Justin Martyr

Definition of apologists is rather arbitrary. Lists of who the apologists were varies. The late Richard Norris offered the following definition:

The term “Apologists”, as applied to Christian writers of the early period, denotes a series of authors who in the course of the second century composed and circulated addresses and pleas…to emperors and others in public authority on behalf of their fellow Christians.  The aim of such writings was in general to persuade the authorities that the frequent local persecutions of Christians were unjust, unnecessary, and unworthy of enlightened rulers  (Cambridge History of Early Christian Literature, p. 36). 

So when we speak of the Apologists, we are generally referring to those 2nd century Christian authors who sought to defend the faith in the face of persecution and condemnation. They are writing mostly for non-Christian readers, but their main influence is among Christians (Justin Martyr is a good example). Athenagoras’ “Plea” is not a good example of this–it disappears for centuries.

Relationship to Greek philosophy–in the past, they were seen as the era when Greek philosophy comes and takes over Christianity. While Christianity does certainly become “Hellenized”, the question is: When did Hellenization occur? As far as the early Apologists go, it is more clear now that they were influenced by Jewish theology and literature–again, Justin Martyr is a good example of this, while Athenagoras is probably least example.  Doctrine of the Logos, popular with many of these writers, used to be seen as a purely Middle-Platonic idea, but now it is recognized as plainly Jewish.  It used to be taken for granted that Justin made all that up (in Dialogue with Trypho)–now it is clear that Trypho’s Judaism wasn’t invented–he truly expressed  what are now seen as real nuances of Jewish belief. There are many parallels between Greek thinking and Jewish belief. Some pagans called Judaism “Moses’ philosophy”, and Genesis looks very much like Plato’s Timaeus.  The question is who influenced whom?

It is interesting to note that many of these early Apologists quote frequently from pseudepigraphal literature, such as the Book of Enoch, Jubilees, etc. Apologists were greatly influenced by apocalyptic literature.

There were two main groups of Apologists–centered around 155 AD and 177 AD, respectively.

Some of the recognized Apologists include:

• Melito of Sardis
• Apollinarius
• Miltiades
• Aristides
• Justin Martyr
• Theophilus
• Athenagoras
• Tatian
• Clement of Alexandria
• Origen
• Tertullian
• Cyprian

Although all are considered strong representatives for early Christianity, their theology is not always the same. Although the focus of our class discussion ended up being on Athenagoras and his importance for the development of the doctrine of the Trinity, my current personal favorite of these is Justin Martyr (I am also partial to Clement and Origen). Here are a couple of quotes from Justin. First, on his Logos theology:

I shall give you another testimony, my friends…from the Scriptures, that God begat before all creatures a Beginning, [who was] a certain rational power [proceeding] from Himself, who is called, by the Holy Spirit, now the Glory of the Lord, now the Son, again Wisdom, again an Angel, then God, and then Lord and Logos; and on another occasion He calls Himself Captain, when He appeared in human form to Joshua the son of Nave (Nun). For He can be called by all those names, since He ministers to the Father’s will, and since He was begotten of the Father by an act of will; just as we see happening among ourselves…just as we see happening in the case of a fire, which is not lessened when it has kindled [another], abut remains the same; and that which has been kindled by it likewise appears to exist by itself, not diminishing that from which it was kindled. The Word of Wisdom, who is Himself this God begotten of the Father of all things, and Word, and Wisdom and, and Power, and the Glory of the Begetter, will bear evidence to me…(Dialogue with Trypho, LXI, ANF)

Another quote, on God’s creation of the world (out of unformed matter):

And we have been taught, and are convinced, and do believe, that He (God) accepts those only who imitate the excellences which reside in Him, temperance, and justice, and philanthropy, and as many virtues as are peculiar to a God who is called by no proper name. And we have been taught that He in the beginning did of His goodness, for man’s sake, create all things out of unformed matter; and if men by their works show themselves worthy of this His design, they are deemed worthy–and so we have received–of reigning in company with Him, being delivered from corruption and suffering.

Angel Pneumatology

Of course one of the major topics addressed by these early Apologists was that of the relationship between God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit.  The Christians were accused of being everything from atheists to polytheists, and so much thought was put into explaining just who they worshipped.  Because of the prominence of Jesus Christ in their theology, many writings dealt with His relationship to God–because of this fact, scholars have claimed that early Christianity looked very “binitarian.” This emphasis leaves out, obviously, the Third Person, the Holy Spirit.

