sin. But Wolfson says that “in Greek philosophy repentance is regarded as a weakness rather than a virtue."3 The pagans of the Roman Empire did not look to their gods for forgiveness from sin. 3 Wolfson, 155. 235 What we have, then, in these two letters, are early Christian documents which demonstrate a continuing, profound influence of Christianity’s Jewish roots. As matters conceming salvation appear in the letters, it becomes apparent that their understanding is Christian, Salvation and righteousness comes through faith in the blood o f Jesus Christ, and this Jesus Christ was prophesied in the Old Testament. He is the fulfillment of these prophesies. However, there is also embedded in the soteriologies of these letters elements which are brought over from Judaism. Obedience to the commandments and practicing good works are, along with the blood of Christ, ways of obtaining righteousness. In today’s theological language, a soteriology that allows both the blood of Jesus Christ and the performing of good works as elements needed for salvation, would be termed, by some, pejoratively, semi-pelagianism. The authors of these two letters, would not understand this objection. In their world Christians were to be people who not only put their faith in the blood of Jesus Christ, but who demonstrated their committment to him by doing good works. Clement and Bamabas would find evidence of this mixture of faith and works in the New Testament Paul, in Rom 2.13 says, “For not the hearers of the law are just (ÔLKaLoi) in the sight of God, but the doers (TTOLrjral) of the law will be justified (ôLKaLw9f|aoi'Tai ). And in James 2.14,21-22 says, “What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works (epya)? Can faith save (owoai) him? ... Was not Abraham our father justified by works (èÇ epyw èôitccuwGq) when he offered Isaac his son on the alter? Do you see that faith was working together with his works (BA.€tt£l9 ÔTL f| TTLOTLç oui/fjpyei TOLÇ èpyoLÇ aÙToû.” This was a soteriological understanding that lived unchallenged to the sixteenth century, and a teaching which is still being taught and believed today. A question that needs to be asked, then, is how much of the soteriological understandings of Clement and Bamabas survived, and find expression in the Christianity 236 of today? And if a 20th century Christian finds himself in agreement with the osteriology of Clement and Bamabas, he needs to recognize that that soteriology was influenced by the soteriology of first century Judaism. This recognition can (and should) lead to some dialogue between Chiistians and Jews on a subject that may lead them past the rencor over the Messiahship of Jesus christ, and a realization that these two religions have more in common than formerly allowed. 237 BIBLIOGRAPHY I) ANCIENT WORKS CITED: A) SCRIPTURE: 1) Old Testament: Genesis 3.23-24; 4.1-15; 6.5; 7; 8; 18; 30.33 Leviticus 14.5; 14.7,53; 16.14-19; 16.2 Iff; 19.15 Numbers 8.7; 19.9; 31.22f Deuteronomy 13.6; 21.Iff; 22.27; 25.1; 28.29; 33.19 Joshua 7.25 Judges 6.14; 12.2; 15.18 I Samuel 4.3; 7.8; 9.16; 14.45 II Samuel 8.14 I Kings 8.32 II Kings 19.4 II Chronicles 7.19-22; 36.16-17 Job 6.29 Psalms 4.5; 7.2; 32; 34.15; 35.24; 36.6; 40.14-15; 59.3; 71.2; 119.114; 143.11 Proverbs 8.8 Isaiah 6.6; 6.9-10; 40-66; 57.1; 64.6 Jeremiah 7.16; 7.30-34; 11.14; 14.11; 15.1; 15.11; 23.6; 42.4; Ezekiel 13.5; 22.30; 33.13 238 Amos 7.1-6 Malachi3.ll 