APPENDIX: THE CHRISTIANITY OF THE JEWISH CHRISTIANS
1. Original Christianity was in appearance Christian Judaism, the
creation of a universal religion on Old Testament soil. It retained
therefore, so far as it was not hellenised, which never altogether took
place, its original Jewish features. The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob
was regarded as the Father of Jesus Christ, the Old Testament was the
authoritative source of revelation, and the hopes of the future were
based on the Jewish ones. The heritage which Christianity took over from
Judaism, shews itself on Gentile Christian soil, in fainter or
distincter form, in proportion as the philosophic mode of thought
already prevails, or recedes into the background.[403] To describe the
appearance of the Jewish, Old Testament, heritage in the Christian
faith, so far as it is a religious one, by the name Jewish Christianity,
beginning at a certain point quite arbitrarily chosen, and changeable at
will, must therefore necessarily lead to error, and it has done so to a
very great extent. For this designation makes it appear as though the
Jewish element in the Christian religion were something accidental,
while it is rather the case that all Christianity, in so far as
something alien is not foisted into it, appears as the religion of
Israel perfected and spiritualised. We are therefore not justified in
speaking of Jewish Christianity, where a Christian community, even one
of Gentile birth, calls itself the true Israel, the people of the twelve
tribes, the posterity of Abraham; for this transfer is based on the
original claim of Christianity and can only be forbidden by a view that
is alien to it. Just as little may we designate Jewish Christian the
mighty and realistic hopes of the future which were gradually repressed
in the second and third centuries. They may be described as Jewish, or
as Christian; but the designation Jewish Christian must be rejected; for
it gives a wrong impression as to the historic right of these hopes in
Christianity. The eschatological ideas of Papias were not Jewish
Christian, but Christian; while, on the other hand, the eschatological
speculations of Origen were not Gentile Christian, but essentially
Greek. Those Christians who saw in Jesus the man chosen by God and
endowed with the Spirit, thought about the Redeemer not in a Jewish
Christian, but in a Christian manner. Those of Asia Minor who held
strictly to the 14th of Nisan as the term of the Easter festival, were
not influenced by Jewish Christian, but by Christian or Old Testament,
considerations. The author of the "Teaching of the Apostles," who has
transferred the rights of the Old Testament priests with respect to the
first fruits, to the Christian prophets, shews himself by such
transference not as a Jewish Christian, but as a Christian. There is no
boundary here; for Christianity took possession of the whole of Judaism
as religion, and it is therefore a most arbitrary view of history which
looks upon the Christian appropriation of the Old Testament religion,
after any point, as no longer Christian, but only Jewish Christian.
Wherever the universalism of Christianity is not violated in favour of
the Jewish nation, we have to recognise every appropriation of the Old
Testament as Christian. Hence this proceeding could be spontaneously
undertaken in Christianity, as was in fact done.
2. But the Jewish religion is a national religion, and Christianity
burst the bonds of nationality, though not for all who recognised Jesus
as Messiah. This gives the point at which the introduction of the term
"Jewish Christianity" is appropriate.[404] It should be applied
exclusively to those Christians who really maintained in their whole
extent, or in some measure, even if it were to a minimum degree, the
national and political forms of Judaism and the observance of the Mosaic
law in its literal sense, as essential to Christianity, at least to the
Christianity of born Jews, or who, though rejecting these forms,
nevertheless assumed a prerogative of the Jewish people even in
Christianity (Clem., Homil. XI. 26: [Greek: ean ho allophulos ton nomon
praxêi, Ioudaios estin, mê praxas de Hellên]; "If the foreigner observe
the law he is a Jew, but if not he is a Greek.")[405] To this Jewish
Christianity is opposed, not Gentile Christianity, but the Christian
religion, in so far as it is conceived as universalistic and
anti-national in the strict sense of the term (Presupp. § 3), that is,
the main body of Christendom in so far as it has freed itself from
Judaism as a nation.[406]
It is not strange that this Jewish Christianity was subject to all the
conditions which arose from the internal and external position of the
Judaism of the time; that is, different tendencies were necessarily
developed in it, according to the measure of the tendencies (or the
disintegrations) which asserted themselves in the Judaism of that time.
It lies also in the nature of the case that, with one exception, that of
Pharisaic Jewish Christianity, all other tendencies were accurately
parallelled in the systems which appeared in the great, that is,
anti-Jewish Christendom. They were distinguished from these, simply by a
social and political, that is, a national element. Moreover, they were
exposed to the same influences from without as the synagogue, and as the
larger Christendom, till the isolation to which Judaism as a nation,
after severe reverses condemned itself, became fatal to them also.
Consequently, there were besides Pharisaic Jewish Christians, ascetics
of all kinds who were joined by all those over whom Oriental religious
wisdom and Greek philosophy had won a commanding influence (see above,
p. 242 f.)
In the first century these Jewish Christians formed the majority in
Palestine, and perhaps also in some neighbouring provinces. But they
were also found here and there in the West.
Now the great question is, whether this Jewish Christianity as a whole,
or in certain of its tendencies, was a factor in the development of
Christianity to Catholicism. This question is to be answered in the
negative, and quite as much with regard to the history of dogma as with
regard to the political history of the Church. From the stand-point of
the universal history of Christianity, these Jewish Christian
communities appear as rudimentary structures which now and again, as
objects of curiosity, engaged the attention of the main body of
Christendom in the East, but could not exert any important influence on
it, just because they contained a national element.
The Jewish Christians took no considerable part in the Gnostic
controversy, the epoch-making conflict which was raised within the pale
of the larger Christendom about the decisive question, whether, and to
what extent, the Old Testament should remain a basis of Christianity,
although they themselves were no less occupied with the question.[407]
The issue of this conflict in favour of that party which recognised the
Old Testament in its full extent as a revelation of the Christian God,
and asserted the closest connection between Christianity and the Old
Testament religion, was so little the result of any influence of Jewish
Christianity, that the existence of the latter would only have rendered
that victory more difficult, unless it had already fallen into the
background, as a phenomenon of no importance.[408] How completely
insignificant it was is shewn not only by the limited polemics of the
Church Fathers, but perhaps still more by their silence, and the new
import which the reproach of Judaising obtained in Christendom after the
middle of the second century. In proportion as the Old Testament, in
opposition to Gnosticism, became a more conscious and accredited
possession in the Church, and at the same time, in consequence of the
naturalising of Christianity in the world, the need of regulations,
fixed rules, statutory enactments etc., appeared as indispensable, it
must have been natural to use the Old Testament as a holy code of such
enactments. This procedure was no falling away from the original
anti-Judaic attitude, provided nothing national was taken from the book,
and some kind of spiritual interpretation given to what had been
borrowed. The "apostasy" rather lay simply in the changed needs. But one
now sees how those parties in the Church, to which for any reason this
progressive legislation was distasteful, raised the reproach of
"Judaising,"[409] and further, how conversely the same reproach was
hurled at those Christians who resisted the advancing hellenising of
Christianity, with regard, for example, to the doctrine of God,
eschatology, Christology, etc.[410] But while this reproach is raised,
there is nowhere shewn any connection between those described as
Judaising Christians and the Ebionites. That they were identified
off-hand is only a proof that "Ebionitism" was no longer known. That
"Judaising" within Catholicism which appears, on the one hand, in the
setting up of a Catholic ceremonial law (worship, constitution, etc.),
and on the other, in a tenacious clinging to less hellenised forms of
faith and hopes of faith, has nothing in common with Jewish
Christianity, which desired somehow to confine Christianity to the
Jewish nation.[411] Speculations that take no account of history may
make out that Catholicism became more and more Jewish Christian. But
historical observation, which reckons only with concrete quantities, can
discover in Catholicism, besides Christianity, no element which it would
have to describe as Jewish Christian. It observes only a progressive
hellenising, and in consequence of this, a progressive spiritual
legislation which utilizes the Old Testament, a process which went on
for centuries according to the same methods which had been employed in
the larger Christendom from the beginning.[412] Baur's brilliant attempt
to explain Catholicism as a product of the mutual conflict and
neutralising of Jewish and Gentile Christianity, (the latter according
to Baur being equivalent to Paulinism) reckons with two factors, of
which, the one had no significance at all, and the other only an
indirect effect, as regards the formation of the Catholic Church. The
influence of Paul in this direction is exhausted in working out the
universalism of the Christian religion, for a Greater than he had laid
the foundation for this movement, and Paul did not realise it by himself
alone. Placed on this height Catholicism was certainly developed by
means of conflicts and compromises, not, however, by conflicts with
Ebionitism, which was to all intents and purposes discarded as early as
the first century, but as the result of the conflict of Christianity
with the united powers of the world in which it existed, on behalf of
its own peculiar nature as the universal religion based on the Old
Testament. Here were fought triumphant battles, but here also
compromises were made which characterise the essence of Catholicism as
Church and as doctrine.[413]
A history of Jewish Christianity and its doctrines does not therefore,
strictly speaking, belong to the history of dogma, especially as the
original distinction between Jewish Christianity and the main body of
the Church lay, as regards its principle, not in doctrine, but in
policy. But seeing that the opinions of the teachers in this Church
regarding Jewish Christianity, throw light upon their own stand-point,
also that up till about the middle of the second century Jewish
Christians were still numerous and undoubtedly formed the great majority
of believers in Palestine,[414] and finally, that attempts--unsuccessful
ones indeed--on the part of Jewish Christianity to bring Gentile
Christians under its sway, did not cease till about the middle of the
third century, a short sketch may be appropriate here.[415]
Justin vouches for the existence of Jewish Christians, and distinguishes
between those who would force the law even on Gentile-Christians, and
would have no fellowship with such as did not observe it, and those who
considered that the law was binding only on people of Jewish birth, and
did not shrink from fellowship with Gentile Christians who were living
without the law. How the latter could observe the law and yet enter into
intercourse with those who were not Jews, is involved in obscurity, but
these he recognises as partakers of the Christian salvation and
therefore as Christian brethren, though he declares that there are
Christians who do not possess this large heartedness. He also speaks of
Gentile Christians who allowed themselves to be persuaded by Jewish
Christians into the observance of the Mosaic law, and confesses that he
is not quite sure of the salvation of these. This is all we learn from
Justin,[416] but it is instructive enough. In the first place, we can
see that the question is no longer a burning one: "Justin here
represents only the interests of a Gentile Christianity whose stability
has been secured." This has all the more meaning that in the Dialogue
Justin has not in view an individual Christian community, or the
communities of a province, but speaks as one who surveys the whole
situation of Christendom.[417] The very fact that Justin has devoted to
the whole question only one chapter of a work containing 142, and the
magnanimous way in which he speaks, shew that the phenomena in question
have no longer any importance for the main body of Christendom.