The Holy Spirit was always a rather enigmatic figure. The majority of his titles (Comforter, Sanctifier, Testifier, Advocate, etc.) seem to depict Him more as an activity than a person. Father and Son are much more concrete images, whereas the Spirit’s titles are not so concrete. Only the name ”Holy Spirit” gives a better idea of His nature–that is, obviously, that He is a Spirit. However, this is also quite vague, in that He could be seen as God’s own Spirit (i.e., the spiritual “part” of God), and the Father and Son were sometimes seen as holy spirit(s) (spirit=divine)–nevermind the fact that “spirit” could be conceived of in a number of ways in the ancient world. There is, however, significant evidence in Second Temple Judaism that supports the idea of a Holy Spirit as a separate, hypostatized entity. There was never really any discussion over whether there was a Holy Spirit, yet His nature and origin was always difficult to pin down.

The idea of the Holy Spirit being identified with fire is significant. Anciently, spiritual beings/angels were seen as being of fire. Cyprian identified the Presence in the burning bush as the Holy Spirit.  The fact that the Holy Spirit was seen as composed of fire (we would probably say light) is not incompatible with His being a distinct entity.

There is an interesting and early tradition which described the Holy Spirit as an angel (hence “angel pneumatology”). Dr. Barnes is something of an expert on this topic. I quote from his “Lecture Notes” for our class:

A number of scholars have documented a Jewish angel pneumatology in writings stretching from First Temple works like Exodus (23:20-23) and 1 Samuel to Second Temple works like Haggai, Nehemiah and the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS).  “Angel pneumatology” is thus a wholly Jewish phenomenon, that is to say, it predates Christianity and, in the Common Era, sometimes parallels Christian theology of the Holy Spirit (p. 47).

Another good example of the Holy Spirit being described as an angel is in Isaiah, especially Isa 63:9–10 (in one rendering):

In all their affliction he [God] was afflicted, and the angel of his presence saved them; in his love and in his pity he redeemed them: he lifted them up and carried them all the days of old. But they rebelled and grieved his Holy Spirit.

Barnes sees an equivalency here between the “angel of his presence” and “his Holy Spirit,” suggesting that the Holy Spirit was an angel who stood in the presence of God. Barnes goes on to trace this angel pneumatology in the New Testament:

As one might expect, the first Christian articulation extant of an angel pneumatolgoy is in the writings of Luke.  Leaving aside for the present the thorny question of whether the annunciation narrative is -or once was- the first Christian statement of angel pneumatology, traces of a primitive angel pneumatology can be found in Acts 8:26–40, where the language for who or what is whisking the deacon Philip from place to place shifts back and forth between “angel” and “spirit”. We should note, first, that the eunuch is reading Isaiah, and second, that this portrait of the Holy Spirit as the one who carries people to and fro’ occurs again in the very Jewish Gospel of the Hebrews, where Jesus is carried through the air by his mother, the Holy Spirit.

The Holy Spirit as Jesus’ mother is another can of worms altogether, so I won’t go into that–suffice it to say that there were certain Christian groups that believed that–I would say by connecting the Holy Spirit to the Wisdom tradition, which often depicted Wisdom as female.

Barnes continues by noting that in the Ascension of Isaiah, Isaiah encounters the Son and Holy Spirit, both as angelic beings. As he arrives in the highest heaven, Isaiah is presented by his angelic guide in the presence of God:

And I saw the Lord and the second angel, and they were standing, and the second one whom I saw (was) on the left of my Lord. And I asked the angel who led me and I said to him, “Who is this one?” And he said to me, “Worship him, for this is the angel of the Holy Spirit who has spoken in you and in the other righteous.” (9:36)

Here, it is interesting to note that the Lord (Jesus) and the Holy Spirit are angels that, unlike other angels, are worthy of worship.

One of the best examples of this belief, according to Barnes, is from Origen, in his Peri Archon, which Origen says involves teachings he received from his “Hebrew master” (which some have identified as Philo):

…that the two six-winged seraphim in Isaiah who cry one to another “Holy, Holy, Holy is the Lord,” were the only-begotten Son of God and the Holy Spirit [Isa 6:2 f.]… And we ourselves think that the expression in the song of Habbakkuk, “in the midst of the two living creatures thou shalt be known” is spoken of Christ and the Holy Spirit.”

