| |
About this document:
see full record[?] Classified in collection Article_published.
[?] Language of this document: English.
[?] Posted here with permission of author.
[?] Document quality: editing/proofing good; formatting good.
[?] Formatted and posted 2003-10-26 by Jonah Winters.
|
Christianity from a Baha'i Perspective
by Robert Stockman
Contents:
- A Bahá'í Approach to the Bible
- The New Testament
- Preserving the Jesus Tradition
- Jesus Christ in History and in the Bahá'í Writings
- Apostolic Christianity
- Christianity in the Classical World
- Christianity in the Middle Ages
- The Reformations
- Christianity in America
[+CHAPTER1]
A Bahá'í Approach to the Bible
A thorough and systematic examination of the Bahá'í approach to
interpreting the Bible remains to be written; this chapter can only begin the
task. It is helpful to begin one's examination by noting the interpretive
approaches followed by other groups, for the Bahá'í approach
bears both points of similarity and of difference to them.
Among modern American Christians there are two common approaches to
interpreting the Bible. Conservative Protestants (often called
"fundamentalists" or "evangelicals") prefer the "literal" or "face value"
approach to scripture. Conservative Protestant biblical scholars may not
adhere to a literalistic reading of scripture, but prefer traditional methods
for reading and interpreting the biblical text. Conservative approaches tend
to emphasize one basic assumption--that the Bible is the precise and exact Word
of God--that is, that every word in the Bible is inspired and means exactly
what it says. This denies the possibility that a historical fact in the Bible
might be wrong. It does not deny symbolic interpretation of many verses, but
it sees no need to interpret symbolically many things that it believes to be
fact. It also argues that generally each verse possesses only one correct
meaning.
Liberal Christians (or simply "liberals") recognize that the Old and New
Testaments are also a product of history, and did not drop from the sky
miraculously complete. This approach, of necessity, must accept that the Bible
is partly a human product as well as being partly a divine product.
Unfortunately, it is impossible to devise a way to determine reliably which is
which; thus the liberal approach to the Bible inevitably threatens to undermine
its sacredness, and threatens to leave liberal Christians without a
scripture.
Other groups of Christians hold other approaches. Conservative Catholics, for
example, see the Bible as only one source of belief, Catholic tradition and the
interpretations of the Popes being others; thus, biblical interpretation is
generally less central to their faith, and the conclusions of the
historical-critical system of interpretation seem less devastating (though
conservative Catholics, often, have tended to ignore the liberal approach to
scripture in favor of traditional methods). Other Christian groups, such as
the Mormons and Christian Scientists, have books of their own that they see as
new forms of revelation, and their understanding and interpretation of the
Bible is shaped by them.
Most Christians fall in the middle of the spectrum, between the liberals and
the conservatives. They try to hold both approaches together, seeing the Bible
as scripture and historically conditioned, and are willing to recognize that it
cannot be interpreted literally. Others choose to ignore both approaches, and
the dilemmas they raise, altogether. Perhaps the biggest problem faced by
Christianity today is how to recognize the Bible's historical inaccuracies and
its theological diversity, and yet still retain it as scripture, as a source of
inspiration and guidance. The conservatives do this sometimes by denying that
any problems exist; they hold onto the old approaches and their conclusions,
which have been undermined by modern science. The liberals sometimes
essentially ignore the Bible, or use it to endorse whatever theologies they
have developed based on other sources of ideas. In Bahá'í terms,
both sides have failed to maintain the harmony of science and religion, of
reason and revelation.
The Question of Biblical Inerrancy
What is the Bahá'í approach to biblical interpretation?
An important factor is Bahá'í reliance on a new revelation. Thus
if Bahá'ís need guidance for a problem they turn to the
Bahá'í writings for their answers, and not primarily to the
Bible. They thus need not experience grave anxiety over how to interpret
crucial Bible passages, or over the implications of a particular interpretive
approach to the Bible.
Bahá'ís also have an assurance, in their own sacred writings,
that the Bible is holy scripture and contains a record of divine revelation.
Some Muslim divines had argued, based on interpretation of verses in the
Qur'án, that the Bible was totally corrupted--that is, that
nothing valid remained of the revelation that God had given through Moses and
Jesus. This doctrine is called tahríf,
"corruption" of the text. Bahá'u'lláh emphatically rejects this
interpretation:Reflect: the words of the verses [of the
Bible] themselves eloquently testify to the truth that they are of God.
(Kitáb-i-Íqán, 84).
Can a man who believeth in a book, and deemeth it to be inspired by God,
mutilate it? (Kitáb-i-Íqán, 86).
We have also heard a number of the foolish of the earth assert that the genuine
text of the heavenly Gospel doth not exist amongst the Christians, that it hath
ascended unto heaven. How grievously they have erred! How oblivious of the
fact that such a statement imputeth the gravest injustice and tyranny to a
gracious and loving Providence! How could God, when once the Day-star of the
beauty of Jesus had disappeared from the sight of His people, and ascended unto
the fourth heaven, cause His holy Book, His most great testimony amongst His
creatures, to disappear also? What would be left to that people to cling to
from the setting of the day-star of Jesus until the rise of the sun of the
Muhammadan Dispensation? What law could be their stay and
guide? How could such a people be made the victims of the avenging wrath of
God, the omnipotent Avenger? How could they be afflicted with the scourge of
chastisement by the heavenly King? Above all, how could the flow of grace of
the all-Bountiful be stayed? How could the ocean of His tender mercies be
stilled? We take refuge in God, from that which His creatures have fancied
about Him! Exalted is He above their comprehension!
(Kitáb-i-Íqán, 89-90.)
Thus, Bahá'u'lláh makes it very clear that it would be unjust of
God to give His people a revelation and then take it away from them. But it is
important to note that Bahá'u'lláh does not say that the Bible
consists solely of accurate divine revelation; He only insists that the Bible
possessed an adequate source of revelation to guide humanity arightly. In
other words, even if the Bible contains historically inaccurate information,
and even if the words of Jesus were often recorded inaccurately, enough
revelation was recorded accurately to guide the Christians adequately until the
advent of Muhammad in 622 C.E. (and, perhaps, until the advent of the
Báb in 1844).
This understanding of the biblical text as adequately accurate, but not
inerrant, is reinforced by a statement made on Shoghi Effendi's behalf. The
Bahá'ís of Racine, Wisconsin, apparently asked Shoghi Effendi
whether Abraham had attempted to sacrifice Isaac, as the Bible says (Gen
22:1-19), or Ishmael, as affirmed by the Qur'án and
Bahá'u'lláh:As to the question raised by the
Racine Assembly in connection with Bahá'u'lláh's statement in the
Gleanings concerning the sacrifice of Ishmael; although His statement does not
agree with that made in the Bible, Genesis 22:9, the friends should
unhesitatingly, and for reasons that are only too obvious, give precedence to
the sayings of Bahá'u'lláh which, it should be pointed out. . .
[are] fully corroborated by the Qur'án, which book is more authentic
than the Bible, including both the New and the Old Testaments. The Bible is
not wholly authentic, and in this respect not to be compared with the
Qur'án, and should be wholly subordinated to the authentic sayings of
Bahá'u'lláh. (Letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi to the
National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá'ís of the United States
and Canada, 28 July 1936, published in Bahá'í News, no.
103 (Oct. 1936), p. 1).
Elsewhere Shoghi Effendi has stated the following: When
'Abdu'l-Bahá states we believe what is in the Bible, He means in
substance. Not that we believe every word of it to be taken literally or that
every word is the authentic saying of the Prophet (from a letter written to an
individual on behalf of Shoghi Effendi, 11 February 1944).
We cannot be sure of the authenticity of any of the phrases in the Old and New
Testament. What we can be sure of is when such references or words are cited
or quoted in either the Qurán or the Bahá'í writings.
(from a letter written to an individual on behalf of Shoghi Effendi, 4 July
1947).
. . . we cannot be sure how much or how little of the four Gospels are
accurate and include the words of Christ and His undiluted teachings, all we
can be sure of, as Bahá'ís, is that what has been quoted by
Bahá'u'lláh and the Master must be absolutely authentic. As many
times passages in the Gospel of St. John are quoted we may assume that it is
his Gospel and much of it is accurate (from a letter written to an individual
on behalf of Shoghi Effendi, 23 January 1944)
From these and other statements of Shoghi Effendi, the Universal House of
Justice has concluded: . . . The Bahá'ís
believe that God's Revelation is under His care and protection and that the
essence, or essential elements, of what His Manifestations intended to convey
has been recorded and preserved in Their Holy Books. However, as the sayings
of ancient Prophets were written down some time later, we cannot categorically
state, as we do in the case of the Writings of Bahá'u'lláh, that
the words and phrases attributed to Them are Their exact words (letter written
on behalf of the Universal House of Justice to an individual believer, 9 August
1984).
A scholarly examination of the Bible substantially confirms the approach taken
by the Bahá'í authoritative texts. One finds historical errors
in the New Testament. Perhaps the clearest example is the two genealogies of
Jesus (Matthew 1 and Luke 3). They frequently disagree about the ancestors of
Jesus:
Matthew: Luke:
Abraham, father of Abraham, father of
Isaac Isaac
Jacob Jacob
Judah Judah
Perez Perez
Hezron Hezron
Ram Arni
Admin
Amminadab Amminadab
Nahshon Nahshon
Salmon Salmon
Boaz Boaz
Obed Obed
Jesse Jesse
David David
Solomon Nathan
Rehoboam Mattatha
Abijah Menna
Asa Melea
Jehoshaphat Eliakim
Joram Jonam
Uzziah Joseph
Jotham Judah
Ahaz Simeon
Hezekiah Levi
Manasseh Matthat
Amos Jorim
Josiah Eliezer
Jechoniah Joshua
Er
Elmadam
Cosam
Addi
Melchi
Neri
She-alti-el Shealtiel
Zerubbabel Zerubbabel
Abiud Rhesa
Eliakim Joanan
Azor Joda
Zadok Josech
Achim Semein
Eliud Mattathias
Eleazar Maath
Naggai
Esli
Nahum
Amos
Mattathias
Joseph
Jannai
Melchi
Levi
Matthan Matthat
Jacob Heli
Joseph Joseph
Jesus Jesus
Both genealogies are given in full; the gaps exist simply to make the lists
line up where they agree. Places where the names on the two lists are
different are indicated with italics. As can be seen, there is substantial
difference between the two, even on such a detail as the name of Jesus's
grandfather. Matthew lists forty individuals between Jesus and Abraham, while
Luke gives fifty-six; only sixteen of the names on both lists are the same.
Since Jesus cannot have two genealogies through his father, one must conclude
that one (or, more likely, both) are wrong. It is very unlikely that in an
illiterate culture, with no censuses or birth and death records, an accurate
two-thousand-year genealogy for any individual--even a king!--could exist
anyway, unless there is evidence that the culture is concerned about preserving
such genealogies. There is no evidence of such concern in first-century
Judaism.
Hence, in this case, the Bible cannot be understood literally. The
authors of Luke and Matthew, however, each had important points to make with
their genealogies, and the points are more important than the contradictory
facts. Matthew, the former rabbi, was interested in establishing Jesus's
credentials to a Jewish audience; thus his list of ancestors includes the great
king Solomon and many of the kings of the house of David descended through him.
He also includes Zurubbabel, one of the Jewish governors who brought the Jews
back to Jerusalem under the Persians, and Zadok, the ancestor of the priestly
families who ran the Temple. He starts his genealogy with Abraham, the founder
of the Hebrew people. Luke, on the other hand, is concerned with placing Jesus
in the context of all human history. He is unconcerned with past kings who
might be Jesus's ancestors. His genealogy goes to Abraham, thence to Noah,
thence to Seth, then to Adam, and concludes with Adam as "the son of God," thus
linking Christ back to God.[1]
Some conservative Christians interpret Matthew's genealogy to be through Mary
because verse 1:16 says "And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom
was born Jesus" (KJV). The text is careful to say that Joseph did not beget
Jesus so as to avoid contradicting the doctrine of the virgin birth, but the
text nevertheless is giving Joseph's genealogy. Even if the list were giving
Mary's genealogy, the two lists still contradict regarding the ancestors of
King David.
Interpretations of some Biblical Subjects by the
Bahá'í Writings
When one examines the interpretations given to biblical passages by
Bahá'u'lláh and 'Abdu'l-Bahá, one is struck by how
nonliterally They interpret them. Occasionally Their interpretations totally
ignore the interpretations given to passages by Christian tradition. An
example is the interpretation of the term "Prince of this world" (John 14:30;
16:11) to refer to Bahá'u'lláh; traditional Christianity has
interpreted the term to refer to the devil since at least the third century
C.E.![2] In short, their interpretations often
break the rules about how one should interpret the Bible. But this is
understandable when one remembers that Bahá'u'lláh and
'Abdu'l-Bahá are offering their interpretations based on divine
knowledge, not human reasoning. While their interpretations are not illogical,
many fly in the face of commonly accepted interpretations or interpretive
approaches.
The Garden of Eden and Myth
Undoubtedly the most symbolic and allegorical interpretation of the
Bible that can be found in 'Abdu'l-Bahá's book Some Answered
Questions concerns the story of the Garden of Eden (pp. 122-26).
'Abdu'l-Bahá notes that if one takes the story literally, "the
intelligence cannot accept it, affirm it, or imagine it"; consequently He
concludes that it "must be thought of simply as a symbol" (p. 123). He offers
a symbolic explanation where Adam represents the "heavenly spirit" of Adam; Eve
represents the soul of Adam; the tree of good and evil from which Adam and Eve
ate signifies the human world, with its mixture of good and evil, light and
darkness; the serpent signifies attachment to the human world; and the tree of
Life represents the Manifestation of God. 'Abdu'l-Bahá's completely
nonliteral interpretation converts the story of the Garden of Eden into a
powerful metaphor on human existence: Now consider how far
this meaning conforms to the reality. For the spirit and soul of Adam, when
they were attached to the human world, passed from the world of freedom into
the world of bondage, and His descendants continue in bondage. This attachment
of the soul and spirit to the human world, which is sin, was inherited by the
descendants of Adam, and is the serpent which is alwys in the midst of, and at
enmity with, the spirits and the descendants of Adam. That enmity continues
and endures. For attachment to the world has become the cause of the bondage
of spirits, and this bondage is identical with sin, which has been transmitted
from Adam to His posterity. It is because of this attachment that men have
been deprived of essential spirituality and exalted position. (Some
Answered Questions, 124-25)
At the end of His interpretation, 'Abdu'l-Bahá adds "This is one of the
meanings of the biblical story of Adam. Reflect until you discover others"
(Some Answered Questions, 126). This indicates that 'Abdu'l-Bahá
is not claiming to offer the only correct interpretation of the story of the
Garden of Eden, but one interpretation that is valid for Bahá'ís.
Others can offer other interpretations.
'Abdu'l-Bahá's metaphorical approach downplays the question of whether
the Garden of Eden was a literal, historical place; it does not deny the
possibility, but suggests that the question ultimately is not important. His
approach suggests that much of the Bible consists of symbols and images with
many possible valid interpretations; the Bahá'í writings only
claim to offer one possible interpretation.
Interpretation of Prophecy
An examination of 'Abdu'l-Bahá's interpretations of passages
from the Hebrew prophets supports the hypothesis that biblical passages contain
many valid meanings. Bahá'ís often read the Bible primarily to
find references to Bahá'u'lláh in the text, and then think they
have exhausted its meaning. But much of what the Bible "means" is tied to the
times which, and people who, produced it, hence the meaning of the text is
often contextual and plural. Furthermore, the images and symbols of the
biblical prophecies have been used in countless ways by millions of people over
thousands of years to make sense out of their situation; one cannot declare all
those other interpretations to be invalid or wrong. Rather, one must recognize
a Bahá'í interpretation of a biblical verse as one possible valid
meaning of the verse; God may have intended other meanings as well.
A prominent example is Ezekiel 43:4, "And the glory of the LORD came into the
house by way of the gate whose prospect is toward the east." Although no
official Bahá'í interpretation of the verse is known to the
writer, Bahá'ís "know" that this refers to
Bahá'u'lláh coming to the Holy Land by way of "the Gate" (the
Báb) from the east (Iran and Iraq).[3]
"The glory of the LORD" is a good translation of the word
Bahá'u'lláh. "LORD" (in capital letters) is the standard English
translation for "Yahweh," which is God's name, just like "Allah" is a
designation for the God, not any god. "Glory" (Hebrew, kabod)
can be translated into Arabic several ways--majd, jalál, or
bahá.
But Ezekiel wrote this passage to convey something very different to his
contemporaries, who, like he, had recently made a heartbreaking and exhausting
journey from Jerusalem to their exile in Mesopotamia (Iraq). He was promising
that God's "glory," that is, God's nimbus, or God's aura, or God's spirit,
would return to the Temple in Jerusalem through the east gate, that is, from
Mesopotamia, with the Jewish people who were in exile there. This verse, then,
was part of Ezekiel's promise to his people that God would eventually lead them
back to Israel.
There is no reason for Bahá'ís to deny the possibility that God
had both of these meanings in mind--and perhaps others--when He gave the vision
to Ezekiel.
Another biblical prophecy frequently cited by Bahá'ís is Hosea
2:15, "And I will give. . . the valley of Achor for a door of hope. . ."
According to Joshua 15:7--which mentions it while delimiting the northeastern
border of the land of Judah--the Valley of Achor is located about half way
between Jerusalem and the northern end of the Dead Sea. It is near Jericho,
but very far from Akka. While the Israelites were camped there Joshua
discovered that an Israelite had secretly kept some of the loot from the
capture of Jericho for himself, thereby calling God's punishment down on all
the people (Joshua 8). The hoarder was stoned to death, and the text concludes
that "therefore to this day the name of that place is called the Valley of
Achor" (Joshua 7:26). Achor, in Hebrew, means "trouble"; and the Valley of
Achor came to symbolize trouble in the Hebrew Bible. Hosea (and Isaiah, who
refers to it in 65:10) mention Achor to suggest that in the last times even a
"valley of trouble" would become a door of hope. The verse is a clear word
play on the meaning of Achor.
Bahá'ís, of course, understand the verse to refer to Akka. This
conclusion is supported by Abdu'l-Bahá Himself:It is
recorded in the Torah: And I will give you the valley of Achor for a door of
hope. This valley of Achor is the city of 'Akká, and whoso hath
interpreted this otherwise is of those who know not. (Selections from the
Writings of 'Abdu'l-Bahá, 162.)
There is no reason to assume that 'Abdu'l-Bahá was wrong and did not
know where the Bible says Achor is, or that He was ignorant of Hosea's word
play. Nor, perhaps, should one assume that 'Abdu'l-Bahá was denying
that Hosea meant to make the word play. Rather, perhaps, 'Abdu'l-Bahá
was saying--in hyperbolic language--that from a Bahá'í
perspective, Achor means Akka. That that interpretation, for
Bahá'ís, is the important and valid understanding of the verse,
and not others.
Interpretation of Miracles
Among the biblical subjects interpreted by Bahá'u'lláh
in the Kitáb-i-Íqán is the question of whether Jesus
performed miracles. The New Testament mentions approximately thirty miracles
by Jesus, which scholars have classified into three categories: exorcisms,
healings, and nature miracles (such as walking on water or feeding multitudes).
One of the few positions held by all biblical scholars is that Jesus was a
miracle worker.[4]
Bahá'u'lláh's approach is to emphasize the spiritual miracles
performed by Jesus, not the physical miracles. His discussion of healings is
typical:Through Him [Christ] the leper recovered from the
leprosy of perversity and ignorance. Through Him, the unchaste and the wayward
were healed. Through His power, born of Almighty God, the eyes of the blind
were opened, and the soul of the sinner sanctified.
Leprosy may be interpreted as any veil that interveneth between man and the
recognition of the Lord, his God. Whosoever alloweth himself to be shut out
from Him is indeed a leper, who shall not be remembered in the Kingdom of God
the Mighty, the all-Praised. We bear witness that through the power of the
Word of God every leper was cleansed, every sickness healed, every human
infirmity was banished. He it is Who purified the world. (Gleanings from
the Writings of Bahá'u'lláh, 86)
Clearly, if Bahá'ulláh is referring to stories in the Gospels
where Christ healed lepers (Matt 8:1-4; Mark 1:40; Luke 5:12-16) He is
interpreting them very nonliterally. He seems to be saying here that Christ's
real miracles were spiritual, not physical. He does not explicitly deny
physical miracles; rather, He focuses on their spiritual significance.
'Abdu'l-Bahá elaborates on this theme by saying that while physical
miracles are performed by all the Manifestations of God, they are meant for
those who witnessed them and who thus would be certain that they occurred.
Thus from Bahá'í perspective, the position of modern scholars
that the historical Jesus was a miracle worker is not incorrect; but
theologically it misses an important point. 'Abdu'l-Bahá notes that
physical miracles are of less importance than spiritual
ones:If we consider miracles a great proof, they are still
only proofs and arguments for those who are present when they are performed,
and not for those who are absent.
For example, if we relate to a seeker, a stranger to Moses and Christ,
marvelous signs, he will deny them and will say "Wonderful signs are also
continually related of false gods by the testimony of many people, and they are
affirmed in the Books. . . ."
The outward miracles have no importance to the people of Reality. If a blind
man receives sight, for example, he will finally again become sightless, for he
will die. . . . If the body of a dead person be resuscitated, of what use is
it since the body will die again? But it is important to give perception and
eternal life--that is, the spiritual and divine life. For this physical life
is not immortal, and its existence is equivalent to nonexistence. So it is
that Christ said to one of His disciples: "Let the dead bury their dead;" for
"That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit
is spirit." (Some Answered Questions, 100-101.)
Jesus's Resurrection
The Bahá'í writings also explore the question of
Jesus's bodily resurrection. This is a subject of great importance to
conservative Protestants, who understand the biblical accounts very
literalistically, and put great importance on them. It is clear from the
Gospels that the early Christians believed that Christ underwent a resurrection
of the body. The oldest account in the Bible, that of Mark (16:1-8), is also
the simplest; it makes no mention of such details as soldiers being placed on
guard at the tomb, but simply says that three women went to the tomb to anoint
Jesus's body on the Sabbath and encountered a young man (presumably an angel),
who told them that Jesus had risen. The last twelve verses of the book
(16:9-20) appear to be a later addition, though they are very ancient; in them
various appearances of Jesus are mentioned, but no details are given. To this
account Matthew adds that Roman guards were placed around the tomb to prevent
anyone from stealing Jesus's body (a detail not given in the other gospels) and
mentions that "Jesus came to" the disciples and instructed them in Galilee,
though without giving any details as to His appearance (27:62-66, 28:1-20).
Luke, who wrote slightly later than Matthew, has an even most detailed account
of the burial and resurrection. In that book, not one man but two (presumably
angels) stand at the tomb and tell Mary that Christ has risen (24:1-11). Later
Jesus appears to two of His disciples on the road to Emmaus (24:13-35). He
appears to the ten disciples and asks them to examine the holes in His hands
and feet (24:38-40); He even eats food with them to prove to them that His body
has been resurrected (24:41-43). The Gospel of John, written at an even later
date, has similar stories.
It is significant to note that neither Paul nor Mark--who wrote decades
earlier than Luke--included any details about Christ's resurrection
appearances, and that later descriptions, found in books that never were
included in the Bible, give elaborate accounts of Jesus's physical appearances
to His disciples. This has prompted many biblical scholars to suggest that the
oldest form of the tradition included no stories at all, that they were added
later to convince the skeptical, and that they became more and more elaborate
over time, as orally repeated stories tend to do.
When one examines Luke's account from a traditional and literal standpoint,
one finds many details that makes one wonder what sort of body the resurrected
Jesus had. The story about the appearance on the road to Emmaus is the best
example. Jesus walks with two disciples, but "their eyes were kept from
recognizing him" (24:16), suggesting that either His body was an apparition, or
that the disciples's eyesight was being controlled in some supernatural way.
Later Jesus breaks bread with them, and suddenly "their eyes were opened and
they recognized him" (24:31); presumably either the physical appearance of
Jesus changed or the supernatural control over the disciples's eyesight was
suspended. Then Jesus "vanished out of their sight" (24:31) something an
ordinary person, with an ordinary body, cannot do. One could argue that the
disappearance was a miracle, but one could just as easily argue that Jesus's
appearance to the disciples was a miraculous vision of some sort, and not the
presence of an actual, resurrected body.
The story of Jesus's appearance before the ten is similar (24:36-53). Jesus's
manner of arrival is not described; it is simply said that suddenly "he stood
among them" (24:36), implying that He materialized out of thin air. Jesus
invites the disciples to touch His body and feel His wounds. The account does
not say that they did so, but if they had presumably they would have
experienced the touching of a body; if God can affect the sense of sight (as in
the Emmaus story), there is no reason to assume God cannot similarly affect the
sense of touch. Jesus then instructs the disciples, reviving their hopes and
faith, so that they experienced "great joy" (24:52); this is the important
occurrence in the story, for it is the point where Jesus resurrected the
Christian community. Finally, Jesus was "carried up into heaven" (24:51), an
event that would have resulted in the suffocation of an ordinary body in the
thin air of the upper atmosphere long before heaven were attained, unless the
"body" were special or protected in a miraculous fashion.
A close reading of the above stories--without raising the question of their
historicity, which is a serious issue itself--suggests that the disciples may
have experienced Jesus in a spiritual way, instead of actually seeing a
resurrected physical body. This interpretation is supported by Paul himself,
who discusses bodily resurrection in great detail. He makes an analogy between
the physical body and the spiritual body that succeeds it, on the one hand, and
a seed and the plant that grows from it, on the other: But
some one will ask, "How are the dead raised? With what kind of body do they
come?" You foolish man! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies.
And what you sow is not the body which is to be, but a bare kernel, perhaps of
wheat or of some other grain. But God gives it a body as he has chosen. . . .
There are celestial bodies and there are terrestrial bodies; but the glory of
the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another. . . . So it
is with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable, and what is
raised is imperishable. It is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory. It is
sown in weakness, it is raised in power. It is sown a physical body, it is
raised a spiritual body. If there is a physical body, there is also a
spiritual body. (I Cor. 15:35-44)
Precisely what Paul means by a "spiritual body" here is not clear; he seems to
be struggling to make analogies for ideas that are difficult to explain. He
seems to be avoiding the Greek word for soul (psyche) and the
philosophical implications it had.[5] Another
reason for avoiding "soul" is that he is already using it in the phrase
"physical body," which in the original Greek is soma psychikon,
"psychical body" or "soulful body."[6] Thus it
is possible that by "spiritual body" (soma pneumatikon) Paul is
referring to what Bahá'ís would call the soul and its divine
attributes.
Like Paul, 'Abdu'l-Bahá's statements support a spiritual interpretation
of the references in the New Testament to bodily
resurrection:The resurrections of the Divine Manifestations
are not of the body. . . it is clearly stated in many places in the Gospel
that the Son of man came from heaven, He is in heaven, and He will go to
heaven. . . . [for example] in John, chapter 3, verse 13: "And no man hath
ascended up to heaven, but He that came down from heaven, even the Son of Man
which is in heaven."
Observe that it is said, "The Son of man is in heaven," while at that time
Christ was on earth. Notice also that it is said that Christ came from heaven,
though He came from the womb of Mary, and His body was born of Mary. It is
clear, then, that when it is said that the Son of man is come from heaven, this
has not an outward but an inward signification; it is a spiritual, not a
material, fact. . . . In the same way, His resurrection from the interior of
the earth is also symbolical; it is a spiritual and divine fact, and not
material; and likewise His ascension to heaven is a spiritual and not a
material ascension.
Beside these explanations, it has been established and proved by science that
the visible heaven is a limitless area, void and empty, where innumerable stars
and planets revolve.
Therefore, we say that the meaning of Christ's resurrection was as follows:
the disciples were troubled and agitated after the martyrdom of Christ. The
Reality of Christ, which signifies His teachings, His bounties, His
perfections, His spiritual power, was hidden and concealed for two or three
days after His martyrdom, and was not resplendent and manifest. No, rather it
was lost, for the believers were few in number and were troubled and agitated.
The Cause of Christ was like a lifeless body; and when after three days the
disciples became assured and steadfast, and began to serve the Cause of Christ,
and resolved to spread the divine teachings, putting His counsels into
practice, and arising to serve Him, the Reality of Christ became resplendent
and His bounty appeared; His religion found life; His teachings and admonitions
became evidence and visible. In other words, the Cause of Christ was like a
lifeless body until the life and bounty of the Holy Spirit surrounded it.
(Some Answered Questions, p. 102.)
Thus 'Abdu'l-Bahá emphasizes that the true resurrection that occurred
was of the Christian community, which even the New Testament refers to as the
"body of Christ" (cf. Romans 12:5; I Cor. 12:12-31). The visions and
apparitions of the resurrected Jesus did indeed fire the disciples with a great
devotion, so much so that they spread the teachings of Christ far and wide,
undeterred even by martyrdom.
This aspect of 'Abdu'l-Bahá's position is not unsupported by Christian
scholars. John Dominic Crossan, whose life of Jesus is a very significant
piece of scholarship, takes a very similar position:If those
who accepted Jesus during his earthly life had not continued to follow, believe
and experience his continuing presence after the crucifixion, all would have
been over. That is the meaning of resurrection, the continuing presence
in a continuing community of the past Jesus in a radically new and
transcendental mode of present and future existence (Crossan, The Historical
Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant, p.
404).