Secondly, it is worthy of notice that Justin distinguishes two
tendencies in Jewish Christianity. We observe these two tendencies in
the Apostolic age (Presupp. § 3); they had therefore maintained
themselves to his time. Finally, we must not overlook the circumstance
that he adduces only the [Greek: ennomos politeia], "legal polity," as
characteristic of this Jewish Christianity. He speaks only incidentally
of a difference in doctrine, nay, he manifestly presupposes that the
[Greek: didagmata Christou], "teachings of Christ," are essentially
found among them just as among the Gentile Christians; for he regards
the more liberal among them as friends and brethren.[418]
The fact that, even then, there were Jewish Christians here and there
who sought to spread the [Greek: ennomos politeia] among Gentile
Christians, has been attested by Justin and also by other contemporary
writers.[419] But there is no evidence of this propaganda having
acquired any great importance. Celsus also knows Christians who desire
to live as Jews according to the Mosaic law (V. 61), but he mentions
them only once, and otherwise takes no notice of them in his delineation
of, and attack on, Christianity. We may perhaps infer that he knew of
them only from hearsay, for he simply enumerates them along with the
numerous Gnostic sects. Had this keen observer really known them he
would hardly have passed them over, even though he had met with only a
small number of them.[420] Irenæus placed the Ebionites among the
heretical schools,[421] but we can see from his work that in his day
they must have been all but forgotten in the West.[422] This was not yet
the case in the East. Origen knows of them. He knows also of some who
recognise the birth from the Virgin. He is sufficiently intelligent and
acquainted with history to judge that the Ebionites are no school, but
as believing Jews are the descendants of the earliest Christians, in
fact he seems to suppose that all converted Jews have at all times
observed the law of their fathers. But he is far from judging of them
favourably. He regards them as little better than the Jews ([Greek:
Ioudaioi kai hoi oligô diapherontes autôn Ebiônaioi], "Jews and
Ebionites who differ little from them"). Their rejection of Paul
destroys the value of their recognition of Jesus as Messiah. They appear
only to have assumed Christ's name, and their literal exposition of the
Scripture is meagre and full of error. It is possible that such Jewish
Christians may have existed in Alexandria, but it is not certain. Origen
knows nothing of an inner development in this Jewish Christianity.[423]
Even in Palestine, Origen seems to have occupied himself personally with
these Jewish Christians, just as little as Eusebius.[424] They lived
apart by themselves and were not aggressive. Jerome is the last who
gives us a clear and certain account of them.[425] He, who associated
with them, assures us that their attitude was the same as in the second
century, only they seem to have made progress in the recognition of the
birth from the Virgin and in their more friendly position towards the
Church.[426] Jerome at one time calls them Ebionites and at another
Nazarenes, thereby proving that these names were used synonymously.[427]
There is not the least ground for distinguishing two clearly marked
groups of Jewish Christians, or even for reckoning the distinction of
Origen and the Church Fathers to the account of Jewish Christians
themselves, so as to describe as Nazarenes those who recognised the
birth from the Virgin, and who had no wish to compel the Gentile
Christians to observe the law, and the others as Ebionites. Apart from
syncretistic or Gnostic Jewish Christianity, there is but one group of
Jewish Christians holding various shades of opinion, and these from the
beginning called themselves Nazarenes as well as Ebionites. From the
beginning, likewise, one portion of them was influenced by the existence
of a great Gentile Church which did not observe the law. They
acknowledged the work of Paul and experienced in a slight degree
influences emanating from the great Church.[428] But the gulf which
separated them from that Church did not thereby become narrower. That
gulf was caused by the social and political separation of these Jewish
Christians, whatever mental attitude, hostile or friendly, they might
take up to the great Church. This Church stalked over hem with iron
feet, as over a structure which in her opinion was full of
contradictions throughout ("Semi-christiani"), and was disconcerted
neither by the gospel of these Jewish Christians nor by anything else
about them.[429] But as the Synagogue also vigorously condemned them,
their position up to their extinction was a most tragic one. These
Jewish Christians, more than any other Christian party, bore the
reproach of Christ.
The Gospel, at the time when it was proclaimed among the Jews, was not
only law, but theology, and indeed syncretistic theology. On the other
hand, the temple service and the sacrificial system had begun to lose
their hold in certain influential circles.[430] We have pointed out
above (Presupp. §§. 1. 2. 5) how great were the diversities of Jewish
sects, and that there was in the Diaspora, as well as in Palestine
itself, a Judaism which, on the one hand, followed ascetic impulses, and
on the other, advanced to a criticism of the religious tradition without
giving up the national claims. It may even be said that in theology the
boundaries between the orthodox Judaism of the Pharisees and a
syncretistic Judaism were of an elastic kind. Although religion, in
those circles, seemed to be fixed in its legal aspect, yet on its
theological side it was ready to admit very diverse speculations, in
which angelic powers especially played a great rôle.[431] That
introduced into Jewish monotheism an element of differentiation, the
results of which were far-reaching. The field was prepared for the
formation of syncretistic sects. They present themselves to us on the
soil of the earliest Christianity, in the speculations of those Jewish
Christian teachers who are opposed in the Epistle to the Colossians, and
in the Gnosis of Cerinthus (see above, p. 246). Here cosmological ideas
and myths were turned to profit. The idea of God was sublimated by both.
In consequence of this, the Old Testament records were subjected to
criticism, because they could not in all respects be reconciled with the
universal religion which hovered before men's minds. This criticism was
opposed to the Pauline in so far as it maintained, with the common
Jewish Christians, and Christendom as a whole, that the genuine Old
Testament religion was essentially identical with the Christian. But
while those common Jewish Christians drew from this the inference that
the whole of the Old Testament must be adhered to in its traditional
sense and in all its ordinances, and while the larger Christendom
secured for itself the whole of the Old Testament by deviating from the
ordinary interpretation, those syncretistic Jewish Christians separated
from the Old Testament, as interpolations, whatever did not agree with
their purer moral conceptions and borrowed speculations. Thus, in
particular, they got rid of the sacrificial ritual, and all that was
connected with it, by putting ablutions in their place. First the
profanation, and afterwards, the abolition of the temple worship, after
the destruction of Jerusalem, may have given another new and welcome
impulse to this by coming to be regarded as its Divine confirmation
(Presupp. § 2). Christianity now appeared as purified Mosaism. In these
Jewish Christian undertakings we have undoubtedly before us a series of
peculiar attempts to elevate the Old Testament religion into the
universal one, under the impression of the person of Jesus; attempts,
however, in which the Jewish religion, and not the Jewish people, was to
bear the costs by curtailment of its distinctive features. The great
inner affinity of these attempts with the Gentile Christian Gnostics has
already been set forth. The firm partition wall between them, however,
lies in the claim of these Jewish Christians to set forth the pure Old
Testament religion, as well as in the national Jewish colouring which
the constructed universal religion was always to preserve. This national
colouring is shewn in the insistence upon a definite measure of Jewish
national ceremonies as necessary to salvation, and in the opposition to
the Apostle Paul, which united the Gnostic Judæo-Christians with the
common type, those of the strict observance. How the latter were related
to the former, we do not know, for the inner relations here are almost
completely unknown to us.[432]
Apart from the false doctrines opposed in the Epistle to the Colossians,
and from Cerinthus, this syncretistic Jewish Christianity which aimed at
making itself a universal religion, meets us in tangible form only in
three phenomena:[433] in the Elkesaites of Hippolytus and Origen, in the
Ebionites with their associates of Epiphanius, sects very closely
connected, in fact to be viewed as one party of manifold shades,[434]
and in the activity of Symmachus.[435] We observe here a form of
religion as far removed from that of the Old Testament as from the
Gospel, subject to strong heathen influences, not Greek, but Asiatic,
and scarcely deserving the name "Christian," because it appeals to a new
revelation of God which is to complete that given in Christ. We should
take particular note of this in judging of the whole remarkable
phenomenon. The question in this Jewish Christianity is not the
formation of a philosophic school, but to some extent the establishment
of a kind of new religion, that is, the completion of that founded by
Christ, undertaken by a particular person basing his claims on a
revealed book which was delivered to him from heaven. This book which
was to form the complement of the Gospel, possessed, from the third
century, importance for all sections of Jewish Christians so far as
they, in the phraseology of Epiphanius, were not Nazarenes.[436] The
whole system reminds one of Samaritan Christian syncretism;[437] but we
must be on our guard against identifying the two phenomena, or even
regarding them as similar. These Elkesaite Jewish Christians held fast
by the belief that Jesus was the Son of God, and saw in the "book" a
revelation which proceeded from him. They did not offer any worship to
their founder,[438] that is, to the receiver of the "book," and they
were, as will be shewn, the most ardent opponents of Simonianism.[439]
Alcibiades of Apamea, one of their disciples, came from the East to Rome
about 220-230, and endeavoured to spread the doctrines of the sect in
the Roman Church. He found the soil prepared, inasmuch as he could
announce from the "book" forgiveness of sins to all sinful Christians,
even the grossest transgressors, and such forgiveness was very much
needed. Hippolytus opposed him, and had an opportunity of seeing the
book and becoming acquainted with its contents. From his account and
that of Origen we gather the following: (1) The sect is a Jewish
Christian one, for it requires the [Greek: nomou politeia] (circumcision
and the keeping of the Sabbath), and repudiates the Apostle Paul; but it
criticises the Old Testament and rejects a part of it. (2) The objects
of its faith are the "Great and most High God", the Son of God (the
"Great King"), and the Holy Spirit (thought of as female); Son and
Spirit appear as angelic powers. Considered outwardly, and according to
his birth, Christ is a mere man, but with this peculiarity, that he has
already been frequently born and manifested ([Greek: pollakis
gennêthenta kai gennômenon pephênenai kai phuesthai, allassonta geneseis
kai metensômatoumenon], cf. the testimony of Victorinus as to
Symmachus). From the statements of Hippolytus we cannot be sure whether
he was identified with the Son of God,[440] at any rate the assumption
of repeated births of Christ shews how completely Christianity was meant
to be identified with what was supposed to be the pure Old Testament
religion. (3) The "book" proclaimed a new forgiveness of sin, which, on
condition of faith in the "book" and a real change of mind, was to be
bestowed on every one, through the medium of washings, accompanied by
definite prayers which are strictly prescribed. In these prayers appear
peculiar Semitic speculations about nature ("the seven witnesses:
heaven, water, the holy spirits, the angels of prayer, oil, salt,
earth"). The old Jewish way of thinking appears in the assumption that
all kinds of sickness and misfortune are punishments for sin, and that
these penalties must therefore be removed by atonement. The book
contains also astrological and geometrical speculations in a religious
garb. The main thing, however, was the possibility of a forgiveness of
sin, ever requiring to be repeated, though Hippolytus himself was unable
to point to any gross laxity. Still, the appearance of this sect
represents the attempt to make the religion of Christian Judaism
palatable to the world. The possibility of repeated forgiveness of sin,
the speculations about numbers, elements, and stars, the halo of
mystery, the adaptation to the forms of worship employed in the
"mysteries", are worldly means of attraction which shew that this Jewish
Christianity was subject to the process of acute secularization. The
Jewish mode of life was to be adopted in return for these concessions.