We know that the Book of Isaiah was very important to the early Christians, and seems to have been the source of much of their understanding for who the Holy Spirit was–one of the most prominent angels who stood beside the heavenly throne along with the Son.  Barnes notes, however, that this angelic conception (no pun intended) begins to lessen, however, because of the story of the presence of an angel at the fertilization of Mary.  This angel who “overshadowed” Mary was often seen as the Holy Spirit.  However, because of the strong influence of the Book of the Watchers (1 Enoch) on early Christianity, over time the doctrine of the Holy Spirit as an angel was weakened, so as to not present anything inappropriate (i.e., the angel of the Holy Spirit being a danger to Mary’s virginity).  Christians eventually reached the point of insisting that they did not believe that angels (unlike the Watchers story) could possibly have any interest in earth women because angels “neither marry nor are given in marriage” (Luke 20:35–37).

For more scholarly work on “angel pneumatology,” check out:

• Charles Gieschen, Angelomorphic Christology (Leiden: Brill, 1998), pp. 114-119.
• Arthur Evertt Sekki, The Meaning of Ruah at Qumran (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989), Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation No 110.
• John Levison, “The Angelic Spirit in Early Judaism,” SBL 1995 Seminar Papers, pp. 464-492.

Also, please see one of my earliest posts, entitled: Angelomorphic Holy Spirit

Marquette University Professors on Continuity between Second Temple Judaism and Christianity

Last week in Dr. Barnes class we discussed the influence of Second Temple, especially apocalyptic, literature on Christian understanding of their religion. Dr. Barnes said that this intertestamental literature was very important to the early Church Fathers and studying it is important for work in Patristics. However, not all scholars think this way.

Here at Marquette University, there are a number of professors (Barnes, Golitzin, Dempsey, and Orlov) who do follow this supposition–that there are many continuities between Second Temple Judaism (specifically certain strands) and early Christianity.  As Christianity progresses, the similarities lessen for some doctrines, but the roots can be seen.

Scholars have not always thought this way.

The Old School of the History of Religions

In the German schools of historical/critical methodology, there arose a number of theories about the beliefs of the early Christians and how religion itself developed. The work of these theorists is known as the old School of the History of Religions (old because now there is a new).  They concluded that early Christianity belief about Christ was a “low” Christology–that early Christians believed that Jesus was a normal human being.  All this other talk of miracles, divinity, apocalypticism, etc. was all added later.

According to this school of thought, human beliefs regarding Deity started with primitive mythologies and archetypal dramas (“Ur dramas”). As a society progresses and more divisions of labor arise, their beliefs become more systematized and rationalized. They are verbalized and eventually written down. This is what we see, according to this theory, in Second Temple Judaism–the old myths are systematized, redacted, and written down.  Then when we arrive at Christianity, the traditions are appropriated to their own historical situation. The ancient Ur dramas are projected onto actual historical events and persons.  Jesus is just human, but then the Christians later heap on him all the mythology of the past.

An interesting note–according to this line of thinking, the gnostic works are supposed to give us an anachronistic window directly into the original Ur religious dramas without systematizing. The later “high” Christology of succeeding centuries borrows greatly from gnosticism. (See The Myth of the God Incarnate, John Hick, ed.)

The New School of the History of Religions

This school of thought became quite popular, but it didn’t really work for the study of Patristics. Their system didn’t really apply to Patristics, and those who study this field just really had no reason to buy into it.  A number of top scholars (Hurtado, Segal, Fossum) noted that what the German school had been working with to reconstruct their history was the writings of Rabbinic Judaism. It had become clear to them that the Rabbis greatly exaggerated the extent to which Judaism had been so systematized–and when it had become so. If you don’t accept the rabbinic interpretation of history, the story changes.

There arose a “new” school of the history of religions that described Judaism as not this monolithic system of beliefs, but as a very diverse array of sects and theologies. They saw much continuity between Christianity and some strands of Second Temple Judaism (not that which the rabbis described).