'Abdu'l-Bahá mentions another argument against the belief in bodily
resurrection: "heaven" is not a physical place in the sky. Rather, the
Bahá'í writings explain that the "next world" is a spiritual
state, where matter, energy, and physical bodies do not exist.
'Abdu'l-Bahá even confirms Paul's statement that humans are sown as a
physical body, but raised as a spiritual body; He notes that "in the other
world the human reality does not assume a physical form, rather it doth take on
a heavenly form, made up of elements of that heavenly realm" (Selections
from the Writings of 'Abdu'l-Bahá, 194). This would suggest that
Paul was attempting to describe the reality of human beings in the next world
in vocabulary current to his time and place.
The Universal House of Justice has elucidated 'Abdu'l-Bahá's position
in these words: Concerning the Resurrection of Christ you
quote the twenty-fourth chapter of the Gospel of St. Luke, where the account
stresses the reality of the appearance of Jesus to His disciples who, the
Gospel states, at first took Him to be a ghost. From a Bahá'í
point of view the belief that the Resurrection was the return to life of a body
of flesh and blood, which later rose from the earth into the sky is not
reasonable, nor is it necessary to the essential truth of the disciples'
experience, which is that Jesus did not cease to exist when He was crucified
(as would have the belief of many Jews of that period), but that His Spirit,
released from the body, ascended to the presence of God and continued to
inspire and guide His followers and preside over the destinies of His
Dispensation (from a letter written on behalf of the Universal House of Justice
to an individual believer, 28 May 1984).
One further question regarding the bodily resurrection remains: what happened
to Jesus's body, if it did not ascend into heaven? Unfortunately, it is
virtually useless to speculate on this extremely important question, because
historical evidence is lacking. According to New Testament scholar John
Dominic Crossan, the disciples themselves did not know the answer to this
question. His careful study of the accounts of Jesus's crucifixion and
resurrection indicates that they developed in the early Christian community
purely through interpretation of Old Testament passages that were believed to
prophecy aspects of Jesus's sufferings. Crossan notes that Roman practice was
for the soldiers to bury the body, not turn it over to others for burial. He
believes that the disciples fled when their Master was arrested and returned
later to discover He had been crucified; and "nobody knew what had happened
to Jesus' body" (Crossan, p. 394; italics his).
It is intriguing to note that Bahá'í pilgrims who asked
'Abdu'l-Bahá and Shoghi Effendi about Jesus's body say that both men
stated that "the disciples hid the body of Christ by burying it under the wall
of Jerusalem, and that it is now under the Church of the Holy Sepulchre." The
Universal House of Justice adds that there is "nothing in the Writings of the
Faith, however, explicitly confirming these statements."[7]
While the Bahá'í writings reject Christ's bodily resurrection,
they affirm Jesus's virgin birth. The Qur'án also supports it
(19:16-22). But 'Abdu'l-Bahá makes it clear that this miracle does not
make Jesus superior to other Manifestations of God: "If the greatness of
Christ is His being fatherless, then Adam is greater, for He had neither father
nor mother." Rather, Jesus's greatness is best demonstrated by His "heavenly
perfections, bounties, and glory" (Some Answered Questions, 89-90).
Conclusion
The above examples underline the importance of distinguishing between
two types of biblical interpretation found in the Bahá'í
community. First, there are many interpretations of the Bible found in the
Bahá'í writings. Even they usually do not claim to be the only
"correct" interpretation of a biblical passage, but rather to be one
interpretation that has been endorsed by the Faith and which, therefore, is an
interpretation Bahá'ís know is valid (as opposed to hundreds of
interpretations which are not endorsed and thus may or may not be valid).
Second, there are interpretations of the Bible made by individual
Bahá'ís. These are useful and good, but may not necessarily be
endorsed by the Bahá'í writings. Much of the content of books by
Bahá'ís on the Bible falls in this category; much of it is the
personal interpretation of the authors, not the official interpretation of the
Bahá'í Faith. There is nothing wrong with personal
interpretation, as long as it is not confused with an authorized
interpretation.
The Bahá'í writings do not dwell on the question of the accuracy
or inaccuracy of the Bible; rather, they make it clear that the Bible is a
repository of revelation and is a sacred work. Thus, Bahá'ís
must not follow the tendency of agnostics and a small number of liberal
Christians, who essentially ignore the Bible as a source of truth and
inspiration. A veneration of the Word of God is called for, no matter how much
that Word is clothed in the phrases and interpretations of humans.
'Abdu'l-Bahá repeatedly makes this clear: Thou hast
written that thou lovest the Bible. Undoubtedly, the friends and maid-servants
of the Merciful should know the value of the Bible, for they are the ones who
have discovered its real significances and have become cognizant of the hidden
mystery of the Holy Book. ('Abdu'l-Bahá to Wallesca Pollock, Tablets
of Abdul-Baha Abbas, I, 218)
I beg of God through the confirmation and assistance of the True One thou
mayest show the utmost eloquence, fluency, ability and skill in teaching the
real significances of the Bible. Turn toward the Kingdom of ABHA and seek the
bounty of the Holy Spirit. Loosen the tongue and the confirmation of the
Spirit shall reach thee. ('Abdu'l-Bahá to Alma Knobloch, translated by
Ahmad Sohrab on 26 Dec. 1903; Tablets of Abdul-Baha Abbas, II, 243)
My God! My God! Elohim
To this servant give the understanding of the Old Testament and the New and
enable her to speak forth with a mighty voice and to sing with power the holy
songs and discover the real meaning and the secret mysteries of those verses,
for Thou art the Powerful Inspirer and the Mighty One! ('Abdu'l-Bahá,
written on the flyleaf of Sarah Farmer's Bible, 26 March 1900; Tablets of
Abdul-Baha Abbas, II, 277-78)
The Bible is a sacred scripture for Bahá'ís. It is the account
of the lives of three manifestations of God, of numerous lesser prophets who
revealed God's truth in their shadow, and of the people who sought to follow
and understand Their teachings. Read both reverently and in a manner that
recognizes its historical origin, the Bible can teach us about both the
struggles that humanity went through as it developed, and the promises of a
time when "swords will be beat into plowshares and spears into pruning hooks"
(Isaiah 2:4), a time that, Bahá'ís believe, has now dawned in the
world. It can illuminate the sacred writings of the Bahá'í
Faith, both by contrast--the social process that created the Bible was very
different from the process by which the Bahá'í scriptures came
into being--and by comparison, for through it we can see God's eternal truths
clothed in yet another form and expressed in another language. The Bible is a
foundational link in the chain that makes up the scriptures of the world's
religions, and thus has eternal significance for scholar and seeker alike.
[+CHAPTER2]
The New Testament
The New Testament is the traditional scripture of the Christian dispensation.
None of the authors of the books of the New Testament set out to compose
scripture; they were writing down their own understandings of Christianity, in
response to the needs of their communities. The first two or three generations
of Christians wrote hundreds of works, a hundred of which have survived, and
about a quarter of which were accepted into the New Testament. Of the New
Testament's twenty-seven books, four are about Jesus Christ, His life and
teachings; they are called gospels. The Book of Acts, a companion work
to the Gospel of Luke, describes the actions of Christ's apostles after His
death.
Of the remaining twenty-two books, twenty-one are either letters or are
sermons composed as if they were letters. Letter writing became important
because the earliest significant Christian documents were the letters that the
Apostle Paul wrote to the churches he had established; these letters very
quickly acquired a special status, and they made letter writing the genre in
which early Christians recorded their thoughts. Even the Book of Revelation is
composed as if it were a letter, and the author expressed part of the
revelation he claimed to receive in the form of a series of letters. The Book
of Hebrews, which is a sermon, not a letter, closes using the same concluding
forms as ancient letters.
No church council ever finalized the contents of the New Testament; rather,
its contents were gradually settled by tradition. The collection of works did
not even have a name until about 200 C.E., when the Latin theologian Tertullian
coined the term New Testament. Many independent Christian groups had
other collections of writings that they considered foundational to their
beliefs, but which were never considered sacred or even correct by the
mainstream of Christians. The Nag Hammadi library, a collection of forty-six
works buried in southern Egypt about 400 C.E. and found in 1945, is the best
example.
Bibles of the third and fourth centuries--the oldest that are known--often
included books that are no longer considered part of the canon, such as
First Clement, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Apocalypse of
Peter, and the Epistle of Barnabas. Christians outside the Roman
Empire, such as in eastern Syria and Ethiopia, often included works in their
Bibles not accepted by the later Catholics and Eastern Orthodox, such as the
Diatessaron. Medieval Catholic Bibles sometimes included a collected of
books called the Apocrypha, a kind of appendix. When Martin Luther translated
the Bible into German in the mid sixteenth century he decided to exclude the
Apocrypha. His Bible became the standard among Protestants, and remains the
standard for American Christianity today.
Christians have studied, and disagreed about, the New Testament since it first
emerged as a collection of works in the late second and early third century.
Since the early and mid nineteenth century, sophisticated techniques for
examining the language, style, and historical context of the New Testament
books have developed and are collectively referred to as higher biblical
criticism (where "criticism" refers to analysis of the New Testament, not
criticizing it). There are several important aspects of higher biblical
criticism. One is comparison of biblical texts describing the same topics side
by side, so that differences of language and content can be studied carefully.
Another important technique involves comparing biblical texts to other
Christian nonbiblical texts of a similar age, on the assumption that
nonbiblical texts also contain important information about Jesus and His early
disciples. A third important aspect of the approach involves minute study of
non-Christian texts of the same age, to gain a more detailed understanding of
the usage of common biblical terms and phrases in the language of the day. A
key assumption throughout is that when apparent contradictions between biblical
texts are noted, the contradictions should not be glossed over or reconciled
theologically, but should be studied rigorously and thoroughly to determine
what they tell us about the range of assumptions held by the early Christians.
In short, higher biblical criticism assumes that scripture is the product not
only of a revelatory process, but also of a social process, and the social
component of the composition of scripture can be studied rigorously using the
modern techniques of sociology, psychology, and literary criticism.
Higher biblical criticism has produced a much deeper understanding of the
biblical text than traditional techniques, but some of its conclusions are
startling, even shocking. The most important point of disagreement between
liberal and conservative Christians is whether to accept higher criticism and
its conclusions about the Bible. This book presents the conclusions of higher
biblical criticism largely without questioning its results because it will be
decades before a competent critique of them can be created by
Bahá'í scholars.
One of the most important conclusions of higher-critical biblical scholarship
is that not one book in the New Testament was written by an individual who
met Jesus Christ. All of them were written later, usually by the second
and third generation; the latest books in the New Testament were composed about
140 or 150 C.E. Many of the books are pseudonymous--that is, they claim to be
written by someone other than the real author. Examples are First and Second
Peter, the Epistle of James, and the Epistle of Jude; the quality of the Greek
and the theological issues addressed indicate the authors were native Greek
speakers and writers, composing decades after Peter, James, and Jude died.
First Timothy, Second Timothy, and Titus are attributed to Paul but are very
different in vocabulary and theology from Paul's genuine letters. The Book of
Hebrews is anonymous, that is, its author is not given at all; it was
attributed to Paul very early, but the attribution has been questioned since
the third century.
It may seem strange to modern people that so many books of the Bible were
pseudonymous or anonymous, but the process of writing books in the first and
second centuries was very different than it is today. Ancient books had to be
hand-copied and thus were incredibly expensive; consequently unknown authors
often attributed their works to great men long dead to give the books weight
and increase the likelihood they would be copied. Ancient books did not have
copyrights or title pages; often the only place the author's name would be
mentioned was in the text itself.
A second major conclusion of higher biblical criticism is that all the New
Testament books were originally written in Greek, not in Aramaic, which was
the language of Christ. Thus the teachings of the Manifestation of God had to
be translated, not only into a new language, but a new culture as well.
Closely related to this conclusion is another, that the stories about Jesus
and accounts of His words were transmitted orally for one or two generations.
Detailed study of the gospels has shown that the miracle stories, parables, and
sayings of Jesus were preserved not because the first generation of Christians
realized they had an obligation to posterity to serve as impartial and thorough
transmitters of the Jesus tradition, but because of the stories' usefulness in
the mission to convert others to Christ. Preserved in the missionary context,
the stories about Jesus were gradually written down as brief collections of
sayings or miracles, and these short documents were later incorporated into the
gospels, either completely or in part.
Because of the missionary needs that preserved accounts about Jesus, and the
oral milieu that transmitted them, one can expect that some of Jesus's
teachings were lost, and others may have been garbled. This is not to say that
Jesus's teachings did not survive; on the contrary, enough revelation survived
for Christianity to flourish for almost two thousand years. However,
Christianity is not in the same situation as the Bahá'í Faith,
where the revelation was written down by the Manifestation of God Himself.
Rather, Bahá'ís can think of the scriptures of Christianity as
being similar to pilgrim's notes: descriptions of the words of the Manifestaion
written down at a later date. Nevertheless, Bahá'ís should
respect, even venerate the New Testament and treat it as sacred text, for it
contains God's Word (see chapter one, on the Bahá'í understanding
of the Bible, for details).
A third major conclusion of modern biblical scholarship is that the New
Testament is not theologically unified, but contains within it diverse and
conflicting opinions about the nature of Christianity. This is an
extremely important discovery because it shows that Christianity was never a
single united religion, but always contained sharp disagreements and diverging
tendencies--the sources of its sects. Bahá'ís, used to thinking
of their own religious community as being in theological agreement, must
understand that never in its history did Christianity experience similar unity.
It had no golden age of unity in the first generation, from which it fell away.
Paul's letters, which constantly complain about and warn against the teachings
of rival Christian groups, make this clear. The Bahá'í Faith has
a Covenant that maintains its unity. According to 'Abdu'l-Bahá,
Christianity never had a Covenant:At most, His Holiness Jesus
Christ gave only an intimation, a symbol, and that was but an indication of the
solidity of Peter's faith. When he mentioned his faith, His Holiness said
"Thou art Peter"--which means rock--"and upon this rock I will build My
church." This was a sanction of Peter's faith; it was not indicative of his
(Peter) being the expounder of the Book, but was a confirmation of Peter's
faith.[8]
Were it not for the protecting power of the Covenant to guard the impregnable
fort of the Cause of God, there would arise among the Bahá'ís, in
one day, a thousand different sects as was the case in former ages.[9]
Some Christians are fully aware of the disaster, indeed, of the sin, of
sectarianism. According to H. Richard Niebuhr, one of America's greatest
Protestant theologians: Denominationalism. . . . is a
compromise, made far too lightly, between Christianity and the world . . . . It
represents the accomodation of Christianity to the caste-system of human
society. It carries over into the organization of the Christian principle of
brotherhood the prides and prejudices, the privilege and prestige, as well as
the humiliations and abasements, the injustices and inequalities of that
specious order of high and low wherein men find the satisfaction of their
craving for vainglory. The division of the churches closely follows the
divisions of men into castes of national, racial, and economic groups. It
draws the color line in the church of God; it fosters the misunderstandings,
the self-exhaltations, the hatreds of jingoistic nationalism by continuing in
the body of Christ the spurious differences of provincial loyalties; it seats
the rich and the poor apart at the table of the Lord, where the fortunate may
enjoy the bounty they have provided while the others feed upon the crusts their
poverty affords.[10]
According to the World Christian Encyclopedia, Christianity had about
1900 sects in the year 1900; by 1985 the number had increased to about 22,190;
and currently sects come into existence at the rate of 270 per year, or five
per week![11] There is no reason to assume
that Christianity's fragmentation will slow down or reverse in the near future.
Indeed, many Christians believe that sectarianism is good: Liberals argue that
it allows greater diversity of expression of the Christian truth; conservatives
maintain that it permits the "true" believers to be separated from the
"false."
The sectarian tendency in Christianity goes all the way back to its earliest
days. The followers of Jesus understood the purpose of His mission in several
sharply divergent ways, and they remembered His words and actions creatively,
not passively. Thus the story of Jesus is also the story of His followers; and
of both the weaknesses of their efforts to remember His life and their ultimate
genius in preserving and creatively transforming the Jesus tradition.
Footnotes
[1] Many biblical scholars have studied the
genealogies of Jesus and noted their contrasting purposes. See, for example,
David L. Tiede, Luke, in Augsburg Commentary on the New Testament
(Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1988), 96-97; Robert H. Smith,
Matthew, in Augsburg Commentary on the New Testament
(Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1989), 30-35.
[2] Origen (185-254) understands the phrase
"prince of this world" to refer to Satan; see G. W. Butterworth, trans,
Origin on First Principles (Gloucester, Mass.: Peter Smith, 1973), 45,
50.
[3] It is important to note that Shoghi
Effendi does offer an interpretation of the verse "the gate that looketh
towards the East" as being an allusion to the city of Akka (God Passes
By, 184). But this probably refers to a different verse: Ezekiel 43:1-2.
In Ezekiel this probably refers to the east gate of a new Jerusalem
temple.
[4] See, for example, John Dominic Crossan,
The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant (San
Francisco: Harper-Collins, 1991). Chapter 13 summarizes his view of Jesus's
miracles; he succinctly summarizes other scholars on page 320.
[5]See Norman Perrin, The New Testament:
An Introduction (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovitch, 1974), 104.
[6] For commentary on I Corinthians
15:35:49 see William F. Orr and James Arthur Walther, I Corinthians: A New
Translation, Introduction With a Study of the Life of Paul, Notes, and
Commentary, in William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman, eds.,
The Anchor Bible, vol. 32 (Garden City, N. Y.: Doubleday, 1976),
341-49.
[7]"The Resurrection and Return of Jesus," a
memorandum of the Research Department of the Universal House of Justice to the
Universal House of Justice, 9 October 1989, p. 3.
[8]'Abdu'l-Bahá, Star of the
West, vol. 3, no. 14, p. 9.
[9]'Abdu'l-Bahá,
Bahá'í World Faith, pp. 357-58.
[10] H. Richard Niebuhr, The Social
Sources of Denominationalism (New York: Meridian Books, 1929), p.
6.
[11] The World Christian
Encyclopedia, ed. David B. Barrett (Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 1982).
[+CHAPTER3]
Preserving the Jesus Tradition
Because of the discovery that the first generation of Christians served not as
a pure transmitter of the Jesus tradition, but as a filter of the tradition, a
study of Christianity must start not with Jesus, but with the earliest
Christians. Their interests and needs determined what traditions about Jesus
were preserved, and how they were modified.
It may seem easy to assume, almost twenty centuries after the death of Jesus,
that the first generation must have had historical consciousness; in
other words, that they knew posterity was depending on them to preserve the
precious acts and pronouncements of their Lord. There are many examples, from
all around the world, of stories and sayings that have been accurately
transmitted orally for centuries; the rabbinic tradition in Judaism itself was
a vehicle for this. Usually cultures that transmit a body of tradition,
however, organize the material into rhyming form, to ease memorization, and
establish a class of professional memorizers. The early Christian community
did neither. When scholars examine the New Testament text closely they find
little evidence for a systematic effort to record the story of Jesus.
Furthermore, critical biblical scholarship has shown there were good reasons
that a historical consciousness was largely absent from the first generation.
As the Gospel of Mark and the genuine letters of Paul indicate, much of the
first generation believed that Jesus would return soon, within their own
lifetimes; and since the world was about to end, there was no need to preserve
their memories of Him.
Furthermore, the early Christian community believed that Jesus's coming had
brought them new gifts. The first generation was very charismatic, and the
exercise of the "gifts of the spirit," such as speaking in tongues, were
important components of community life. Such gifts were not unique to the
early Christians; speaking in tongues occurred in Hellenistic Judaism and
probably in pagan religious circles as well. Among the important gifts of the
spirit was the power of prophecy. Christian "prophets" spoke ecstatically,
giving the words of Christ as He spoke to them. Because the words of the risen
Christ in the worship experience were more immediate and were as real as those
spoken by the historical Jesus, Christians probably made little or no
distinction between them.
Finally, from its very beginning the early Christian community interpreted
Jesus's life and words, and often they did not distinguish between historical
materials and their own interpretations. A good example is the parable of the
sower and its interpretation (Mark 4:10-12; Matthew 13:10-13; Luke 8:9-10).
Biblical scholarship strongly suggests that while the parable is probably
genuine, the interpretation was produced by the early church, even though the
gospels also place it in the mouth of Jesus.
As a result, there are many reasons to assume that the gospels contain a
mixture of accurate information about Jesus, material attributed to Him that
arose in the early Christian community, and interpretations of His life and
words. Study of the early Christian community has also revealed that it
possessed several understandings of the significance of Jesus. Helmut Koester,
a leading biblical scholar, has sketched four: Jesus as an envoy of Wisdom;
Jesus as divine human; Jesus raised from the dead; and Jesus as Lord of the
Future.[1]
Jesus and Wisdom
Many Christians--usually of Jewish background--saw Jesus as the embodiment of
Sophia or Wisdom. The wisdom tradition in Judaism envisions God as
having produced a being or emanation, Wisdom, who revealed His truth to
individuals or to humanity. The Wisdom tradition was mystical and often
esoteric; it focused on wise aphorisms and cryptic proverbs. Many early
Christians saw Jesus as an emissary of Wisdom, or as Wisdom itself. They
assembled lists of His "wisdom sayings": proverbs, parables, and other words
that Jesus uttered. Two works of this sort have survived: the Gospel of
Thomas and Q.
The Gospel of Thomas
Although there are many gospels, acts of the apostles, and letters that were
never included in the New Testament, most of them were written after 140 C.E.,
which is about the time the last works included in the New Testament were
composed. One of the significant exceptions is the Gospel of Thomas.
It is very old, possibly being composed as early as 60 C.E. (though it may have
been composed as late as the early second century). The work is attributed to
Thomas, one of Jesus's disciples. The original Greek text, so far, has not
been found; the extant version is in Coptic translation (Coptic is the ancient
Egyptian language, written in a modification of the Greek alphabet).
The Gospel of Thomas is not like the gospels in the New Testament, in
that it contains no passion narrative (description of Christ's crucifixion) and
no resurrection accounts; thus it ignores the most important event around which
the canonical gospels were written. It has no mention of Jesus's birth or
childhood, no narration of Jesus's life, and only one miracle story. Instead,
it consists of one hundred fourteen sayings of Jesus, one after the other, with
no context for each and no transition between them. Often the text does not
even include the question that Jesus was asked. The arrangement of the sayings
is based on similar words in them. In organization, it is a "wisdom" piece.
The work is significant for several reasons. Many of its sayings are also
found in the synoptic gospels, though in different wording. All reference to a
future messiah, and to Jesus as the "Son of Man" are absent, even though the
work contains sayings that in the canonical gospels includes the term "Son of
Man." Careful study suggests that the Gospel of Thomas may preserve the
older form of the sayings.
The Gospel of Thomas also claims to present "secret" sayings; and those
that have been included are those that support gnostic interpretations of
Jesus's teachings. Liberation of the soul from the body is a common theme; it
was a common theme for gnostics. Traditional Jesus sayings appear to have been
modified to give them a gnostic interpretation. There also are many
admonitions to recognize one's true self.
The Synoptic Sayings Source (Q)
Since the 1830s biblical scholars have recognized that Matthew and Luke
contain a large amount of common material. Much of it is also found in the
gospel of Mark, but a considerable amount is found only in Matthew and Luke.
The common material exhibits some important patterns that are clues to its
origin: almost all of it consists of sayings; only one miracle is included;
there is no common material in the Lukan and Matthean birth stories or passion
narratives; and when scholars are fairly certain what the original version of
the common material was--for example, when a phrase from the Hebrew Bible was
alluded to in the original text--both Matthew's and Luke's versions may differ
from the original.[2] This suggests that rather
than Matthew using Luke as a source when writing his gospel, or vice versa,
they both read another, lost work, and borrowed from it. Scholars call this
lost work the Synoptic Sayings Source or Q (from the German word
Quelle, source).
Q consisted mostly of sayings of Jesus, with no narrative and virtually
no stories to give the context of the sayings. The Gospel of Thomas
lends evidence that a document just listing sayings could have existed.
Q, like Thomas, appears to be a work written in the Jewish Wisdom
tradition. Matthew and Luke arrange the Q sayings in very similar
order, suggesting that the original order has often been preserved, especially
by Luke.[3]
One hundred six units of text (fragments of sentences, sentences, and groups
of sentences on the same topic) can be identified in Matthew and Luke that came
from Q. The sayings concern various topics: Jesus and John the Baptist;
Christian discipleship and mission; controversies with Israel; fearless
preaching; and especially apocalyptic concerns. Particularly significant are
the subjects missing from Q: Jesus's baptism, passion, and
resurrection. While Matthew and Luke often give Q phrasing that is
identical (suggesting Q was a written source), sometimes there are
significant differences in phrasing (for example, the Sermon on the Mount,
which Matthew may have constructed by collecting and rearranging Q
sayings, versus the Sermon on the Plain, which Luke took from Q).
Research on Q has advanced to the point where scholars think the
document underwent at least two redactions (modifications and editings); the
later version was more apocalytic, the earlier more interested in wisdom.
Q cannot be dated except to say it had to be composed after Jesus's
death (about 30 C.E.) and before it was used by Matthew and Luke (about 80
C.E.); most scholars, though, suspect it was composed between 40 and 60. A
likely setting for the composition of Q is a Syrian Jewish=Christian
community that sought to follow most of the Jewish law but maintained friendly
relations with Gentile Christians, and that was bitterly criticized by
Pharisaic Jews (such as Paul, before his conversion) as a result.[4]
Q may have circulated fairly widely, for The Gospel of Thomas,
the apostle Paul, and the authors of the epistles of James, I Peter, and I
Clement may have been familiar with versions of it.[5] One intriguing possibility is that Q was composed
by or based on sayings collected by the apostle Matthew, that the work began to
circulate widely, and that the Matthean community continued to develop the
Q material, eventually incorporating it into the Gospel of Matthew.[6]
The Christians who saw Jesus as the envoy of Wisdom preserved many of His
sayings that were later used in the writing of the gospels. They may have
considered the view that Jesus was Lord of the Future or that he was raised
from the dead as unimportant. As already noted, the Gospel of Thomas
ignored both views; Q originally ignored both as well, though a concern
for Jesus as Lord of the Future apparently was edited into the document
later.
Jesus as Divine Human
Yet another group of Christians interpreted Jesus primarily as a divine
human. This is a concept that existed in Hellenistic culture. Hercules
exhibits some of the traits of a divine human, such as his ability to perform
remarkable feats. Biographies of Alexander the Great and of an obscure Greek
seer, Apollonius of Tyana, offer good examples of the tradition of the divine
human: he performed healings, exorcisms, miracles, had ecstatic experiences,
and saw visions. Sometimes divine humans were born as a result of a union of
their mother with a god. Christians who saw Jesus as a divine human were among
those who referred to Him by the title "Son of God." This title probably would
have been unacceptable in traditional Judaism because the unknown, transcendent
God could never have had a son. These Christians assembled collections of
stories of miracles and exorcisms performed by Jesus and apparently wrote them
down. They also assembled the stories of Jesus's miraculous birth. It is
thought that a "Signs Source" or Semeia--a collection of miracle
stories--was used by the writer of the gospel of Mark; the author of John may
have used it as well.
The Signs Source (Semeia)
Unlike the Q, it is not possible to reconstruct the original text of
the Semeia, though it is possible, from the parallel stories found in
the gospels of Mark and John, to trace its contents:
Mark 4:35-6:44: Mark 6:45-8:26:
4:35-41 Stilling tempest 6:45-52 Walking on sea
5:1-20 Gerasene demoniac 5:22-43 Daughter of Jarius
5:25-34 Woman with issue of blood 7:24-30 Canaanite woman
7:32-36 Healing of deaf mute
6:30-44 Feeding 5000 8:1-10 Feeding 4000
8:22-26 Healing blind man
John 2:1-11:45:
2:1-11 Wine miracle at wedding feast at Cana
4:46-54 Healing of son of royal official
5:2-9 Healing of lame man at Bethzatha pool
6:5-14 Feeding 6000
6:16-25 Tempest and walking on the sea
9:1-7 Healing blind man
11:1-45 Raising Lazarus
Mark apparently preserved the cycle of miracle stories twice, as independent
collections; John used it once. In both gospels the miracle stories included
an account of feeding thousands; stilling a tempest and walking on the sea; and
various healings. Both gospels preserved other miracle stories that were not
part of these collections.
The Johannine collection is particularly significant because it aappears to
imitate the collections of miracles stories, or aretologies, that were
told about various Greek gods. It opens with the changing of water to wine, a
miracle Greeks attributed to the god Dionysos. The first two miracles also
close with "this is the first of the signs which Jesus did in Cana: (John 2:11)
and "this is the second sign when he came from Judea into Galilee" (John 4:54),
wording that would be expected if the signs had been copied from an existing
written source. Possibly the original ending of the Signs Source is preserved
in John 20:30-31, "Jesus did many other signs before his disciples which are
not written in this book."[7]
The Signs Source apparently only focused on Jesus as a divine human and
ignored the other three ways of viewing Jesus.
Jesus, Raised from the Dead
Probably the oldest of the four ways to view Jesus, and perhaps the most
decisive for later writing about Jesus, was Jesus raised from the dead. One of
the most significant results of modern biblical scholarship has been the
recognition that Jesus's death was one of the most important influences on the
understanding of Jesus's life. Consider the impact that Jesus had on His
disciples. They believed He performed miracles. They experienced His life and
were overwhelmed by it. They heard His words and were mesmerized by them, even
if they didn't understand them perfectly. He was more than a human being to
them; in some sense He was divine.