Yet its success in the West was of small extent and short-lived.
Epiphanius confirms all these features, and adds a series of new ones.
In his description, the new forgiveness of sin is not so prominent as in
that of Hippolytus, but it is there. From the account of Epiphanius we
can see that these syncretistic Judæo-Christian sects were at first
strictly ascetic and rejected marriage as well as the eating of flesh,
but that they gradually became more lax. We learn here that the whole
sacrificial service was removed from the Old Testament by the Elkesaites
and declared to be non-Divine, that is non-Mosaic, and that fire was
consequently regarded as the impure and dangerous element, and water as
the good one.[441] We learn further, that these sects acknowledged no
prophets and men of God between Aaron and Christ, and that they
completely adapted the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew to their own views.[442]
In addition to this book, however, (the Gospel of the 12 Apostles),
other writings, such as [Greek: Periodoi Petrou dia Klêmentos,
Anabathmoi Iakôbou] and similar histories of Apostles, were held in
esteem by them. In these writings the Apostles were represented as
zealous ascetics, and, above all, as vegetarians, while the Apostle Paul
was most bitterly opposed. They called him a Tarsene, said he was a
Greek, and heaped on him gross abuse. Epiphanius also dwells strongly
upon their Jewish mode of life (circumcision, Sabbath), as well as their
daily washings,[443] and gives some information about the constitution
and form of worship of these sects (use of baptism: Lord's Supper with
bread and water). Finally, Epiphanius gives particulars about their
Christology. On this point there were differences of opinion, and these
differences prove that there was no Christological dogma. As among the
common Jewish Christians, the birth of Jesus from the Virgin was a
matter of dispute. Further, some identified Christ with Adam, others saw
in him a heavenly being ([Greek: anôthen on]), a spiritual being, who
was created before all, who was higher than all angels and Lord of all
things, but who chose for himself the upper world; yet this Christ from
above came down to this lower world as often as he pleased. He came in
Adam, he appeared in human form to the patriarchs, and at last appeared
on earth as a man with the body of Adam, suffered, etc. Others again, as
it appears, would have nothing to do with these speculations, but stood
by the belief that Jesus was the man chosen by God, on whom, on account
of his virtue, the Holy Spirit--[Greek: hoper estin ho Christos]--
descended at the baptism.[444] (Epiph. h. 30. 3, 14, 16). The account
which Epiphanius gives of the doctrine held by these Jewish Christians
regarding the Devil, is specially instructive (h. 30. 16): [Greek: Duo
de tinas sunistôsin ek theou tetagmenous, ena men ton Christon, ena de
ton diabolon. kai ton men Christon legousi tou mellontos aiônos
eilêphenai ton klêron, ton de diabolon touton pepisteusthai on aiôna, ek
prostagês dêthen tou pantokratopos kata aitêsin ekaterôn autôn]. Here we
have a very old Semitico-Hebraic idea preserved in a very striking way,
and therefore we may probably assume that in other respects also, these
Gnostic Ebionites preserved that which was ancient. Whether they did so
in their criticism of the Old Testament, is a point on which we must not
pronounce judgment.
We might conclude by referring to the fact that this syncretistic Jewish
Christianity, apart from a well-known missionary effort at Rome, was
confined to Palestine and the neighbouring countries, and might consider
it proved that this movement had no effect on the history and
development of Catholicism,[445] were it not for two voluminous writings
which still continue to be regarded as monuments of the earliest epoch
of syncretistic Jewish Christianity. Not only did Baur suppose that he
could prove his hypothesis about the origin of Catholicism by the help
of these writings, but the attempt has recently been made on the basis
of _the Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions and Homilies_, for these are the
writings in question, to go still further and claim for Jewish
Christianity the glory of having developed by itself the whole doctrine,
worship and constitution of Catholicism, and of having transmitted it to
Gentile Christianity as a finished product which only required to be
divested of a few Jewish husks.[446] It is therefore necessary to
subject these writings to a brief examination. Everything depends on the
time of their origin, and the tendencies they follow. But these are just
the two questions that are still unanswered. Without depreciating those
worthy men who have earnestly occupied themselves with the
Pseudo-Clementines,[447] it may be asserted, that in this region
everything is as yet in darkness, especially as no agreement has been
reached even in the question of their composition. No doubt such a
result appears to have been pretty nearly arrived at as far as the time
of composition is concerned, but that estimate (150-170, or the latter
half of the second century) not only awakens the greatest suspicion, but
can be proved to be wrong. The importance of the question for the
history of dogma does not permit the historian to set it aside, while,
on the other hand, the compass of a manual does not allow us to enter
into an exhaustive investigation. The only course open in such
circumstances is briefly to define one's own position.
1. The Recognitions and Homilies, in the form in which we have them, do
not belong to the second century, but at the very earliest to the first
half of the third. There is nothing, however, to prevent our putting
them a few decades later.[448]
2. They were not composed in their present form by heretical Christians,
but most probably by Catholics. Nor do they aim at forming a theological
system,[449] or spreading the views of a sect. Their primary object is
to oppose Greek polytheism, immoral mythology, and false philosophy, and
thus to promote edification.[450]
3. In describing the authors as Catholic, we do not mean that they were
adherents of the theology of Irenæus or Origen. The instructive point
here rather, is that they had as yet no fixed theology, and therefore
could without hesitation regard and use all possible material as means
of edification. In like manner, they had no fixed conception of the
Apostolic age, and could therefore appropriate motley and dangerous
material. Such Christians, highly educated and correctly trained too,
were still to be found, not only in the third century, but even later.
But the authors do not seem to have been free from a bias, inasmuch as
they did not favour the Catholic, that is, the Alexandrian apologetic
theology which was in process of formation.
4. The description of the Pseudo-Clementine writings, naturally derived
from their very form, as "edifying, didactic romances for the refutation
of paganism", is not inconsistent with the idea, that the authors, at
the same time, did their utmost to oppose heretical phenomena,
especially the Marcionite church and Apelles, together with heresy and
heathenism in general, as represented by Simon Magus.
5. The objectionable materials which the authors made use of were
edifying for them, because of the position assigned therein to Peter,
because of the ascetic and mysterious elements they contained, and the
opposition offered to Simon, etc. The offensive features, so far as they
were still contained in these sources, had already become unintelligible
and harmless. They were partly conserved as such and partly removed.
6. The authors are to be sought for perhaps in Rome, perhaps in Syria,
perhaps in both places, certainly not in Alexandria.
7. The main ideas are: (1) The monarchy of God. (2) the syzygies (weak
and strong). (3) Prophecy (the true Prophet). (4) Stoical rationalism,
belief in providence, good works. [Greek: Philanthrôpia], etc.--Mosaism.
The Homilies are completely saturated with stoicism, both in their
ethical and metaphysical systems, and are opposed to Platonism, though
Plato is quoted in Hom. XV. 8, as [Greek: Hellênôn sophistia] (a wise
man of the Greeks). In addition to these ideas we have also a strong
hierarchical tendency. The material which the authors made use of was in
great part derived from syncretistic Jewish Christian tradition, in
other words, those histories of the Apostles were here utilised which
Epiphanius reports to have been used by the Ebionites (see above). It is
not probable, however, that these writings in their original form were
in the hands of the narrators; the likelihood is that they made use of
them in revised forms.
8. It must be reserved for an accurate investigation to ascertain
whether those modified versions which betray clear marks of Hellenic
origin, were made within syncretistic Judaism itself, or whether they
are to be traced back to Catholic writers. In either case, they should
not be placed earlier than about the beginning of the third century, but
in all probability one or two generations later still.
9. If we adopt the first assumption, it is most natural to think of that
propaganda which, according to the testimony of Hippolytus and Origen,
Jewish Christianity attempted in Rome in the age of Caracalla and
Heliogabalus, through the medium of the Syrian, Alcibiades. This
coincides with the last great advance of Syrian cults into the West, and
is, at the same time, the only one known to us historically. But it is
further pretty generally admitted that the immediate sources of the
Pseudo-Clementines already presuppose the existence of Elkesaite
Christianity. We should accordingly have to assume that in the West,
this Christianity made greater concessions to the prevailing type, that
it gave up circumcision and accommodated itself to the Church system of
Gentile Christianity, at the same time withdrawing its polemic against
Paul.