Out of the many divergent “Judaisms” there were some major strands, mainly:

Moses/Aaron and priests          vs.          Enoch/Watchers

        Exodus/covenants                                  Mysticism/revelation/ascent

        Order/purity                                            Ascension/revelation

        Evil is a choice                                         Evil came from a

                                                                        supernatural source

These categories represent Zadokite vs. Enochic Judaism. Judaism certainly wasn’t as orderly as the rabbis projected. The ideas found in early Christianity (NT, etc.) were not invented later, but were already present in Second Temple Judaism. For example, the Enoch texts present Enoch as becoming an angel, with later traditions having him become a second god.  Instead of starting with a low Christology, Christianity most likely started with a high. (See “Christianity: The Elegant Solution” by Alan Segal, Angelomorphic Christology, by Charles Gieschen, also Jarl Fossum and Jean Danielou).

Note: Dr. Barnes expressed the idea that many scholars now prefer to go to Dead Sea Scrolls to check the accuracy of biblical passages, as opposed to checking the Masoretic text.

The work of this school has been so revolutionary, that the theory of low Christology is no longer supported.

Question: Does this new theory mean that Christianity is not unique? Not necessarily. The Old Testament declares that by Adam, death and sin came into the world. The OT’s solution for removing sin and guilt is for the the high priest to make atonement every year. However, this is not a complete remedy–the full remedy is indefinitely deferred to some point in the future.  In the New Testament, the problem is finally solved–Jesus Christ provides an atonement that is eternal and covers all.

Next post: new apocalyptic notes.

• A. Grillmeier, Christ in the Christian Tradition, vol. I
• J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Creeds
• Angelo di berardino, ed., Patrology, vol. IV
• Lewis Ayres, Nicaea and Its Legacy
• John Dillon, The Middle Platonists
• Jean Danielou’s Jewish Christianity and Origins of Latin Christianity
• H.B. Swete, The Holy Spirit in the Ancient Church
• Jarl Fossum, The Name of God and the Angel of the Lord

Apocalyptic Literature: This week’s readings

This week, Dr. Orlov had us read (I apologize that I don’t have on-line links for all of them):

Readings: Genesis 1-3; Latin Life of Adam and Eve; The Book of the Watchers; G. Boccaccini, Roots of Rabbinic Judaism, ch. 2.

Additional Readings: G. Boccaccini, Beyond the Essene Hypothesis, pp. 68-79; J. Reeves, Early Jewish Mythologies of Evil; Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible, entries: Anthropos, Adam, Glory.

Accounts of Creation and Fall

With the readings from Genesis, the Life of Adam and Eve, and the Enochic Book of the Watchers, Dr. Orlov wanted to make us aware that there were multiple accounts of the Creation and Fall (introduction of evil into the world) in the Second Temple period. Generally, these are all very ancient stories, yet modified to suit the purposes/ideology of the parties who used them.  The following represents some of my notes from the readings:

Gen 1-3

Gen 1–This chapter is considered by scholars to have been written by Zadokite priestly authors. It is very concerned with ordering, separating, classifying. God(s)/Spirit of God create Earth and heavenly firmament-Earth is without form and void and covered in darkness. God divides waters. God forms cosmos in 6 days, rests on 7th. Creation is good. God says, “Let us make man in our image and our likeness.”

Gen 2-Second creation account (spiritual vs. physical?). Man commanded not to eat of Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil-or they would surely die. Woman created from man.

Gen 3-Serpent (God’s creation) tempts Eve to eat of fruit, Eve gives in. She gets Adam to eat fruit. Serpent cursed, Adam and Eve expelled from Garden and Tree of Life. The introduction of evil and death into the world is Adam and (principally) Eve’s fault, under influence of the Serpent.

Latin Life of Adam and Eve

Adam and Eve have been expelled from Garden. They miss angelic food in paradise and don’t want to eat what animals eat. For penitence, seeking God’s mercy, they stand in river for 40 days with water up to neck (compare baptism).
Satan transforms himself into angel of light and tries to convince Eve to leave water.
Satan is the one by whom they were “alienated from the dwelling of paradise and spiritual happiness.” Satan hates Adam because Satan (and angel followers) was expelled from heaven when he would not worship Adam, the image of God. Satan grieved because of his loss of glory. He wanted Adam and Eve to experience the same loss.
Adam taken to heaven in chariot of fire. He sees the fiery face of God. He sees vision of the future of his children.
Adam suffers great pain as punishment for his transgression and is near death. He sends Seth and Eve to retrieve oil from the Tree of Life to cure him. Adam is not granted the oil, but is promised that he will be resurrected by the Son of God and led to the Tree of Life. Signs and darkness accompany Adam’s death. After Adam is redeemed, his will sit on the throne formerly occupied by Satan.
Eve commands children to keep a record in stone and earth of their life. 8th day is day that Christ will reign forever. These stone records survived the flood and were seen by many, but they could not be read. God helped Solomon to understand all that was written as he built the Temple.