Then He was arrested and cruelly murdered. How could Jesus allow such an
injustice to be perpetrated against Him? The disciples could not understand;
their faith was severely shaken. The gospels testify that it was Christ's
resurrection appearances that revived the dead body of Christianity.
To understand the seemingly meaningless turn of events, the disciples turned
to their Bible--the Hebrew Bible. An apocryphal Christian work, the Kerygma
Petrou (The Proclamation of Peter) says that the leading disciples examined
the last days of Jesus's life, event by event, and searched the Hebrew Bible
for prophecies that had been fulfilled in order to understand the tragedy. The
Kerygma Petrou puts the description of the disciples' action in the
mouth of Peter:But we opened the books of the prophets which
we had, which partly in parables, partly in enigmas, partly with certainty and
in clear words name Christ Jesus, and found his coming, his death, his
crucifixion and all the rest of the tortures which the Jews inflicted on him,
his resurrection and his assumption to heaven.-.-. how all was written that he
had to suffer and what would be after him. Recognizing this, we believed God
in consequence of what is written of (in reference to) him.[8]
The apostles also conducted the process in the reverse direction: They
considered the prophecies that the Bible contained and examined the life of
Jesus in order to determine which prophecies were fulfilled. Over time stories
about Jesus developed that were based on the fulfillment of many biblical
prophecies by Him; thus passages in the Old Testament shaped the memory of
Jesus's death.
The result was eventually formed into the passion narrative, the
account of Christ's arrest, trial, and crucifixion. It was the first part of
Christ's life to be systematically organized, and may have been the first part
to be written down. The similarity of the passion accounts in the four
canonical gospels strongly suggests that they had access to a written passion
account, now lost. One scholar has even given this lost document a name--the
Cross Gospel--and has attempted to reconstruct its original text. The
prominence of Peter's name in all of the accounts suggests that Peter may have
been the ultimate source for much of the Passion narrative. This possibility
is reinforced by two apocryphal accounts of the passion, the Gospel of
Peter and the Kerygma of Peter, which both bear his name.
Peter was not the only prominent Christian to focus on Jesus's death; Paul did
also. Paul's summary of his basic teaching, presented in I Corinthians 15:3-8,
exclusively emphasized Jesus's death and resurrection: For I
delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died
for our sins in accordance with the scriptures [Hebrew Bible], that he was
buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures,
and that he appeared to Cephas [Peter], then to the twelve [apostles]. Then he
appeared to more than five hundred brethern at one time, most of whom are still
alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James [Jesus's
brother], then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he
appeared also to me.
Paul's summary of the message of Christianity is purely the proclamation of
the risen Christ; His life is not even mentioned, nor are His words or
miracles. Paul's genuine letters contain very few references to the words and
deeds of the historical Jesus. Note that Paul, also, refers to the influence
of the Hebrew Bible on the community's understanding of Jesus's crucifixion.
Because Jesus's death came to dominate the understanding of His life, His
biography, when it was finally composed, was written backwards, starting from
the end. The passion became the shaping event for structuring the gospels.
All traditional materials about Jesus, such as sayings, miracle stories,
parables, and prophecies--preserved by other Christians--were written into a
single story, using the passion as the framework.
Jesus, Lord of the Future
Closely related to belief in Jesus as raised from the dead was belief in Jesus
Christ as Lord of the Future, as the one who would return as judge and
redeemer. Paul's first letter to the Thessalonians is a good example: after he
mentions the Christian belief that "Jesus died and rose again" (4:14) he speaks
of "we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord" (4:15), which
refers to belief in Christ's imminent return. The gospel of Mark reflects a
similar belief. Expectation of the imminent return of Christ persisted until
70 C.E., when the Romans destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple and Jesus did not
return to prevent it.
Important to some of the Christians who focused on Jesus's passion and return
was the title "Son of man" (or "Son of humanity," if one wishes to avoid sexist
language), which comes from the book of Daniel. Some biblical scholars believe
that the sayings where Jesus refers to Himself as the "Son of man" did not
originally include that term. A careful study by John Dominic Crossan of the
forty "Son of man" sayings that are found in first-generation Christian
writings indicates that sixteen of the sayings are independently attested in
two or more sources; but the term "Son of man" itself is found more than once
in only one saying.[9] (In the other cases the
same saying refers to Jesus using words and phrases like "I" or "the Lord.")
Christians who focused on Jesus as the future redeemer also referred to him as
"Lord." They called him "the Annointed One," "Messiah" in Hebrew, a term that
was translated into Greek as christos. (Previously, the only meaning
the word christos would have had in Greek would have been
"ointment.")
Not all Christians who saw Jesus as the Lord of the Future also focused on him
as one raised from the dead. Q contained many sayings about Christ's
return, but apparently contained no passion narrative, and no reference to his
crucifixion.
The Distinctivenes of the Four Views of Jesus
While there were Christians who saw Jesus according to more than one of these
four ways, it is striking to note that the earliest documents are often
dominanted by one or at most two ways of conceptualizing Jesus and completely
ignore the other ways. The genuine letters of Paul stress Jesus raised from
the dead and emphasize His role as Lord of the future, but contain only three
complete sayings attributed to Jesus, and make no mention of His miracles. The
ideas of Jesus as divine human or Jesus as envoy of wisdom apparently were not
important to Paul. The Gospel of Thomas is a piece in the wisdom tradition,
but has few references to miracles, contains no passion narrative, and rarely
refers to Jesus as Lord. The Q document used by Matthew and Luke is a piece in
the wisdom tradition and contains sayings about the future, but has no passion
narrative and no miracle stories. The signs source was dominated by miracles
and seems to have contained no reference to the passion or return and contained
few if any sayings of Jesus.
It is interesting to note that the early American Bahá'í
community was divided into groups similar to the early Christians. Some early
American Bahá'ís saw the Bahá'í Faith primarily as
a fulfillment of biblical prophecy (like the early Christians who emphasized
Jesus as raised from the dead and as judge and fulfillment of Old Testament
prophecy). Other early American Bahá'ís saw the
Bahá'í Faith primarily in terms of esoteric religious truth (such
as those Christians who emphasized Jesus as envoy of Wisdom or as a divine
human). Bahá'í communities included individuals with both points
of view, and some Bahá'ís saw the Faith both ways.
The Bahá'í community had access to the writings of its Founder
and thus the divergent tendencies in the community gradually faded; and the
different groups did not write works that later were incorporated into
Bahá'í scripture. The early Christian community had no
definitions of true belief or of heresy, consequently divergent beliefs could
exist together in a group or within an individual. All of these groups spoke
about Jesus; all of them had "prophets" who received Jesus's words; and all of
them wrote accounts of Jesus, probably within a decade or two of His death.
From these short works many gospels were later compiled. Since the new gospels
had not yet acquired any special status, they were edited, rewritten, and
paraphrased in yet later gospels. (This even includes the Gospel of Mark,
which was used as a source by the authors of Matthew and Luke, who edited and
modified the information they obtained from it.) The earliest documents,
having been incorporated into more sophisticated works, were gradually lost.
The Gospels
Standing near the end of this literary process are the four gospels in the New
Testament. They are among the oldest accounts that are preserved. Three of
them are called the synoptic gospels because they see Jesus through the
"same eye" (which is what synoptic means in Greek). These three are
Mark, Matthew, and Luke; they were composed between 70 and 90 C.E.
There is no parallel for the genre of the gospel in Hellenistic literature,
for they are not biographies or histories, but statements of the theological
significance of an individual using examples from that individual's life and
words. The works thus interpret Jesus, not simply describe Him. This is the
principal reason why the historical Jesus is so difficult to reconstruct; the
early Christians' understanding of Him dominates the accounts about Him. An
examination of the gospels, and works associated with them, reveals this.
Mark
Mark has been described as "a passion story with a long introduction."
Fundamentally, the book is an apocalyse; Jesus is expected to return
imminently. Most likely the work was composed about 70 C.E., when the Roman
siege of Jerusalem raised Christian expectations of His return to a height.
The many references to gentiles in Mark suggest its author was very interested
in the mission to teach the gentiles. Jesus is equally called "Son of God" (a
Hellenistic title for Him) and "Son of Man" (a Jewish title for Him); two Son
of Man statements are often followed by two Son of God statements (for example,
1:1, 1:10; 2:10, 2:28; 3:11, 5:7). In Mark, Jesus constantly refuses to
disclose His identity until the end; this feature of Mark is called the
"Messianic secret." He even orders demons not to divulge His identity (c.f.
3:12). The gospel gives the reason for Jesus's death on the cross as a "ransom
for many" (Mark 10:45).
The book breaks into five sections, each of which begins with a summary and
ends with an allusion to the passion (Christ on the cross). The passion
allusions occur in verses 3:6, 6:1-6:6, 8:17-8:21, 10:45, and 12:44. The
entire section from 8:27 to 10:45 has the overall theme of interpreting the
passion.
The gospel of Mark must have circulated quickly, for both Matthew and Luke
used it. Ninety percent of Mark may be found in reused form in Matthew, and
fifty percent of it in Luke. The ways these authors reused Mark (for example,
by changing the wording of quotes of Jesus) tells us much about the reasons
that Matthew and Luke wrote their gospels.
Matthew
The Gospel of Matthew was apparently composed by a Christian of Jewish
background. The book is constantly in dialogue with the Jews. Jesus is quoted
as describing His mission as "to fulfill the law and the prophets" (Matt 5:17).
His genealogy is used to tie Jesus to Abraham and demonstrates His Jewish
lineage; each birth story about Him highlights a passage from the Hebrew
Bible.
The gospel is believed to have been composed between 70 and 100 C.E. because
it reflects the concerns of that period: It deals with the problem of the delay
of Jesus's return; it focuses on the organization of church structure; and it
culminates in the "Great Commission," when Jesus tells His disciples to go out
and "make disciples of all nations" (Matt. 28:19), thus endorsing the mission
to teach the gentiles.
Matthew does not describe Jesus's life chronologically. He likes to place
similar materials together; for example, chapters five, six, and seven are
mostly ethical teachings. Chapters eight and nine are mostly healings.
Chapter ten is instructions to His disciples. Chapter thirteen consists solely
of parables. Chapters twenty-four and twenty-five consist of teachings about
the Kingdom.
The book has five major discourses by Jesus, which end with the formula "when
Jesus finished these sayings" or some similar phrase (7:28, 11:1, 13:53, 19:1,
and 26:1). The five sections may be an intentional parallel to the five books
of the Pentateuch. Jesus's teachings are presented as the new law (an idea
that Paul would not have liked!) and the disciples are portrayed as the new
rabbis.
Luke
Of the three synoptic gospels, the gospel of Luke most closely resembles a
work of history. The book sets Jesus in a "sacred history" at the "midpoint of
time." That is, Luke divides all of human history into three periods:
- The Jewish dispensation ("the law and the prophets were
until John; since then the good news of the Kingdom of God is preached" [Luke
16:16]).
- The time of Jesus.
- The time of the church.
The last is described in great detail, for Luke is also the author of the book
of Acts, and the two books were originally written as one complementary whole.
For Luke, the immediacy of Christ's return has faded; Christianity has a period
in history given to it, and the church must recognize the fact and seize the
opportunities it offers. The book was probably written about 85 C.E., plus or
minus five years.
The book begins with a prologue in good Greek literary style; clearly, Luke is
intentionally writing a polished literary work. His description of the birth
of Jesus includes Psalm-like hymns, in imitation of the style of the Septuagint
(Greek translation of the Old Testament); this shows that Jesus's birth is
still part of the first period of human history.
Luke treated John the Baptist very differently than did Matthew. Matthew has
Jesus baptized by John the Baptist (3:13-17), and draws many parallels between
John and Jesus. In contrast, Luke has John arrested and thrown in prison
immediately before Jesus begins His mission, and instead of a baptism, Luke has
a dove descend upon Jesus from heaven (3:20-22). Thus Luke see John as the end
of the old dispensation, and Jesus as the inauguration of the new, and sees no
overlap in their missions.
Half of the gospel of Luke consists of the teachings that Jesus supposedly
gave while on His way from Galilee to Jerusalem (the "Lukan travel narrative,"
9:51-18:14). None of this material is from Mark; most of it is about the
Christian life, a kind of manual for living.
Luke's concept of salvation is unique; he does not see Christ's death as an
expiation, a sacrifice for sins, like Paul and the early church. Rather, Jesus
is an example to us how to live our lives, and in the contemplation of His life
Luke sees individual salvation.
Acts
Since Luke also composed the Book of Acts, it is best to describe that work
and the gospel together. Luke wrote Acts in a fashion parallel to his gospel.
The book begins with a description of the early Jerusalem church and is written
in an intentionally archaic Greek style, just as the gospel began with an
archaic-sounding description of Jesus's birth. The "great commission" that
appears at the end of Matthew appears at the beginning of Acts. Stephen's
martyrdom is portrayed in a way similar to Christ's death (Acts 7:54-60).
Paul, Peter, Stephen, and the other early disciples are portrayed as
Hellenistic "divine men" and as examples to follow, as Jesus was portrayed in
the gospel. One third of Acts describes Paul's journey to Rome; one half of
Luke describes Jesus's journey to Jerusalem.
Luke supposedly was one of Paul's disciples, though the book of Acts presents
no evidence for this. The historical accuracy of Acts has been hotly debated
by scholars. The book places many speeches in Paul's mouth--a significant
fraction of the text consists of speeeches--and when one examines the content
of the speeches closely one notes that it is often inconsistent with the
teachings of Paul given in his genuine letters. Furthermore, a cursory
examination of Greek historical works and romances (the early forerunner
of the modern novel) shows that inventing speeches of major characters was
extremely common in Greek writing. Acts appears to be written in the style of
Greek romance: in addition to many speeches it has travel, adventures, danger,
magical escapes, and dramatic dialogue. It even has a shipwreck, which was
obligatory in Greek romance. The only thing it lacks is a love story!
A key piece of evidence in the debate over the historical reliability of Acts
are the so-called "we passages," or places where the text of Acts lapses into
the first person plural (16:10-17; 20:5-15; 21:1-18; 27:1-28:16). It has been
argued that Luke was utilizing a travel diary or some other personal record of
his travels with Paul, and therefore the "we passages" were evidence of the
document's historical reliability. However, recent research has shown that
Greek romances frequently lapsed into the first person plural whenever sea
travel was involved, in order to make the account more vivid. Virtually all of
the "we passages" in Acts are connected with sea travel. Thus evidence that at
first glance appeared to strengthen the case for the historical reliability of
Acts in the long run has weakened the case instead.
Sources Used by Luke and Matthew
Scholars have long noted that in many places Matthew, Luke, and Mark overlap
in content, which has led to the question whether one of the documents was the
oldest and the other two used it as a source. As already noted, examination of
the three has brought most biblical scholars to the conclusion that Mark is the
oldest of the three, and that Matthew and Luke both used Mark as a literary
source when writing their gospels. Since Mark was not yet seen as a sacred
text--just as a source--both Matthew and Luke felt free to paraphrase, edit,
and rewrite the text they were borrowing.
There are also many places where Matthew and Luke contain stories absent from
Mark, and scholars have asked whether Matthew borrowed from Luke or vice versa.
As already noted, most scholars think a lost work called Q was used by
both writers, and this explains the two gospels' overlap.
In addition to Mark and Q, Luke, at least, probably had access to
another written document (called L by scholars). Some say Matthew may
also have had a written document (called M by scholars) as a source for
his stories. Both Mark and John appear to have used a Signs Source or
Semeia that lists miracles of Jesus. None of these works exist
today.
The Gospel of John
The fourth gospel is very different from the first three, in content, style,
and presentation. It has no parables, for example, no proverbs, but has many
stories that are absent from the synoptics. The book appears to have been
edited considerably by "John" or his school of disciples and the changes are
all in the same style as the original, making them very difficult to detect.
The editing, however, did not fix all the problems with the original text;
chapters 5, 6, and 7 are best read in the order 6, 5, 7. Various individual
verses seem out of place, also.
The attribution of the gospel to John, a disciple of Jesus, is suggested by
the reference in John 21:20 to "the disciple whom Jesus loved"; church
tradition maintains that John of Zebedee was this man. But many scholars
believe chapter 21 is a later addition to the gospel. The text itself does not
give the author's name.
A letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi on 23 January 1944 noted that "as
many of the passages in the Gospel of Saint John are quoted we may assume that
it is his Gospel and much of it is accurate."[10] This reinforces the consensus of biblical scholarship
that the gospel ultimately can be traced to John. This is important, because
even ancient writers questioned whether Matthew was the ultimate sources of his
gospel (Papias believed Matthew wrote down the gospel according to Peter), and
Luke--who is identified as the author in the Gospel that bears his
name--converted to Christianity through Paul and never met the historical
Jesus. It is not clear whether the statement written on behalf of Shoghi
Effendi implies that John himself was the author of the Gospel (a view rejected
by most liberal biblical scholarship) or whether his account could have been
recorded by others. Biblical scholarship has not yet attained a consensus
about the accuracy of the Johannine text relative to the synoptic gospels; but
clearly it preserved information about Jesus that was not preserved in other
sources.
The Gospel of John begins with the classic words, "In the beginning was the
Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." In Greek this section
is a hymn. Theologically, the gospel begins with a preexistent Christ and
shows considerable development in its Christology (theology about Jesus).
The chronological structure of the gospel is quite different from the
synoptics. The synoptics have Jesus preach in Galilee, go to Jerusalem, and
die. John has Jesus go to Jerusalem several times. The synoptics tell the
story of the cleansing of the Temple at the end of the story, just before the
passion; John tells it early in his gospel. In John, Jesus never preaches that
the Kingdom will come soon; this suggests the book was written considerably
after 70 C.E., and when the community had ceased to expect His imminent return.
In John, Jesus is constantly describing Himself, which He rarely does in the
synoptics. He does this by beginning with the words "I am.-.-." which is the
usual way Jesus starts to talk about Himself in John, but which is a rare
phrase in the synoptics. John is familiar with gnosticism and portrays the
world very dualistically, in terms of light and darkness, good and evil, truth
and lies, the saved and the condemned.
John's stories about Jesus follow a standard pattern: first there is an
action, then a dialogue, then a monologue (usually by Jesus), then an appendix.
The pattern has variations: sometimes there are two dialogues, or the action or
appendix may be absent. John also follows the "law of stage duality," a
convention in Greek plays where there could only be two actors on stage at one
time. Thus, whenever Jesus is in dialogue with several people, He only speaks
with one person at a time. The best example is Jesus's trial:
18:19-24 -- Jesus speaks with Annas.
18:29-32 -- Pilate goes out of his palace and speaks with the messengers of
the Sanhedrin. Jesus is absent.
18:33-38 -- Pilate goes into his palace and speaks with Jesus. The Jews are
absent.
18:38-40 -- Pilate goes out and speaks with the Jews; Jesus is
absent.
This arrangement is in contrast to Mark 15:1-5, Matthew 27:1-2, 27:11-26, and
Luke 23:1-25, where Jesus, the high priests, and Pilate are all present
together. John's rearranging of the material to match the conventions of Greek
drama--in order to make the scene more dramatic, by conventional standards--is
clear evidence that he rewrote the material that had been handed down to him by
tradition.
John's passion narrative is distinctively different from the synoptics. It is
Jesus is crucified not on Passover, but the day before. The last supper is not
portrayed as a seder, or Passover meal. Jesus's trial is the center of
the passion drama.
John was probably written without a copy of either Mark, Matthew, or Luke
available to its author, though some scholars suggest the author may have known
about the gospel of Mark or possibly Luke, or that the gospel was later edited
to make it consistent with them. The author apparently had available to him a
"signs source," a book written in Greek that described Jesus's miracles.
Probably the gospel was written about 90 C.E.; it must have been written by 100
or 110 because a fragment of the Gospel has been found in Egypt that was copied
before 150 C.E.
The Johannine School
In addition to the gospel, John is said to have written the three letters in
the New Testament that bear his name. Probably they were written by disciples
of his, who are collectively called the "Johannine School" for convenience.
The letters show a slight difference in language and theology when compared to
the gospel. They are clearly associated with the author of the gospel of John,
however, because their theology and language is so similar.
I John is the longest and most important of the letters. It is really a
sermon, edited to resemble a letter, which shows how strong the influence of
letter writing was in the early Christian community. It focuses on the
question of how to interpret the gospel of John, for some members of the local
church were interpreting it in a way to deny that Christ ever came in the
flesh. John warns against this interpretation.
II John and III John are by the "presbyter," or elder. No one knows who he
was; based on the content of the letters, he seems to have been a superviser of
itinerant missionaries. Second John warns of heresy in the church--apparently
gnosticism --and III John urges that Christians give hospitality to each
other.
The Johannine school is also represented by a gnostic work, the Acts of
John, perhaps by the group against which I John warns. The work, which is
not in the Bible and which is only partially preserved, is an account of "John"
written in the form of a romance. Part of the work has survived under the name
of The Gospel Preaching of John, which describes Christ in docetic terms
(that is, that Jesus Christ never really had a body or suffered on the cross,
but only appeared to have a body for the convenience of humans). It portrays
Jesus as constantly changing His bodily form; among other things, it says that
when He walked on a sandy beach, His feet left no footprints![11]
Conclusion
The complexity and diversity of the various textual sources about the great
manifestation of God, Jesus Christ, make it difficult to reconstruct a single
portrait of Him that is detailed and faithful. His message seems to have been
one of unconditioned love for God and of radical obedience to the divine will.
It was a message delivered in the form of parables, which were simple yet
profound enough to survive in oral transmission and to puzzle and inspire
persons for two thousand years. Because of the state of human society, a more
complete survival of Jesus's message may not have been possible; indeed, it may
not have been advisable. Had Jesus's message been accurately written down in
complete detail, and had He established a system for interpreting and leading
His Faith, the immature state of human society might have perverted that truth
and converted that system into a powerful instrument for suppressing human
individuality and monopolizing power. Instead, perhaps God intentionally gave
humanity a message that would be preserved only imperfectly, because God
intended to update and supplement the teaching later with new revelations.
In order to understand the historical Jesus, the layers of tradition that have
accumulated around the original events must be removed. This is extremely
difficult to accomplish; but scholars have been able to peel off some of the
accretions, to begin to understand the process whereby the gospels were
written, and to commence the painting of a portrait of the Founder of
Christianity. We now turn to that portrait.
Footnotes
[1]. Helmut Koester, "The Structure and
Criteria of Early Christian Beliefs," in James M. Robinson and Helmut Koester,
Trajectories Through Early Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress
Press, 1971), 205-31. Much of the following discussion on the four
understandings of the significance of Jesus comes form this source.
[2].For example, Matthew 7:23 and Luke 13:27
contain common material, but whereas the Matthean text quotes the first half of
Psalm 6:9 and paraphrases the second half, the Lucan text paraphrases the first
half and quotes the second. See Helmut Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels:
Their History and Development (Philadelphia: Trinity Press International,
1990) 131, for details of the argument.
[3].In some cases the author of Matthew appears
to have skimmed Q and removed sayings related to a particular topic, and
then reproduced the sayings in the order he copied them from Q.
[4].Koester, Early Christian Gospels
170-71.
[5].Koester, Early Christian Gospels,
53-107.
[6].This is suggested by Helmut Koester in
Ancient Christian Gospels, 166-67. It would explain the statement by
Papias of Hierapolis--a second=century bishop--that Matthew "composed the
sayings," which does not adequately describe the Gospel of Matthew, with its
miracles, birth stories, and other materials other than sayings. It would also
explain the ancient Christian tradition that Matthew's gospel is the oldest,
for the tradition could then refer to Q. Finally, attribution of
Q to Matthew might explain the fact that early Christian documents that
preserve stories of apostles asking Jesus questions usually prominently feature
Matthew among the questioners, suggesting that there was a tradition of Matthew
being interested in the sayings of Jesus (see Koester, 166-67).
[7].The above summary of the Signs Source comes
from Koesterm Early Christian Gospels, 201-05.
[8].Wilhelm Schneemelcher, New Testament
Apocrypha, volume two: Writings Relating to the Apostles; Apocalypses and
Related Subjects, trans. R. McL. Wilson (Philadelphia: Westminster Press,
1964), 101-02.
[9].Gos. Thom. 44, "Jesus said 'Whoever
blasphemes against the Father will be forgiven, and whoever blasphemes against
the Son will be forgiven, but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will
not be forgiven either on earth or in heaven,'" versus Luke 12:10, "and
everyone who speaks a word against the Son of man will be forgiven; but he who
blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven."
[10].From a letter written on behalf of Shoghi
Effendi to an individual Bahá'í dated 23 January 1944 and quoted
in "Extracts from the Bahá'í Writings and From Letters of the
Guardian and the Universal House of Justice on the Old and New Testaments,"
unpublished compilation assembled by the Research Department of the Universal
House of Justice.
[11].The Gospel Preaching Of John may
be located in Ronald D. Cameron, ed., The Other Gospels: Introductions and
Translations (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1982), 87-96.
[+CHAPTER4]
Jesus Christ in History and in the Bahá'í Writings
When one becomes aware of the divergent understandings of Jesus that existed
in the early Christian community, one sees the difficulty of reconstructing
what Jesus's life and teachings really were. One is reminded of the story of
the blind men trying to describe an elephant. The first generation of
Christians groped to describe Him and to experience Him in worship. What has
survived is a composite not only of the first generation's recollections, but
of their interpretation of Jesus and of their experience of the risen Christ as
well, often edited and assembled into one story by the second
generation. But in the last century scholars have made considerable progress
in reconstructing the life and teachings of Jesus. The discovery of lost books
has made it possible to establish scholarly criteria for determining which
information about Jesus is reliable and which is later interpretation or
invention. Scholars focus on two criteria in particular: information from the
oldest sources generally is more likely to be reliable than information found
only in later sources; and information found in more than one source, if the
sources were composed independently of each other, is more likely to be
reliable than information found in one source alone.
The Historical Jesus
Jesus was born of Jewish parents. They, and Jesus's four brothers (James,
Joses, Judas, and Simon) had Hebrew, not Greek names. Thus His parents were
probably not Hellenized Jews, but Palestinian Jews who spoke Aramaic at home.
Jesus probably knew some Greek, but apparently He preached in Aramaic; the
gospels do not mention that He preached in any of Palestine's Greek-speaking
cities. Galilean villages and towns are mentioned frequently in the gospels,
so probably He spent most of His time there. Nazareth, where He probably lived
much of His life, is in southern Galilee.
Before Jesus began His mission He apparently had some sort of connection with
John the Baptist. John was probably slightly older than Jesus, and supposedly
of priestly birth. He was a wandering prophet, traveling throughout Palestine
and trans-Jordan. His principal message was that the Kingdom of God is coming;
this resembles Jesus's proclamation of the rule or kingship of God. Some
scholars suggest that John's baptism of people in the Jordan was worried to
Herod Antipas; possibly John also reenacted the crossing of the Jordan, which
symbolized entry into and conquest of the Promised Land.[1] Fearing John's influence might cause rebellion, Antipas
had him imprisoned and then executed.
John's importance to Christianity is difficult to determine because so little
is know about him and about his relationship to Jesus. John baptized people
and may have introduced that rite to Jesus. Many scholars speculate that there
may have been a connection between John and the Essenes, and that he was a
conduit for influence of the Essenes on Jesus. But this claim is difficult to
substantiate because so little is known of the messages of John and Jesus.
John's influence has persisted to this day; not only is he an important figure
in the New Testament, but a group of people in Iraq, the Mandeans, claim to be
his followers and to be descended from his original followers.
Jesus soon began his own movement, featuring teachings that were dfferent
from John's. In founding his own movement, Jesus seems to have broken the
prevailing models available to Him or His people. He did not conduct
sacrifices, like a priest. He did not experience a divine call or visions,
like an Israelite prophet. He never started a school of thought, like a
philosopher. His interpretation of the Law avoided the legalistic techniques
of the Pharisees; rather, He claimed to proclaim the Will of God directly. His
wisdom sayings were simple and proverbial, not speculative, as was common in
the first century.
Jesus spoke constantly of the basileia of God. The word is often
translated kingdom, but its meaning is more like rule, reign, or kingship. The
rule was not apocalyptic and did not involve God's impending judgment, as John
the Baptist stressed. Many scholars believe Jesus did not proclaim that a
messianic figure would come to bring God's rule; in other words, that Jesus did
not promise to return. They draw their conclusions by studying the many
different literary sources about Jesus; the sayings attributed to Jesus where
He speaks about a return are not multiply attested in independent sources.
While such a conclusion may seem startling to Bahá'ís, if this is
true it makes Jesus's message more like Muhammad's, for Muhammad, in the
Qur'án, never promised to return and never spoke of a messianic figure
who would come; rather, Muhammad, like John the Baptist, stressed the time when
God would rule and judge (Qur'án 56).
According to some scholars, Jesus primarily proclaimed that the kingship of
God was within each person, or among the believers ("in the midst of you"; Luke
17:21). He proclaimed the rule of God primarily through parables. The
parables, because they are stories, have been fairly accurately preserved, but
they are extraordinarily difficult to understand. All of the parables involve
an element of surprise; they challenge the hearer. The Kingdom is a kingdom of
nobodies: it is a kingdom for children (Mark 10:13-16; Matthew 18:1-4) and the
poor (Luke 6:20), which rich men will have grave difficulties entering (Mark
10:25). The kingdom is like weeds that grow and take over a field of wheat
(Gospel of Thomas 57) or like a mustard plant, which is also a noxious
weed (Mark 4:30-32). The kingdom involves socially unacceptable behavior
(Matthew 13:44). The parables often challenge the individual to become
involved in Jesus, for they imply that this is the way for an individual to
participate in the rule of God.