10. Meanwhile the existence of such a Jewish Christianity is not as yet
proved, and therefore we must reckon with the possibility that the
remodelled form of the Jewish Christian sources, already found in
existence by the revisers of the Pseudo-Clementine Romances, was solely
a Catholic literary product. In this assumption, which commends itself
both as regards the aim of the composition and its presupposed
conditions, we must remember that, from the third century onwards,
Catholic writers systematically corrected, and to a great extent
reconstructed, the heretical histories which were in circulation in the
churches as interesting reading, and that the extent and degree of this
reconstruction varied exceedingly, according to the theological and
historical insight of the writer. The identifying of pure Mosaism with
Christianity was in itself by no means offensive when there was no
further question of circumcision. The clear distinction between the
ceremonial and moral parts of the Old Testament, could no longer prove
an offence after the great struggle with Gnosticism.[451] The strong
insistence upon the unity of God, and the rejection of the doctrine of
the Logos, were by no means uncommon in the beginning of the third
century; and in the speculations about Adam and Christ, in the views
about God and the world and such, like, as set before us in the
immediate sources of the Romances, the correct and edifying elements
must have seemed to outweigh the objectionable. At any rate, the
historian who, until further advised, denies the existence of a Jewish
Christianity composed of the most contradictory elements, lacking
circumcision and national hopes, and bearing marks of Catholic and
therefore of Hellenic influence, judges more prudently than he who
asserts, solely on the basis of Romances which are accompanied by no
tradition and have never been the objects of assault, the existence of a
Jewish Christianity accommodating itself to Catholicism which is
entirely unattested.
11. Be that as it may, it may at least be regarded as certain that the
Pseudo-Clementines contribute absolutely nothing to our knowledge of the
origin of the Catholic Church and doctrine, as they shew at best in
their immediate sources a Jewish Christianity strongly influenced by
Catholicism and Hellenism.
12. They must be used with great caution even in seeking to determine
the tendencies and inner history of syncretistic Jewish Christianity. It
cannot be made out with certainty, how far back the first sources of the
Pseudo-Clementines date, or what their original form and tendency were.
As to the first point, it has indeed been said that Justin, nay, even
the author of the Acts of the Apostles, presupposes them, and that the
Catholic tradition of Peter, in Rome, and of Simon Magus, are dependent
on them (as is still held by Lipsius); but there is so little proof of
this adduced, that in Christian literature up to the end of the second
century (Hegesippus?) we can only discover very uncertain traces of
acquaintance with Jewish Christian historical narrative. Such
indications can only be found, to any considerable extent, in the third
century, and I do not mean to deny that the contents of the Jewish
Christian histories of the Apostles contributed materially to the
formation of the ecclesiastical legends about Peter. As is shewn in the
Pseudo-Clementines, these histories of the Apostles especially opposed
Simon Magus and his adherents (the new Samaritan attempt at a universal
religion), and placed the authority of the Apostle Peter against them.
But they also opposed the Apostle Paul, and seem to have transferred
Simonian features to Paul, and Pauline features to Simon. Yet it is also
possible that the Pauline traits found in the magician were the outcome
of the redaction, in so far as the whole polemic against Paul is here
struck out, though certain parts of it have been woven into the polemic
against Simon. But probably the Pauline features of the magician are
merely an appearance. The Pseudo-Clementines may, to some extent, be
used, though with caution, in determining the doctrines of syncretistic
Jewish Christianity. In connection with this we must take what
Epiphanius says as our standard. The Pantheistic and Stoic elements
which are found here and there must of course be eliminated. But the
theory of the genesis of the world from a change in God himself (that is
from a [Greek: probolê]), the assumption that all things emanated from
God in antitheses (Son of God--Devil; heaven--earth; male--female; male
and female prophecy), nay, that these antitheses are found in God
himself (goodness, to which corresponds the Son of God--punitive
justice, to which corresponds the Devil), the speculations about the
elements which have proceeded from the one substance, the ignoring of
freedom in the question about the origin of evil, the strict adherence
to the unity and absolute causality of God, in spite of the dualism, and
in spite of the lofty predicates applied to the Son of God--all this
plainly bears the Semitic-Jewish stamp.
We must here content ourselves with these indications. They were meant
to set forth briefly the reasons which forbid our assigning to
syncretistic Jewish Christianity, on the basis of the Pseudo-
Clementines, a place in the history of the genesis of the Catholic
Church and its doctrine.
Bigg, The Clementine Homilies (Studia Biblica et Eccles. II. p. 157
ff.), has propounded the hypothesis that the Homilies are an Ebionitic
revision of an older Catholic original (see p. 1841: "The Homilies as we
have it, is a recast of an orthodox work by a highly unorthodox editor."
P. 175: "The Homilies are surely the work of a Catholic convert to
Ebionitism, who thought he saw in the doctrine of the two powers the
only tenable answer to Gnosticism. We can separate his Catholicism from
his Ebionitism, just as surely as his Stoicism"). This is the opposite
of the view expressed by me in the text. I consider Bigg's hypothesis
well worth examining, and at first sight not improbable; but I am not
able to enter into it here.
[Footnote 403: The attitude of the recently discovered "Teaching of the
twelve Apostles" is strictly universalistic, and hostile to Judaism as a
nation, but shews us a Christianity still essentially uninfluenced by
philosophic elements. The impression made by this fact has caused some
scholars to describe the treatise as a document of Jewish Christianity.
But the attitude of the Didache is rather the ordinary one of
universalistic early Christianity on the soil of the Græco-Roman world.
If we describe this as Jewish Christian, then from the meaning which we
must give to the words "Christian" and "Gentile Christian", we tacitly
legitimise an undefined and undefinable aggregate of Greek ideas, along
with a specifically Pauline element, as primitive Christianity, and this
is perhaps not the intended, but yet desired, result of the false
terminology. Now, if we describe even such writings as the Epistle of
James and the Shepherd of Hermas as Jewish Christian, we therewith
reduce the entire early Christianity, which is the creation of a
universal religion on the soil of Judaism, to the special case of an
indefinable religion. The same now appears as one of the particular
values of a completely indeterminate magnitude. Hilgenfeld (Judenthum
und Juden-christenthum, 1886; cf. also Ztschr f. wiss. Theol. 1886, II.
4) advocates another conception of Jewish Christianity in opposition to
the following account. Zahn, Gesch. des N.T-lich. Kanons, II. p. 668 ff.
has a different view still.]
[Footnote 404: Or even Ebionitism; the designations are to be used as
synonymous.]
[Footnote 405: The more rarely the right standard has been set up in the
literature of Church history, for the distinction of Jewish
Christianity, the more valuable are those writings in which it is found.
We must refer, above all, to Diestel, Geschichte des A. T. in der
Christl. Kirche, p. 44, note 7.]
[Footnote 406: See Theol. Lit. Ztg. 1883. Col. 409 f. as to the attempt
of Joël to make out that the whole of Christendom up to the end of the
first century was strictly Jewish Christian, and to exhibit the complete
friendship of Jews and Christians in that period ("Blicke in die
Religionsgesch." 2 Abth. 1883). It is not improbable that Christians
like James, living in strict accordance with the law, were for the time
being respected even by the Pharisees in the period preceding the
destruction of Jerusalem. But that can in no case have been the rule. We
see from, Epiph., h. 29. 9. and from the Talmud, what was the custom at
a later period.]
[Footnote 407: There were Jewish Christians who represented the position
of the great Church with reference to the Old Testament religion, and
there were some who criticised the Old Testament like the Gnostics.
Their contention may have remained as much an internal one, as that
between the Church Fathers and Gnostics (Marcion) did, so far as Jewish
Christianity is concerned. There may have been relations between Gnostic
Jewish Christians and Gnostics, not of a national Jewish type, in Syria
and Asia Minor, though we are completely in the dark on the matter.]
[Footnote 408: From the mere existence of Jewish Christians, those
Christians who rejected the Old Testament might have argued against the
main body of Christendom and put before it the dilemma: either Jewish
Christian or Marcionite. Still more logical indeed was the dilemma:
either Jewish, or Marcionite Christian.]
[Footnote 409: So did the Montanists and Antimontanists mutually
reproach each other with Judaising (see the Montanist writings of
Tertullian). Just in the same way the arrangements as to worship and
organisation, which were ever being more richly developed, were
described by the freer parties as Judaising, because they made appeal to
the Old Testament, though, as regards their contents, they had little in
common with Judaism. But is not the method of claiming Old Testament
authority for the regulations rendered necessary by circumstances nearly
as old as Christianity itself? Against whom the lost treatise of Clement
of Alexandria "[Greek: kanôn ekklêsiastikos hê pros tous Ioudaizontas]"
(Euseb., H. E. VI. 13. 3) was directed, we cannot tell. But as we read,
Strom., VI. 15, 125, that the Holy Scriptures are to be expounded
according to the [Greek: ekklêsiastikos kanôn], and then find the
following definition of the Canon: [Greek: kanôn de ekklêsiastikos hê
sunôdia kai sumphônia nomon te kai prophêtôn tê kata tên tou kuriou
parousian paradidomenêi diathêkêi], we may conjecture that the Judaisers
were those Christians, who, in principle, or to some extent, objected to
the allegorical interpretation of the Old Testament. We have then to
think either of Marcionite Christians or of "Chiliasts," that is, the
old Christians who were still numerous in Egypt about the middle of the
third century (see Dionys. Alex, in Euseb., H. E. VII. 24). In the first
case, the title of the treatise would be paradoxical. But perhaps the
treatise refers to the Quarto-decimans, although the expression [Greek:
kanôn ekklêsiastikos] seems too ponderous for them (see, however, Orig.,
Comm. in Matth. n. 76, ed. Delarue III. p. 895) Clement may possibly
have had Jewish Christians before him. See Zahn, Forschungen, vol. III.
p. 37 f.]
[Footnote 410: Cases of this kind are everywhere, up to the fifth
century, so numerous that they need not be cited. We may only remind the
reader that the Nestorian Christology was described by its earliest and
its latest opponents as Ebionitic.]
[Footnote 411: Or were those western Christians Ebionitic who, in the
fourth century still clung to very realistic Chiliastic hopes, who, in
fact, regarded their Christianity as consisting in these?]