Book of Watchers

Angels (Watchers) married human women who then gave birth to great giants who caused many problems. Watchers (with Azaz’el) taught heavenly secrets (that are performed in heaven) to mankind. These angels bring corruption into the world. Michael, Gabriel saw sin and problems on Earth caused by Watchers. The Holy One will cry because of the sin and oppression on Earth (1 Enoch 9:10). Deluge will be sent to destroy wickedness from the Earth. Whole Earth was corrupted by sins of Azaz’el.
Watchers ask Enoch to write memorial prayers seeking mercy of God for them. Enoch reads judgment to Watchers that they will be imprisoned forever.
Enoch is taken up into Heaven. He sees a white building surrounded by tongues of fire. Goes into inner house of white marble. Walls have mosaics with cherubim, floor is of crystal and ceiling depicts stars. Fire is all around. He enters second house (3rd section), which has fire on floor and ceiling. He sees chariot throne lifted up with wheels, cherubim, and fire from underneath. He sees Great Glory on the throne dressed in white robe. He is surrounded by fire. He calls Enoch to come near to Him and His Word. God speaks with Enoch.

Boccaccini, Roots of Rabbinic Judaism

Zadokite Worldview:
Zadokites wrote Gen 1, describing how God made order out of chaos-God separates and defines boundaries-society, space, and time are divided hierarchically into graded holiness.
Sins of kings bring destruction on Jerusalem-Zadokites insist that all priests and people guilty of sin as well-could not have been destroyed if they had been innocent.
Temple closely mirrors Heaven-”to enter the Temple and take part in the Temple cult is therefore to participate to some degree in the unceasing worship going on in heaven.”

Entries in Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible:

Anthropos:

One designation, with or without qualification, of the highest being in many gnostlc systems…The name draws attention to the direct or indirect link between supreme divinity and humanity, esp. the ‘unwavering race’, thanks to which redemption from the world created by the Archons is possible. The name Anthropos signifies that God is the prototype of Man (anthropos) because man is made, directly or indirectly, in his image.

Adam:

In the Bible itself there are no traces of traditions that Adam was ever regarded as an angelic or divine being…[must look to other Ancient Near Eastern literature]
Some passages in early rabbinic literature testify to the existence of “heretics” (minim) that held that Adam had acted as God’s associate in creation, or as his pleni-potentiary (e.g., b.Sanh. 38a: “Our rabbis taught: Adam was created [last of all beings] on the eve of Sabbath. Why so? Lest the minim should say: The Holy One, blessed by He, had a partner [sc. Adam] in his work of creation.”). Gnostic sources seem to confirm this when they speak of Adam as [the one] through whom everything came into being (Fossum 1985:267). In other early Christian sources the idea of Adam having been God’s viceregent crops up occasionally, epecially in the so-called Adam literature (see, e.g., the Cave of the Treasure; further Stone 1992). Philo’s distinction between the heavenly Man of Gen l:27 and the earthly man of Gen 2:7 may have been one of the tributaries to the development of this motif (Opif. mundi 134 et al.). In 2 Enoch 30:11-12 (long recension) God says: “On the earth I assigned him [Adam] to be a second angel, honoured and great and glorious. I assigned him to be a king, to reign on the earth and to have my wisdom. There was nothing comparable to him on the earth, not even among my creatures that exist [the angels].” But the Testament of Abraham ch. 8 (rec. B) goes a step further when identifying Adam with a Kavod-like (Glory) Man in heaven, “sitting upon a throne of great glory” at the gates of Paradise, encircled by a multitude of angels and looking at the many souls being led to destruction and the few souls being led to life. “Adam is enthroned in heaven as the Glory at the end of time” (Fossun 1985:276). The description of Adam as a “wondrous man,” “adorned in such glory,” with a “terrifying apperance, like that of the Lord” (Test. Abr. I I, rec. A) clearly recalls Ezekiel’s vision in ch. 1. It would seem that in certain circles with mystical inclinations God’s Glory, the Heavenly Man, and Adam merged into one angelic figure. On the development of this idea in later Kabbalistic circles see Scholem 1974 (Reg., s.v.). The implication that all this may have for the study of New Testament christology is a matter of debate.