2) New Testament: Matthew 1.21-23; 4.1-11; 26.27-28,54-56; 27.35 Mark 1.12.13; 15.27-28 Luke 4.1-4; 4.1-13; 24.27.28,44 John 1.4; 1.7; 1.14; 1.41; 3.13; 3.14,15; 3.18-20; 4.25; 6.1; 11.25- 26; 12.31; 14.1-6; 19.28,36,37 20.31 Acts 2.9-11,14-36; 4.2; 4.12; 4.21; 9.1-2.30,32; 11.19; 13.4,5.13- 14,26-39; 14.1,6,20,26; 16.11-12; 17.1.10.15; 17.18; 18.1- 2.19; 20.1-6; 21.1-9; 28.11-14; 28.18 Romans 1-2; 2-3.20; 3.21-25; 4.25; 5.6,8,9,10,19-19; 8.32.34; 8.34; 14.9,15 I Corinthians 1-14; 1.17; 1.23; 2.2; 5.7; 8.11; 15.3; 15.13-19 II Corinthians 5.14; 5.15; 5.21; 13.4 Galatians 1.6-24, 8,9; 2.21; 3.1; 3-5.12; 3.13 Ephesians 1.7; 2.5, 8-9; 2.13; 2.16; 4.21; 5.2 Philippians 2.8 Colossians 1.20; 2.8ff; 2.14 I Thessalonians 4.14; 5.9; 5.10 I Timithy 1.3-7; 2.5,6; 4.1-3 II Timothy 2.16-18; 2.14-18 3 Titus 1.10-16; 3.5 Hebrews 7.26-27; 9.12-14, 28; 9.12-14.26 James 2.14-26; 5.19-20 I Peter 1.2,19; 3.21 II Peter 2.1-4 239 I John 2.22; 4.2,15; 5.1,5,6 II John 7 Rev 1.5; 12.11; 20.6 B) ANCIENT CHRISTIAN TEXTS: Acts o f Thomas 10 ^ ristides. Apology 15 Ascension o f Iscdah 3.16-20; 9.14 Athanasius, Against the Arians 2.1 ff On the Incarnation 26 Augustine, The Trinity 8.5.7 Bamabas. 1.4,6; 2.4-10; 3.4; 4.10,12; 5.4,6,7,9; 6.1,7; 7.3; 10.11; 11.7; 12.4; 13.7; 14.7; 15.7,9; 19.6; 20.2; 21.1 Clement of Alexandria, s//»/77ûrû 1.5,22; 1.99; 4.18; 7.5; 7.12 I Clement, 3.4; 5.7; 8.4; 9.3; 10.6; 13.1; 14.1; 15.5; 16.12; 17.3; 18.4,15; 21.4,6; 22.6,7; 24.1,2.3; 26.1; 27.1; 30.3,4,7; 31.2; 32.4; 33.7,8; 35.2; 36.2; 39.9; 42.3,5; 45.3,4; 46.4; 48.2,3,4; 49.6; 50.5; 59.2; 60.1 II Clement, 2.4; 4.2; 5.7; 6.9; 11.1,7; 12.1; 13.1; 15.3; 17.7; 18.2; 19.2,3; 20.3,4 Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures 19 Didache. 3.9; 5.2; 11.2; 16.6 Diogenes, 5.9,14; 9.1,2,3,4,5; 10.8 Gospel o f Nicodemus 6.22 Gospel o f Peter 36-40 Hermas, Mandates 1.2; 4.1.3; 5.1.7; 5.2.1,7; 6.1.1,2; 6.2.1,3,6,8-10; 8.2,9; 10.1.5; 11.3,9,13-15; 12.3.1; 12.6.2 , Visions 1.1.8; 1.3.2; 1.4.2; 2.2.5,6.7; 2.3.1; 3.1.6; 3.3; 3.6.4; 3.7.6; 3.9.1 2 4 0 , Similitudes. 2.9; 3.2,3; 4.2; 6.1.4; 5.1.4; 5.7.1; 6.3.6; 5.5.3; 8.3.2,8; 8.9.1; 8.10.3; 9.13.7; 9.15.4; 9.17.5; 9.19.2 Hilary of Poitiers, On the Trinity 4.42 Ignatius of Antioch, fpto/ows. 1.1; 19.1 .. Magnesitms. 8.2; 11.1; 12.1; ., Philadelphians. 2.3; 3.1,3; 4.1; 5.2; 8.1,2; 9.1,2 .. Romans. 5.1; 6.1 ., Smymians. 3.1,3; 5.3; 7.2; 12.2 Ireneaus, Against the Heretics 1.21.4; 3.18.1; 4.34.1 John Chrysostom, Expositions in Psalms 4.6 .. Homily in Matthew 10.1 Justin Martyr. I Apology 1.45; 2.10; 6.1; 12-19. 23; 59.60 .. 2 Apology 10.8 . Dialogue with Trypho 4.3; 11.2; 18.3; 52.4; 78.9; 88.8 Lactantius, Divine Institutes 4.16 Methodius, Symposium 3.6 Origen, Catechism. 21 .. Against Celsus 1.60; 1.68; 2.47; 2.52; 3.7; 5.47; 6.19; 8.17 ., On First Principles 1.8.3; 2.9.4; 3.2.1 . homily in Genesis 12.4 ., homily in Leviticus 2.3 ., homily in Matthew 12.11 ., homily in Romans. 5.1 Polycarp, Philippians 7.1 ; 8.1 Tertullian, Against Marcion 5.6 .. On the Prescription Against the Heretics 15 Testament o f Benjamin 9.5 2 4 1 Treatise on the Resurrection 47.18-49; 48.34-38 Victorinus, Against Arius 3.3 C) OTHER ANCIENT DOCUMENTS CITED: Aeschylus. The Seven Agjainst Thebes 584. Apocalypse of Zephaniah 3.5-9 Apocryphon ofEzjekiel 11 2 Baruch 32.1; 38.1; 48.22; 51.3, 4-7; 54.15 Cicero, De Natura Decorum 2.167 .. pro Flaccus. 