[Footnote 412: The hellenising of Christianity went hand in hand with a
more extensive use of the Old Testament; for, according to the
principles of Catholicism, every new article of the Church system must
be able to legitimise itself as springing from revelation. But, as a
rule, the attestation could only be gathered from the Old Testament,
since religion here appears in the fixed form of a secular community.
Now the needs of a secular community for outward regulations gradually
became so strong in the Church as to require palpable ceremonial rules.
But it cannot be denied, that from a certain point of time, first by
means of the fiction of Apostolic constitutions (see my edition of the
Didache, Prolegg. p. 239 ff.), and then without this fiction, not,
however, as a rule, without reservations, ceremonial regulations were
simply taken over from the Old Testament. But this transference (See Bk.
II.) takes place at a time when there can be absolutely no question of
an influence of Jewish Christianity. Moreover, it always proves itself
to be catholic by the fact that it did not in the least soften the
traditional anti-Judaism. On the contrary, it attained its full growth
in the age of Constantine. Finally, it should not be overlooked that at
all times in antiquity, certain provincial churches were exposed to
Jewish influences, especially in the East and in Arabia, that they were
therefore threatened with being Judaised, or with apostasy to Judaism,
and that even at the present day, certain Oriental Churches shew tokens
of having once been subject to Jewish influences (see Serapion in Euseb,
H. E. VI. 12. 1, Martyr. Pion., Epiph. de mens. et pond. 15. 18; my
Texte u. Unters. I. 3. p. 73 f., and Wellhausen, Skizzen und
Vorarbeiten, Part. 3. p. 197 ff.; actual disputations with Jews do not
seem to have been common, though see Tertull. adv. Jud. and Orig. c.
Cels. I. 45, 49, 55: II. 31. Clement also keeps in view Jewish
objections.) This Jewish Christianity, if we like to call it so, which
in some regions of the East was developed through an immediate influence
of Judaism on Catholicism, should not, however, be confounded with the
Jewish Christianity which is the most original form in which
Christianity realised itself. This was no longer able to influence the
Christianity which had shaken itself free from the Jewish nation (as to
futile attempts, see below), any more than the protecting covering
stripped from the new shoot, can ever again acquire significance for the
latter.]
[Footnote 413: What is called the ever-increasing legal feature of
Gentile Christianity and the Catholic Church is conditioned by its
origin, in so far as its theory is rooted in that of Judaism
spiritualised and influenced by Hellenism. As the Pauline conception of
the law never took effect and a criticism of the Old Testament religion
which is just law neither understood nor ventured upon in the larger
Christendom--the forms were not criticised, but the contents
spiritualised--so the theory that Christianity is promise and spiritual
law is to be regarded as the primitive one. Between the spiritual law
and the national law there stand indeed ceremonial laws, which, without
being spiritually interpreted, could yet be freed from the national
application. It cannot be denied that the Gentile Christian communities
and the incipient Catholic Church were very careful and reserved in
their adoption of such laws from the Old Testament, and that the later
Church no longer observed this caution. But still it is only a question
of degree for there are many examples of that adoption in the earliest
period of Christendom. The latter had no cause for hurry in utilizing
the Old Testament so long as there was no external or internal policy or
so long as it was still in embryo. The decisive factor lies here again
in enthusiasm and not in changing theories. The basis for these was
supplied from the beginning. But a community of individuals under
spiritual excitement builds on this foundation something different from
an association which wishes to organise and assert itself as such on
earth. (The history of Sunday is specially instructive here, see Zahn,
Gesch. des Sonntags, 1878, as well as the history of the discipline of
fasting, see Linsenmayr, Entwickelung der Kirchl Fastendisciplin, 1877,
and Die Abgabe des Zehnten. In general, Cf. Ritschl Entstehung der
Altkath Kirche 2 edit. pp. 312 ff., 331 ff., 1 Cor. IX. 9, may be
noted).]
[Footnote 414: Justin. Apol. I. 53, Dial. 47, Euseb. H. E. IV. 5, Sulpic
Sev. Hist. Sacr. II. 31, Cyrill. Catech. XIV. 15. Important testimonies
in Origen, Eusebius, Epiphanius and Jerome.]
[Footnote 415: No Jewish Christian writings have been transmitted to us
even from the earliest period, for the Apocalypse of John, which
describes the Jews as a synagogue of Satan, is not a Jewish Christian
book (III. 9 especially shews that the author knows of only one covenant
of God, viz. that with the Christians). Jewish Christian sources lie at
the basis of our synoptic Gospels, but none of them in their present
form is a Jewish Christian writing. The Acts of the Apostles is so
little Jewish Christian, its author seemingly so ignorant of Jewish
Christianity, at least so unconcerned with regard to it that to him the
spiritualised Jewish law, or Judaism as a religion which he connects as
closely as possible with Christianity, is a factor already completely
detached from the Jewish people (see Overbeck's Commentar z Apostelgesch
and his discussion in the Ztschr f wiss. Theol. 1872 p. 305 ff.)
Measured by the Pauline theology we may indeed, with Overbeck, say of
the Gentile Christianity, as represented by the author of the Acts of
the Apostles, that it already has germs of Judaism, and represents a
falling off from Paulinism; but these expressions are not correct,
because they have at least the appearance of making Paulinism the
original form of Gentile Christianity. But as this can neither be proved
nor believed, the religious attitude of the author of the Acts of the
Apostles must have been a very old one in Christendom. The Judaistic
element was not first introduced into Gentile Christianity by the
opponents of Paul, who indeed wrought in the national sense, and there
is even nothing to lead to the hypothesis that the common Gentile
Christian view of the Old Testament and of the law should be conceived
as resulting from the efforts of Paul and his opponents, for the
consequent effect here would either have been null, or a strengthening
of the Jewish Christian thesis. The Jewish element, that is the total
acceptance of the Jewish religion _sub specie aeternitatis et Christi_,
is simply the original Christianity of the Gentile Christians itself
considered as theory. Contrary to his own intention, Paul was compelled
to lead his converts to this Christianity, for only for such
Christianity was "the time fulfilled" within the empire of the world.
The Acts of the Apostles gives eloquent testimony to the pressing
difficulties which under such circumstances stand in the way of a
historical understanding of the Gentile Christians in view of the work
and the theology of Paul. Even the Epistle to the Hebrews is not a
Jewish Christian writing, but there is certainly a peculiar state of
things connected with this document. For, on the one hand, the author
and his readers are free from the law; a spiritual interpretation is
given to the Old Testament religion, which makes it appear to be
glorified and fulfilled in the work of Christ; and there is no mention
of any prerogative of the people of Israel. But, on the other hand,
because the spiritual interpretation, as in Paul, is here teleological,
the author allows a temporary significance to the cultus as literally
understood, and therefore, by his criticism he conserves the Old
Testament religion for the past, while declaring that it was set aside,
as regards the present, by the fulfilment of Christ. The teleology of
the author, however, looks at everything only from the point of view of
shadow and reality, an antithesis which is at the service of Paul also,
but which in his case vanishes behind the antithesis of law and grace.
This scheme of thought, which is to be traced back to a way of looking
at things which arose in Christian Judaism, seeing that it really
distinguishes between old and new, stands midway between the conception
of the Old Testament religion entertained by Paul, and that of the
common Gentile Christian as it is represented by Barnabas. The author of
the Epistle to the Hebrews undoubtedly knows of a twofold covenant of
God. But the two are represented as stages, so that the second is
completely based on the first. This view was more likely to be
understood by the Gentile Christians than the Pauline, that is, with
some seemingly slight changes, to be recognised as their own. But even
it at first fell to the ground, and it was only in the conflict with the
Marcionites that some Church Fathers advanced to views which seem to be
related to those of the Epistle to the Hebrews. Whether the author of
this Epistle was a born Jew or a Gentile--in the former case he would
far surpass the Apostle Paul in his freedom from the national claims--we
cannot, at any rate, recognise in it a document containing a conception
which still prizes the Jewish nationality in Christianity, nay, not even
a document to prove that such a conception was still dangerous.
Consequently, we have no Jewish Christian memorial in the New Testament
at all, unless it be in the Pauline Epistles. But as concerns the early
Christian literature outside the Canon, the fragments of the great work
of Hegesippus are even yet by some investigators claimed for Jewish
Christianity. Weizsäcker (Art "Hegesippus" in Herzog's R. E. 2 edit) has
shewn how groundless this assumption is. That Hegesippus occupied the
common Gentile Christian position is certain from unequivocal testimony
of his own. If, as is very improbable, we were obliged to ascribe to him
a rejection of Paul, we should have to refer to Eusebius, H. E. IV. 29.
5. ([Greek: Seuêrianoi blasphêmountes Paulon ton apostolon athetousin
autou tas epistolas mêde tas praxeis tôn apostolôn katadechomenoi], but
probably the Gospels; these Severians therefore, like Marcion,
recognised the Gospel of Luke, but rejected the Acts of the Apostles),
and Orig. c. Cels. V. 65: ([Greek: eisi gar tines haireseis tas Paulou
epistolas tou apostolou mê prosiemenai hôsper Ebiônaioi amphoteroi kai
hoi kaloumenoi Enkratêtai]). Consequently, our only sources of knowledge
of Jewish Christianity in the post-Pauline period are merely the
accounts of the Church Fathers, and some additional fragments (see the
collection of fragments of the Ebionite Gospel and that to the Hebrews
in Hilgenfeld, Nov. Test, extra can. rec. fasc. IV. Ed 2, and in Zahn,
l. c. II. p 642 ff.). We know better, but still very imperfectly,
certain forms of the syncretistic Jewish Christianity, from the
Philosoph. of Hippolytus and the accounts of Epiphanius, who is
certainly nowhere more incoherent than in the delineation of the Jewish
Christians, because he could not copy original documents here, but was
forced to piece together confused traditions with his own observations.
See below on the extensive documents which are even yet as they stand,
treated as records of Jewish Christianity, viz., the Pseudo-Clementines.
Of the pieces of writing whose Jewish Christian origin is controverted,
in so far as they may be simply Jewish, I say nothing.]