Many parables illustrate a new human situation, one in which God demands the
whole person; not just obedience, but surrender of the reality of the person.
To put it in Islamic terms, God demands submission of the will of humans to the
will of God. This requires a new form of conduct: radical love, of one's
enemies as well as one's friends; sacrifice of all one's property for others;
doing not just what is necessary, but what is right. Scholars have called this
eschatological ethics.
In additional to talking about the Kingdom, Jesus also demonstrated it. One
of the most important ways He demonstrated it was by eating with anyone; Jesus
observed no social conventions that divided rich from poor or upper class from
lower. Scholars refer to such behavior as open commensality. Jesus's
willingness to eat with anyone caused some to complain about those with whom he
associated, and how he ate his meals, prompting Jesus to complain "For John
came neither eating nor drinking and they say, 'He has a demon'; the Son of man
came eating and drinking, and they say 'Behold, a glutton and a drunkard, a
friend of tax collectors and sinners!" (Matt 11: 18-19).[2] It would seem that he could not win either way.
Scholars, however, are much more cautious in drawing conclusions about Jesus's
miracles than His sayings because the evidence for miracles is generally less
reliable. Crossan calculates that while there are as many as six independent
sources for some of the sayings of Jesus, there are never more than two
independent sources describing a particular miracle.[3] While collections of Jesus's sayings are known, the
evidence for a collection of miracle stories is considerably weaker, and the
document is much harder to reconstruct. The miracle stories also show more
evidence of rewriting and reinterpretation, probably because the Christian
community was more embarrassed about them. Finally, an entire class of miracle
stories--nature miracles, involving walking on water, stilling the sea, and
changing water into wine--Crossan and some other scholars think are not
historical.[4] Crossan argues that the reason
Jesus performed miracles was to prove the power of the Kingdom. He called on
His disciples to heal people--a miracle that is relatively easy to accomplish,
since much of human illness has a psychological dimension--in order to impress
on people the power of God's rule and the power of Faith in God.[5]
Jesus did not establish a church or a school of thought to propogate His
beliefs, but He apparently did establish a mission to propogate His teachings
about the Kingdom. He sent his disciples out in twos (Mark 6:7; Luke 10:1),
enjoined them to heal the sick and "eat what they will set before you"
(Gospel of Thomas, 14:1-3)--in other words, to practice open
commensality. The various references to the places the disciples should go
suggests Jesus sent them out in the Galilean countryside, and thus the mission
He established was primarily to rural Jewish peasantry.[6] The disciples apparently were to wander as itinerants, and
to carry no bread or money with them on the journey; thus they were totally
dependent on the reception they received at each new village.
Jesus appointed the twelve apostles as a body or group, but there is no
evidence that He meant them to be the leadership body of a religion; rather,
they were to serve some sort of function in the reign of God. Most of them
were from Galilee, and Peter was their leader.
The various places where Jesus visited that are mentioned in the gospels are
almost all in Galilee, strongly suggesting that most of Jesus's ministry
occurred in his home district. The synoptic gospels describe Jesus as going to
Jerusalem only once, at which time He was arrested. According to extremely
early Christian tradition, Jesus celebrated some sort of messianic meal with
His disciples the night before His arrest. Many modern scholars doubt the
tradition, however, because some early Christian sources (such as the
Didache, a late first-century church manual) is unaware of it. It seem
more likely that Jesus's practice of open commensality evolved into the
Eucharist instead of Jesus's inauguration of the Eucharist being forgotten by
some Christians.
Jesus was arrested, perhaps because of His preaching about the Temple or His
action against the moneychangers outside the Temple. Since the Jews did not
have the power to execute anyone, they turned him over to the Romans. He was
probably crucified the day before Passover (following John's account instead of
the Synoptic Gospels; it is likely that some sources moved the time of His
arrest so that His last supper could be the Passover meal). The accounts of
Jesus's trial and crucifixion in the four gospels are remarkably uniform in
content, but this apparently is caused by their common dependence on a lost
work called by some scholars the Cross Gospel. John Dominic Crossan,
who is one of the world's experts on the passion narrative, argues that the
disciples probably fled Jerusalem when Jesus was arrested and thus knew nothing
about His trial and crucifixion; he maintains the entire account was
constructed later through careful reading of the Hebrew Bible and searching for
prophecies Jesus fulfilled.[7]
After Jesus's crucifixion, He appeared to His followers as a resurrected
Christ. The resurrection appearances renewed the first Christians and inspired
them to go out and conquer the world for Him.
Many modern scholars doubt that Jesus referred to Himself as Messiah, or Son
of Man, or Son of David, or Son of God, or Lord. We cannot be sure how He
referred to Himself, because quotations that include one title in one source
include a different title in another source.
Jesus in the Bahá'í Scriptures
Modern critical biblical scholarship has reached only a fraction of modern
Christians; for most Christians the various traditional views of Jesus remain
important. Modern biblical scholarship itself is not unified in its view of
Jesus either. Thus, among Christians there exists a very wide range of views
about Jesus Christ. A natural and inevitable question to ask is, where does
the Bahá'í view of Jesus fall within the spectrum of Christian
views? To answer this question one must first consider the descriptives that
Bahá'ís and Christians use to define His station. Some
Christians describe Jesus as God Godself. Other terms they use are "Son of
God," "Son of Man," "Lord," "Savior," and "Incarnation of God." Another
important Christian approach to understanding Jesus, which is not in the New
Testament but is very ancient, is the Trinity. The Bahá'í Faith
uses different descriptives for Jesus, such as "Manifestation of God" and
"Spirit of God." What do the Bahá'í terms mean? What is the
Bahá'í understanding of the Christian descriptives?
Bahá'u'lláh classifies Jesus Christ, Moses, Abraham, Muhammad,
Zoroaster, the Báb, and Himself as Manifestations of God.[8] To understand the Bahá'í
concept of the Manifestation, one must also understand the Bahá'í
concepts of God, creation, and humanity. This is because
Bahá'u'lláh says the Manifestations of God have a twofold
station; one is "pure abstraction and essential unity," not only with each
other, but with God as well; the second is the "station of distinction, and
pertaineth to the world of creation, and to the limitations thereof"
(Gleanings, 51, 52). Thus Manifestations are bridges between a perfect,
ineffable, and transcendent God, on the one hand, and a physical world and
humanity on the other. Traditional Christianity views the station of Jesus in
a similar way, for traditionally, Jesus can not save humanity unless He is part
of humanity and part of God simultaneously.
Bahá'u'lláh, like Islam, describes the nature of God by
emphasizing its transcendence. The innermost essence of God is beyond anything
we can understand and experience, because we are limited and God is infinite;
we are creatures and God is the Creator (Gleanings from the Writings of
Bahá'u'lláh, 151; 193). As 'Abdu'l-Bahá explains, the
difference between God and humanity is like the difference between a painter
and a painting; just as a painting is incapable of understanding the painting,
so we are limited in our ability to understand our Creator (Some Answered
Questions, 5). This does not deny the reality of mystical experience;
rather, it asserts that however intensely an individual may experience God's
love, God is capable of loving the person even more intensely; so intensely
that the frail human soul would be totally destroyed by the power of the love.
It is in this sense that the Bahá'í writings strongly emphasize
God's utter beyondness.
The Bahá'í writings add, however, that even though the innermost
essence of God is sanctified beyond our ken, nevertheless humans can know
something about God; this is because God chooses to manifest Godself through
attributes. Examples of attributes would be love; knowledge;
compassion; justice; mercy; wisdom; strength; power; honesty.
Bahá'u'lláh, in a prayer, says "I testify that Thou hast been
sanctified above all attributes and holy above all names"
(Bahá'í Prayers, 12), indicating that even God's
attributes do not fully express God's inmost essence.[9]
The Christian equivalent to the Bahá'í concept of Manifestation
is the concept of incarnation. The word to incarnate means "to embody
in flesh" or "to assume, or exist in, a bodily (esp. a human) form" (Oxford
English Dictionary). From a Bahá'í point of view, the important
question regarding the subject of incarnation is, what is it that Jesus is
supposed to incarnate? Bahá'ís can certainly say that Jesus
incarnated God's attributes, in the sense that in Jesus, God's attributes were
perfectly reflected and expressed. The Bahá'í scriptures,
however, reject the belief that the ineffable essence of the Divinity was ever
perfectly and completely contained in a single human body, because the
Bahá'í scriptures emphasize the greatness and transcendence of
the essence of God.
Bahá'u'lláh defines creation and humanity in considerable
detail. He says that on "every created thing He [God] hath shed the light of
one of His names" (Gleanings, 65). In other words, everything reflects
an attribute of God; thus Bahá'u'lláh endorses a major insight of
nature mysticism. Bahá'u'lláh adds that on the human soul,
however, God "hath focused the radiance of all His names and attributes, and
made it a mirror of His own Self" (Gleanings, 675). Thus the essence of
human beings includes all the attributes of God in potential form
(Kitáb-i--qán, 101), and in this sense we are all linked
to, and expressions of, God (though we are separate from the inmost essence of
God).
Bahá'u'lláh asserts that the principal bridge between God and
all of creation is the Manifestations of God; individuals in whom all the
attributes of God exist not just potentially, but in whom they are all
perfectly expressed. Manifestations are the mouthpieces of God; the exemplars
of God's qualities; they are God's vicegerents on earth. An analogy for the
Manifestations found in the Bahá'í writings
(Kitáb-i--qán, 79, 142; Gleanings, 74; Some
Answered Questions, 147-48; Promulgation of Universal Peace, 114-15)
is that they are like perfect mirrors, reflecting the light of the sun so
faithfully that the image of the sun, seen in such a perfect mirror, is
indistinguishable from the sun in the sky. Ordinary human beings, no matter
how much they polish the mirrors of their own souls, can never become perfect
mirrors; and nature also, however much it reflects God's beauty and
magnificence, remains an imperfect mirror. To see God truly, we need to turn
to the Manifestations. It is interesting to note that the mirror analogy was
not unknown to early Christians; the great theologian Origen (185-254), citing
the Book of Wisdom, called Christ "the spotless mirror" of God's workings
(Origen, On First Principles, trans. G. W. Butterworth [Gloucester,
Mass.: Peter Smith, 1973], 26).
Two philosophical terms might be useful to clarify the twofold station of the
Manifestations that Bahá'u'lláh describes. One is
ontology, "the science or study of being" (Oxford English Dictionary).
Ontology pertains to the nature or essence of things. The other term is
epistemology, "the theory or science of the method or grounds of
knowledge" (Oxford English Dictionary). Epistemology pertains to what we can
know about things. What we can know about a thing is not necessarily identical
to the thing itself.
One can argue that Bahá'u'lláh is asserting that
epistemologically the Manifestations are God, for they are the perfect
embodiment of all we can know about Godself; but ontologically they are
not God, for they are not identical with God's essence. Perhaps this is the
meaning of the words attributed to Jesus in the gospel of John: "If you had
known me, you would have known my Father also" (John 14:7) and "he who has seen
me has seen the Father" (John 14:9).
Bahá'u'lláh uses the concept of the twofold station to explain
seemingly contradictory statements in the Qur'án and
hadíth about Muammad:The first station, which
is related to His [the Manifestation's] innermost reality, representeth Him as
One Whose voice is the voice of God Himself. To this testified the tradition:
"Manifold and mysterious is My relationship with God. I am He, Himself, and He
is I, Myself, except that I am that I am, and He is that He is." And in like
manner, the words: "Arise, O Muhammad, for the Lover and the Beloved are joined
together and made one in Thee." He similarly saith: "There is no distinction
whatsoever between Thee [God] and Them [the Manifestations], except that They
are Thy servants." The second station is the human station, exemplified by the
following verses: "I am but a man like you." "Say praise be to my Lord! Am I
more than a man, an apostle?" (Gleanings, 66-67).
The New Testament, similarly, contains statements where Jesus describes
Himself as God, and others where He makes a distinction between Himself and
God. For example, "I and the Father are One" (John 10:30); and "the Father is
in me, and I am in the Father" (John 10:38); but on the other hand, "the Father
is greater than I" (John 14:28); and "Why do you call me good? No one is good
but God alone" (Mark 10:18; Luke 18:19). These statements make sense and do
not contradict if one assumes they assert an epistemological oneness with God,
but an ontological separateness from the Unknowable Essence.
The Christian concept of the trinity arose out of the need to explain
statements such as these. The earliest Christians tended to be "binitarian,"
that is, they stressed the Father and the Son. The third person of the trinity
was added because of the experience of the Spirit in Christian worship and in
order to explain many doxologies and expressions used in worship that included
the Holy Spirit, such as the baptismal formula in Matt. 28:19, "Go therefore
and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and
of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." When the baptismal formula was coined it
was not meant to be a trinitarian statement. Nor did it standardize the views
of Christians; Ignatius, a prominent second-generation bishop (died c. 115)
used various formulas in his writings, such as "Christ God" (Smyr. 10:1), "Son,
Father, and Spirit" (note the order) (Magn. 13:1), and "in honor of the Father,
Jesus Christ, and the Apostles" (Tral. 12:2).[10] Tertullian, the first great Latin theologian, coined the
word trinity about the year 200 C.E.; the doctrine reached its
traditional form by about 325 C.E.
In its most literal form--that God consists of three separate parts or
"persons," a Father, Son, and Holy Spirit--the trinity contradicts the
Bahá'í view that God consists of a single, transcendent,
unknowable essence. But even the most literalistic conception of the trinity
can be related to the Bahá'í concept of God. For example, one
could identify the transcendent, unknowable essence of God as the "Father" part
of the trinity. The Son and the Holy Spirit can be seen as manifestations of
the essence and thus are equivalent to God's attributes. 'Abdu'l-Bahá,
using the analogy of the perfect mirror previously mentioned, endorses this
approach: Now if we say we have seen the Sun in two
mirrors--one the Christ and one the Holy Spirit--that is to say, that we have
seen three Suns, one in heaven and the other two on the earth, we speak truly.
And if we say there is one Sun, and it is pure singleness, and has no partner
and equal, we again speak truly. (Some Answered Questions,
114)
This is one Bahá'í explanation of the symbol of the trinity.
There are others, for the concept can be understood in many different ways.
When one examines the concept of the trinity historically one finds that a
literal understanding was not originally intended. The word "person," two
thousand years ago, never meant an individual human being, as it does today.
The word is believed to come from the Latin per, "through" and
sona, "sound"; its etymology refers to the masks that actors in plays
freqently wore, which had mouthpieces in them to amplify the actor's voice.
When the actor wished to represent a different character he put on a different
mask or persona. Thus the concept of "person" in the trinity could also
be translated into modern English by words such as "personality," "character,"
"face," or "expression" instead of "person" (Paul Tillich, A History of
Christian Thought, 46-47). The original idea of the Greek theologians was
that God had multiple forms of expression, not multiple individualities, and
that these multiple forms, nevertheless, were one.
When faced with the problem of defining the three personas in precise
terms, the theologians turned to theology by description and analogy. A good
example comes from Gregory of Nazianzus (c. 329-c. 391): "The Father is the
begetter and emitter; without passion, of course, and without reference to
time, and not in a corporeal manner. The Son is the begotten, and the Holy
Spirit is the emission; for I know not how this can be expressed in terms
altogether excluding visible things" ("The Third Theological Oration--On the
Son," 161). Another place, using the analogy of light, Gregory says God can be
comprehended "out of light" [the Father], as "light" itself [the Son], and "in
light" [the Spirit] ("Fifth Theological Oration--On the Spirit," 195).[11]
It is interesting to note that 'Abdu'l-Bahá takes this analogical
approach to describing the trinity as well. In a tablet He revealed to an
American Bahá'í in 1900, He says: But as to the
question of the Trinity, know, O advancer unto God, that in each one of the
cycles [dispensations of a Manifestation].-.-. there are necessarily three
things, the Giver of the Grace, and the Grace, and the Recipient of the Grace;
the Source of the Effulgence, and the Effulgence, and the Recipient of the
Effulgence; the Illuminator, and the Illumination, and the Illumined. Look at
the Mosaic cycle--the Lord, and Moses, and the Fire (i.e., the Burning Bush),
the intermediary; and in the Messianic cycle, the Father, and the Son, and the
Holy Ghost the intermediary; and in the Muhammudan [sic] cycle, the Lord
and the Apostle (or Messenger, Muhammad) and Gabriel (for, as the Muhammadans
believe, Gabriel brought the Revelation from God to Muhammad,) the
intermediary. Look at the Sun and its rays and the heat which results from its
rays: the rays and the heat are but two effects of the Sun, but inseparable
from it and sent out from it; yet is the Sun one in its essence, unique in its
real identity, single in its Attributes, neither is it possible for anything to
resemble it. Such is the Essence of the Truth concerning the Unity, the real
doctrine of the Singularity, the undiluted reality as to the (Divine)
Sanctuary. ('Abdu'l-Bahá, Tablets from Abdul Beha Abbas to Some
American Believers in the year 1900 [New York: New York Board of Counsel,
1901], 9. Note: this is an old translation.)
In addition to discussing Jesus Christ in general terms, and in terms of the
Trinity, the Bahá'í writings discuss Jesus Himself. Jesus's
death on the cross is recognized as an atonement for humanity (God Passes
By, 188; Tablets of Abdul-Baha Abbas, 543).
Bahá'u'lláh describes Jesus's impact on the world in very
specific terms: Know thou that when the Son of Man yielded up
His breath to God, the whole of Creation wept with a great weeping. By
sacrificing Himself, however, a fresh capacity was infused into all created
things. Its evidences, as witnessed in all the peoples of the earth, are now
manifest before thee. The deepest wisdom which the sages have uttered, the
profoundest learning which any mind hath unfolded, the arts which the ablest
hands have produced, the influence exerted by the most potent of rulers, are
but manifestations of the quickening power released by His transcendent, His
all-pervasive, and resplendent spirit.-.-.-. He it is who purified the world.
Blessed the man who, with a face beaming with light, hath turned towards Him.
(Gleanings, 86)
Bahá'u'lláh states that while all the Manifestations of God hold
an equal spiritual station, they are not equal in terms of the intensity and
potency of their revelations (Kitáb-i--qán, 104). The
above suggests that Jesus Christ, the Manifestation who founded what is today
the largest religious community on the planet, had an impact exceeding that of
most Manifestations.
A Bahá'í View of Jesus's Titles
The Bahá'í writings do not discuss all of the titles used by
Christians for Jesus, but they often imply approaches that
Bahá'ís can take to the titles that are not discussed. A key
element in the Bahá'í approach is the uniqueness of each
Manifestation; Bahá'u'lláh says that each has "a distinct
personality, a definitely prescribed station, a predestined revelation, and
specially designated limitations" (Gleanings, 52). Thus
Bahá'ís do not have to recognize the validity of, say, the title
"Son of Man" by attributing it to Muhammad, Bahá'u'lláh, and the
other Manifestations as well. Jesus can be the Son of Man; Muhammad can be the
Seal of the Prophets; Bahá'u'lláh can be the Glory of God; each
is different, yet none is better than the other because of His unique
titles.
In the previously quoted passage Bahá'u'lláh appears
specifically to endorse the title "Son of Man" (or "Son of Humanity," as some
modern Christian theologians prefer to translate it) as referring to Jesus.
Bahá'u'lláh does not say what the term means, and Christian
tradition has been fairly vague about the term's meaning as well. It
ultimately comes from the Book of Daniel, where it refers to the Messiah, and
is frequently used in the Gospels as a title of Jesus. Possibly the title is
symbolic of the perfect humanity that Jesus represented.
"Son of God" is an extremely important title of Jesus for Christians, so much
so that in the minds of many Christians "Son of God" defines the relationship
of Jesus with His Father. But often Christians do not think about the symbolic
meaning of the title; indeed, many seem unaware that the title is a symbol at
all. What does the term "son" mean? Normally, the word has a simple
biological meaning, but that meaning is the very one that cannot apply to the
relationship between God and Jesus, for God does not have genetic material to
confer upon Jesus, nor does God have a body with which He could unite with Mary
to produce a son. Christian theology has long recognized this and has never
meant the term to be understood literally; as the above quote from Gregory of
Nazianzus emphasizes, God begot Christ "without passion, of course, and without
reference to time, and not in a corporeal manner" ("The Third Theological
Oration--On the Son," 161). The Qur'án echoes Gregory's recognition of
God's transcendence when it says "Allah is only one God. Far is it removed
from His transcendent majesty that He should have a son" (Qur'án 5:171).
'Abdu'l-Bahá explained that the term "Son of God" referred to the fact
that Christ "found existence through the Spirit of God" (Some Answered
Questions, 63). Thus the term is symbolic of Christ's connection to the
divine.
"Son of God" has been interpreted in many other ways by Christians and
Bahá'ís as well. One possible meaning of Son, rejected early by
the mainstream of Christian theology, was the "adoptionist" interpretation;
that Jesus was an ordinary man, "adopted" by God as His Son. The
Bahá'í writings would also seem to reject this approach, since
they do not see Manifestations of God as ordinary human beings; rather, the
Bahá'í writings say that Manifestations are preexistent, in
contrast to ordinary human beings, whose souls come into existence at the
moment of conception. Manifestations are indeed unique creations of God, as
the word "begotten" attempts to convey; it describes Jesus's mode of creation
through an analogy with the physical world, an analogy that Gregory of
Nazianzus, by qualifying the word in the above passage, admits has its
limitations.
Another symbolic interpretation of the term "Son" would be to argue that Jesus
was the "spiritual" Son of God. One could say that all humans, Jesus included,
are "sons" of God, in other words, that all were created by God. This is true,
but it undercuts the uniqueness of the title's application to Christ, perhaps
unnecessarily, and undercuts the distinction that Bahá'ís would
make between Jesus Christ and creation.
Another approach would be to argue that the title refers to the fact that
Jesus, as a Manifestation of God, exemplified the relationship between humans
and God in a unique and perfect fashion; Jesus was the true and perfect "Son"
in His obedience, His servitude to God, and His love for His Father. In this
sense all the Manifestations of God are "Sons" of God. One could also argue
that all Manifestations exemplify perfect Sonship, but it was a particular and
central characteristic of Jesus Christ's mission to exemplify such a
relationship.
The term "Savior" is another Christian title for Jesus. It is also used in
the Bahá'í scriptures for Him ('Abdu'l-Bahá,
Promulgation of Universal Peace, 62, 211). A savior must save one from
something; in the physical world one can be saved from a physical disaster,
such as drowning or a sickness; in the spiritual realms one is saved from the
spiritual disaster of ignorance of oneself, of God, and of God's laws.
Bahá'u'lláh makes it clear that "salvation," in the term's broad
sense, is the purpose of all the Manifestations of God:The
first duty prescribed by God for His servants is the recognition of Him Who is
the Day Spring of His Revelation and the Fountain of His laws, Who representeth
the Godhead in both the Kingdom of His Cause and the world of His creation.
Whoso achieveth this duty hath attained unto all good; and whoso is deprived
thereof, has gone astray, though he be the author of every righteous deed. It
behoveth every one who reacheth this most sublime station, this summit of
transcendent glory, to observe every ordinance of Him Who is the Desire of the
world. These twin duties are inseparable. Neither is acceptable without the
other. Thus hath it been decreed by Him Who is the Source of Divine
inspiration. (Gleanings, 330-31)
This passage states that acceptance of the Manifestation of God, and obedience
to His laws, are crucially important to one's spiritual growth; thus one could
argue that acceptance of and obedience to the Manifestation constitute
salvation.
An ingenious, though personal, interpretation of the term salvation was
offered by Thornton Chase, the first American Bahá'í. Chase
began with 'Abdu'l-Bahá's discussion of the five kinds of spirit.
Plants possess the vegetable spirit, which consists of the power of growth;
animals possess the animal spirit, which includes growth and perception; humans
possess the human spirit, which includes growth, perception, and cognition.
Above these three is the "heavenly spirit" or the "spirit of faith," which
'Abdu'l-Bahá calls "the power which makes the earthly man heavenly, and
the imperfect man perfect" (Some Answered Questions, 144). Fifth is the
Holy Spirit, "the mediator between God and His creatures" (Some Answered
Questions, 145). Chase argues that when a person acquires the fourth
spirit--an acquisition which occurs when the Word of God is accepted into one's
heart and works a transformation in one's soul--then the person has experienced
salvation. This, he says, is what is meant by the phrase "ye must be born
again" (John 3:7). (Thornton Chase, The Bahai Revelation [Chicago: Bahai
Publishing Society, 1910], 119-21).
Thus Bahá'ís would not claim that only Jesus offered salvation
to humanity; all the Manifestations convey salvation, through their words and
through their sacrifice. In this sense all Manifestations could be termed a
"Savior." American Bahá'ís frequently apply the title to
Bahá'u'lláh in their songs, and Shoghi Effendi refers to
Bahá'u'lláh as "Savior of the whole human race" (Promised Day
is Come, 114).
Bahá'ís would also apply the title "Lord," which Christians
apply to Jesus, to any Manifestation, including Bahá'u'lláh.
"Lord" is a title of respect in the English language that is applied not only
to Jesus, but to kings, nobility, masters, and others. The term kyrie
in Greek had a similarly wide range of uses.
Modern Christians sometimes use passages from the New Testament as titles or
descriptives of Jesus. Perhaps the best example would be John 14:6, "I am the
way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me.
Bahá'ís would not reject this passage from the Gospel of John,
but they would interpret it differently than most Christians. Two possible
approaches come to mind. One would be to examine the word "I"; to whom is
Jesus referring? To Himself, certainly, but could He not be referring to all
Manifestations in general, since, as Bahá'u'lláh explains, one of
the stations of the Manifestations is "pure abstraction and essential unity"
(Gleanings, 51)? Thus, Jesus's statement would never have been meant to
exclude the other Manifestations, especially not Himself when He returned--that
is, in the person of Bahá'u'lláh. A Christian theologian, John
Hick, has also recognized the ambiguity of "I" and has suggested that the "I"
refers not to the historical Jesus, but to the eternal logos manifested in
Jesus.[12] In Bahá'í terms,
Hick is suggesting that the "I" refers to the holy spirit common to all the
Manifestations, or to their station of unity.
More aptly, one could examine the word "am." The verb to be has many
uses--the Oxford English Dictionary lists 24--some of which are normally
distinguished from each other only by context. One grammatical usage is the
universal present, which is used to make statements that are always
true, such as "triangles are three-sided." Another usage applies to the
present, but may not apply to the future as well, such as "I am young" or "I am
alive." Christians usually understand the statement "I am the way, and the
truth, and the life," as a universal present, but could it not be meant to
apply only to some period of time in the past? Could not Abraham have been the
way, truth, and life for the peoples of the Middle East from 2000 B.C.E. to the
time of Moses; then Moses was the way, truth, and life until the time of Jesus;
then Jesus was the way, truth, and life until the time of Muhammad; and then
Muhammad was the way, truth, and life until the time of the Báb; and the
Báb was the way, truth, and life until the time of
Bahá'u'lláh? Similarly, Bahá'u'lláh will be the
way, truth, and life until He is superseded by another Manifestation, which He
assures us will occur in a thousand years or more (Gleanings, 346).
In summary, Bahá'u'lláh and 'Abdu'l-Bahá, and
Bahá'ís, do not reject the uniqueness of Jesus Christ; on the
contrary, they respect, love, and emphasize it. However, they seek to balance
that uniqueness by recognizing the uniqueness of other Manifestations of God as
well. The balance is achieved by seeing Manifestations as perfect expressions
of the divine will and purpose to the people of their places and times. They
bring eternal and unchanging religious teachings to the people as well as
principles designed for the society to which they minister. Jesus, thus, is
seen by Bahá'ís as divine, as the Son of Man and the Son of God,
and as the way, truth, and life to His world. Ironically, this is more than
many Christians believe about Jesus; Bahá'ís often find
themselves defending the station of Christ to individuals who claim to be His
followers. The Bahá'í view of the station of Jesus falls near
the middle of the spectrum of views that Christians hold, and claims to
understand Jesus in a way fitting to our modern, pluralistic, and
historically-minded world.
Footnotes
[1].John Dominic Crossan, The Historical
Jesus: The Life of as Mediterranean Jewish Peasant (San Francisco:
Harper-San Francisco, 1991), 231-32.
[2].Another version of the saying may be found
in Luke 7:31-34. While scholars think the saying is a genuine, some doubt the
phrase "son of man" is original.
[3].Crossan, The Historical Jesus,
310-11.
[4].Crossan, The Historical Jesus,
396-98.
[5].Crossan, The Historical
Jesus,336-38.
[6].Crossan, The Historical Jesus,
339-40.
[7].Crossan, The Historical Jesus,
367-94.
[8].To this list, 'Abdu'l-Bahá added the
Buddha; Bahá'u'lláh does not seem to have mentioned eastern Asian
religions at all. A letter written by Shoghi Effendi states that Krishna was a
manifestation of God.
[9].It is interesting to note that
'Abdu'l-Bahá refers to some attributes as essential to God's nature,
such as preexistence (Some Answered Questions, 148-49). But which
attributes are essential? It would seem that the definition of the word God
necessitates that God be all-powerful and omniscient; therefore one could argue
that these are qualities of God's inmost essence. But can God choose whether
or not to be loving and compassionate, and remain God? Is it a necessary part
of God's essence that God be loving? Questions such as these await the thought
of Bahá'í philosophers and theologians. An excellent foundation
for study of them has been laid by Juan Ricardo Coles' Concept of
Manifestation in the Bahá'í Writings, in
Bahá'í Studies, vol. 9 (Ottawa: Association for
Bahá'í Studies, 1982).