66-69 Diognetus Laertes, 7.54 I Enoch 95-105 Epictetus, DKco«rxé’5 1.14.6 Euripides, Children of Hercules 901. Homer, Odyssey 3.52 Jerusalem Makkot 32a Josephus, Antiquities, 6.265; 8.121; 14.112f; 18.3.3; 18.117 ., Against Apion 2.36.256-257 Lucian, History 39. Marcus Aurelius, 9.42; 12.26 Philo, j?<2cc. 43 Pindar, Pythian Odes 1.85 Plato, Republic 4.446 Seneca, Ep. 14.1-2; 21; 26; 55; 63; 92; 95.50; 102; 120 Suetonius, Life of Claudius. 25.4 Suipicius, Chronica. 29.3 242 Sibyline Oncles bk.3.701-61; 767-95. .. bk.5.249-55; 420-27. Tacitus, Annals, 15.44,2-8 Thc^^nis 147 Tosephra Kiddushim 336 Xenophon, Cyr. 2.2.26 II) MODERN AUTHORS: Aland, K. Saims and Sinners. Translated by Wilhelm C. Linss. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1970. Almog, S. Antisemitism Through the Ages. Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1988. Alvarez, J. “Apostolic Writings and the Roots of Aanti-Semitism." Stadia Pamstica 13 (1975) \=Texte und Untersuchungen 116]: 69-76. Angus, S. The Mystery Religions and Christianity. New York: Scribners, 1975. Aulen, G. Christas Victor. New York: Macmillan, 1951. Barnard, L.W. “The Early Roman Church and Jewish-Christianity.” Anglican Theological Review 49 ( 1967): 372-378. . “The Epistle of Barnabas and the Dead Sea Scrolls: Some Observations.” Scottish Journal of Theology 45 (1982): 58-74. Barrett, C.K. The New Testament Background: Selected Documents. New York: Harper & Row, 1956. Bauer, W. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 2nd ed.. Translated by William F. Arndt and F. Wilber Gingrich. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979. Berkhof, L. The History of Christian Doarines. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1939. Beyschlag, K. Clemens Romanus und der Fruhkatholizismus. Tubingen. 1966. Bauer, W. Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971. 2 4 3 Bronner, L. Sects and Separatism During the Second Jewish Commonwealth. New York, 1967. Butlmann, R. Theologie des Neuen Testaments. Tubingen: Mohr, 1953. Bumpus, H.B. The Christological Awareness o f Clement of Rome and its Sources. Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press. 1972. Charlesworth, J. H., ed. The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, .Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations. 10 vols. Louisville, KY; Westminster/ John Knox Press, 1994. Vol.l: Rule ofthe conununity and Related Documents, Cross, P.M.; Qimron, E.; Schiffman, L.H.; Stuckenbruck, L.T.; and Whitaker, R.E. Collins, J J. “Sibylline Oracles: A New Translation and Introduction.” In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha: Apocalyptic Literature and Testaments. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. Garden City, NY: Doubleday and Co., 1983: 317-472. Curran, B.F. “Soteriological Themes and Motifs in Roman Religion.” Prudentia 20(1988):31-42. Davidson, W. The Stoic Creed. Edinburgh: T.&T. Clark. 1907. Davies, A. T.. ed. AntiSemitism and the Foundations of Christianity. New York: Paulist Press, 1979. Davies, W.D. Paul and Rabbinic Judaism: Some Rabbinic Elements in Pauline Theology. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1980. de Ghellinck, J. Patristique et Moyen Age. Vol. 1. Paris: Desclee de Brouwer. 1946. Eichrodt, W.E. Theology ofthe Old Testament. Translated by J.A. Baker. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1967. Ferguson, E. Backgrounds ofEarly Christianity. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing, 1987. ., ed. Encyclopedia of Early Christianity. London: Garland Publishing, 1990. Ferguson, J. The Religions of the Roman Empire. Ithica, NY: Cornell University Press, 1970. Fitzmyer, J. A. The Dead Sea Scrolls: Major Publications and Tools for Study. Revised edition. SBL Resources for BiNical Study 20 Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990. Franks, R.S. A History of the Dt/ctrine of the Work of Christ. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1918. 2 4 4 Fraser, P. M . Ptolomaic Alexandria. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972. Fredriksen, P. “Apocalypse and Redemption in Early Christianity: From John of Patmos to Augustine of Hippo.” Vigilae Chrisrianae 45 (1991), 151-183. Frend, W.H.C. The Donanst Church: A Movement o f Protest in Roman North Africa. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1952. . The Rise o f Christianity. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984. Gager, J. G. The Origins o f Anti-Semitism: Attitudes Toward Judaism in Pagan and Christian Antiquity. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985. Gaston, L. “Paul and the Torah.” In AntiSemitism and the Foundations o f Christianity. Edited by Alan T. Davies. New York: Paulist Press, 1979. Gonzalez, J. L. A History o f Christian Thought. 3 vols. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1970. Vol. 1 : From the Beginnings to the Council ofChalcedon. Hagner. D.A. The Use o f the Old and New Testaments in Clement o f Rome. Leiden: EJ. Brill, 1973. Hall, S.G. “Repentance in 1 Clement.” Snulia Patristica 8 (1966): 314-319 Hamack, A. Lehrbuch der Dogmenseschichte. Tubingen: Diebeck, 1931. . The Missionary Expansion o f Christianity in the First Three Centuries. Edited and Translated by J. MoffatL 2nd ea. vol. II. New York: 1908. Hasel, G. Old Testament Theology: Basic Issues in the Current Debate. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972. Hedrick, W. and Hodgson, R., Editors Nag Hammadi, Gnosticism and Early Christianity. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1986. Heilman, W.E. Christianity and the Classics. New York: University Press of America, 1990. Hengel, M. Judaism and Hellenism: Studies in the Encounter in Palestine During the Early Hellerâstic Period. Translated by J. Bowden. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975. Hermans, A. “Le Pseudo-Barnabe est-il millenarist?” Ephemerides theologicae Lovanienses 35 (1959): 849-876. Horbury, W. “The Jewish Dimension.” In Early Christianity: Origins and Evolution to A.D. 600. Edited by Ian Hazlett. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1991. 245 Isaac, E. The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. Garden City, NY: Doubleday and Co., 1983. Jaeger, W. Early Christianity and Greek Paideia. Cambridge: Harvard U. Press, 1962. Kapera, Z.J. ed. International Essays in Honor c fJoseph Tadeusz Millik. \o\.(>.Qumranica Mogilanensia.Kx^ow. Enigma Press, 1992. Kittle, G. ed. Theological Dictionary o f the New Testament. Translated by Goeffrey W. Bromley. Grand Rapids, M I: Eerdmans, 1964. Kleist, J.A. The Ttidache, The Epistle o f Barnabas, in Ancient Christian Writers. vol.6., 1948. Klijn, A.F.J., and Reinink, G.J. Patristic Evidence fo r Jewish-Christian Seas. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1973. Kraft, R.A. Barnabas and the Didache. vol.3 of The Apostolic Fathers. Edited by R.M. Grant New York: Nelson Publishing, 1965. . “Barnabas’ Isaiah Text and the ‘Testimony Book’ Hypothesis.” Journal o f Biblical Uterature 79(1960): 336-350 and 80 (1961): 371-373. Laeuchli, S. “Prolegomenon to a Structural Analysis of Ancient Christian Views of Salvation.” Disciplina Nostra (1979): 43-57. Lampe, G.W.H. A Patristic Greek-English Lexicon. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1961. Levi, I. “Le proselytism Juif.” Revue des etudes juives 50 (1905):l-9; 51 (1906): 1-31. Lidell, H.G., and Scott, Robert. A Greek-English Lexicon o f ike New Testament. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1843. Liebeschuetz, J.H.W.G. Continuity and Change in Roman Religion. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1979. Lightfoot. J.B., and Harmer, J.R. TTze Apostolic Fathers: Texts and English Translations o f Their Writings. 2nd ed. Edited by Michael Holmes. Grand Rapids, M I: l ^ e r Book House, 1992. Loofs, F. Leitfaden am Studien der Dogmengeschichte. Naumberg: Lippert, 1950. Lowy, S. “The Confutation of Judaism in the Epistle of Barnabas.” Journal o f Jewish Studies 11 (1960): 1-33. Mackey, J. P. Jesus: The Man and the Myth. New York: Paulist Press, 1979. 246 MacLennan, R.S. Early Texts on Jews and Judaism. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990. MacMullen, R. Paganism in the Roman Empire. London: Yale University Press, 1981. Martin, L. H. “The Pagan Religious Background.” In Early Christianity: Origins and Evolution to A.D. 600. Edited by Ian HazletL Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1991. Matheson, P.E. Epictetus, The Discourses and Manual. Oxford, 1916. Meeks, W. The First Urban Christians: The Social World o f the Apostle Paul. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983. Mitros, J. P. “Patristic Views of Christ’s Salvific Work.” Thought 42 (1967): 81-102. Moore, G.F. Judaism in the First Centuries o fthe Christian Era: The Age o f the Tannaim. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1927. Neusner, J. “The Formation of Rabbinic Judaism: Yavneh (Jamnia) from A.D.70-100.” Aufstieg und Niedergang der Romischen Welt. (1979): 3-42. Nobbs, A. “The Idea of Salvation: The Transition to Christianity as Seen in Some Early Papyri.”Prudentia 20 (1988): 59-63. Nock, A.D. Conversion. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1933. Parkes, J. The Conflict o f the Church and the Synagogue: A Study in the Origins o f Antisemitism. Cleveland, 1961. Pederson, J. Israel: Its Life and Culture, vo l.l. Edited by Darrell J. lashing, William Scott Green, Sara Mandell, Jacob Neusner, and James Strange. .Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991. Pelikan, J. The Christian Tradition: A History o f the Development o f Doctrine. 5 vols. Chicago; University of Chicago Press, 1971. Vol. V.The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600). Pendergraft, M. ““Thou Shalt Not Eat the Hyena:” A Note on Barnabas Epistle {Q.l.'^Vigiliae Christianae 46 (1992): 75-79. Prigent, P. Les Testimonia datis la christianisme primitif: L ’Epitre de Barnabe l- X V I et ses sources. Paris: Gabalda, 1961. Pritz, R.A. A Nazerene Jewish Christianity. Leiden: Brill, 1988. Puech, H-C., et.al. The Jung Codex: .4 Newly Recovered Gnostic Papyrus. London, 1955. 247 Quasten, J. Pairology. 3 vols. Utrech-Brussels: Spectrum Publishers. 