[Footnote 416: As to the chief localities where Jewish Christians were
found, see Zahn, Kanonsgesch. II. p. 648 ff.]
[Footnote 417: Dialogue 47.]
[Footnote 418: Yet it should be noted that the Christians who, according
to Dial. 48, denied the pre-existence of Christ and held him to be a
man, are described as Jewish Christians. We should read in the passage
in question, as my recent comparison of the Parisian codex shews,
[Greek: apo tou umeterou genous]. Yet Justin did not make this a
controversial point of great moment.]
[Footnote 419: The so-called Barnabas is considerably older than Justin.
In his Epistle (4. 6) he has in view Gentile Christians who have been
converted by Jewish Christians, when he utters a warning against those
who say [Greek: hoti a diathêkê ekeinon] (the Jews) [Greek: kai hêmôn
(estin)]. But how great the actual danger was cannot be gathered from
the Epistle. Ignatius in two Epistles (ad Magn. 8-10, ad Philad. 6. 9)
opposes Jewish Christian intrigues, and characterises them solely from
the point of view that they mean to introduce the Jewish observance of
the law. He opposes them with a Pauline idea (Magn. 8 1: [Greek: ei gar
mechri nun kata nomon. Ioudaismon zômen homologoumen charin mê
eilêphenai]), as well as with the common Gentile Christian assumption
that the prophets themselves had already lived [Greek: kata Christon].
These Judaists must be strictly distinguished from the Gnostics whom
Ignatius elsewhere opposes (against Zahn, Ignat. v. Ant. p. 356 f.). The
dangers from this Jewish Christianity cannot have been very serious,
even if we take Magn. 11. 1, as a phrase. There was an active Jewish
community in Philadelphia (Rev. III. 9), and so Jewish Christian plots
may have continued longer there. At the first look it seems very
promising that in the old dialogue of Aristo of Pella, a Hebrew
Christian, Jason, is put in opposition to the Alexandrian Jew, Papiscus.
But as the history of the little book proves, this Jason must have
essentially represented the common Christian and not the Ebionite
conception of the Old Testament and its relation to the Gospel, etc; see
my Texte u. Unters. I. 1 2. p. 115 ff.; I. 3 p. 115-130. Testimony as to
an apostasy to Judaism is occasionally though rarely given; see Serapion
in Euseb., H. E. VI. 12, who addresses a book to one Domninus, [Greek:
ekpeptôkota para ton tou diôgmou kairon apo tês eis Christon pisteôs epi
tên Ioudaikên ethelothrêskeian]; see also Acta Pionii, 13. 14. According
to Epiphanius, de mens. et pond. 14, 15, Acquila, the translator of the
Bible, was first a Christian and then a Jew. This account is perhaps
derived from Origen, and is probably reliable. Likewise according to
Epiphanius (l. c. 17. 18), Theodotion was first a Marcionite and then a
Jew. The transition from Marcionitism to Judaism (for extremes meet) is
not in itself incredible.]
[Footnote 420: It follows from c. Cels II. 1-3, that Celsus could hardly
have known Jewish Christians.]
[Footnote 421: Iren. I. 26. 2; III 11. 7; III. 15. 1, 21. 1; IV. 33. 4;
V. 1. 3. We first find the name Ebionæi, the poor, in Irenæus. We are
probably entitled to assume that this name was given to the Christians
in Jerusalem as early as the Apostolic age, that is, they applied it to
themselves (poor in the sense of the prophets and of Christ, fit to be
received into the Messianic kingdom). It is very questionable whether we
should put any value on Epiph. h. 30. 17.]
[Footnote 422: When Irenæus adduces as the points of distinction between
the Church and the Ebionites, that besides observing the law and
repudiating the Apostle Paul, the latter deny the Divinity of Christ and
his birth from the Virgin, and reject the New Testament Canon (except
the Gospel of Matthew), that only proves that the formation of dogma has
made progress in the Church. The less was known of the Ebionites from
personal observation, the more confidently they were made out to be
heretics who denied the Divinity of Christ and rejected the Canon. The
denial of the Divinity of Christ and the birth from the Virgin was, from
the end of the second century, regarded as the Ebionite heresy _par
excellence_, and the Ebionites themselves appeared to the Western
Christians, who obtained their information solely from the East, to be a
school like those of the Gnostics, founded by a scoundrel named Ebion
for the purpose of dragging down the person of Jesus to the common
level. It is also mentioned incidentally, that this Ebion had commanded
the observance of circumcision and the Sabbath; but that is no longer
the main thing (see Tertull, de carne 14, 18, 24: de virg. vel. 6: de
præscr. 10. 33; Hippol, Syntagma, (Pseudo-Tertull, 11; Philastr. 37;
Epiph. h. 30); Hippol, Philos. VII. 34. The latter passage contains the
instructive statement that Jesus by his perfect keeping of the law
became the Christ). This attitude of the Western Christians proves that
they no longer knew Jewish Christian communities. Hence it is all the
more strange that Hilgenfeld (Ketzergesch. p. 422 ff.) has in all
earnestness endeavoured to revive the Ebion of the Western Church
Fathers.]
[Footnote 423: See Orig. c. Cels II. 1; V. 61, 65; de princip. IV. 22;
hom. in Genes. III. 15 (Opp. II. p. 65); hom. in Jerem XVII. 12 (III. p.
254); in Matth. T. XVI. 12 (III. p. 494), T. XVII. 12 (III. p. 733); cf.
Opp. III. p. 895; hom in XVII. (III. p. 952). That a portion of the
Ebionites recognised the birth from the Virgin was according to Origen
frequently attested. That was partly reckoned to them for righteousness
and partly not, because they would not admit the pre-existence of
Christ. The name "Ebionites" is interpreted as a nickname given them by
the Church ("beggarly" in the knowledge of scripture, and particularly
of Christology).]
[Footnote 424: Eusebius knows no more than Origen (H. E. III. 27),
unless we specially credit him with the information that the Ebionites
keep along with the Sabbath also the Sunday. What he says of Symmachus,
the translator of the Bible, and an Ebionite, is derived from Origen (H.
E. VI. 17). The report is interesting, because it declares that
Symmachus _wrote_ against Catholic Christianity, especially against the
Catholic Gospel of Matthew (about the year 200). But Symmachus is to be
classed with the Gnostics, and not with the common type of Jewish
Christianity (see below). We have also to thank Eusebius (H. E. III. 5.
3) for the information that the Christians of Jerusalem fled to Pella,
in Peræa, before the destruction of that city. In the following period
the most important settlements of the Ebionites must have been in the
countries east of the Jordan, and in the heart of Syria (see Jul. Afric.
in Euseb. H. E. I. 7. 14; Euseb. de loc. hebr. in Lagarde, Onomast p.
301; Epiph., h. 29. 7; h. 30. 2). This fact explains how the bishops in
Jerusalem and the coast towns of Palestine came to see very little of
them. There was a Jewish Christian community in Beroea with which Jerome
had relations (Jerom., de Vir inl 3).]
[Footnote 425: Jerome correctly declares (Ep. ad. August. 122 c. 13,
Opp. I. p. 746), "(Ebionitæ) credentes in Christo propter hoc solum a
patribus anathematizati sunt, quod legis cæremonias Christi evangelio
miscuerunt, et sic nova confessi sunt, ut vetera non omitterent."]
[Footnote 426: Ep. ad August. l. c.: "Quid dicam de Hebionitis, qui
Christianos esse se simulant? usque hodie per totas orientis synagogas
inter Judæos(!) hæresis est, que dicitur Minæorum et a Pharisæis nunc
usque damnatur, quos vulgo Nazaræos nuncupant, qui credunt in Christum
filium dei natum de Virgine Maria et eum dicunt esse, qui sub pontio
Pilato passus est et resurrexit, in quem et nos credimus; sed dum volunt
et Judæi esse et Christiani, nec Judæi sunt nec Christiani." The
approximation of the Jewish Christian conception to that of the
Catholics shews itself also in their exposition of Isaiah IX. 1. f. (see
Jerome on the passage). But we must not forget that there were such
Jewish Christians from the earliest times. It is worthy of note that the
name Nazarenes, as applied to Jewish Christians, is found in the Acts of
the Apostles XXIV. 5, in the Dialogue of Jason and Papiscus, and then
first again in Jerome.]
[Footnote 427: Zahn, l. c. p. 648 ff. 668 ff. has not convinced me of
the contrary, but I confess that Jerome's style of expression is not
everywhere clear.]
[Footnote 428: Zahn, (l. c.) makes a sharp distinction between the
Nazarenes, on the one side, who used the Gospel of the Hebrews,
acknowledged the birth from the Virgin, and in fact the higher
Christology to some extent, did not repudiate Paul, etc., and the
Ebionites on the other, whom he simply identifies with the Gnostic
Jewish Christians, if I am not mistaken. In opposition to this, I think
I must adhere to the distinction as given above in the text and in the
following: (1) Non-Gnostic, Jewish Christians (Nazarenes, Ebionites) who
appeared in various shades, according to their doctrine and attitude to
the Gentile Church, and whom, with the Church Fathers, we may
appropriately classify as strict or tolerant (exclusive or liberal). (2)
Gnostic or syncretistic Judæo-Christians who are also termed Ebionites.]
[Footnote 429: This Gospel no doubt greatly interested the scholars of
the Catholic Church from Clement of Alexandria onwards. But they have
almost all contrived to evade the hard problem which it presented. It
may be noted, incidentally, that the Gospel of the Hebrews, to judge
from the remains preserved to us, can neither have been the model nor
the translation of our Matthew, but a work independent of this, though
drawing from the same sources, representing perhaps to some extent an
earlier stage of the tradition. Jerome also knew very well that the
Gospel of the Hebrews was not the original of the canonical Matthew, but
he took care not to correct the old prejudice. Ebionitic conceptions,
such as that of the female nature of the Holy Spirit, were of course
least likely to convince the Church Fathers. Moreover, the common Jewish
Christians hardly possessed a Church theology, because for them
Christianity was something entirely different from the doctrine of a
school. On the Gospel of the Hebrews, see Handmann (Texte u. Unters V.