[10].The writings of Ignatius are available in
Cyril C. Richardson, ed. trans., Early Christian Fathers (New York:
Macmillan, 1970), 87-120).
[11].Gregory of Nazianzus was one of the three
great Greek theologians who, after the Council of Nicaea, defined the nature of
the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in tritarian terms acceptable to virtually all
Christians. He is considered one of the great fathers of the Greek church and
is highly respected by all Christian traditions. A selection of Gregory of
Nazianzus's writings may be found in Edward Rochie Hardy and Cyril C.
Richardson, eds., Christology of the Later Fathers, in The Library of
Christian Classics, Ichthus edition (Philadelphia: Westminster Press,
1954).
[+CHAPTER5]
Apostolic Christianity
includes the sections:
The Apostles and Books of the Bible
The Apostle Paul
The Genuine Letters, in Probable Order of Composition
The Deuteropauline School
The Pastoral Epistles
Hebrews
The Catholic Epistles
The Book of Revelation
Summary
When Jesus died, His followers were largely restricted to Galilee and Judea,
and the only significant grouping of them was in Jerusalem, where the Twelve
remained. The twelve apparently were not seen as a supreme church council for
Christianity, nor is there any evidence Jesus appointed them for that purpose.
Around the Twelve a Christian community rapidly grew up. Three men soon became
the most prominent leaders in that community: Peter, John, and James (who was a
brother of Jesus, and not one of the twelve). They were referred to as the
"pillars" (Gal. 2:9) and were consulted, but were not seen as supreme Christian
leaders.
The Jerusalem Christian community consisted of converts from Judaism,
initially from Aramaic_speaking Judaism, since they were the group on whicj
Jesus focused His attention (they are called "Hebrews" in Acts 6:1). They
remained practicing Jews, visiting the Temple regularly to perform sacrifices,
upholding all Jewish dietary laws, and practicing circumcision. However, they
did see themselves as Jews of a special type. They baptized new members in the
name of Jesus and celebrated communal meals. They also used new designations
for Jesus: Messiah, Lord, and Son of David. Messiah, in particular, was
probably used frequently; by the time it was translated into Greek as "Christ"
it had virtually become Jesus's last name. Some scholars think the title "Son
of Man" was first used somewhere other than Jerusalem; "Son of God" as a title
for Jesus may have awaited the conversion of gentiles. Thus we do not know
whether those titles were known to, or used by, the Jerusalem Christians.
The Jerusalem church was active at teaching the new faith to others.
Hellenistic Jews (called "Hellenists" in Acts 6:1) were among the early
converts; perhaps some had converted in the lifetime of Jesus. As the
Hellenistic faction grew in the Jerusalem church it acquired a leadership; Acts
6:1_6 speaks of seven Hellenists being appointed deacons (diakonos or
"servant" in Greek; probably they were waiters who distributed food to the
community at its common meal and to needy widows). Among them was Stephen, a
Jew whose Greek cultural background is suggested by his Greek name.
The Hellenists saw Christianity in a less specifically Jewish way, compared to
the Aramaic_speaking Jews. Stephen soon articulated this different view of
Christianity, apparently by speaking out against the Temple and Christian
involvement in it, and against Christian observance of Jewish law. Acts 6 and
7__which may not be completely accurate, but which are our only historical
source__say that Stephen was arrested by the Sanhedrin, put on trial for
blasphemy (as a Jew) and stoned. Acts continues that the Hellenistic Jewish
Christian community was driven from Jerusalem, leaving behind only the
Aramaic_speaking Jewish Christians (the "Apostles," Acts 8:1), who continued to
sacrifice at the Temple. The expulsion must have occurred about 32 C.E., two
or three years after Jesus's crucifixion. The Twelve remained in Jerusalem,
apparently unaffected by the controversy.
This seeming disaster soon proved a blessing in disguise, for the Hellenistic
Jewish Christians scattered throughout the Roman Empire, carrying Christianity
with them. Acts speaks of Christians in Sidon and Tripoli (in modern Lebanon)
and in Damascus and Antioch (in modern Syria). Elsewhere in the New Testament
there are references to Christians in Alexandria (Egypt) and Cyprus. Christian
groups may have resulted in Egypt, Syria, Asia Minor, Cyprus, Greece, Libya,
Tunisia, Italy, and perhaps even the Mediterranean coasts of France and
Spain.
Of these early communities, Antioch quickly rose to prominence. The largest
city in Syria and fourth or fifth largest in the Roman Empire, it had many
Jews, and many Jewish Christians settled there. There, the effort to teach
Christianity to gentiles__non_Jews__first became significant. Greek was the
city's dominant language. There Christ became the common title for
Jesus; and according to Acts 12:26, the term Christian was first used
there. Antioch became the center of missionary activity for the entire area;
among its traveling teachers was Paul.
The Apostle Paul was born with the name Saul in the city of Tarsus in what
today is southeastern Turkey, probably between 1 and 10 C.E. He was a
Hellenistic Jew__his Jewish parents had ceased to speak Aramaic and Hebrew, but
spoke Greek and had adopted Greek culture. Paul was fairly well educated and
was a dedicated Pharisee. According to Paul's own account, "I advanced in
Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people, so extremely zealous was I
for the traditions of my fathers" (Gal. 1:14). As a result he "persecuted the
church violently and tried to destroy it" (Gal. 1:13). However, God had other
plans for him; as Paul says, God "called me through his grace, [and] was
pleased to reveal his Son to me, in order that I might preach him among the
Gentiles" (Gal. 1:15_16). The Book of Acts gives further details about Paul's
conversion that Paul does not mention, and thus cannot be corroborated. It
says that while traveling on the road to Damascus one day, a light appeared
from heaven and Jesus confronted Paul verbally about his persecution of the
Christians; that he was miraculously struck blind; and then three days later he
was cured by a Christian, which led to Paul's acceptance of Jesus Christ (Acts
9:1_19). Paul converted about 32 C.E.
Paul soon became an active missionizer, first under the teacher Barnabas, then
on his own. He traveled first to southern Syria and Jordan (Paul calls it
"Arabia," Gal. 1:17), then to southern Asia Minor. He traveled extensively all
of his life and is primarily responsible for establishing the Faith of Christ
in Greece and Asia Minor.
The success of Paul and others in converting gentiles to Christianity soon
created a major problem: do the gentiles have to become Jews in order to become
Christians? That would mean that male converts would have to undergo
circumcison, and all would have to follow Jewish dietary laws. Otherwise the
Jewish Christians would not associate with them, and could not eat meals with
them. Since table fellowship was the central event in the Christian
community__the Eucharist was still served as a full meal__the question of
dietary restrictions was crucial to maintaining the unity of the Christians.
According to Paul (Gal. 2:12) James and the Jerusalem church wanted converts
to become Jews in order to become Christians. Paul, recognizing that
Christianity represented a break from the past, disagreed. About 48 or 49
C.E., both sides met in a council in Jerusalem to discuss the church's growth
among non_Jews. The consultation there resulted in agreement that converts did
not have to uphold dietary laws and did not have to be circumcised, but had to
follow the Ten Commandments and the other ethical teachings in Judaism. The
gentiles were also urged to "remember the poor" (Gal. 2:10) that is, to help
support the Jerusalem church.
The result was unity, or at least tolerance, between two very different groups
of Christians. Unfortunately, the agreement was not always followed. James
was an extreme Judaizer, while Peter was more conciliatory. After the council
Peter left Jerusalem permanently and apparently settled in Antioch, probably to
dedicate his energies to the Hellenistic Jewish mission. In Antioch he held
table fellowship with gentile Christians until some followers of James, who
were visiting the city, objected; then Peter ceased to eat with the gentile
converts. Paul was angry and took Peter to task for his reversal of position.
Apparently Peter later came around and resumed table fellowship with gentile
Christians, but a temporary breach formed between Paul and Peter; this may have
been the reason that shortly thereafter Paul left Antioch to begin his mission
to Asia Minor and Greece.
In his letters Paul frequently complaints about rival Christian missionaries,
who followed him and preached to the communities he formed after he had left.
For example, he complains about those who came to Corinth after him to preach
"another Jesus than the one we preached" (II Cor. 11:4). He calls them "false
apostles" (II Cor. 11:13). He alludes to various factions in Corinth when he
complains that Corinthian Christians say "'I belong to Paul,' or 'I belong to
Apollos,' or 'I belong to Cephas [Peter],' or 'I belong to Christ'" (I Cor.
1:12). This suggests that the Christian missionary effort was lose and
uncoordinated, each prominent teacher having his own set of assistants and
forming his own Christian communities; competition for territory, "poaching" of
each other's communities, and the establishment of rival factions in
communities occurred.
Paul's genuine letters make it clear that the various missionaries each had
his own theology that was partly at variance with the teachings of the others.
Thus in Galatians, Paul argues against "Judaizers," who argue that Christians
must be good Jews as well; in I Corinthians he defends against "spiritualizers"
who argue that because Christians are saved and live in Christian freedom, they
can commit any immoral acts they desire. Probably the different ways of seeing
Christ, mentioned in chapter seven, also had their advocates.
In spite of opposition from the Judaizers, Paul did not forget the agreement
reached in Jerusalem that he should teach Judaism's moral laws or that he
should "remember the poor" (Gal. 2:10). To show the love of the gentile
Christians for the Jerusalem church, he raised a collection from among them and
brought it to Jerusalem. The Jerusalem church, however, had become far more
Jewish over the last decade, and less open to gentile Christians. Peter had
left; apparently of the three "pillars" only James was left, and he was a
strong Judaizer. Because of the Jerusalem church's uncertainty about Paul's
orthodoxy, Paul participated in a private Jewish ceremony in the Temple in
order to demonstrate his good Jewish credentials. But while in the Temple Paul
was recognized by other visiting Jews and accused of sacrilege, resulting in
his arrest. This occurred about 56 C.E. Because Paul was a Roman citizen he
had the right to trial before the emperor, consequently he was sent to Rome, a
process that took two years. After being in prison there for about two years,
he was martyred under the Emperor Nero about 60 C.E.
Paul has long been a controversial figure for Christians. It has often been
asked whether Paul was faithful to the teachings of Jesus, or whether Paul
"changed" the message of Jesus in order to make it attractive to his audience.
This has been a theme of several books by Bahá'ís, notably
Huschmand Sabet's The Heavens are Cleft Asunder and Udo Schaefer's
The Light Shineth in Darkness. It is clear that Paul preached a risen
Christ, while Jesus did not; but Jesus in His parables did call for a radical
faith in God, a message very similar to Paul's idea of salvation through faith
in Christ alone. Since Jesus did not write a book or establish a succession of
interpreters, Paul was free to innovate in his understanding of Christianity;
indeed, he may have innovated far less than the opponents he denounced in his
letters. Some innovation, such as rejection of circumcision and the kosher
laws, in retrospect appears to have been necessary. A certain amount of
innovation was inevitable simply because times change, and with them the needs
of people change. The Bahá'í Faith received divine guidance via
Bahá'u'lláh for thirty years and subsequently had guidance
through 'Abdu'l-Bahá and Shoghi Effendi as well; but Jesus's earthly
mission lasted only three years. Hence it was inevitable that someone had to
interpret Jesus's teachings for the new Hellenistic, gentile, urban environment
it had entered. Paul did his best to innovate in ways faithful to Jesus's
revelation__this is all any evangelist, from Paul's day to the present, can
hope to do__and the solid results of his missionizing cannot be faulted.
Paul was not the only successful evangelist. After leaving Jerusalem, Peter
apparently remained in Syria during most of his ministry; several writings,
including I Peter in the New Testament, originated there. Even those these
works bear his name scholars doubt Peter wrote them, but probably they
represent a school of thought started by him. Tradition has it that Peter was
eventually martyred in Rome.
Peter's role in Christianity has been the subject of considerable debate by
Christians. The statement "Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my
church" (Matt. 16:18) is understood by Catholics to indicate Jesus's founding
of the papacy. However, a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi states
that "this saying of Jesus establishes beyond any doubt the primacy of Peter
and also the principle of succession, but is not explicit enough regarding the
nature and functioning of the Church itself. The Catholics had read too much
into that statement, and derived from it certain conclusions that are quite
unjustifiable."[1]
The letter is not clear about whether Bahá'ís believe Jesus
really uttered the statement about Peter or whether it originated in the early
church but nevertheless represents a spiritual truth. When one compares the
statement's setting__Matthew 16:13_23__with its parallels in Mark 8:27_33 and
Luke 9:18_22, one finds that Jesus's statement is absent from the same story in
the other gospels, suggesting that Matthew added it to an existing story from
the oral tradition. Because the statement uses the word "church"
(ekklesia in Greek) and no other statements attributed to Jesus include
ekklesia, the statement is suspected as a product of the early Christian
community. But this cannot be proved.
'Abdu'l_Bahá said that the statement is a confirmation of Peter's
faith, not a granting of the power to interpret Jesus's revelation.[2] Shoghi Effendi alludes to the statement when
he notes that Bahá'ís uphold the "primacy of Peter, prince of the
apostles"[3] No Bahá'í source
says that Christians had to obey Peter. This is important to remember when
considering Paul's complaint that Peter had agreed to eat with gentile
Christians, then refused to continue to do so. To the extent scholars
understand the controversy__Paul, after all, is the only source__it would
appear that Paul was right and Peter was wrong. But neither man was infallible
and both were doing their best to be faithful to the message of Jesus and
preserve the unity of the church they were building.
While one can lament at the scantness of the available information about Paul
and especially about Peter, even less is known about the lives and fates of the
other prominent apostles. According to the Book of Acts (12:1), James was
martyred in Jerusalem, probably about 63 C.E. Shortly thereafter the Jewish
war began; according to tradition the Jerusalem church left Jerusalem for
Pella, on the eastern side of the Jordan valley. The destruction of Jerusalem
in 70 C.E. largely destroyed Jewish Christianity, for it had retained a strong
attachment to the Temple; over the next two centuries it faded into oblivion.
Afterwards only Hellenistic Christianity existed.
John was the third pillar of the Jerusalem church; since, after the meeting
with Paul, he is no longer mentioned as being in Jerusalem, it is assumed that
he left the city to start his own missionary effort. Probably he settled in
Palestine or Syria, for the gospel of John and the three letters of John, which
represent a school of thought probably started by him, are thought to have been
composed in that region.
The churches formed by Peter and Paul eventually fused into a single movement,
with a single overall theology; later some of the churches of John fused with
them as well. This cluster of churches, or of Christian subgroups (many
churches contained a diversity of Christian groups) eventually became the
backbone of "emergent Catholicism," the Christians who came to dominate and
shape Christianity in the Mediterranean region.
Other apostles may have started churches as well; for example, there are
several books bearing the name of Thomas from eastern Syria, suggesting that he
settled in that area. Undoubtedly apostles settled in Egypt very early, and
their followers composed the Gospel of the Egyptians and the Gospel
of the Hebrews. However, these traditions moved away from Pauline_Petrine
Christianity, tended in the direction of gnosticism, and were soon excluded
from the emerging church.
The Apostles and Books of the Bible
The apostles and their successors in the second and third Christian
generations wrote sermons, gospels, letters, and acts (biographical and
historical sketches) in profusion. Few survived, and fewer proved to be of
sufficient literary quality and theological significance to be canonized as
works of the New Testament. Because ancient literary works did not have
covers, title pages, copyright notices, clearly defined authorship, or
established dates of publication, scholars have had to devote centuries to the
task of determining who really was the author of each work, when it was
written, where, and for what reasons. The traditional attributions of
authorship were often made decades after the composition of the work, and thus
are not always accurate.
The Apostle Paul
Paul's influence on Christianity was enormous. It is prominently demonstrated
by the works that went into the Bible itself. Of the twenty_seven books in the
New Testament, thirteen are attributed to Paul; almost half of the total.
Modern scholarship has shown that seven of the letters were definitely written
by Paul (Philemon, I Corinthians, II Corinthians, Romans, Galatians,
Philippians, and I Thessalonians); two (Colossians and Ephesians) may have been
written by him, but most critical scholars believe they probably were not; II
Thessalonians, according to most critical biblical scholars, almost certainly
was not written by him; and I Timothy, II Timothy, and Titus were attributed to
him, but their style and content are strong evidence that they were written
much later.
Paul never wrote a gospel; indeed, his genuine letters contain only two, or at
most three, quotations from Jesus (I Cor. 11:23_26, when Paul describes the
Last Supper; I Cor. 7:10_12, when he quotes Jesus about divorce; and I Thes.
5:2, where he reminds the Christians that Christ will come like a "thief in the
night"). This is because Paul was not at all concerned with the earthly Jesus,
His life, miracles, and teachings, but about the risen Christ and His Lordship.
Paul primarily called people to accept their Lord; everything else he taught,
such as rejection of Jewish law, revolved around that principle. Paul's
genuine letters are the oldest documents in the New Testament, and his
preaching has had a profound influence on the direction that Christianity has
taken. Paul also remains an important personal example to Christians of
dedicated service, frankness, sincerity, and humility.
The Genuine Letters, in Probable Order of Composition
I Thessalonians __ The church in Thessalonica (in what today is northern
Greece) did not know Paul well, for he had been there only a few months.
Paul's letter to them summarizes his theology, but his explanations are
relatively undeveloped; thus, probably this letter was one of his earliest, and
scholars think it was composed about 51 C.E. Paul especially discusses the
subject of purity and chastity, and reminds the Christians that Jesus will come
very soon.
I Corinthians __ Probably written about 55 C.E. from Ephesus, Paul wrote to
answer a series of questions asked by the Christians in Corinth, an important
city in central Greece. Paul discusses basic issues such as the nature of
Christian baptism; whether Christians could eat the meat of animals sacrificed
in pagan temples (which was sold in the market after the sacrificing); whether
Christians should be married or celibate; the validity of the gifts of the
spirit, such as speaking in tongues; the nature of the Christian community; and
he discusses Christian freedom. In I Corinthians 15:3_8, Paul summarizes his
basic teaching: that Jesus Christ died for the sins of the world, that He was
buried, that He rose on the third day, and that He appeared to Peter and many
other apostles.
II Corinthians __ This book is not one letter by Paul, but appears to be
assembled from six; thus it is a compilation. The six were probably written
from Ephesus about 56 C.E., after I Corinthians. Letter I (2:14_6:13, 7:2_4)
defends his ministry and contains an autobiographical sketch. Letter II
(10:1_13:14) discusses the beliefs of rival Christian preachers and other
opponents of him. Letter III (1:1_2:13, 7:5_16) is a reconciliatory letter;
apparently letter II was successful in bringing the Corinthian church back to
his theology. Letter IV (8:1_24) is a letter of recommendation for his
disciple Titus, who carried Paul's letters to Corinth. Letter V (9:1_15)
reminds the Corinthians to take up a collection for the Jerusalem church.
Letter VI (6:14_7:1) has un_Pauline language and appears to be a fragment that
is not from Paul; it may even originally be from the Essenes, a Jewish group,
whose theology it resembles.
Second Corinthians contains some of the most easily recognizable literary
seams in the New Testament. For example, II Cor. 2:12_13 matches II Cor. 7:5_6
very well:
2:12 When I came to Troas to preach the gospel of Christ, a door opened
for me in the Lord; 13 but my mind could not rest because I did not find
my brother Titus there. So I took leave of them and went to Macedonia.
7:5 ._._._when we came into Macedonia, our bodies had no rest but we
were afflicted at every turn__fighting without and fear within. 6 But
God, who comforts the downcast, comforted us by the coming of Titus.
These verses match better than II Cor. 2:14, which represents an abrupt and
complete change of subject: "But thanks be to God, who in Christ always leads
us in triumph, and through us spreads the fragrance of the knowledge of him
everywhere." A second literary seam can be seen in the continuity between II
Cor. 6:11_13 and II Cor. 7:2:
6:11 Our mouth is open to you, Corinthians; our heart is wide.
12 You are not restricted by us, but you are restricted in your own
affections. 13 In return__I speak as to children__widen your hearts
also. 7:2 Open your hearts to us; we have wronged no one, we have
corrupted no one, we have taken advantage of no one.
Once again, II Cor. 6:14 represents a complete change of subject: "Do not be
mismated with unbelievers. For what partnership have righteousness and
iniquity?"
Galatians __ This letter was also written from Ephesus, probably about 54
C.E., to the Christians in Galatia, in what is today northwestern Asia Minor.
In it Paul defends his teaching against "Judaizers," Christians who insisted
that converts undergo circumcision and follow the dietary laws in order to join
the church. Paul details his disputes with Peter, who supported the Judaizer
position in Antioch, and describes the council in Jerusalem in 48 C.E., where
it was agreed that gentiles did not have to become Jews in order to join the
church. Six years later in Galatia, however, the agreement was not being
followed.
Philippians __ This epistle, also, is a compilation, containing three letters
Paul wrote to the church in Philippi, an ancient city in northeastern Greece.
Two of the letters refer to his imprisonment in Ephesus and thus were written
from there. The letters give thanks to the Philippians for their assistance.
The third letter attacks Judaizers. Philippians begins with the opening "to
all the saints._._. with the bishops and deacons." Thus it speaks of a simple,
early church organization. The "saints" would be the entire congregation;
significantly, the church did not have one bishop, but several.
Philemon __ Paul's shortest letter (one page), it is plea that Philemon, a
Christian, accept back into his service his runaway slave, Onesimus, who has
become a Christian. The letter was written from prison in Ephesus.
Romans __ Romans is thought to have been written from Corinth during the
winter of 55_56 C.E. Paul was planning to visit Rome for the first time. The
church there was unfamiliar with him, consequently Paul decided to write them a
letter stating his theology in detail. Thus, Romans is a mature and thorough
summary of Paul's teachings, by Paul himself. Because Protestantism is based
so heavily on Paul, it might not be inaccurate to say that the book of Romans
is the most important book for Protestants in the New Testament. In Romans
Paul develops his basic themes: 1) justification by faith alone (that God
accepts or rejects you based on your faith, and not based on works); 2)
Abraham, in His willingness to sacrifice Isaac, is an archetype of
justification by faith; 3) Adam embodies the fall; 4) God sent His son for our
redemption. In this book Paul also attacks Jewish law (for it served as a
system to obtain justification by works) and he discusses the place of the Jews
in God's plan for humanity.
The Deuteropauline School
Paul's influence was so great that his disciples continued to write letters in
his name, or sometimes in the names of other disciples. These letters are
Colossians, Ephesians, II Thessalonians, I and II Timothy, Titus, I Peter, and
I Clement (which is not in the New Testament). It was not unusual, in
the classical period, for someone to write a literary work and attribute it to
someone else; the culture did not concern itself with authorship, and copyright
laws did not exist. Because books had to be hand_copied and were rare and
expensive, attribution of a work to a famous person conferred prestige on it
and helped insure its circulation.
Colossians and Ephesians are the works closest to Paul in theology and style.
Some argue that perhaps they were written when Paul was older and his theology
had thus changed slightly; and that perhaps a secretary modified his text
slightly, which would explain its small difference in style. These two letters
refer to a church with a definite organizational structure and hierarchy, which
it does not have in the previous seven letters. Christ is described
differently also, as a cosmic Christ: "the image of the invisible God,"
"in him all things were created," "he is before all things," "he is the head of
the body, the church," "first born from the dead." Paul never uses such terms,
though he would not have rejected them.
Colossians is a letter which deals with the problem of gnosticism in the
churches; it must have been written before 100 C.E., because the city of
Colossi, to whose church it was addressed, was destroyed in that year.
Ephesians probably wasn't even written for Ephesus; the letter does not state
its destination, indeed, the work is really an essay dressed up as a letter.
The letter alludes to every letter of Paul except one, implying that the author
knew of Paul's letters as a corpus that was well on its way to being considered
canonical. Its style varies from Paul by using very long sentences and many
rare Greek words.
II Thessalonians is written in a style to imitate I Thessalonians. While I
Thes. promises that Christ will return soon, II Thes. deals with the problem
that he didn't. The first generation of Christians expected Christ to return
in their lifetimes; when Jerusalem was besieged by the Romans in 68-70 C.E.
most Christians thought it would trigger Christ's return; when the Romans
destroyed the city the Christians faced a crisis over the question of why
Christ had not come. II Thes. is an attempt to resolve the problem raised by I
Thes., and does so in the following manner:
Now concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our assembling to meet
him, we beg you, brethren, not to be quickly shaken in mind or excited, either
by spirit or by word, or by letter purporting to be from us, to the effect that
the day of the Lord has come [c.f. I Thes. 5:2]. Let no one deceive you in any
way; for that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man
of lawlessness is revealed, the son of perdition, who opposes and exalts
himself against every so_called god or object of worship, so that he takes his
seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God (2:1_4).
II Thessalonians discusses persecution of Christians too; the Christian
movement, by the end of the first century, had grown large enough to attract
the attention of the government.
The Pastoral Epistles
Three letters bearing the name of Paul are even later in composition: the
Pastoral Epistles, I Timothy, II Timothy, and Titus. Titus and Timothy were
disciples of Paul mentioned in the genuine Pauline letters. The Pastorals were
written after Paul's letters had become canonical and clearly imitate his
style, though not his vocabulary (over one third of the Greek words in these
letters are not found in Paul's genuine letters; one fifth of the words are not
found elsewhere in the New Testament at all). Their vocabulary is typical of
other Christian works that can be placed in the first half of the second
century, consequently they are thought to have been written as late as the year
140. All three appear to have been written by the same anonymous individual,
sometimes referred to as "the Pastor" by scholars. The letters mention the
problem that Christ had not returned, but focus on the development of church
structure (in Bahá'í terms, with the creation of an
administrative order). The letters thus deal with the qualifications of
bishops, ordination, the establishment of an order of widows, and the problem
of heresy. The letters focus on Paul as an example of a good Christian and
strive to combat gnosticism.
Hebrews
Hebrews is one of the most difficult New Testament books to understand. It is
attributed to Paul, but theologians have doubted the attribution since the
third century. Its theology bears no resemblance to Paul's, or to anyone
else's in the New Testament, but it was such a beautiful and moving work that
it had to be attributed to someone in order for it to be accepted into the
canon, so it was attributed to Paul. The work shows some influence from Philo
of Alexandria, a Jewish philosopher, and from non_conformist Judaism. The text
often quotes the Septuagint, the standard Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible
used by the Jews. Its high_quality Greek and its vocabulary resembles a
well_written sermon such as those given in the synagogues of the time. Jesus
is described as a high priest and His death is likened to ancient Jewish ritual
and sacrificial practices. Christ is linked to Melchizedek, a shadowy figure
in Jewish mythology who was king of Jerusalem at the time of Abraham (Gen.
14:18). The book has a beautiful definition of faith as "the assurance of
things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen" (Heb. 11:1).
The Catholic Epistles
Four letters__Jude, I Peter, II Peter, and James__are called catholic
(universal) because they are addressed to everyone, not to a particular city or
person. But they have little in common otherwise.
The Epistle of James is a letter, but it does not imitate Paul's letters,
rather it follows standard Greek letter form. It only mentions Christ twice,
causing some to question whether it was originally Christian. Some of its
passages seem to be critical of Paul's rejection of the value of works in
salvation, at least as Paul's idea had been simplistically understood by some
Christians; thus James 2:17 says "faith without works is dead." As a result,
Protestant theologians have not liked the Epistle of James; Luther called it
"an epistle of straw."[4] In spite of its
title, the letter probably has nothing to do with the apostle James or the
Jerusalem church; James was dead and the Jerusalem church destroyed when the
letter was composed in the early second century.
I Peter is addressed to "the exiles of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia,
Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia" (1:1), all provinces in Asia Minor. It is
written in good Greek literary style, which is a strong argument against its
author being Peter, an illiterate, Aramaic_speaking fisherman. Persecution of
Christianity is its theme; thus scholars date it to one of the known episodes
of persecution in Asia Minor, either the 90s (when the Book of Revelation was
written) or about 112 C.E. (when Pliny the Younger was persecuting Christians
in Bithynia). In theology, the work is purely Pauline, and has nothing at all
to do with Peter's theology (to the extent that the latter is known to
scholars, at any rate). By attributing Pauline ideas to Peter, its anonymous
author was probably attempting to reconcile the two great apostles of the
church. It may have been written in Rome, which claimed both Peter and Paul as
its founders.
Jude, a short letter, is a polemic against gnostics; it is quite abusive and
calls them names, rather than attempting to refute their beliefs. It also
quotes verses from two Jewish apocalyptic works, the Assumption of Moses
and Enoch. It was probably composed in the late first century C.E.
II Peter is also written to counter the arguments of gnostics, and to counter
the arguments of those who reject the return of Christ. It quotes the synoptic
gospels, the letters of Paul, and I Peter, in such a way as to suggest that he
knew them as sacred scripture; this indicates it was written quite late, about
140 C.E. The second chapter is a rewriting of Jude; but the author of II Peter
edits out the passages from Assumption of Moses and Enoch because
he rejects their canonicity, which also suggests the work was written in the
second century (when the Jews were ceasing to use those two books). The
epistle's language is an elevated Attic Greek, very different from the koine
Greek of the rest of the New Testament, including I Peter.