Notes from Class Lecture:

The Second Temple (intertestamental) period is largely a mystery. Looking at pseudepigraphal and apocalyptic literature helps put together picture, but it is still very confusing. “Canon” did not exist in this period–just collections of scrolls that varied from library to library. Apocalyptic literature is response to absence of Temple–promoted the idea that heavenly liturgy goes on eternally in heavenly temple. Apocalypses are “outlines of mystical practice”–meant to be taught to and understood by only a few.  Study of Rabbinics and Patristics gives us insight into later interpretations of these texts, but not necessarily original meaning.

586 BC–First Temple destroyed

538 BC–End of Exile

516 BC–Temple is Rebuilt

After Exile, Judahite monarchy wasn’t continued. Zadokites edit sacred writings and reshape Judaism. Genesis 1 is the “manifesto” of the priestly tradition–outlines their vision of God, the Universe, and Creation. For them, society was divided into graded levels of holiness, with the Temple at the center of Jerusalem and Jerusalem and the center of the world. Boundaries between levels had to be strictly enforced. Humans couldn’t go to the Underworld or to Heaven without terrible consequences.

Enochic tradition focused on the violation of those boundaries (e.g., ascent to heaven). Zadokites wanted to marginalize this trend–that’s why we don’t see it in the Old Testament. The Zadokites only focused on the human realm.  Terms like God’s Glory (kavod) were introduced to reinforce the boundaries–men do not see God, they see his Glory. Humans are protected from seeing Deity directly.

We know very little of the First Temple because we only have literature from the Second Temple–anything from earlier is edited by Zadokites. Zadokites tried to exclude all theologies that they didn’t agree with. Other parties kept their own alternative theologies, but they (generally) didn’t make it in to our Old Testament. This is why Old Testament is so different than New. New Testament authors had access to, and often preferred alternative theologies.

All groups wanted access to the temple, but Zadokite priests restricted access. Enochic literature preserves access to temple through heavenly temple. Enoch becomes high priest in heavenly temple. Although not emphasized in their writings, Zadokites also believe in heavenly temple–earthly sanctuary is a copy of heavenly.

Creation, Fall, and Evil

Traditions of protology (the beginning) and eschatalogy (the end) are often symmetrical. Same characters/places that exist in beginning often come back in end of times.

Adamic tradition of creation carried on by Zadokites. In some interpretations of this tradition, Fall of Adam actually took place before the incident with the Serpent in the Garden. The Fall occurred during the process of creation.

• In Genesis 1, Adam is “created” (bara). Adam (man, human being) is created male and female. Some later interpreters explained that this meant that Adam was androgenous–both male and female inseparable. At this point, Adam existed in the “world of creation” (olam ha’beriah)–a world of potential existence, the highest of the worlds that exist outside of God’s presence.
• In Gen 2, Adam is formed (yazah). Adam (male human) is formed from the dust of the earth. This takes place in the “world of formation” (olam ha’yetzirah). Here there is a joining of substance and spirit, and making “something from something.”
• Finally, Eve is made (asiah). She is separated from Adam’s body–this marks the third of the lower worlds, the “world of making” (olam ha’asiyah). This is where the human race is propagated.

These traditions (found principally in Kabbalistic literature), indicate that in the end times, the female will be incorporated back into the male, and the two will be one eternally.  (I’m sure David Littlefield or Kerry Shirts could tell us more about these traditions).  

Another interesting aspect of the Adam tradition is the idea that when Adam fell, he lost his “garments of light” that he had possessed in the Garden of Eden. When they were expulsed from the Garden, they were given “garments of skins” so that they would not be naked–but also to indicate their loss of heavenly glory.  In Life of Adam and Eve, Adam instructs Seth and Eve to go back to the Garden to ask for oil from the tree of life. The purpose of this oil is to give back garments of light (= resurrection and immortality).