3), Resch, Agrapha (I. c. V. 4), and Zahn, 1. c. p. 642 ff.]
[Footnote 430: We have as yet no history of the sacrificial system, and
the views as to sacrifice in the Græco-Roman epoch, of the Jewish
Nation. It is urgently needed.]
[Footnote 431: We may remind readers of the assumptions, that the world
was created by angels, that the law was given by angels, and similar
ones which are found in the theology of the Pharisees Celsus (in Orig.
I. 26; V. 6) asserts generally that the Jews worshipped angels, so does
the author of the Prædicatio Petri, as well as the apologist Aristides.
Cf Joel, Blicke in die Religionsgesch I. Abth, a book which is certainly
to be used with caution (see Theol. Lit. Ztg. 1881. Coll. 184 ff.).]
[Footnote 432: No reliance can be placed on Jewish sources, or on Jewish
scholars, as a rule. What we find in Joël, l. c. I. Abth. p. 101 ff. is
instructive. We may mention Grätz, Gnosticismus und Judenthum
(Krotoschin, 1846), who has called attention to the Gnostic elements in
the Talmud, and dealt with several Jewish Gnostics and Antignostics, as
well as with the book of Jezira. Grätz assumes that the four main
dogmatic points in the book Jezira, viz., the strict unity of the deity,
and, at the same time, the negation of the demiurgic dualism, the
creation out of nothing with the negation of matter, the systematic
unity of the world and the balancing of opposites, were directed against
prevailing Gnostic ideas.]
[Footnote 433: We may pass over the false teachers of the Pastoral
Epistles, as they cannot be with certainty determined, and the
possibility is not excluded that we have here to do with an arbitrary
construction; see Holtzman, Pastoralbriefe, p. 150 f.]
[Footnote 434: Orig. in Euseb. VI. 38; Hippol., Philos. IX. 13 ff., X.
29; Epiph., h. 30, also h. 19, 53; Method, Conviv. VIII. 10. From the
confused account of Epiphanius who called the common Jewish Christians
Nazarenes, the Gnostic type Ebionites and Sampsæi, and their Jewish
forerunners Osseni, we may conclude, that in many regions where there
were Jewish Christians they yielded to the propaganda of the Elkesaite
doctrines, and that in the fourth century there was no other
syncretistic Jewish Christianity besides the various shades of
Elkesaites.]
[Footnote 435: I formerly reckoned Symmachus, the translator of the
Bible, among the common Jewish Christians; but the statements of
Victorinus Rhetor on Gal. I. 19. II. 26 (Migne T. VIII. Col. 1155, 1162)
shew that he has a close affinity with the Pseudo-Clementines, and is
also to be classed with the Elkesaite Alcibiades. "Nam Jacobum apostolum
Symmachiani faciunt quasi duodecimum et hunc secuntur, qui ad dominum
nostrum Jesum Christum adjungunt Judaismi observationem, quamquam etiam
Jesum Christum fatentur; dicunt enim eum ipsum Adam esse et esse animam
generalem, et aliæ hujusmodi blasphemiæ." The account given by Eusebius,
H. E. VI. 17 (probably on the authority of Origen, see also Demonstr.
VII. I) is important: [Greek: Tôn ge men hermêneutôn autôn dê toutôn
histeon, Ebiônaion ton Summachon gegonenai ... kai hupomnêmata de tou
Summachou eiseti nun pheretai, hen ois dokei pros to kata Matuaion
apoteinomenos euaggelion tên dedêlômenên airesin kratunein.] Symmachus
therefore adopted an aggressive attitude towards the great Church, and
hence we may probably class him with Alcibiades who lived a little
later. Common Jewish Christianity was no longer aggressive in the second
century.]
[Footnote 436: Wellhausen (l. c. Part III. p. 206) supposes that Elkesai
is equivalent to Alexius. That the receiver of the "book" was a
historical person is manifest from Epiphanius' account of his
descendants (h. 19. 2; 53. 1). From Hipp, Philosoph. IX. 16, p. 468, it
is certainly probable, though not certain, that the book was produced by
the unknown author as early as the time of Trajan. On the other hand,
the existence of the sect itself can be proved only at the beginning of
the third century, and therefore we have the possibility of an
ante-dating of the "book." This seems to have been Origen's opinion.]
[Footnote 437: Epiph. (h. 53. 1) says of the Elkesaites: [Greek: oute
christianoi huparchontes oute Ioudaioi oute Ellênes, alla meson aplôs
uparchontes.] He pronounces a similar judgment as to the Samaritan sects
(Simonians), and expressly (h. 30. 1) connects the Elkesaites with
them.]
[Footnote 438: The worship paid to the descendants of this Elkesai,
spoken of by Epiphanius, does not, if we allow for exaggerations, go
beyond the measure of honour which was regularly paid to the descendants
of prophets and men of God in the East. Cf. the respect enjoyed by the
blood relations of Jesus and Mohammed.]
[Footnote 439: If the "book" really originated in the time of Trajan,
then its production keeps within the frame-work of common Christianity,
for at that time there were appearing everywhere in Christendom revealed
books which contained new instructions and communications of grace. The
reader may be reminded, for example, of the Shepherd of Hermas. When the
sect declared that the "book" was delivered to Elkesai by a male and a
female angel, each as large as a mountain, that these angels were the
Son of God and the Holy Spirit, etc., we have, apart from the fantastic
colouring, nothing extraordinary.]
[Footnote 440: It may be assumed from Philos. X. 29, that, in the
opinion of Hippolytus, the Elkesaites identified the Christ from above
with the Son of God, and assumed that this Christ appeared on earth in
changing and purely human forms, and will appear again ([Greek: auton
metangizomenon en sômasi pollois pollakis, kai nun de en tô Iêsou,
homoiôs pote men ek tou theou gegenêsthai, pote de pneuma gegonenai,
pote de ek parthenou, pote de ou kai toutou de metepeita aei en sômati
metangizesthai kai en pollois kata kairous deiknusthai]). As the
Elkesaites (see the account by Epiphanius) traced back the incarnations
of Christ to Adam, and not merely to Abraham, we may see in this view of
history the attempt to transform Mosaism into the universal religion.
But the Pharisitic theology had already begun with these
Adam-speculations, which are always a sign that the religion in Judaism
is feeling its limits too narrow. The Jews in Alexandria were also
acquainted with these speculations.]
[Footnote 441: In the Gospel of these Jewish Christians Jesus is made to
say (Epiph. h. 30. 16) [Greek: êlthon katalusai tas thusias, kai ean mê
pausêsthe tou thuein, ou pausetai aph' humôn hê orgê]. We see the
essential progress of this Jewish Christianity within Judaism, in the
opposition in principle to the whole sacrificial service (vid. also
Epiph., h. 19. 3).]
[Footnote 442: On this new Gospel see Zahn, Kanongesch II. p. 724 ff.]
[Footnote 443: It is incorrect to suppose that the lustrations were
meant to take the place of baptism, or were conceived by these Jewish
Christians as repeated baptisms. Their effect was certainly equal to
that of baptism. But it is nowhere hinted in our authorities that they
were on that account made equivalent to the regular baptism.]
[Footnote 444: The characteristic here, as in the Gentile Christian
Gnosis, is the division of the person of Jesus into a more or less
indifferent medium, and into the Christ. Here the factor constituting
his personality could sometimes be placed in that medium, and sometimes
in the Christ spirit, and thus contradictory formulæ could not but
arise. It is therefore easy to conceive how Epiphanius reproaches these
Jewish Christians with a denial, sometimes of the Divinity, and
sometimes of the humanity of Christ (see h. 30. 14).]
[Footnote 445: This syncretistic Judaism had indeed a significance for
the history of the world, not, however, in the history of Christianity,
but for the origin of Islam. Islam, as a religious system, is based
partly on syncretistic Judaism (including the Zabians, so enigmatic in
their origin), and, without questioning Mohammed's originality, can only
be historically understood by taking this into account. I have
endeavoured to establish this hypothesis in a lecture printed in MS
form, 1877. Cf. now the conclusive proofs in Wellhausen, l. c. Part III.
p. 197-212. On the Mandeans, see Brandt, Die Mandäische Religion, 1889;
(also Wellhausen in d. deutschen Lit. Ztg., 1890 No. 1. Lagarde i. d.
Gött. Gel. Anz., 1890, No. 10).]
[Footnote 446: See Bestmann, Gesch. der Christl. Sitte Bd. II. 1 Part:
Die juden-christliche Sitte, 1883; also, Theol. Lit. Ztg. 1883. Col. 269
ff. The same author, Der Ursprung des Katholischen Christenthums und des
Islams, 1884; also Theol. Lit. Ztg. 1884, Col. 291 ff.]
[Footnote 447: See Schliemann, Die Clementinen etc. 1844; Hilgenfeld,
Die Clementinischen Recogn. u. Homil, 1848; Ritschl, in d Allg
Monatschrift f. Wissensch. u. Litt., 1852. Uhlhorn, Die Homil. u.
Recogn., 1854; Lehmann, Die Clement. Schriften, 1869; Lipsius, in d.
Protest. K. Ztg., 1869, p. 477 ff.; Quellen der Römische Petrussage,
1872. Uhlhorn, in Herzog's R. Encykl. (Clementinen) 2 Edit. III. p. 286,
admits: "There can be no doubt that the Clementine question still
requires further discussion. It can hardly make any progress worth
mentioning until we have collected better the material, and especially
till we have got a corrected edition with an exhaustive commentary." The
theory of the genesis, contents and aim of the pseudo-Clementine
writings, unfolded by Renan (Orig. T. VII. p. 74-101) is essentially
identical with that of German scholars. Langen (die Clemensromane, 1890)
has set up very bold hypotheses, which are also based on the assumption
that Jewish Christianity was an important church factor in the second
century, and that the pseudo-Clementines are comparatively old
writings.]
[Footnote 448: There is no external evidence for placing the
pseudo-Clementine writings in the second century. The oldest witness is
Origen (IV. p. 401, Lommatzsch); but the quotation: "Quoniam opera bona,
quæ fiunt ab infidelibus, in hoc sæculo iis prosunt," etc., is not found
in our Clementines, so that Origen appears to have used a still older
version. The internal evidence all points to the third century (canon,
composition, theological attitude, etc.) Moreover, Zahn (Gött. Gel. Anz.