The Book of Revelation
The Book of Revelation is attributed to the Apostle John, but the language
bears little resemblance to that of the Johannine school; its authorship has
been disputed since the third century. Almost certainly it was written by a
different John. The author calls himself John of Patmos (Rev. 1:9), one of the
few instances where the author of a New Testament book actually gives his
name.
The book is written in excellent imitation of the style of Paul's letters; it
was written to encourage the churches of Asia Minor to weather an outbreak of
persecution, which probably occurred during the reign of the emperor Domitian
(81_96 C.E.). The revelation sent to John by an angel is composed in the form
of a letter (1:4 is the typical opening line), and the messages to the seven
churches of Asia Minor each are revealed in letter form. Some scholarly study
has been devoted to the letters to the churches in an attempt to understand
their conditions; the letters condemn specific heretics and heretical
schools.
Technically, the Book of Revelation is not even an apocalypse, at least not in
the style of the apocalyptic works of the Hebrew Bible. While the apocalypses
are usually pseudonymous, Revelation specifies the name of its author. While
they survey world history, Revelation does not. While they offer
interpretations of visions by angels, Revelation does not. And while they
claim that the meanings of their books are sealed until the time of the end,
Revelation never puts a seal on its contents. As a result, Revelation has been
described as a kind of "anti_apocalypse." The book clearly draws on images
uses in Daniel and Ezekiel; however, critical biblical scholarship has agreed
that it is a completely hopeless task to attempt to construct a chronology for
the events of the "time of the end" from the book, for its chapters do not
portray events chronologically.
The imagery and symbolism of the book of Revelation has excited the
imagination of Christians for two thousand years, and a wide variety of
interpretations of its passages have been offered. 'Abdu'l_Bahá offers
interpretations of the symbols as well, which are valid for
Bahá'ís because they are authoritative. 'Abdu'l_Bahá's
interpretations vary widely from many of the interpretations common among
Christians, mostly because He identifies many of the figures with persons and
events in Islamic history.[5]
'Abdu'l_Bahá offers interpretation and commentary on chapters eleven
and twelve of the Book of Revelation (Some Answered Questions, 45_61,
67_72). He asserts the interpretation that various time measures (twelve
hundred and sixty days; forty_two months; three and a half years; a time, and
times, and half a time), which all equal twelve hundred and sixty days, refer
to the twelve hundred and sixty Islamic years that elapsed between the hejira
of Muammad and the declaration of the Báb (which occurred in 1844 C.E.,
or 1260 A.H.). 'Abdu'l_Bahá identifies the two witnesses (11:3) as
Muammad and 'Alí, quoting the Qur'án as calling Muammad a
witness. The "two olive trees" and "the two candlesticks" (11:4) refer to them
as well, and symbolically allude to their missions to illuminate the world.
The "beast" (11:7) refers to the Umayyad caliphs, who, 'Abdu'l_Bahá
explains, corrupted Islam and thus made war on its Prophet and His successor.
Their dead bodies being placed in the grave (11:9) refers to the teachings of
Muammad and 'Alí, and indicates that the religion of God is in eclipse
for the remainder of the Islamic dispensation. The reference to their
resurrection after three and a half days (11:11) is symbolic of their spiritual
return in the Báb and His chief disciple, Quddús, in 1260 A.H.
The earthquake mentioned in 11:13 'Abdu'l_Bahá links with the earthquake
that devastated Shiraz after the martyrdom of the Báb in 1850.
Verse 11:14 refers to three woes, which 'Abdu'l_Bahá identifies with
Muammad, the Báb, and Bahá'u'lláh; He explains that the
coming of a new Manifestation of God signifies judgment of the people, and thus
constitutes a woe. He reinforces His interpretation by citing Ezekiel 30:1_3.
The reference to twenty_four elders (11:16), 'Abdu'l_Bahá explains,
refers to the greatness of the Bahá'í dispensation, which has
twice the number of leading figures as the previous religions, each of which
had twelve (twelve sons of Jacob, twelve chiefs of the tribes of Israel under
Moses, twelve disciples of Jesus, twelve Imams). The reference to the temple
being open in heaven (11:19) refers to the divine teachings again being
diffused to the world.
'Abdu'l_Bahá also offers a symbolic interpretation of chapter twelve.
The reference to the woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet,
and a crown of twelve stars on her head (12:1) refers to the Islamic
revelation; the sun is the symbol for Iran, the moon the symbol of the Ottoman
Turks, and the twelve stars are a reference to the twelve Imams. The dragon
with seven heads and ten horns (12:3_4) refers to the Umayyads, who dominated
seven nations (Syria, Arabia, Persia, Egypt, North Africa, Spain, and
Transoxiana) and who had ten names (there were more than ten Umayyad rulers,
but some of them had the same name, such as Yazid I and Yazid II). The
Umayyads tried to devour the Law of God, just as the dragon attempted to devour
the child referred to in 12:4. However, He was born anyway (12:5);
'Abdu'l_Bahá says the child refers to the Báb. Nevertheless, the
woman had to flee into the wilderness for twelve hundred and sixty days
(12:5_6); that is, the Law of God had to remain confined to the heart of Arabia
until the time of the Báb's advent.
Finally, 'Abdu'l_Bahá interprets the closing image of the book of
Revelation, "I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the
first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more. And I saw the holy city,
the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven" (21:1_2) (Some Answered
Questions, 67). This, 'Abdu'l_Bahá, says, refers to the new
revelation of God, brought by a new messenger. The abolition of the sea, He
adds, refers to the fact that every place will be dry land, in other words,
humanity will be able to dwell under the Law of God everywhere.
Summary
The New Testament is not only an account of Jesus, but the story of the rise
of Christianity as well. It is both scripture and history. In it we see both
the Word of God and the struggle of humans to understand the word. For
Bahá'ís, it is an opportunity to appreciate the purity of the
Bahá'í revelation, which did not have to go through a period of
oral transmission before reaching its final written form. But it is also an
opportunity for Bahá'ís to realize that their own scripture, like
that of Christianity, has interacted with human beings, and that the content of
the scripture is always shaped by the questions of the Manifestation's
audience. It is yet another opportunity to witness the power of the Word of
God, throughout all ages, to transform human hearts.
Footnotes
[1] Letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi
to an individual believer dated 7 September 1938.
[2] Star of the West, vol. 3, no. 14, p.
9.
[3] Shoghi Effendi, The Promised Day is
Come, 109.
[4] Martin Luther, quoted in Roland H. Bainton,
Here I Stand: A Life of Martin Luther (New York: Abingdon Press, 1977),
259.
[5] What follows is a summary; the reader is
referred to the text of Some Answered Questions if s/he wants the details of
the interpretation.
[+CHAPTER6]
Christianity in the Classical World
Christianity spread very fast in the Roman Empire, partly because the first
and second centuries were a time of political stability and prosperity. The
roads and shipping routes were relatively safe from highwaymen and pirates,
thus allowing Christian preachers to travel freely and to dispatch messengers
and letters easily. Travel was costly, but the Christian communities,
particularly in the eastern Mediterranean, had the money to support it because
they shared in the empire's prosperity. The empire had relative freedom of
religion; as long as a citizen was loyal to Rome and did not disturb the social
order, he or she was not disturbed in religious matters.
Christianity was not the only religion with missionaries. There were
hundreds of wandering philosophers who offered their brand of peace of mind and
happiness to whoever would listen, and preferably to whoever would pay. Dozens
of mystery religions sprang up that, through secret rites and ceremonies,
claimed to offer salvation or the secret of life. The ancient world was very
much like modern America, where one can investigate thousands of philosophies,
forms of meditation, and religions. If anything, the Greco-Roman world was too
pluralistic; there were so many religious choices people became religiously
cynical.
The most successful missionaries of all were the Jews. Hellenistic
culture had a tendency toward monotheism, and only one people firmly believed
in one God. Jewish missionaries, like modern Christian evangelists, were
self-appointed and itinerant. They preached in synagogues and in the
marketplaces. A group of people, called God fearers, came into
existence who read the Hebrew Bible (in its standard Greek translation), who
often attended synagogue, who did not work on the Sabbath, yet who did not
desire to undergo the pains of circumcision or the rigors of the Jewish dietary
laws. Nor did they think highly of the Jerusalem Temple, which to them was a
symbol of an ethnic group rather than a religion. But sometimes the children
of God-fearers became Jews. No one knows what fraction of the diaspora Jews
were converts, but it is known that of the Roman Empire's approximately sixty
million people, between four and six million were Jews. Most cities in the
eastern Roman Empire had significant Jewish populations; Alexandria, Egypt was
reported to be one third Jewish.
For those God-fearers who hesitated to join Judaism because of its laws
and its ethnicity, Christianity represented an ideal alternative. As a result
they joined Christianity in great numbers; Jewish missionaries had
unconsciously laid the foundation for Christian growth. Christian missionaries
followed the same approaches used by Jewish missionaries; they spoke at
synagogues, gave speeches in the marketplace, and met with fellow members of
their ethnic group or profession. According to the Book of Acts (16:13), on
the Sabbath Paul visited a "place of prayer," probably a synagogue. By
attending synagogue services, early Christian missionaries would have made
contact with those sympathetic to the new religion such as the God-fearers.
The early American Bahá'ís acted similarly; they often taught
their Faith by attending a local church.
What sort of people became Christians? The evidence is scanty, but has
been assembled. Ancient cities did not have upper, middle, and lower economic
classes like the modern west. On top was a hereditary aristocracy made of a
relative small number of families--perhaps a hundred--who ran the city and
controlled much of its land and wealth. Beneath them were various groups.
Merchants often were wealthy, but did not have aristocratic status or its
attendant privileges. Artisans made most of the goods the city
needed--clothing, pottery, metal goods, glass, furniture, etc.--but were
heavily taxed and often were as impoverished as rural peasants. Slaves and an
urban proletariat performed the menial tasks--unloading ships, building houses,
slaughtering animals, and providing muscle power, since there was no machine
power. A certain fraction of the proletariat was permanently unemployed, and
the aristocracy distributed free grain to prevent them from rioting. Street
gangs were often well organized and in the pay of aristocrats, who used them to
exert political power. Finally, peasant farmers or slaves on large estates
raised most of the city's food. Smaller cities were largely self sufficient,
raising most of the food they needed on local lands, farmed by peasants living
in villages outside of the city. The few very large cities in the empire, like
Rome, had to import food, usually from Egypt, and thus were dependent on the
maintenance of safe trade.
From the beginning, Christianity seems to have attracted individuals from
many classes, but especially from the merchant and artisan classes. The
aristocracy and proletariat were little represented in the new faith, although
the few aristocrats often became prominent Christian leaders.[1] At first Christianity did not spread in
the countryside at all, so peasants were rarely Christians. Paul himself was a
tentmaker, according to Acts 18:3; Paul himself says (I Thes. 2:9) that he
worked for a living so as not to burden the local Christian community.
Probably whenever Paul visited a new city he would find the tent maker's guild,
make friends there, acquire employment with them, and teach them about
Jesus.
Social scientists have also debated the techniques used to spread
Christianity. The Book of Acts speaks of Paul and other apostles preaching to
large crowds, resulting in mass acceptance of the new Faith. Sociologists are
skeptical, however, because preaching to crowds is easier to dramatize than
one-on-one instruction, but is far less effective in producing committed
followers. Most likely, the bulk of the successful evangelism involved
individual Christians teaching their friends by word and deed. If Christian
grew in membership by about 3.5% a year--40% per decade--the numbers increase
from about 1,000 in the year 40 C.E. to 7,500 by 100 C.E., 218,000 by 200 C.E.,
6,300,000 by 300 C.E., and 34,000,000 by 350 C.E. Thus an insignificant
religious group would have become more than 50% of the Empire's population in a
bit over 300 years.[2]
In addition to its early diversity of ethnicity and social class,
Christianity also contained considerable diversity of belief, and as the
churches grew the different understanding of Christianity became an
increasingly serious problem for some. Paul expended much of his literary
effort in arguing against Judaizers and gnostics. While Jewish Christianity
faded as a threat, gnosticism grew stronger as a competing interpretation of
Christianity.
Gnosticism
Gnosticism was not just a religion, but a broad philosophical and
spiritual movement, rather like Existentialism or New Thought or Transcendental
Meditation are today. Christians apparently became interested in gnosticism
from the beginning of the Jesus movement; in Christianity, gnosticism became
highly developed.
Gnosticism stressed dualism, the idea that the world was divided
into paired opposites: matter and spirit, light and darkness, good and evil,
God and the devil, angels and demons, heaven and hell. It believed that the
human spirit was an emanation from God, a "divine spark" that must be reunited
with its Creator. This spark was trapped in the world of matter in a body.
Gnosticism saw the body and physical existence as the cause of sin and evil.
Salvation was escape from the physical world and reunion with God; it was
achieved not through faith, but through knowledge of one's condition. For
example, the non-Christian gnostic devotees of the god Hermes Trismegistus
believed that the soul, after its creation, had to pass from the starry sphere
(which was the highest heaven) through the lower levels of heaven (each of
which corresponded to a planet) to the earth, which was the lowest, dirtiest,
and most corrupt level of existence. This gnosticism thus combined religion
with the most advanced science and astronomy of the day (which was astrology,
in modern terms). The journey of the soul resulted in accretions to the soul
at each level: As the souls descend, they draw with
them the torpor of Saturn, the wrathfulness of Mars, the concupiscence of
Venus, the greed for gain of Mercury, the lust for power of Jupiter; which
things effect a confusion in the souls, so that they can no longer make use of
their own power and their proper facilities.[3]
The qualities one acquired were appropriate to each planet: Saturn is the
slowest of the planets in its orbit and Mercury is the fastest; Venus was the
goddess of love and therefore of lust; Mars was the god of war and therefore of
anger; Jupiter was the king of the gods and therefore the god of power.
Knowledge of one's condition as it was shaped by astrology was seen as half the
struggle to obtain salvation. Some non-Christian groups claimed to give to the
devotee the "passwords" that he or she would need after death to pass back
through each heavenly sphere, shedding the accretions he or she acquired at
each, and thus enabling him or her to reach the highest heaven
successfully.
Christian gnostics avoided detailed astrology and favored a mythological
interpretation of Genesis to describe the universe. They believed that
creation began when the Fore-Father produced a series of twenty-nine emanations
from Himself, who were progressively more remote from Him; together these
constituted a kind of Godhead that was called the pleuroma. Some
gnostics believed that the physical universe represented the solidified or
crystallized passions for the Fore-Father produced by His most distant
emanation, named Sophia (Wisdom). Each passion became a different element
(Greek science believed there were four elements, earth, water, air, and fire).
A semi-divine being, the Demiurge, was formed from them and he shaped
creation out of them, including the starry and planetary spheres, the earth,
and humanity. He also was the God who created Judaism. In contrast, Christ
was a special emanation of the Fore-Father, sent by Him to the earth in order
to lead the divine spark in humans back to union in the pleuroma. Because of
the belief that Judaism and Christianity had different ultimate sources,
Christian gnostics often argued that the two religions and their scriptures
were incompatible.
Since matter and the body were seen as evil, often these groups denied
that Jesus ever had had a body. They refused to recognize the fact that He was
born, ate food, and really suffered on the cross. Bodily resurrection, to
them, was not only absurd but disgusting; it would maintain ones entrapment in
matter and therefore would be a form of hell.
Since the body was the source of evil, these groups had unusual beliefs
about sexuality. Some advocated complete celibacy, for sex was seen as the
embodiment of evil and a trick by the devil to continue his rule on earth.
Marcion, one of the greatest of the Christian thinkers influenced by
gnosticism, forbade his followers to marry. Other gnostic groups went to the
opposite extreme and said that since the body was not reality, it didn't matter
what you did with it. These groups were accused of tremendous sexual
licentiousness.
Gnosticism and the Development of Christian Doctrine
The existence of gnostic groups impelled the early church to
define many of its basic beliefs. Gnosticism offered significantly different
doctrines in several areas: in christology (the nature of Christ);
soteriology (the nature of salvation, how Christ saves, and from what);
and anthropology (the basic nature of human beings). The church defined
its teachings on the Trinity, original sin, and the nature of Christ's mission
partly in reaction to gnosticism and other heretical movements.
Gnosticism also gave impetus to the creation of the Christian canon.
Until the mid second century the Christian movement considered the Hebrew Bible
to be its sacred scripture; all references to "the scriptures" in the New
Testament refer to the Old. But by the mid second century Christianity had
produced a large corpus of writings. Some, such as the four gospels and the
letters of Paul, were read very widely and were venerated. Others had a more
restricted usage; gnostic groups, for example, had written their own special
works since the late first century. Today these are popularly known as the
"gnostic gospels." In Christian worship it became customary to read not only
passages from the Hebrew Bible, but from Christian writings as well (which
Christian writings were read, however, depended on the beliefs of the man who
organized the service).
This custom was upset by Marcion (c. 100 - c. 150), who rejected the
Hebrew Bible; borrowing from gnostic beliefs, he argued that it had been
created by the god of the Jews, who was the petty and legalistic Demiurge, and
not by the Creator God who had sent Jesus to the world. Having rejected the
only works that Christians believed were sacred scripture, Marcion felt the
need to create a new Christian canon. Since there could be only one
gospel--that is, only one good news, one Christian message--his scripture could
only include one gospel book. He chose Luke because its theology was closest
to his own. He also included the genuine letters of Paul and the
deuteropauline epistles in his sacred writings. However, Marcion was
dissatisfied with the texts as they existed because they seemed to show signs
of tampering by the Demiurge; for example, they often quoted, or alluded to,
the Hebrew Bible. Marcion solved the problem by editing the texts in order to
remove all signs of "tampering." In this fashion Marcion acquired a text that
he believed was the original Christian message.
Most Christians were angered that Marcion had altered their oldest and
most venerable writings, but his idea that Christianity should have a scripture
of its own was accepted, partly because the best way to fight Marcion's canon
was to create a rival canon. Between 150 and 200 C.E., the idea of aNew
Testament emerged, especially as a result of the writings of the mid
second-century theologian and pastor Irenaeus. He argued that the canon should
be as broad and inclusive as possible, as long as the works included in it were
not gnostic. He especially sought to overcome the attitude that since there
could be only one gospel message, there could only be one gospel book. He
favored the inclusion of the four gospels that circulated the most--Matthew,
Mark, Luke, and John--in spite of the fact that they occasionally seem to
contradict each other. Until the late second century, some of the four were
favored in some regions, and others had circulated little in other
areas.
By the year 200 C.E., most of the books included in the New Testament were
those found in it today. However, no Christian council has ever officially
defined the content of the Christian sacred writings, and Christian churches
outside the Roman empire evolved their own canons, which were slightly
different from the canon that came to be accepted inside the Roman
empire.
One way the churches battled gnosticism was to establish a systematized,
professional leadership. The Christian churches, like all other groups in the
Roman empire (including the empire itself) were only loosely organized,
especially at first. The need to define correct belief, and the need to carry
out that belief in acts of Christian charity, gradually resulted in a detailed
church structure.
The Establishment of Church Structure
When people became Christians they joined a new community of
people, one called an ekklesia. In Greek the word literally means
"calling out" and refers to a gathering where one can speak; it roughly
translates as "meeting" or "assembly."[4] The first Christian groups were "house churches," that
is, they consisted of the members of a household who met at home. Wealthier
Christians would invite other Christians to worship with them in their large
houses. Christianity spread through ties of family and patronage. The head of
the family was often the head of the house church.
Churches were not the only voluntary associations in the Hellenistic
cities. A typical Greek city had burial societies, to which one periodically
contributed money and which provided a large funeral when one died. There were
eating clubs, which held meals weekly or monthly; some pagan temples had
outbuildings that included kitchens and dining facilities for their use. There
were ethnic organizations, which one could join when one moved to a new city
and where one could associate with one's countrymen; and mystery cults, which
provided their members with religious experience and sometimes religious
community. Finally there were Jewish synagogues, which maintained an extensive
system of private welfare in addition to their religious services and social
opportunities.
From the beginning, a major focus of many Christian churches was the care
of widows, orphans, the sick, and the aged. This effort alone required
considerable organization, and as Christianity expanded the welfare systems of
local churches soon grew larger than those of synagogues. The Roman empire had
no welfare, unemployment relief, hospitals, or orphanages; furthermore, pagan
temples made no effort to provide such services. The ultimate success of
Christianity had a lot to do with the fact that Christians took care of each
other.
One sociologist has dramatically demonstrated the impact that Christian
values would have had during the plagues of 165-80 and 250-60 (which probably
represent, respectively, the first-time arrival of smallpox and measles to the
Empire).[5] Each plague killed between
one quarter and one third of the entire population. Entire cities became
deserted as the population fled, taking the disease with them to the
countryside. Basic nursing care can reduce the death rate to about ten
percent. Thus if Christians nursed each other, far fewer would have died,
which in the ancient world would have looked like a miracle. If Christians
nursed their pagan neighbors, the latter would have been strongly impressed by
Christian virtue and possibly attracted to the Faith. Other disasters--huge
fires, earthquakes, riots--struck ancient cities about once every decade or
two, giving the Christians plenty of opportunities to practice their
beliefs.[6]
From the first Christian charity was both an individual and a collective
effort. The latter required some sort of organizational system. Christian
churches were concerned about both spiritual power--through such activities as
speaking in tongues and experiencing divine inspiration--and with creation of
at least a minimal amount of ecclesiastical authority. In I Cor. 12:28 the
Apostle Paul speaks of a hierarchy in the body of Christ consisting of "first
apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then healers, helpers,
administrators, [and] speakers in various kinds of tongues." Initially the
principle of charismatic authority ("apostles, prophets, teachers") was more
important than administrative authority. In the churches founded by Paul
administration seems to have been rudimentary; each local church had one or
more "overseers" (Greek episcopos, from which comes the English word
"bishop") and a series of assistants, servants, or messengers (Greek
diakonos, "deacons.") Presumably Paul was alluding to them when he
referred to "administrators" and "helpers."
While this organizational structure apparently became standard among the
gentile churches, Jewish Christians seemed to have followed the model of the
synagogue more closely. Synagogues were governed by a council of elders. The
Greek term used by the Christians for the elders was presbyteros, from
which comes the English words "presbyter" and "priest." Within a generation or
two the gentile and Jewish Christian churches merged, as did their
organizational systems. When a gentile church originally had more than one
overseer, they came to be considered elders, and these elders or presbyters
became priests; above them was an overseer or bishop; below them were the
deacons. This created three levels of local church officers.
Only gradually, during the second and third centuries, did the
administrative positions surpass the charismatic positions as the most
important in the churches. The office of apostle died out because only the
Christians who had met Jesus were entitled to that title. The teaching
function became a task of the bishops and priests. The prophetic function
gradually disappeared; when the New Testament became codified the guidance of
the first generation of Christians became readily available, and as local
churches became better organized "prophecy" proved a common source of
disruption, especially since it came to be dominated more and more by gnostics
and other heretics.
Since the gnostics favored a speculative and personal religion, and
apparently did not engage in extensive charity, they favored charismatic
offices over administrative ones; hence when a city's Christians organized,
gnostics usually did not seek to become bishop or presbyter. Ignatius, the
bishop of Antioch, writing about 115 C.E., was a tireless champion of the
monarchal episcopate, that is, the principle that each city should have
one Christian bishop who was exclusively in charge of all Christian activities
in that locality. He stressed the monarchal episcopate mainly as an instrument
to fight gnosticism and other heresies, and this became one of its principal
functions.
Gradually, the office of bishop became the dominant one in the local
Christian churches. Originally deacons and presbyters were chosen by the local
church and were not under the bishop's authority; but gradually they became
subordinates to him. The disciplining of Christians who committed immoral
acts, such as adultery, became the bishop's task; in Paul's day disciplining
was carried out by the entire congregation (I Cor. 1:1-5). A ritual for
ordaining the bishop became defined, orders of widows were created, and rules
for Christian community life were formulated. Since Christianity had no
organization at all beyond the local level--there were no archbishops, no pope,
and, until the third century, no councils of bishops--innovations in one city
only gradually spread to another. Letters written by bishops to other churches
became an important means for exchanging ideas and allowed a bishop to become
influential in his region.
Rome was one of the first churches to establish an episcopate; its bishop
possessed authority over the Roman Christian community by the mid second
century. By the end of the second century the monarchal episcopate was firmly
established everywhere. In many cities the appointment of a bishop marked the
beginning of an "orthodox" Christian community; for example, Christians in
Alexandria seems to have first chosen a bishop in 189 C.E. Before that,
gnostic Christianity dominated the city and the rest of Egypt.
To legitimize themselves further in their fight against gnostics, bishops
claimed that their office had been established by the apostles themselves.
Many bishops codified the history of Christianity in their city for the first
time and claimed a series of venerable local church leaders as previous bishops
in order to show that their own office had been created by an apostle, and that
they were the most recent of an unbroken succession of bishops. This claim
that the bishops were the successors of the apostles is called apostolic
succession. The idea was not new; gnostics claimed apostolic succession as
well, possibly before bishops did. Rome claimed the most elaborate apostolic
succession, with Peter as the city's first bishop and Paul as the cofounder of
the Roman church. When the great church historian Eusebius wrote his
Ecclesiastical History, about the year 300, he published many cities'
bishop lists, thereby legitimizing them.
With the establishment of the office of bishop in most cities, bishops
began to meet together to discuss regional affairs, and the bishop of a
region's capital city gradually acquired prestige and influence over the
bishops of smaller cities. Carthage, Athens, Antioch, and Alexandria emerged
as important Christian centers; since Rome was the capital of the empire, the
bishop of Rome emerged as a particularly influential bishop.
The Rise of Christian Scholarship and Theology
Christians have always done theology, in the sense of thinking
about the nature of God and Christ, but until about 150 C.E. their theology was
done without any systematic use of Greek philosophy. In the early second
century the waning of the emphasis on Christ's immediate return made the study
of Greek philosophy more acceptable, and its use by gnostics (who had never had
an apocalyptic perspective) made knowledge of Greek philosophy necessary in the
fight against heresy. Further, Christianity's growing size and strength made
its lack of legal status a concern for many church leaders. Several Christian
writers, called apologists, wrote essays addressed to the emperor in
which they defended the legitimacy of Christianity and called for its
recognition. One of the most famous apologists was Justin Martyr (c. 100 - c.
167), who had some familiarity with Greek philosophy. He wrote several works
that defended Christianity from external attacks--one of which addressed
objections raised by Jews--and started a Christian school in Rome. He was one
of the first to elaborate on the idea that Christ was God's logos
("word," an idea from Greek philosophy) in order to define the relationship
between God and Christ. He also wrote about how Christ's death established
salvation, about the eucharist and baptism, and about the role of demons
(spirits) in creating Greek mythology and philosophy. The quality of his
thinking and writing was not high, but it helped to lay a theological
foundation for Christian thought.
A little later, Irenaeus (c. 130 - c. 180) wrote a work against heresies
and defined a Christian position on such matters as original sin, redemption,
the Incarnation, the Eucharist, the canon, and church structure. He has been
called the "first consciously literary theologian of the Christian
church."[7]
Tertullian (c. 155 - c. 222) wrote the first Christian theology in Latin;
though some of the other theologians had lived in the western Roman Empire,
they had written in Greek. Tertullian coined the term trinitas
(trinity) and first defined the concept of God having three personae,
three aspects or modes of being. He also coined the Christian terms Old
Testament and New Testament.
Clement of Alexandria (c. 150 - c. 215) became the first Christian
philosopher and wrote extensively, though not systematically, on Christian
questions. Having been influenced by gnosticism, he argued that Christianity
was based on knowledge (gnosis), not faith. He made the Christian teacher
extremely important in a Christian's spiritual development. He also described
the universe hierarchically, although he rejected both the basics and the
details of the gnostic concept of creation.
His successor in Alexandria, Origen (c. 185 - 254) was one of the greatest
Christian thinkers who ever lived and was a philosopher as great as any who
lived during his day. He was highly respected by non-Christians for his
learning, the first Christian to be so treated. He was Christianity's first
systematic Bible scholar; he produced an edition of the Old Testament with
eight parallel versions, so that the various alternate readings could be
compared easily. He wrote commentaries on many biblical books, some of which
have survived to this day. He questioned some commonly held assumptions about
the New Testament, such as the belief that Paul authored the Book of Hebrews.
He was without a doubt the most prolific writer in classical Christianity. His
theology, however, was tinged by gnosticism. His christology wa especially
speculative. After his death, as Christian doctrine became more clearly and
rigidly defined, his popularity waned. Eventually many of his works were
declared heretical and were altered or destroyed, making it difficult for
modern scholars to study his thought.
Persecution
The growth of Christianity also produced one nearly fatal
problem, the reaction of the Roman government. One of the first serious
persecutions occurred in Bithynia, a province in northwestern Asia Minor, in
112-113 C.E. Christianity had spread so much in that region, in the
countryside as well as in the cities, that temples had become empty and were
unable to sell the meat of sacrificed animals (Christians generally refused to
buy it, because it was a product of paganism). The Roman governor of the
province, Pliny the Younger, began to arrest Christians and order them to
sacrifice to the emperor as a god. Since Christians could not consider the
emperor a god, they refused to sacrifice--an act equivalent to refusing to
salute the flag, or refusing to repeat the pledge of allegiance. Consequently,
they were executed for disloyalty to the Roman state.