Enochic Tradition

The Enochic literature doesn’t mention transgression of Adam and Eve–they were our noble parents. Evil comes into the world because of the Watchers, demiurgic angels who want to corrupt the earthly realm–fornicate with earthly women and share heavenly secrets without God’s permission. These were angels of great power and authority.  These angels are punished by God and cast into a pit in the desert. Because of the fall of these important angels, humans (e.g., Enoch) are called to come to heaven to become angels and take the place of those who fell. Some scholars think that this stories were meant to criticize the Second Temple Zadokite priesthood who were seen as corrupt by those who were excluded from serving in the new temple. Themes of Enochic literature continue unchanged for centuries, and are very important to Christian theology. We don’t find these themes in Old Testament, but they appear in the New. Life of Adam and Eve appears to be a mix of Adamic and Enochic literature used by Christians.

Please excuse the partial and sketchy nature of these notes–I hope they were understandable and of interest. If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to add a comment here or email me. All things being equal, I will make the same type of posts next week with what I have learned until then.

You may have noticed that I haven’t been posting as frequently in the past week or so. I spent some good time with family last week and started up school again this week, so my time has been significantly occupied and I am having to accustom to my new schedule.

Also, I have been working on moving my blog to a self-hosted server (not that I don’t appreciate wordpress.com, but I’m looking for more freedom and flexibility for this site). I will provide an update of that as soon as I can–probably early next week. I would like to thank Bryce Haymond (author of www.templestudy.com) and his brother Brad for their support, advice, and help in making this change (for the better) possible.

School Journal

One of my intentions in starting this blog was to be able to share with others the interesting and exciting insights that I have been learning as a graduate student in Theology at Marquette University.  I consider it a great privilege and blessing to be able to be a part of this program and to pursue theological/religious studies in depth. I know that there are many people who would love to have this opportunity but have not been able to–so I see it as a great responsibility for me to share what I am learning with others.

Because I started this blog at the end of May, after classes had already ended, and did not attend courses over the summer, this will be the first opportunity I will have to share with you what I am actually learning in my theology courses. Although a certain percentage of it will probably be too boring to share here (no offense to any of my professors), I will try to make sure that I post the most exciting points on my blog.  In doing so, I want to make it clear that although I may mention my professors names here, I take full responsibility for the content posted. What I share will be based on my own notes from both lectures and readings, and should not be taken to represent direct or exact quotes from my instructors (I don’t want anyone to hold them to anything I incorrectly cite them as saying). However, I will try to reproduce what I am learning as accurately and responsibly as I possibly can.

I am taking three courses this semester:

• Theology 251 — The Age of the Fathers–Dr. Michel Barnes
• Theology 204 — Intro to Systematic Theology–Dr. Ralph Del Colle
• Theology 228 — Apocalyptic Literature–Dr. Andrei Orlov

For those of you who are familiar with this blog, you can probably guess that Apocalyptic Literature with Dr. Orlov would be my favorite class.  So far it has been incredibly exciting, and I can’t say enough how much I respect Dr. Orlov and his amazingly extensive knowledge of this literature–I have looked at some of his writings in a number of posts here. However, I am also very excited about my other courses as well, and have found both Professors Barnes and Del Colle to be excellent instructors with equally impressive knowledge of their subject matter.  Although I am very interested in pseudipigrapha and the intertestamental period, I am also quite passionate about the early Patristic era–the age of the early Church Fathers.

Anyways, instead of continuing my tedious rambling, I will now share with you some of the most interesting points that I learned in my classes this week. Depending on the subjects covered during a given week, I may not always include all three classes.

Age of the Fathers–Greek Philosophy as the Background for Nicene Theology

On Monday, Dr. Barnes launched into a discussion of trinitarian theology, looking specifically at the creedal/liturgical phrase describing Christ as “one in being/essence with the Father.” The key word in this phrase is the Greek homoousios –”same substance.” Dr. Barnes question was (paraphrasing): Why did they decide to use this word to describe Christ’s relationship to the Father? Wouldn’t the simple Father/Son description be sufficient? Homoousios is found nowhere in the scriptures. It wasn’t even in common use as a term at the time of the Council of Nicaea. Many of the bishops who accepted the use of the term didn’t even know what it meant initially, much less their parishioners at home.  So why did they use it?