1950. Reuther, R. Faith and Fratricide: The Theological Roots o f Anti-Semitism. Minneapolis: Seabury Press, 1974. Richardson, P., and Shukster, M.B. ‘"Barnabas, Nerva and the Yavnean Rabbis." Journal o f Theological Studies n.s. 34 (1983): 31-55. Rose, H.J. Religion in Greece and Rome. New York, 1959. Sandbach, F.H. The Stoics. Lx)ndon: Chatto and Windus, 1975. Schillebeeckx, E. Christ: The Experience o f Jesus as Lord. New York: Seabury Press, 1980. Schineller, P. “The Kerygma of the Letter o f Barnabas." The Bible Today (Feb., 1971): 251-270. Schurer, H. The History o f the Jewish People in the Age o f Jesus Christ (J 75 B. C - A.D.135). Revised and Edited by G. Vermes, J. Millar, and M. Goodman. Edinburgh: T& T Clark, 1986. Seeberg, R. Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte. Graz: Akademische Druck-U. Verlag, 1953. Shoeps, H.J. Paul: The Theology o f the Apostle in the Light o fJewish Religious History. Translated by H. Knight. London: Lutterworth Press, 1961. Simon, M. Jewish Sects at the Time o f Jesus. Philadelphia, 1967. . Verus Israel: Etudes sur les relations entre Chretiens et Juifs dans l ’empire Romain. Paris, 1948. Slusser, M. “Primitive Christian Soteriological Themes." Theological Studies 44 (1983):555-569. Smallwood, E.M. The Jews Under Roman Rule. Leiden: Brill, 1988. Smith, J. Z. Drudgery Divine: On the Comparison o f Early Chri.stianity and the Religions o f Late Antiquity. Chicago: University of Chicago lYess, 1990. Stob, R. “Stoicism and Christianity." The Classical Journal 30 (1934-35): 217- 224. Studer, B. Dieu Sauveur. La redemption dans la foi de l "Eglise ancienne. Paris: Cerf, 1989. Tanner, R.G. “The Savior with the Sword." Prudentia 20 (1988): 13-23. Tam, W.W. Hellenistic Gvilization. London, 1930. 2 4 8 Tarrant, H. “Salvation From God in the De Mundo and Numenius." Pmdenria 20 (1988): 24-29. Taylor, J. E. “The Phenomenon of Early Christianity: Reality or Scholarly iTc^tvAonVVigiliae Christianae 44 (1990), 313-334. Tcherikover, V. Fuks, A., and Stem, M . eds. Corpus Papyorum Judaicarum. 3 vols. Cambridge: Harvard Press, 1957-1964. Thayer, J. H. A Greek-Englisk Lexicon o f the New Testament. Grand Rapids, M I: Zondervan Pub. House, 1889. Thornton, L. The Incarnate Lord. London: Longmans, Green and Co. Ltd., 1928. Torrance, T.F. The Doctrine o f Grace in the Apostolic Fathers. Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd Ltd., 1948. Turmel, J. Histoire des Dogmes. V o l.l. Paris: Rieper, 1931. Turner, H.E.W. The Patristic Doctrine o f Redemption: A Study o f the Development o f Doctrine During the First Five Centuries. London: A.R. Mowbray & Co., Ltd.. 1952. van Unnik, W.C. “Is I Clement 20 Purely StoicTVigiliae Christianae 4 (1950): 181-189. Wenley, R.M. Stoicism and its Influence. Boston: Marshall Jones, 1924. Werner, M. Die Emstehmg des christlichen Dogmas. Bern: Haupt, 1941. Windisch, H. “Der Bamabasbrief, Die Apostolischen.” vol.3. of Handbuch zum Neuen Testament. Tubingen: Mohr, 1920. Wong, D.W.F. “Natural and Divine Order in 1 Clement.” Vigiliae Christianae 31 (1977): 81-87. Young. F.M. The Use o f Sacrificial Ideas in Greek Christian Writersfrom the New Testament to John Chrysostom. Cambridge: Philadelphia Patristic Foundation, 1979. Zinke, E. E. “Post Reformation Critical Biblical Studies.” In A Symposium on Biblical Hermeneutics. Edited by Gordon M. Hyde. Washington, D C.: The Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1974. pp.67-86. 249