However, Pliny soon realized that those who were revealing the names of
Christians had their own ulterior motives. He decided to stop searching out
Christians, but if any were arrested for other reasons they would be required
to sacrifice to the emperor or be executed. He wrote to the emperor to state
his policy, and the emperor concurred. Since Pliny was an excellent writer he
eventually published a collection of his letters, for they were beautiful
examples of Latin style, and among them was his letter to the emperor about the
Christians.
Anti-Christian edicts were occasionally promulgated by an emperor; Marcus
Aurelius issued one in 164-68 and Lucius Verus announced another in 176-78 C.E.
But they were enforced only in Asia Minor and Gaul respectively. Pliny's
persecution was the standard type that Christians had to endure in the late
first and second centuries: localized attacks, authorized by a local governor,
which lasted a short time and which produced a few martyrs. Usually the bishop
was one of the first to be martyred; Ignatius, Justin Martyr, and the great
bishop, Polycarp (c. 70 - c. 166) were all executed for their beliefs in this
way. The rank and file of ordinary Christians were often undisturbed because
Greco-Roman religions did not expect any loyalty of their followers, and Roman
officials assumed that Christianity was the same. From their perspective it
was only necessary to kill a religion's leaders to debilitate the religious
community, and they did not understand that Christianity was different from
pagan religious groups until it had grown substantially.
Hence, generally Christianity was left alone by officials. By the late
second and early third centuries the Christian communities had become large
enough in many cities to build impressive church buildings and pay for
full-time bishops. Intellectual attacks were not absent, however; the first
systematic anti-Christian work, produced by the philosopher Celsus, was
published about 178 C.E. It was followed by others.
Christianity's social environment changed greatly after 200 C.E. Its
growth led to an intellectual revival of paganism, probably as a reaction
against the religion of Christ. Furthermore, the empire's two centuries of
political stability and prosperity had come to an end. The Roman frontiers
became very difficult and expensive to defend, and to raise the money necessary
to maintain the armies, coins with less than the correct amount of silver were
issued. This debasement of the currency caused inflation and led to serious
economic problems. Plagues ravaged the empire and drastically decreased its
population (which was shriking naturally anyway, because of infanticide and low
marriage rates). The quality of the emperors declined.
The empire's increased difficulties had to be blamed on someone, and the
Christians were a convenient scapegoat; their refusal to sacrifice to the gods
was said to have made the gods angry. Since the society believed in many gods
and the Christians did not, they were accused of atheism. Earlier
charges--that the eucharist was cannibalism and the love feast an
orgy--surfaced again.
The first coordinated, empire-wide persecution of Christians was initiated
by the emperor Septimus Severus in 202-03 C.E. It resulted in perhaps several
hundred martyrs from all over the empire, mainly educated Christians and
ecclesiastical leaders, such as most of the pupils of Clement of Alexandria,
and Origen's father. Among the martyred was a remarkable young woman in
Carthage named Perpetua; the account of her imprisonment includes a portion
probably composed by her, one of the earliest Christian works by a
woman.[8] The next emperor, Alexander
Severus, tolerated Christianity; his mother was said to be a Christian. A
generation and a half of tolerance followed.
In 248 C.E. the Roman empire suffered a major invasion by the Goths, then
a plague, and popular hostility against Christianity again increased sharply.
In 250 the new emperor, Decius, suddenly decided to initiate an imperial
persecution of Christians by ordering everyone to sacrifice to the gods. Many
Christians, even many bishops, recanted their faith and sacrificed. Others
refused and were martyred. In 251 the persecution ended when Decius was killed
in a battle with the Goths. Many lapsed Christians then sought readmission
into the church, sparking an enormous controversy about their status. A few
lapsed Christians even became bishops; others, who had suffered for the Faith,
refused to recognize them. Carthage and Rome, for a time, had two rival
Christian communities and two rival bishops.
Peace proved short-lived; in 257 C.E. the emperor Valerian initiated
another wave of persecutions. This time the churches were prepared; their
organizational structures remained strong and most Christians and their bishops
stood firm. Many bishops were exiled, then martyred. In 260 Valerian died
fighting the Persians and the persecution ended.
The Christians enjoyed relative peace until 303, by which time some
eastern provinces were heavily Christian, and the entire empire was perhaps ten
percent Christian. In that year the Emperor Diocletian (reigned 284 - 304)
sought to reform the empire radically in order to increase its religious and
social unity and thus ensure its survival, and the Christians were seen as a
potentially divisive factor. When a pagan priest in the imperial court claimed
he could not divine the future because of the presence of Christians, in 303,
the emperor decided to act. He ordered all churches destroyed, all Bibles and
sacred vessels confiscated, and all Christian meetings banned. Later that year
he ordered all priests and bishops arrested. Finally, in 304, he required all
citizens in the empire to sacrifice or be executed. His orders were enforced
only to a limited degree--the Roman empire was not a totalitarian state, and
its bureaucracy and police powers were limited--but nevertheless hundreds,
perhaps as many as a thousand, Christians were martyred. Only in Gaul,
Britain, and Spain were Diocletian's orders mostly ignored; the caesar in
charge of the region, who was named Constantine, limited the persecution to the
destruction of church buildings.
In 304 Diocletian retired, but his successor in the eastern Roman empire,
Gallerius, was even more anti-Christian. Only when he was on his death bed in
312 did Gallerius order the persecution of Christians to stop. It has been
estimated that as many as 3000 Christians were martyred between the years 303
and 313. In Asia Minor an entire town that had been completely Christian was
massacred. In Egypt, where the persecution was the most systematic, the most
number of martyrs occurred, and the province almost lapsed into civil
war.
But one spiritual result of the sacrifice was the conversion of the first
Christian emperor. Constantine's mother and sister had been Christian and he
had always been favorable to the religion. In October 312, on the eve of a
battle that would make him sole emperor of the western Roman empire,
Constantine reportedly had a vision of a cross with the legend under it, "by
this sign conquer." He ordered crosses painted on the shields of his soldiers,
and his army won the battle. Later that year he and the new emperor of the
eastern empire granted religious freedom to Christians and all other religions.
In 324 Constantine, as a result of several civil wars, emerged as the sole
emperor of the Roman Empire. He extended the protection and financial support
of the state to the church throughout the empire.
One result was a flood of converts, for being a Christian was no longer
dangerous; indeed, it could be advantageous if one were seeking a job in the
army or civil service. When Constantine died in 327 his sons, all of whom were
Christians, split the empire among themselves. After the last one died a new
emperor for the entire empire was selected named Julian who had been raised
Christian and who had a Christian wife but who loved Greek philosophy. He
became sole emperor in 360 C.E.; in 361 he renounced Christianity and attempted
to revive paganism. All pagan temples were converted into temples of the one
god, Helios (the sun); state money was given to them so that they could
inaugurate works of charity, such as those the churches were running.
Christians were not persecuted, but were placed under grave restrictions; they
were not allowed to become teachers, for example, and all teachers were
required to teach the old pagan values. When pagan crowds rioted and destroyed
churches, the emperor did not interfere; when Christians attacked each other as
heretics, Julian did not seek to impose one form of Christianity on
them.
Julian's reforms are particularly noteworthy because they sought to modify
paganism so that it could compete against Christianity. His effort to make
paganism monotheistic and to make pagan temples the center of social services
are noteworthy imitations of Christianity. But it was too late; the temples
did not know how to organize social services, their attendance had declined too
sharply for them to be revived, and Christianity was too strong to be rivaled.
A year and a half later, in 363, Julian died in a battle with the Persians; his
successor was a Christian, and his reforms were easily swept away. Paganism
continued to exist in the Roman Empire, but it was confined to two groups:
peasants in the remote countryside and many of the old aristocratic class. In
Rome, the Senate was a bastion of paganism until the fifth century; in Athens,
the philosophical schools led a losing struggle against Christianity until the
Christian emperor Justinian closed them in 529.
The Trinitarian and Christological Controversies
Christianity's victory against paganism, and the gradual end of
persecution of the church, allowed theological differences to bubble to the
surface and become expressed in politics, both ecclesiastical and imperial.
The church's intellectual victory over paganism also necessitated clearer
definition of many basic Christian ideas, especially the nature of Christ, His
relation to the father, and how He saves. The result was the eventual creation
of the classical definition of the trinity and the nature of Christ.
Christ's nature had been a subject of Christian thinking from the
beginning. Greek philosophers, especially the Stoics, had developed the
concept of logos or "word" as the divine principle that gave the world
its order and shape. The first century Jewish philosopher, Philo of
Alexandria, used the idea of logos as the agent for bringing creation
into being, and as the intermediary between the biblical God and creation.
Thus it was natural for the Gospel of John to utilize logos to define
the nature of Christ (John 1:1). It was the first christological formulation
in early Christianity.
But the logos doctrine had several problems. If Christ was understood as
an emanation from God, as the logos came to be, then Christ was subordinate to
God. If, on the other hand, the logos was viewed as the creative force in the
universe, Christ was set up as a rival God. This became a problem as theories
of soteriology, or how Christ saves, became clearer. In order for Christ's
death on the cross to save humanity from sin, Christ had to be fully human, in
order to represent humans fully; yet He also had to be fully God, in order to
be a worthy sacrifice. Efforts by some Christian thinkers to subordinate
Christ to God were consistently rejected by the mainstream as heretical. The
logos doctrine risked either subordinationism, where Jesus was less than God,
or polytheism, when there was more than one Christian god.
Further complicating the picture was an apostolic baptismal formula where
one baptized in the name "of the father, and of the son, and of the holy
spirit" (Matt. 28:19). No one knew what the formula meant, but it became a
formula on which the relationship between Jesus and God was understood.
Apparently it was not originally meant to be a trinitarian statement; rather,
the idea of the trinity developed from the baptismal formula. Thus the role of
the spirit was added to those of the father and son to constitute the essential
problem in formulating a definition of the Godhead.
The problem was how to develop imagery and language that made the father,
son, and spirit different, but not too different; if they were too different
one risked either tritheism--three separate, different and equal gods--or
subordinationism--three separate, different, but unequal beings. One had to
create distinctions that were worthy of the three members of the trinity, but
distinctions that did not make one member of the trinity better than another.
It took the finest minds in Chrisianity, using the most powerful intellectual
tool of the day--Greek philosophy--almost the entire fourth century to
accomplish the task. Because of the history of philosophical speculation in
the Hellenistic east, the question of the nature of Christ assumed great
importance in church culture there, and became immeshed in ecclesiastical as
well as imperial politics. Hence the trinitarian controversy was the
ostensible motive for the deposing of many bishops, the smearing of lives and
careers, the violent clashes of personalities, and some shedding of Christian
blood by Christian hands.
The first stage of the controversy was fought over the question of whether
the three members of the trinity were homoousion, "of the same
substance," or homoiousion, "of similar substance." The only difference
between the words was a single letter (the Greek letter iota). If the three
members of the trinity were understood to be of the same substance, many
theologians feared that no distinction would remain between them; but if they
were merely of similar substance then the Son and Holy Spirit could be seen as
subordinate to the Father. The controversy grew so fierce that the emperor
Constantine called a council in 325 to resolve the issue; held in Nicea, it was
the first universal council of the Catholic church. The council formulated the
Nicene Creed, which declared the members of the trinity to be
homoousion, and excommunicated those who believed otherwise. Several
subsequent councils were held, however, and depending on which side was in the
majority, one side or the other was declared unchristian.
In the late fourth century three young theologians from eastern Asia Minor
finally developed workable language that everyone could accept. They took
another word, hypostasis (usually translated into Latin as
substantia, "substance")-- originally used by Greek philosophers as a
synonym for ousia (usually translated into Latin as essentia,
"essence")--and developed trinitarian distinctions between the two terms. The
trinity, they said, consisted of three hypostases but only one
ousia. This allowed homoousion to be used by all, because it no
longer implied subordinationism or tritheism. One difficulty with this
solution was that neither ousia nor hypostasis was found in the
New Testament, hence the solution had a certain non-Christian quality to it.
However, the three theologians wrote extensively about the persons of the
trinity and through imagery and analogy developed workable distinctions that
infused meaning into the distinction between hypostasis and
ousia.
The relationship between the father and the son was resolved to the
satisfaction of most Greek Christians by 400, but soon a new question arose:
what was the relationship between Christ's divine nature and His human nature?
How could two natures exist in the same person? There was again the tendency
either to subordinate Christ's divine nature to His human side or
vice-versa.
The first phase of the controversy developed in the 420s, as a result of a
personality clash between the bishops of Alexandria and Constantinople. In
sermons the former bishop referred to the virgin Mary as theotokos,
"bearer of God," but the latter bishop preferred the term christotokos,
"bearer of Christ," and saw the former term as heretical. Both men had
extensive networks of friends in high church and government positions and drew
them into the fight; both also misrepresented the position of the other. In
431 a church council was called; as the bishops slowly arrived to participate
in the council the strength of the two sides fluctuated, and the decision of
the council shifted back and forth. The emperor was appealed to and he
initially deposed both bishops, but eventually favored the term
theotokos and confirmed the deposition of Nestorius, Bishop of
Constantinople. He was exiled to Egypt where he eventually died, a seemingly
forgotten man.
The second phase focused on a new issue: did Christ have two separate
natures existing in one body and personality, or one only? Those who
maintained that Christ could only have one nature were called monophysites
(mono, Greek for one; physis, Greek for nature). The majority
maintained that Christ had to have a fully human nature and a fully divine
nature in order to save humanity. They excommunicated the Monophysites.
Christ's nature was the major issue discussed by the Council of Chalcedon in
451, which declared Christ to be "truly God and truly man, of rational soul and
body, of the same substance [homoousion] with the Father according to
the Godhead, and of the same substance [homoousion] with us according to
the manhood."[9]
However, Monophysitism did not die out. It eventually came to dominate
the Christian churches in Egypt, Ethiopia, and Syria, thereby permanently
splitting the eastern churches. Some Monophysites entered the Persian realms
as well, where their ideas were attributed to Bishop Nestorius and became the
nucleus of the Nestorian church. Because Nestorianism was considered
heretical in the Roman realms the Persian kings were willing to let it spread;
they had been suspicious of orthodox Christianity because it was associated
with Rome, Persia's greatest enemy.
The third phase of the controversy over the nature of Christ did not occur
until the rise of Islam in the 620s and 630s, which necessitated new efforts to
heal the split among the eastern churches. A compromise formula was offered:
that Christ, regardless of his nature, had only one will. This seemed
intuitively correct, for how could one argue that a person had two wills?
Other Christians, however, replied that in order to be fully divine, Christ had
to have a divine will, and to be fully human He had to have a human will; hence
Christ had to have two wills, which presumably always operated together and in
agreement with each other. This view eventually carried the day and the
monotheletists--those who said Christ had one will--were excommunicated
by the sixth and last church council, held in Constantinople in 680-81. While
many of the previous heresies persisted, and new ones arose, the mainstream of
Christians had now reached a consensus about the trinity and Christ's nature,
so the controversy died down. Furthermore, the eastern churches were now
fighting for their very existence against the spread of Islam, and had no time
for theological speculation.
Latin Christianity in the Third, Fourth, and Fifth
Centuries
While Greek Christian theology focused on the nature of Christ,
Latin theology focused on the nature of human beings and the world they lived
in. The difference reflected the philosophical, speculative tendency of Greek
culture and the legalistic, practical, organizational tendency of Roman culture
respectively. The acute social crises engendered by the collapse of the
western Roman Empire also demanded the urgent consideration of Latin
theologians. As a result, theological hairsplitting and controversy was
considerably less in the west.
The west was spared much of the controversy over the trinity and the
nature of Christ because the Greek theological terms did not translate well
into Latin. In the early third century Tertullian had used Latin legal
terminology to define the trinity as three personae (masks; persons;
parties in a legal action) in one substantia (substance or presence),
distinctions that worked well and did not lead to the problems that the Greek
terms had created. Instead, Latin theology focused on the nature of the
church. The bishop of Carthage, Cyrian (c. 200 - 258), devoted much of his
writing to the question of the nature of the church; he is the author of the
famous statement "there is no salvation outside the church."[10] Cyprian also argued that meetings of bishops were an
important part of the church structure and that while all bishops were equal,
the Bishop of Rome was the first among equals. In this way Cyprian laid the
foundation for the establishment of the papacy. Since the western Empire had
no cities that represented serious competitors with Rome, and no churches that
could compete with the church of Rome, Rome acquired an importance in the west
that no church was able to acquire in the east.
In fourth century the Latin church benefited from several important
theologians. Ambrose (339 - 97), bishop of Milan--which at that time was the
administrative center of the western empire--was a tireless administrator and
promoter of the church, a wise counsel for western emperors, and an active
disseminator of Greek theology. Jerome (c. 341 - 420), learned in Hebrew and
Greek, edited and retranslated the Bible into Latin, thereby creating the Latin
text that was standard for a thousand years. He also translated many Greek
theological works into Latin.
But without question the supreme Latin theologian of the day was Augustine
(354 - 430), who ranks with Origen, Thomas Aquinas, Martin Luther, and John
Calvin as one of the greatest thinkers in Christendom. Augustine was born to a
Christian mother and a pagan father and was raised Christian, but as a young
man he turned to philosophy instead. After extensive reading he became, for a
time, a Manichaean; the Manichaeans were followers of Mani (219 - c. 277), a
Babylonian who claimed to be a divine revelator and successor to Christ,
Zoroaster, and Buddha and who established a religion based on gnostic
conceptions of the world. Moving to Milan, Augustine met Bishop Ambrose, was
very impressed, and studied Christianity; he was baptized in 386. Two years
later he permanently returned to Africa, where he had been born, and became
bishop of the Mediterranean city of Hippo.
Augustine wrote extensively on a wide range of topics; 113 books, over 200
letters, and over 500 sermons have survived. His De Trinitatae became
one of the standard works on the trinity in the Latin church. His
Confessions, which described his spiritual journey to Christianity and
his meditations on the meaning of the journey immediately became a classic on
the Christian spiritual life, and remains widely read today. But most
significant was his masterpiece De Civitate Dei, "On the City of God,"
which was written over a fourteen-year period to make sense of the sacking of
Rome by the Goths in 410 and of the collapse of the Roman Empire, which was a
profoundly disturbing phenomenon to the intellectuals of Augustine's
generation. Pagans argued that Rome had been sacked because the gods were
angered by the spread of Christianity. Augustine replied that there had always
been two cities, the city of God and the city of this world; Rome was part of
the latter. Drawing from his own vast knowledge of Roman philosophers, poets,
and essayists, he pointed out how checkered the history of the city of Rome had
always been. But the City of God was the true city; it was dominated by the
love of God; all good persons, Christian or not, were members of it; as
Christianity spread, it was growing in the world, regardless of the economic
and social state of the world around it. In this way Augustine set the
collapse of the western Roman Empire in the framework of eternity, and thus
successfully minimized its importance. His thinking became central to the
understanding of society in medieval Christian Europe. Because he wrote in
Latin, his thought had little influence on the Greek-speaking east, and thus
helped to widen the gap growing between the two halves of the church.
National and Cultural Divisions
Throughout its first four centuries, mainstream Christianity had
to wage a fierce battle against ethnic and cultural differences as well as
heresy. As the church grew in size and strength, cultural differences began to
produce regional variants of Christianity. Since the vast majority of
Christians lived in the Roman Empire, the church there was called the universal
(catholic, in Greek) church. But in semi-independent areas on the
border of the Roman Empire, such as Armenia, Iraq, eastern Syria, north Africa,
and southern Egypt, churches developed that had their own national hierarchies
and used their own native languages. These churches were never completely a
part of the catholic church. Thus Christian sects began to form along national
and cultural lines. In Egypt, a Coptic church emerged; in Armenia, an Armenian
church; in Mesopotamia, a Syriac church; in southern Tunisia and Algeria, a
Donatist church.
The eastern part of the Roman Empire spoke and wrote Greek, the western
part Latin. As has been noted, as Christian theology developed in both the
Latin and Greek languages, divergent understandings of the nature of
Christianity began to grow between the eastern and the western churches. When
military and administrative realities necessitated the splitting of the Roman
Empire into eastern and western halves, the two halves of the church were
psychologically divorced from each other as well. The growing power of the
Bishop of Rome over Latin Christianity--his rise to the status of Pope--and the
growing power of the Bishop of Constantinople over the churches in the eastern
half of the empire split the administration of the church. Consequently, the
Latin and Greek halves of the catholic church grew farther and farther apart.
In the 800s serious theological differences emerged between the "Catholics" and
the "Orthodox." Finally in 1054 Pope Justinian excommunicated the Eastern
Orthodox, and the bishop of Constantinople replied by excommunicating the
Catholics; thus the largest pat of the body of Christ was formally rent in
half. After the collapse of Rome a distinctive form of Catholic Christianity
emerged in the west, as the church accommodated itself to the social and
cultural conditions of the early middle ages.
Notes
[1] Gerd Theissen, The Social Setting of
Pauline Christianity: Essays on Corinth, ed. trans. John H. Schütz
(Philadephia: Fortress, 1982), 72.
[2] Rodney Stark, The Rise of
Christianity: A Sociologist Reconsiders History (Princeton: Princeton Univ.
Press, 1996), 7.
[3] Quoted in Hans Jonas, The Gnostic
Religion: The Message of the Alien God and the Beginnings of Christianity,
2d ed. (Boston: Beacon Press, 1963), 157.
[4] It is interesting to note that the word
mahfil, the Arabic-Persian word for "assembly" (as in
"spiritual assembly") originally had a similar range of meanings, and was
translated variously as "gathering," "meeting," and "assembly" in early
translations of the Bahá'í scriptures into English. The English
word "assembly" also possesses a wide range of meanings. In the early days of
the Bahá'í Faith in the Occident the word for a
Bahá'í community was "assembly," there being no standard term yet
for the community's governing body.
[5] Stark, The Rise of Christianity,
chapter 4.
[6] Stark, The Rise of Christianity,
160.
[7] Hans von Campenhausen, The Fathers of
the Greek Church, trans. Stanley Godman (New York: Pantheon, 1959),
26.
[8] To read the account of the martyrdoms of
Perpetua and Felicitas, see Herbert Musurillo, ed., trans., The Acts of the
Christian Martyrs (Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, Clarendon Press, 1972),
106-131.
[9] Quoted in Kenneth Scott Latourette, A
History of Christianity, Volume I: to A.D. 1500, rev. ed. (San Francisco:
Harper and Row, 1975). 171.
[10] Paul Tillich, A History of Christian
Thought from its Judaic and Hellenistic Origins to Existentialism, ed. Carl
E. Braaten (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1968), 100.
[+CHAPTER7]
Christianity in the Middle Ages
While Christianity was spreading in the Greco-Roman world, that world was
itself undergoing revolutionary changes. The reasons for the decline and
eventually collapse of the Roman Empire were numerous, and no single
explanation is adequate. Internally, the empire never solved the problem of a
stable, peaceful succession of competent leaders. Emperors usually appointed
their successors, but some proved incompetent, emotionally imbalanced, or evil.
From the beginning, the rule of force was established as superior to the rule
of law, allowing many generals to contest the succession, often successfully;
the result was a series of devastating civil wars and sometimes frequent
changes in leadership. The simple technology of the day placed limitations on
the empire's growth; for example, a peaceful society allowed for increased
trade and greater prosperity, which produced larger cities, but the unsanitary
conditions of the larger cities also stimulated disease, which the improved
transportation systems spread empire-wide. Thus the empire suffered from
several serious plagues in the first and second centuries.
Externally, the empire faced enemies close and far. Along the eastern
border the Persian Empire revived under the Sassanian dynasty in the mid third
century and became a serious threat; Romans and Persians fought many wars, and
as the frontier shifted back and forth Mesopotamia and Syria were devastated.
Along the northern border, the tribes of northern and central Europe came in
contact with Roman civilization, adopted aspects of it, and consequently became
increasingly civilized and powerful. Increasingly, emperors had to be good
generals, and had less time to devote to the development of the empire's cities
or the maintenance of its roads and bridges. Eventually the empire had to be
split into eastern and western halves so that there were two emperors to handle
the two major frontiers.
Throughout the second, third, and fourth centuries Roman military spending
rose, forcing taxes upward and weakening the empire's economy. When enough tax
revenue could not be raised the emperors ordered the gold and silver content of
the coins to be decreased, in order to mint more coins using the same amount of
precious metal; but this debased the currency and caused inflation, further
damaging the economy.
In Central Asia, the movement of peoples out of what is today Mongolia
triggered a domino effect, displacing tribe after tribe westward; by the third
and fourth centuries the frontiers no longer could hold them out, and Germanic
and Slavic tribes began to pour into the empire, either to settle peacefully or
to conquer and destroy sections of it. The eastern Empire, with its higher
population density and older civilization, survived fairly well; relatively few
of the major cities were destroyed. But after the 630s the Eastern Roman or
Byzantine Empire faced a new and much more powerful enemy: Islam, which quickly
conquered all of Iraq, Syria, Palestine, and North Africa. Islamic armies
steadily advanced on the Byzantines, finally capturing Constantinople itself in
1453.
The western empire collapsed under the pressure of the migratory tribes.
Rome was sacked in 410 and 455 and was besieged three times in the sixth
century; its population, nearly a million in the first and second centuries,
declined to less than fifty thousand by the end of the sixth century. By the
eleventh century it was only thirty thousand. In Britain urban life was
completely swept away by the tribes of Angles, Saxons, and Jutes who were
entering, conquering, and settling. Latin became extinct as a spoken language
in Britain, and the Celtic peoples were assimilated or driven into the hills of
Wales and Cornwall. Gaul was overrun by various tribes, among them the Franks,
for whom the country was renamed; urban life there collapsed as well. Spain
and Portugal were overrun by the Goths.
One result of the invasions was a steady shrinkage of Christendom. In the
north, Britain was completely lost, any gains in Germany were eliminated, and
even in France and Spain Christianity was imperiled. The invasion of the
Bulgars and southern Slavs swept away Christianiy in parts of the Balkans; then
the Magyars occupied Hungary, destroying Christianity there. But the worst
blow to Christendom was undoubtedly the spread of Islam, which ultimately
eliminated or drastically weakened Christianity in half of the former Roman
Empire (the eastern and southern half). It would be hundreds of years before
these losses were reversed, primarily through conversion of the Germanic and
Slavic peoples north of the former Roman Empire.
As the roads became unsafe for commerce the towns that survived had to be
concentrated along waterways. But with the rise of Islam the Byzantine navy
could no longer control pirates and maritime commerce ceased. In the north,
the Vikings began their raids about 900, snuffing out whatever peaceful trade
that had begun to develop along the North Sea and Atlantic Coast. Towns became
the targets of organized looting by both Saracens and Vikings, causing urban
life largely to cease. With it went the merchant and aristocratic classes, the
theatres and libraries, most knowledge of reading and writing, and most
familiarity with the accumulated wisdom of the ancient Mediterranean
civilizations. With the virtually cessation of trade, life became purely
local; all food had to be raised locally and thus land became the principal
source of wealth. Even coins largely disappeared from circulation and any
trade that did occur had to be conducted by barter.
The extent of the changes to Western European culture is measurable in
many of the words that entered the Latin language or changed their meanings.
Domus, Latin for house, disappeared from the Latin spoken in France,
Italy, and the Iberian peninsula; in all those areas except France it was
replaced by the word casa, which originally meant "cottage." The Latin
word for city, civitas, was swept away in France and replaced by the
word ville, from the Latin word villa; this suggests that most
cities were destroyed, and settled life mostly survived around the villas of
powerful noblemen. The Latin laborare, "to work," was replaced in
French, Portuguese, and Spanish by a word from which we get travail, "strenuous
exertion; toil; tribulation or agony; anguish." From Italy to the Atlantic,
the Latin word bellum, "war," was replaced by words of German origin.
Such changes bespeak of the decline of living standards and social
order.
In the rising tide of chaos one institution stood out as a source of hope:
the church. Not only did the church come to represent the City of God and the
hope for humanity's future, but it was blessed by many able leaders who were
able to use the church's size and prestige to preserve what civilization
remained. Bishops often were able to persuade barbarian chiefs not to sack
their cities; in Rome, the Popes largely ran the city, organizing the
collection and distribution of food and other essentials. Gregory the Great
(c. 540 - 604) was the most distinguished example of leadership. Son of a
Roman senator, in 590 he was force to abandon a monastic life of prayer when he
was unanimously elected Pope. He used the church's estates in southern Italy
and Sicily to grow food for Rome's poor. He appointed governors to run other
Italian cities. He negotiated a peace treaty with the Lombards, a German tribe
then occupying northern Italy. He sent missionaries to England to reestablish
Christianity there (the German invasion had destroyed it two centuries
earlier). He also help bring about the conversion of many barbarian tribes to
cathnolicism from Arianism, a rival form of Christianity. His efforts to
missionize pagan areas of western Europe strengthened the claim of the bishop
of Rome to primacy over the church in western Europe. This greatly fostered
the development of the papacy.
Monasteries also developed as the focal points of civilization.
Monasticism as a tendency in Christianity can be traced back to the first
century (Mt ). First Timothy (a letter attributed to Paul, though written in
the early second century) speak of an orders of widows, presumably the
forerunner of nuns. In the late third century, Antony of Egypt (251-356) began
to organize the Christian hermits living in the desert into a monastic
community. Possibly gnosticism influenced the strong monastic tendency that
developed in Egypt; indeed, the so called "gnostic gospels" found in southern
Egypt in the 1940s are thought to represent the gnostic library of a ruined
monastery nearby, which were probably buried as a result of an order that
monasteries destroy all heretical works.