A search of available early Christian works doesn’t give us much insight into the history of its use.  Homoousios is used more in “gnostic” texts more than “orthodox” Christian texts in the first centuries AD. Origen uses the word three times. Clement uses it once, when quoting gnostics. Pamphilus uses the word, when quoting Origen. Dionysius of Alexandria uses the word in a letter to the members of his congregation, trying to explain to them what in the world it meant and why it should be used to describe the Son of God.  In general, the term is employed to show that Christ was considered to be Son of God because he was of the same nature as God, and not adopted. The authors of the Nicaean creed decided that this was a word that, although not found in the scriptures, expressed (they felt) the most correct sense of the scriptures.  Although the word became part of the creed, there was still much misunderstanding and argument, and the idea had to be further revised and clarified numerous times in later creeds.

But where did Athanasius and his colleagues get this idea? Why was it necessary to decide whether Jesus was of the “substance/essence” of the Father? They felt the need to distinguish Jesus as Son of God from the rest of us as sons or daughters of God. This was because of the idea that had entered Christianity that there was an immense gulf between what God is, and what we, his creatures are.  This idea came from Hellenistic culture and the principles of Greek philosophy so popular at the time. In his book of “Lecture Notes” provided to the class, Dr. Barnes lays out the theory that the paradigm that these Christians were working from was heavily influenced by Greek thought. I quote from this booklet, starting on page 8 (emphasis in original):

Many ideas or teachings in both ancient Greek and Hellenistic philosophy were important for theology in the Common Era…Some of these teachings (or doctrines) date back to Plato…[or at least] date from the Hellenistic period. Here is a selected list of key doctrines that will help you understand early Christian theology:

• There is a tendency to describe God by talking about the kind of existence God has, and to contrast the kind of existence God has with the kind of existence we humans have. Thinking about something in terms of the kind of existence it has, or just thinking in terms of kinds of existence is what is meant by the terms “metaphysics” or “ontology”. The kind of existence of something that exists (an existent) is called the being of an existent.
• There is a sensitivity to the difference between things (better: existence) that can’t and don’t change (“immutable”) versus things that can and do change (“mutable”). Immutable existence is the best kind of existence (mutable existence always lets you down). God is immutable. Material existence is mutable existence. Also: whatever is immutable is certain (because it never changes).
• There is an understanding of a “God” who is good, in fact the Good. Goodness here means many, many things. Good in the sense that God is absolutely perfect, with no flaws, nothing lacking, no mutability (= immaterial = no decay = eternal ). Perfection means not needing, and not needing means able to give;
• Differences in being cash out as differences in goodness or desirability. This is often expressed in terms of a hierarchy. Something immutable is better, more desirable, “higher” than something mutable.
• Because the Good is different from everything else (perfect, immutable, immaterial, eternal) it is separate from everything else. Or, to express this metaphysically, the difference between the kind of existence (the being) of the Good and our being means that the Good exists uniquely.

As you can imagine, figuring out a bridge over the gap between immutable/perfect being (commonly identified with not being material) and mutable imperfect being (commonly identified with being made out of matter) was an important philosophical and theological problem.

Barnes goes on to explain how there was a deep mistrust and disdain for material things in antiquity–especially the body and the passions the body produces. Anything that is material decays–anything that has a cause external to itself will have a beginning, development, decay, and end. Anything that is truly good (divine) must not change or decay in this way. If God does not decay, if He is eternal, then he must not be material–and if not, he must have no external cause outside himself. He is the First Cause (p. 12).

Through this reasoning, we get the following conclusions (p. 13):

God = uncaused, immaterial, unchanging

Material = caused, change, decay (the exact opposite of God)

So this is the ideological paradigm that many Christians had accepted when they met to establish the Nicaean Creed.  Why did they have to come up with such a foreign term to describe how Jesus could be Son of God? Because Greek philosophy had convinced them that human beings were the opposite of what God was. For Jesus to be divine, he would have to be of the same substance or nature as the immutable and eternal Father. But this notion of ousia seems to have originated with Aristotle (Categories), instead of with Jesus or the Apostles. Our class discussion, together with the readings, emphasized the dependence on these early Christian doctrines and creeds on Greek philosophy. As Dr. Barnes put it:

[It is] true that I privilege philosophy as the discourse that a good student of patristic theology needs to know…

…traditionally Roman Catholic theology has explicitly been allied to philosophy…

…the intellectual milieu in which patristic authors wrote was a synthesis which itself depended upon a philosophical content.

As there is not time or space to continue, I will save the numerous insights I gained from Dr. Orlov’s class on Apocalyptic Literature for next time. You will probably not want to miss this one…