1876. No. 45) and Lagarde have declared themselves in favour of this
date; while Lipsius (Apokr. Apostelgesch II. 1) and Weingarten
(Zeittafeln, 3 Edit. p. 23) have recently expressed the same opinion.
The Homilies presuppose (1) Marcion's Antitheses, (2) Apelles'
Syllogisms, (3) perhaps Callistus' edict about penance (see III. 70),
and writings of Hippolytus (see also the expression [Greek: episkopos
episkopôn], Clem. ep. ad Jacob I, which is first found in Tertull, de
pudic I.) (4) The most highly developed form of polemic against heathen
mythology. (5) The complete development of church apologetics, as well
as the conviction that Christianity is identical with correct and
absolute knowledge. They further presuppose a time when there was a lull
in the persecution of Christians, for the Emperor, though pretty often
referred to, is never spoken of as a persecutor, and when the cultured
heathen world was entirely disposed in favour of an eclectic monotheism.
Moreover, the remarkable Christological statement in Hom. XVI. 15, 16.
points to the third century, in fact probably even presupposes the
theology of Origen; Cf. the sentence: [Greek: tou patros to mê
gegennêsthai estin, huiou de to gegennêsthai gennêton de agennêtô ê kai
autogennêtô ou sunkrinetai.] Finally, the decided repudiation of the
awakening of Christian faith by visions and dreams, and the polemic
against these is also no doubt of importance for determining the date;
see XVII. 14-19. Peter says, § 18: [Greek: to adidaktôs aneu optasias
kai oneirôn mathein apokalupsis estin], he had already learned that at
his confession (Matt. XVI.). The question, [Greek: ei tis di optasian
pros didaskalian sophisthênai dunatai], is answered in the negative, §
19.]
[Footnote 449: This is also acknowledged in Koffmane. Die Gnosis, etc,
p. 33].
[Footnote 450: The Homilies, as we have them, are mainly composed of the
speeches of Peter and others. These speeches oppose polytheism,
mythology and the doctrine of demons, and advocate monotheism, ascetic
morality and rationalism. The polemic against Simon Magus almost appears
as a mere accessory.]
[Footnote 451: This distinction can also be shewn elsewhere in the
Church of the third century. But I confess I do not know how Catholic
circles got over the fact that, for example, in the third book of the
Homilies many passages of the old Testament are simply characterised as
untrue, immoral and lying. Here the Homilies remind one strongly of the
Syllogisms of Apelles, the author of which, in other respects, opposed
them in the interest of his doctrine of creating angels. In some
passages the Christianity of the Homilies really looks like a syncretism
composed of the common Christianity, the Jewish Christianity,
Gnosticism, and the criticism of Apelles. Hom. VIII. 6-8 is also highly
objectionable.]
APPENDIX I.
_On the Conception of Pre-existence._
On account of the importance of the question we may be here permitted to
amplify a few hints given in Chap. II., § 4, and elsewhere, and to draw
a clearer distinction between the Jewish and Hellenic conceptions of
pre-existence.
According to the theory held by the ancient Jews and by the whole of the
Semitic nations, everything of real value, that from time to time
appears on earth has its existence in heaven. In other words it exists
with God, that is, God possesses a knowledge of it; and for that reason
it has a real being. But it exists beforehand with God in the same way
as it appears on earth, that is with all the material attributes
belonging to its essence. Its manifestation on earth is merely a
transition from concealment to publicity ([Greek: Phanerousthai]). In
becoming visible to the senses, the object in question assumes no
attribute that it did not already possess with God. Hence its material
nature is by no means an inadequate expression of it, nor is it a second
nature added to the first. The truth rather is that what was in heaven
before is now revealing itself upon earth, without any sort of
alteration taking place in the process. There is no _assumptio naturæ
novæ_, and no change or mixture. The old Jewish theory of pre-existence
is founded on the religious idea of the omniscience and omnipotence of
God, that God to whom the events of history do not come as a surprise,
but who guides their course. As the whole history of the world and the
destiny of each individual are recorded on his tablets or books, so also
each thing is ever present before him. The decisive contrast is between
God and the creature. In designating the latter as "foreknown" by God,
the primary idea is not to ennoble the creature, but rather to bring to
light the wisdom and power of God. The ennobling of created things by
attributing to them a pre-existence is a secondary result (see below).
According to the Hellenic conception, which has become associated with
Platonism, the idea of pre-existence is independent of the idea of God;
it is based on the conception of the contrast between spirit and matter,
between the infinite and finite, found in the cosmos itself. In the case
of all spiritual beings, life in the body or flesh is at bottom an
inadequate and unsuitable condition, for the spirit is eternal, the
flesh perishable. But the pre-temporal existence, which was only a
doubtful assumption as regards ordinary spirits, was a matter of
certainty in the case of the higher and purer ones. They lived in an
upper world long before this earth was created, and they lived there as
spirits without the "polluted garment of the flesh." Now if they
resolved for some reason or other to appear in this finite world, they
cannot simply become visible, for they have no "visible form." They must
rather "assume flesh", whether they throw it about them as a covering,
or really make it their own by a process of transformation or mixture.
In all cases--and here the speculation gave rise to the most exciting
problems--the body is to them something inadequate which they cannot
appropriate without adopting certain measures of precaution, but this
process may indeed pass through all stages, from a mere seeming
appropriation to complete union. The characteristics of the Greek ideas
of pre-existence may consequently be thus expressed. First, the objects
in question to which pre-existence is ascribed are meant to be ennobled
by this attribute. Secondly, these ideas have no relation to God.
Thirdly, the material appearance is regarded as something inadequate.
Fourthly, speculations about _phantasma_, _assumptio naturæ humanæ_,
_transmutatio_, _mixtura_, _duæ naturæ_, etc., were necessarily
associated with these notions.
We see that these two conceptions are as wide apart as the poles. The
first has a religious origin, the second a cosmological and
psychological, the first glorifies God, the second the created spirit.
However, not only does a certain relationship in point of form exist
between these speculations, but the Jewish conception is also found in a
shape which seems to approximate still more to the Greek one.
Earthly occurrences and objects are not only regarded as "foreknown" by
God before being seen in this world, but the latter manifestation is
frequently considered as the copy of the existence and nature which they
possess in heaven, and which remains unalterably the same, whether they
appear upon earth or not. That which is before God experiences no
change. As the destinies of the world are recorded in the books, and God
reads them there, it being at the same time a matter of indifference, as
regards this knowledge of his, when and how they are accomplished upon
earth, so the Tabernacle and its furniture, the Temple, Jerusalem, etc.,
are before God, and continue to exist before him in heaven, even during
their appearance on earth and after it.
This conception seems really to have been the oldest one. Moses is to
fashion the Temple and its furniture according to the pattern he saw on
the Mount (Exod. XXV. 9. 40; XXVI. 30; XXVII. 8; Num. VIII. 4). The
Temple and Jerusalem exist in heaven, and they are to be distinguished
from the earthly Temple and the earthly Jerusalem; yet the ideas of a
[Greek: Phanerousthai] of the thing which is in heaven and of its copy
appearing on earth, shade into one another and are not always clearly
separated.
The classing of things as original and copy was at first no more meant
to glorify them than was the conception of a pre-existence they
possessed within the knowledge of God. But since the view which in
theory was true of everything earthly, was, as is naturally to be
expected, applied in practice to nothing but valuable objects--for
things common and ever recurring give no impulse to such
speculations--the objects thus contemplated were ennobled, because they
were raised above the multitude of the commonplace. At the same time the
theory of original and copy could not fail to become a starting-point
for new speculations, as soon as the contrast between the spiritual and
material began to assume importance among the Jewish people.
That took place under the influence of the Greek spirit; and was perhaps
also the simultaneous result of an intellectual or moral development
which arose independently of that spirit. Accordingly, a highly
important advance in the old ideas of pre-existence appeared in the
Jewish theological literature belonging to the time of the Maccabees and
the following decades. To begin with, these conceptions are now applied
to persons, which, so far as I know, was not the case before this
(individualism). Secondly, the old distinction of original and copy is
now interpreted to mean that the copy is the inferior and more
imperfect, that in the present æon of the transient it cannot be
equivalent to the original, and that we must therefore look forward to
the time when the original itself will make its appearance, (contrast of
the material and finite and the spiritual).
With regard to the first point, we have not only to consider passages in
Apocalypses and other writings in which pre-existence is attributed to
Moses, the patriarchs, etc., (see above, p. 102), but we must, above
all, bear in mind utterances like Ps. CXXXIX. 15, 16. The individual
saint soars upward to the thought that the days of his life are in the
book of God, and that he himself was before God, whilst he was still
un-perfect. But, and this must not be overlooked, it was not merely his
spiritual part that was before God, for there is not the remotest idea
of such a distinction, but the whole man, although he is [Hebrew:
bashar] (flesh).
As regards the second point, the distinction between a heavenly and an
earthly Jerusalem, a heavenly and an earthly Temple, etc., is
sufficiently known from the Apocalypses and the New Testament. But the
important consideration is that the sacred things of earth were regarded
as objects of less value, instalments, as it were, pending the
fulfilment of the whole promise. The desecration and subsequent
destruction of sacred things must have greatly strengthened this idea.
The hope of the heavenly Jerusalem comforted men for the desecration or
loss of the earthly one. But this gave at the same time the most
powerful impulse to reflect whether it was not an essential feature of
this temporal state, that everything high and holy in it could only
appear in a meagre and inadequate form. Thus the transition to Greek
ideas was brought about. The fulness of the time had come when the old
Jewish ideas, with a slightly mythological colouring, could amalgamate
with the ideal creations of Hellenic philosophers.
These, however, are also the general conditions which gave rise to the
earliest Jewish speculations about a personal Messiah, except that, in
the case of the Messianic ideas within Judaism itself, the adoption of
specifically Greek thoughts, so far as I am able to see, cannot be made
out.