Jerome was one of the earlier monks in the western Roman empire, having
been a hermit in the Syrian desert for five years. Augustine established a
monastery in North Africa. As Christianity went from a religion of a small
minority to the dominant form of religion in the Roman Empire the dedication of
the mass of its followers declined somewhat, and monasticism provided a new
outlet for zealous Christians to pursue a religious life different from their
contemporaries. Thus its influence steadily grew in the fourth and fifth
centuries.
The collapse of the western empire also made monastic life increasing
attractive. It provided some measure of safety, since few monasteries were
destroyed. Because monasteries were usually self-sufficient, they had a
reliable food supply, and the brothers or sisters took care of their own when
they were sick or old. Celibacy meant that family responsibilities would not
be a distraction. Learning was prized, so monks had the time to learn Latin
and sometimes even Greek, to read and study--not just the Bible, but the old
philosophical and literary classics--and to write. Under the circumstances of
the times, what Mediterranean and Christian civilization that survived was
mostly to be found in the monasteries. The monasteries also initiated
educational programs to teach Christianity to the masses, which had been
partially de-Christianized by the empire's collapse. The rural areas of the
western Empire had never been completely Christianized anyway; the monks
completed the job.
Ironically, one of the great powerhouses of monasticism was Ireland.
Because of its isolation Ireland never suffered barbarian invasions, until the
Vikings in the tenth century. Christianity arrived in Ireland about 600 under
Saint Patrick and quickly conquered the island. Irish Christianity was
initially monastic; monks went into virgin territory, established a new
monastery, and from it converted the population. Initially Ireland had no
dioceses and parishes, just monasteries; the local abbot, not the local bishop,
was powerful. Working with Rome, in the eigth and nineth centuries hundreds,
if not thousands, of Irish monks spread out over Gaul, Germany, even northern
Italy, founding monasteries. Usually thirteen monks traveled together to found
a new monastery, in imitation of Christ and his twelve disciples.
A significant figure in the development of monasticism in Europe was
Benedict of Nursia (c. 480-547), an Italian monk who acquired a reputation as a
holy man and who consequently attracted many disciples. Benedict organized
many monasteries, and the experience he acquired culminated in the rule of
Saint Benedict, a document that sets the basic principles of monastic life.
Such a life is dominated by unconditional obedience to God's will and to the
exercise of humility; it views the abbot as central in a monk's spiritual
development; and it advocates a daily life that balances worship, prayer,
reading of scripture, and useful work. Benedict's rule was a synthesis of
existing monastic practices with Benedict's own insights. Upon it a monastic
order--the Benedictines--was founded. It was the first organized monastic
order in the Catholic church.
It is easy for Bahá'ís, aware of the Bahá'í
prohibition of monasticism, to view the development of Christian monasticism
with suspicion, but it is not clear that such suspicion is justified in the
context of those times. Christ may not have created monasticism, but He did
not forbid it either. In many ways, the creation of a clergy and a monastic
lifestyle were positive developments in early Christianity. A clergy, with its
sacramental powers, adapted Christianity to the folk religion of Greco-Roman
culture; monasticism allowed the religion to develop and spread under the
adverse social conditions after the collapse of the western Roman Empire. Thus
monasteries and clergy were effective responses to the needs of the
day.
The monastic spirituality that developed in the fourth and fifth centuries
represented a refinement and extension of the spiritual life expected of a
Christian layperson. That lifestyle started with baptism, which washed away
one's original sin. Confession of sins before a priest engaged the church's
power to forgive sins and allowed one to reduce one's time in purgatory (the
church claimed no power over hell, however). Taking the sacraments were a
means of obtaining God's grace and assisting in one's salvation. Confessing
one's sins on one's death bed completed the cycle. However, if one wanted to
be a good Christian, one became a monk; there was no definition of spirituality
for the laity. A celibate, cloistered, ascetic, prayer-filled life was seen as
superior and more "Christian" than the life of a married layperson.
By the late middle ages (1200-1500 C.E.) the redevelopment of an urban
culture put this system of salvation under strain. The growing strength of the
monarchies resulted in safer highways and sea routes. The Crusades
re-established trade with the Middle East, brought new ideas to Europe, and
created the conditions for a new prosperity. Towns became cities. A class of
artisans (craftsmen) and merchants arose that had not existed for hundreds of
years; this new "middle" class existed between the peasants, on the bottom, and
the nobility, on the top. A money economy spread for the first time since the
fall of Rome. The new "middle" class wanted economic and political power, and
saw religion in a new way as well. They yearned for a less monastic
spirituality; as a result the late middle ages saw the establishment of many
lay religious orders that permitted marriage and worldly employment, and that
promoted a new style of popular mysticism. The artisans and merchants often
disliked the idea that salvation was available through the mechanical process
of attending mass and confessing sins, and sought a more direct link to
God.
In the fifteenth century several major events changed European culture
forever. The European conquest of the civilizations of Central and South
America flooded Europe with unprecedented quantities of gold and silver,
causing inflation but greatly expanding investment capital. Cities expanded
even more. Movable type and the development of a process for making cheap
paper revolutionized book production. From 1450 to 1500, six million books
were printed--far more than monks and scribes had copied by hand in the
previous thousand years. Individuals, especially those in the new "middle"
class, could now purchase books. The development of a book market stimulated
writing books in the vernacular languages; use of Latin began to decline. The
expansion of the supply of books and the decrease in their cost fostered
learning and expanded literacy. Newspapers and pamphlets were produced in
large numbers, the latter extensively illustrated as a result of another
invention: the woodcut.
The growing powers of monarchies and the spread of vernacular publishing
accelerated the creation of national cultures, weakening Europe's cultural and
religious unity. The kings asserted the right to appoint bishops in their
kingdoms, thereby claiming control over their national churches. Just as the
"universal" church of the old Roman Empire faced a split as the Latin west
developed a Christianity distinct from the Greek east, so now the Catholic
church faced national tensions. Northern Europe--speaking Germanic languages,
more recently Christianized, and more recently urbanized than the older Latin
lands--developed cultural expressions and political institutions of its own as
it developed economically and socially.
The fifteenth century saw Bible translated and printed in most of Europe's
major languages. For the first time in the history of Christianity it became
available to large numbers of readers. As a result many Christians discovered
that masses, confession, and other central features of their religion were not
mentioned in the Bible at all, and other features--like the trinity and
priesthood--were only implied at best. The stage was set for a major reform of
Christianity throughout Europe. It is no coincidence that the phrase sola
scriptura--"only scripture"--was to become the rallying cry of the
Protestant Reformation.
[+CHAPTER8]
The Reformations
Crucial to the Reformation of the sixteenth century was Europe's new
prosperity, the cultural developments that prosperity entailed, and the
availability of printed Bibles. Reading the Bible became a new religious
activity, and the truths Christians found there shaped a new Christian
spirituality that was independent of the church. The wide circulation of
printed pamphlets spread new understandings of Christian truths to the
peasantry and nobility as well. Emphasis on the importance of reading the
scripture eventually became a major force for the establishment of universal
literacy.
With the reading of the Bible came a new fascination for the writings of
the Apostle Paul. Paul's stress on the individual's direct relation to God,
and his rejection of all good works as completely irrelevant for salvation,
matched the interests of the merchants and artisans who wished to free
themselves of confessions, mass, and penances.
In 1517 Martin Luther (1483-1546), a Catholic priest and scholar, nailed
to the door of the castle church in Wittenberg, Germany, a list of ninety-five
theses, which disputed key Catholic teachings and practices. This act is
considered the opening shot in the Reformation. As a reform movement gathered
momentum, however, a spectrum of opinions emerged as to how the church should
be reformed.
Radical Ref. Zwingli Calvin Luther Catholic Reform
^---------------^---------^-------^--------------------^
Menno Simon Melanchthon Erasmus
On the "left" or extremist end of the spectrum were the Radical Reformers,
especially the Anabaptists. They rejected on biblical grounds all Christian
participation in war and in government, and argued that the Bible called for
the baptism of believing adults only, and not of infants. By rejecting infant
baptism--which was seen not only as washing the babies of original sin, but as
introducing them into society as new members--the Anabaptists were seen as
subversive of the social order. In Germany and Switzerland thousands of them
were martyred for their beliefs. From the Anabaptists come the modern
Mennonites and Amish.
On the "right" or conservative end of the spectrum were the reformers who
sought to reform the Catholic church without breaking from it. Erasmus
(1469?-1536), the great Catholic scholar, was one example. These reformers
sought to curb the worst abuses of the penance system (which had become a vast
system for raising money for the Vatican), to decentralize the church
structure, and to renew its spiritual life. Ignatius Loyola (c. 1491-1556) and
the new monastic order that he founded--the Jesuits--were the principal agents
for Catholic renewal and reinvigoration. This movement is often called the
"Counter-Reformation," but because it is not simply a reaction against
Protestantism, the term "Catholic Reformation" is now preferred by most
scholars.
In the middle of the spectrum were the "Magisterial Reformers," a band of
reformers who, with the help of princes and city councils, broke from the
Catholic church and created new Christian sects along the lines of their new
theology. Luther was only the most prominent of these men. Equally important
to the creation of Lutheranism was Philip Melanchthon, a colleague of Luther
and an excellent theologian. Lutheranism spread throughout Germany and
Scandinavia, in each case becoming a national church; thus a Swedish Lutheran
church organized that was separate from a German Lutheran church. Christian
sects thus formed along national lines. Because the culture of each country
was a bit different, the theology of the churches came to differ slightly also.
Other Protestant Reformers were Huldreich Zwingli in Zurich, Martin Bucer in
Strasbourg, and John Oecolampadius in Basel.
Calvinism
John Calvin (1509 - 64) was the man who gave the Protestant Reformation
its most complete expression. He lived most of his life in Geneva,
Switzerland, and his theology came to dominate completely that city. Calvin's
greatness lay in the magnificent book that he wrote and re-wrote most of his
life, Institutes of the Christian Religion, his summary of Christian
theology. Before his conversion, Calvin had been a lawyer and had learned how
to present an argument clearly and cogently. Institutes is one of the
great classics in Protestant theology; it was printed in Latin and French and
was widely read, even in Italy and Spain. The individuals who agreed with
Calvin did not have the power to take over their national churches and thus had
to form Calvinist sects. These sects based their beliefs on Calvin, but over
time their beliefs inevitably took on distinctive aspects not elaborated by
Calvin in his writings. The New England Puritans were radical
Calvinists.
The basic teachings of Calvinism were succinctly formulated in 1618 at the
Synod of Dort. A synod is a meeting of church ecclesiastics; Dort is a town in
the Netherlands. Calvin himself did not always hold all of these points--they
represent the extreme position--nor did many Calvinists, but the New England
Puritans initially did. This radical or "pure" Calvinism had five
points:
Total Depravity -- As a result of eating the forbidden fruit in the Garden
of Eden, humanity became totally corrupted. Not even the faculty of reason is
an adequate and reliable means for finding God; all our faculties are
corrupted.
Unconditioned Election -- God chooses, or "elects" those whom He will
save, and there is absolutely nothing you can do to become elect. You can do
good deeds every day of your life, and make a mighty effort not to sin; you
can, in short, live like a saint; but if God decides you will go to hell, you
will, and there is nothing you can do to change His mind.
Limited Atonement -- Christ died to save humanity from sin, but the power
of that act was not absolute; it does not guarantee that all can be saved.
Thus His atonement for sin was limited in its efficacy.
Irresistible grace -- If God has chosen to save you, you cannot resist His
power. His grace will transform you even against your will.
Perseverance of the Saints -- Once God has saved you, you cannot
backslide; you are saved eternally.
These five might be thought of as the "basic principles" of Calvinism.
They may be abbreviated "TULIP," from the first letter of the first word of
each principle. The stress here is completely on the absolute sovereignty of
God and on His grace. The power of the individual to work on his or her
salvation and the importance of good works is totally denied. The assumption
is that good works will follow from the grace, and that a saint will do good
works because he is saved; thus good works may be evidence you have been
elected, but cannot bring about your election in the first place.
The English Reformation
Both Calvinism and Lutheranism were brought to England, and both had an
effect on thinking there. The Reformation began in 1529 when Pope Clement VII
refused to grant King Henry VIII (reigned 1509-47) a divorce; his wife had
failed to bear him a son, he blamed the failure on her, and argued that for the
good of his country he had to father a male heir. Henry also asserted that as
King of England he should have control over the Church in England, an idea that
in the twentieth century seems strange, but which had considerable precedent in
the Middle Ages. Henry took over the church from the Pope by an act of
Parliament and was excommunicated as a result. But he made only a few changes
in the church, at first. He appointed new bishops loyal to himself and closed
the monasteries, confiscating all their land for the crown. He opposed
Protestant reforms and actually wrote a law forbidding women, peasants, and
others from reading the Bible. Only toward the end of his life did he allow
changes to be made in the Church of England's theology.
When Henry died in 1547 his son, Edward VI, was only ten years old,
consequently the kingdom was placed in the hands of a regent. He was a
Protestant; Lutheran and Calvinist ideas poured in. But when Edward VI died in
1553 he was succeeded by his stepsister, Mary, who was Catholic. She converted
the Church of England back to Catholicism and persecuted the Protestants. She
died in 1558 and was succeeded by Elizabeth I, who re-established
Protestantism.
The English Reformation had no central figure, like Luther, but did have a
spectrum of opinions with a radical left, a conservative right, and middle,
like the Reformation on the Continent:
Ranters Quakers Puritans Moderate Angl. AngloCath.
^-----------^-------------^---------------^----------------^
The more radical Protestants became disillusioned that the Church of
England could ever be correctly and completely reformed, and separated
themselves from it. On the far "left" or radical end of the spectrum were
those who went beyond the scriptures to claim direct revelation or inspiration
from God. Most of these sects either died out or were exterminated; the
Quakers, with their stress on the "light within," were among the more moderate
of the radicals. On the other hand, the Church of England retained a lot of
conservatives who sought reunification with Rome; to this day the Church of
England (or Anglican church, as it is also called) contains an "Anglo-Catholic"
party.
Closer to the middle of the reformation spectrum were the Calvinists, who
fell into several camps depending on the way they organized their churches.
Many read the letters of the Apostle Paul closely and advocated a
"presbyterian" governmental system for the church: individual churches would
have a minister and a council of elders; local churches would be grouped into
"presbyteries," which would oversee ordination and discipline of ministers;
presbyteries would be grouped together into "synods"; and synods would be
members of the general assembly, the single supreme legislative body of a
presbyterian church. In Scotland the Calvinists won control of the national
church and reformed it along these lines; to this day most Scots are members of
the Church of Scotland, which is a presbyterian church. When Scots came to the
United States they became the main founders of the Presbyterian church
here.
Other Calvinists advocated a purely local organization of churches, where
each local church was independent and the local congregation owned the church
building, chose the minister, paid him, and fired him if they didn't like him.
These Calvinists were called "Separatists" and were persecuted because they
were seen as subversive of the church; they fled England for the Netherlands,
and in 1620 some of them sailed to Plymouth, Massachusetts, becoming what we
call the pilgrims. Other Calvinists remained within the Church of England and
sought to reform it from within. Some of them eventually withdrew from the
Church of England, to form Congregational, Presbyterian, and Baptist churches;
others remained within it to this day, and represent a Calvinist tendency
within the Anglicanism.
The entire range of English Protestant sects eventually came to British
North America. The lack of established political and ecclesiastical structures
in North America made control of the various sectarian tendencies almost
impossible. Many took advantage of the opportunities that a frontier offered
to create their own sectarian villages and towns, where religious principles
dominated social life and culture. As a result the tendencies unloosened by
the Reformation took unexpected turns, and produced many unexpected
developments.
Many scholars believe that Protestantism, by reshaping the culture and
society of northern Europe, made possible both capitalism and modern
individualism. Many scholars believe that Protestantism, by reshaping the
culture and society of northern Europe, made possible both capitalism and
modern individualism.
[+CHAPTER9]
Christianity in America
In 1630 King Charles I favored the middle path to reforming the
English church and began to persecute the Calvinists within it severely. As a
result, several tens of thousands of them fled to New England from 1630 to
1640, founding Boston and its surrounding towns, and eventually the colonies of
Massachusetts, Connecticut, and New Hampshire. In order to assure themselves a
reliable supply of ministers, one of the first things the Puritans did was to
establish Harvard College (1636).
Because there was no national church on this continent Puritan
Calvinism soon became the dominant form of Christianity in British North
America. This is in sharp contrast to Europe, where the Calvinists usually
were in the minority. In New England almost everyone was initially a member of
a Puritan church; the churches constituted a kind of "national church"
especially in Massachusetts; and in the early 1600s one could not vote in local
and state elections unless one was a "saint," that is, had undergone a
conversion experience and had been admitted into a Puritan church.
The Church of England also came to America, but before the
Revolutionary War its power was nonexistent in New England and it was weak in
the Middle Colonies. In Virginia and south, where colonization initially was
sponsored by London-based investment companies, the Church of England was the
only recognized church; but priests didn't want to leave warm and comfortable
England to settle in the swamps and Indian-infested woods of Virginia. As a
result, there was about one priest for every four or five churches in the
American south, and the priests were often of low quality. The Church of
England is an episcopal church, that is, power resides in bishops. The bishops
appoint and direct the priests, and traditionally the lay people had very
little to do with the running of a local church. But in the South there was no
bishop at all and few priests, so the laymen ran the churches and often
administered communion or performed baptisms, which was against church law.
Because of the shortage of priests, even in the south the congregational form
of church organization became the dominant one.
In the Middle Colonies, many different groups settled and the area
acquired enormous religious diversity. William Penn, who founded Pennsylvania,
was a Quaker, and he settled many Quakers there. Because there weren't enough
Quakers willing to move to the New World, Penn invited many persecuted German
sects to settle in Pennsylvania, such as the "Pennsylvania Dutch" (Mennonites
and Amish). Often the sects were part of Germany's radical Reformation, just
as the Quakers were part of England's; thus the groups often felt an affinity
with the Quakers. Other Germans came over to settle near their countrymen;
they established the Lutheran church in America and the German Reformed
(Calvinist) church.
New York was first settled by the Dutch, who brought the Calvinist
Dutch Reformed church (the national Dutch church) to America. Later when the
English conquered New Amsterdam they introduced the Episcopal church. New
England Puritans migrated south to Long Island, New York, and northern New
Jersey and brought the Congregational church; many of them later joined the
Scots, who had especially settled in New Jersey, to establish the Presbyterian
church. Delaware was first settled by Swedes who established Lutheran
churches. Maryland was established as a colony for Roman Catholics.
No sooner were the various Protestant groups established in America
than they began to change, and often to split. The American environment, and
Protestantism's basic beliefs, caused the changes. Protestantism's two central
emphases--stress on the individual's relationship with God, and on the Bible as
the only ultimate source of guidance to the individual--also proved to be the
movement's great weaknesses. When one makes the Bible and the individual's
consciousness the standards of personal growth, the conscience can insist on
unusual interpretations of the Bible. In Europe the Calvinist sects were small
and often subject to persecution by the state and the state church; but in
America, generally, there was freedom of religion, and thus there was no
external force to control unusual interpretations. In Massachusetts the
Puritans did hang several women for being Quaker missionaries in 1659 and 1661,
but they were isolated cases. As a result of religious freedom, religious
imaginations ran wild, new interpretations of the Bible were set forth, and new
sects began to appear in America.
American culture was different from the culture of late medieval
Europe in several crucial respects. In America a white man could always
acquire land simply by packing up his wagon and riding to the frontier. In
Europe few owned land, and land ownership was the criterion for voting; in
America virtually all white men owned land and thus could vote. In New England
virtually all white men could read and write also, which was practically
unprecedented in human history. The country had no hereditary aristocracy and
very little poverty. In America there were no real wars, no starvation, and
because the population was scattered, no plagues. A typical New England farmer
and his wife would have eight to twelve children, and three quarters survived
to adulthood. Thus America experienced a population explosion literally
unprecedented in human history.
One result was a culture that was extremely optimistic about the
ability of individuals. The average person was seen to have "common sense"--an
idea that in Europe did not immediately become a commonly accepted assumption,
because of the hierarchical nature of society. Because the average American
could read the Bible himself, and had "common sense," he was capable of making
up his own mind about the truths in religion; this further encouraged the
tendency toward sectarianism and individualism. The doctrines of TULIP, which
stress the complete powerlessness of the individual to change his own
situation, came to be seen as unnecessarily pessimistic and harsh. Gradually
the Protestant churches moved away from it.
New England Puritans, because of their congregational organization, had
very few mechanisms above the local church level that could control the
theology of the ministers, and consequently they underwent the most theological
diversification and drift. One of the biggest issues that arose among the
Congregational churches concerned whether infants should be baptized, or only
confessing adults; the churches baptized infants, but Jesus never did. Those
who insisted that baptism was a sacrament reserved only for the born again
gradually withdrew to form baptist churches.
Anglicans had never been Calvinist in the first place, and still had many
Catholic tendencies, hence they moved in a liberal direction as well.
Presbyterians had a hierarchy of ministers and elders who controlled ordination
and could discipline errant clergymen, so they resisted the efforts to modify
Calvinism very successfully.
The Nineteenth Century
Much of the religious innovation occurred on the frontier. This was
partly because churches had not yet been established there, so new ideas faced
less resistance. Furthermore, most frontiersmen had come from small settled
towns where everyone had known everyone else; in contrast, the frontier was a
place where complete strangers were thrown together. Because they experienced
considerable personal upheaval on the frontier, people had to think in new
ways, and yearned to establish homes and churches where the familiarity of
settled life back east could be duplicated.
As a result, many sects arose on the frontier or came there and
flourished. The Universalists said that no one was damned eternally to hell,
but everyone eventually would be saved (their name comes from their doctrine of
"universal" salvation). Free Will Baptists championed free will over total
depravity. Both of these sects first became strong in northern New England
right after the Revolution, when that area was undergoing rapid settlement.
Both opposed the doctrines of TULIP with more optimistic views of human nature.
Baptists grew along the New England frontier and spread south. The Methodists,
originally a movement within the Church of England that stressed free will and
the perfectibility of human beings, took over many of the Anglican churches in
the south, for they permitted laymen to perform many of the duties of priests.
After the Revolution the Church of England that was left in this country could
no longer call itself English, so it changed its name to the Protestant
Episcopal church, or simply the Episcopal church. ("Protestant" is an
important part of its name because the Methodists also have bishops and are
often called the "Methodist Episcopal" church.)
In spite of their differences, however, most of these groups saw revivals
as an important tool for making converts. The first large-scale revivals
occurred in the 1730s; a second awakening followed the Revolution. The need to
convert the frontier population to Christ and organize it into local churches
often caused Baptists, Presbyterians, Congregationalists, and Methodists to
band together to plan revivals. These four denominations, and a few smaller
regional churches (like the Disciples of Christ) came to be called the
"evangelical" or "mainline Protestant" churches because of their theological
affinities.
However, revivals often created as much disunity as unity, and
furthered the tendency toward religious individualism. In western New York
state in the first three decades of the 1800s, sect creation became unusually
common. Most of the people settling there had been born into Puritan families
in New England and were reacting against its strictness. So many evangelists
toured the area, holding "camp meetings" in order to save souls, that the area
came to be called the "Burnt Over District." Joseph Smith started Mormonism
there, partly in reaction against all the conflicting revivals and theological
claims. William Miller lived just outside the area there and preached there;
he proclaimed that Christ would return in 1844, and started a movement that
would eventually produce the Seventh Day Adventists and Jehovah's Witnesses.
The Oneida colony experimented with eugenics and a religious-based socialism.
The Fox sisters heard the rappings of spirits in their house in western New
York state and started Spiritualism, with its seances, communication with the
dead, and ouija (pronounced "wee-jee") boards. Ann Lee, the founder of
Shakerism, settled there, and the movement (which advocated communal living and
celibacy) flourished.
In the cities, especially in New England, new ideas from Europe also
brought new sects into existence. In Boston, European philosophy caused many
to reject total depravity, the trinity, and other traditional Calvinist
doctrines, and become Unitarians (the name refers to their rejection of the
trinity and their belief in the unity of God). Later, Unitarianism spawned
Transcendentalism, which rejected all Christian dogmas in favor of an
individual mystical relation with nature and with God. Unitarianism, by the
end of the nineteenth century, came to include a large number of persons who
did not consider themselves Christians--only theists--and a few who, rejecting
belief in God, considered themselves humanists.
In the late nineteenth century Boston also became the center of Christian
Science, which stresses healing. Toward the end of the nineteenth century
millions of rural Americans began to move to the cities to get manufacturing
jobs. Among them were many Methodists, who were shocked by how lax Methodism
had become in the cities. To protect their children against the sins of liquor
and dancing these people formed the Church of the Nazarene.
Confrontation with New Ideas
After the Civil War, new issues arose which were unlike any that
Christianity had ever faced before, and which eventually proved fatal to the
unity of mainline Protestantism. The first was Darwinism. The Origin of
the Species was published in 1859, but not until after the Civil War did it
become widely read and debated. The initial reaction, actually, was quite
favorable, and by the turn of the century most Protestants had accepted
evolution. It was only after World War One, when conservative Protestantism
became increasingly vocal, that it became an issue.
The second issue was comparative religion. Western Europeans and
Americans, before the nineteenth century, had virtually no contact with
non-Christians, except occasional Turks (in Europe) and Indians (in America).
With the creation of factories, steam ships, railroads, and the telegraph,
imperialistic empires were established that brought westerners in contact with
nonwesterners on a large scale. Western missionaries went out to enlighten the
poor, ignorant, immoral heathen, and discovered that the nonwesterners were
considerably more intelligent, sophisticated, and capable than they had
imagined. The naive view that everyone would convert to Christianity as soon
as the non-Christians were exposed to true religion very quickly evaporated.
By the 1890s swamis were touring the United States, preaching Hinduism, and
Buddhist teachers were lecturing as well. This is the time the
Bahá'í Faith arrived in America as well. American Christians had
to reevaluate their view of other religions, and in the process had to face the
question of the uniqueness of Christianity.
The third issue was biblical criticism. Careful, rigorous examination of
the Bible in its original languages took a new turn in the early nineteenth
century. Scholars became increasingly certain that none of the gospels were
accounts by eyewitness, that Isaiah did not write all of the Book of Isaiah,
and that Moses did not author the Pentateuch. These and other similar
conclusions undermined the assumption that the Bible was a revelation from God.
Before the Civil War, no one worried about whether the Bible was inerrant or
literal; its reliability was assumed, and adjectives were rarely used to define
its reliability. But after the Civil War debate about the nature of the Bible
became increasingly sharp. Since the Bible was the basis of Protestantism, the
debate cut to the very core of the movement.
Mainstream Protestantism began to bifurcate into liberals and
conservatives, starting in the 1880s and 1890s. The debate became more sharp
after 1900, and became a schism after World War One. At that time the
conservatives--who were dubbed Fundamentalists by their opponents, and who
accepted the name--became vocal in their opposition to biblical criticism and
Darwinism, and moved to take over the Protestant denominations from the
liberals, who had controlled them. The Scopes trial, where a high school
biology teacher was put on trial for teaching evolution, made conservative
Protestantism the laughing stock of the nation, even though the conservatives
won the case. At the same time fundamentalism completely failed to conquer the
denominations. As a result, fundamentalism as a movement dropped out of the
limelight after 1925.
However, it did not disappear. The mainline denominations continue to
have liberal and conservative factions to this day. The southern Baptists
became dominated by fundamentalism and are now threatened with schism over its
role in church policy. Conservative Protestant colleges grew rapidly during
the depression and conservatives soon dominated the new fields of radio and
television evangelism. After World War Two a more moderate evangelical
Protestantism became respectable--Billy Graham was its primary spokesman.
Starting about 1970 a new, more vocal evangelicalism emerged; the Moral
Majority and Jerry Falwell is one manifestation of this movement.
Conclusion
Sect formation has occurred rampantly in Protestantism because of its
concept of authority: authority is invested in the individual's interpretation
of the Bible. The Protestants have tried hard to curb variant interpretations
with catechisms and creeds, but ultimately they recognize no external authority
that can control the individual's interpretation beside the judgment of God.
As a result, Protestant sects have formed over every conceivable question.
Some are separated over the right form of church government (whether it should
be congregational, presbyterian, or episcopal); some are separated over the
nature of the Christian sacraments (such as the importance of baptism); others
divide over theology (such as universal salvation and free will). Some go
beyond the Bible entirely: the stress in Protestantism on individualism leaves
open the possibility of a personal revelation; thus the Mormons and Christian
Scientists claim a new holy book, revealed through a new prophet. Other
churches have split over seemingly irrelevant matters; the "Christian church"
in the Midwest split into two sects in 1906 over the question of whether local
churches could have organs.
The United States was only the first example of a country with rampant
and continuous Christian sect formation. In the twentieth century many
Christian sects have formed in Africa as African Christians, reading the Bible
themselves, have rejected the European assumptions of their missionary teachers
and have interpreted the Bible in a way consistent with African culture and
experience.
Study of the process of sect formation helps Bahá'ís
appreciate the power of the Covenant in maintaining unity in belief and
practice, as well as the sense felt by all Bahá'ís of being
members of one giant world-wide family. It demonstrates clearly the difference
between Christian heresy and Bahá'í Covenant Breaking. Finally,
it gives us a vision of what the Bahá'í Faith would be like, if
it did not have the Covenant to hold the believers together; in the thousand
sects of Christianity we have a glimmer of those "thousand sects" that
'Abdu'l-Bahá says would form in a day.
|
|
