[º - º
#####:
º
|-
::：:·}|--·-· ··¡¿
|-}##0
#:;}}
ſ.
�
wºº sº
#####·
}
&-
ſs
ºſº
}
B
@
�
•
，
gº
rț¢，șiſº
#######·· ） ;
saeſº??-！ ！ ！ ！Įſ
::::::::}}}}}}}:$·
Ķīº:§:
·*， ，
• • • ►***:::：:::::№sº·Œ
:::::：:::.ſº•z• ！！***-ſaeſ
• ** *ſ*... * * * * * ***- •
#:;
№
#·… ….….…Ź;}
ſłyſ
}
.*¿¿.
ī£;&#::::ſtī£§!
، ، ، ،
ºº:：:ſiae
ſ.

ſſſſſ|[[Iſtaeſſſ!!!!!!!!！TEDJuttuae!!！!!!!！!!!!!!!!!!！!!!!!！!!!!!!！!！!!！!！!!!!!！!!!！!!!!!!！!！!!！!!!！!!!！!!!!!！!!!!![]
æ ： • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •∞ √° √≠ √∞ √° √≠ √∞
º
D. D. J.
：
[−]
ſae
∞
º.
C. J . .
ſº D. D. "
ſiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

THE EVOLUTION OF EARLY
CHRISTIANITY
THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO PRESS
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
THE BAKER & TAYLOR, COMPANY
NEW YORK
THE J. K. GILL COMPANY
PORTLAND
THE CUNNINGHAM, CURTISS & WELCH COMPANY
LOS ANGELES
THE CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS
LONDON AND EDINBURGBI
THE MARUZEN-KABUSHIKI-KAISHA
Tokyo, OSAKA, KYoTo, FUKUOKA, senDai
THE MISSION BOOK COMPANY
SHANGHAI
| THE
EVOLUTION OF EARLY
CHRISTIANITY
A GENETIC STUDY OF FIRST-CENTURY
CHRISTIANITY IN RELATION TO ITS
RELIGIOUS ENVIRONMENT
By
*** *** *
Professor of Early Church History and New Testament Interpretation
in the University of Chicago
23% §º . º §§
§ %
§ 3. §º
THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO PRESS
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS



















COPYRIGHT Igrá By
THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO
All Rights Reserved
Published September 1914
Second Impression October 1917
Composed and Printed By
The University of Chicago Press
Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A.
PREFACE
This book does not aim to furnish a detailed account
of the territorial, doctrinal, ecclesiastical, and literary
developments of early Christianity. It seeks rather to
analyze and interpret the environmental forces which
stimulated, nourished, or directed the growth of the
new religion. Consequently interest centers mainly in
the lives of actual persons whose activities were related
to a specific setting within which they worked out their
various problems.
This study, accordingly, deals primarily with the
origins of the Christian movement and only secondarily
with the writings which the movement produced, spo-
radically and sometimes quite incidentally, in the pro-
cess of expansion. Later generations have become so
accustomed to think of the New Testament as the
source of their religion that they with difficulty appre-
ciate the situation of the early Christians during that
Spontaneous and formative period when the champions
of the new faith were performing their work without the
aid of any distinctively Christian Scriptures. When the
New Testament books were ultimately assembled they
preserved records of Christian activity and thinking
from different localities and various periods, and so these
writings constitute an important source of information
for the study of Christian origins; but they render this
service truly only when they are interpreted as the
product of the movement of whose history they are a
valuable though fragmentary record. Hence the student
V
º ºgry
... ; º' ºf §
Y_&_&_3_º $ "..." &
vi Preface |
|
of Christian origins must first orient himself in the life
of the times, if he would understand the genesis of the
new religion as well as the literature it produced.
The possibility of obtaining this orientation has
greatly increased in recent years. Much help may now
be derived from the historical study of religions as a
whole, which supplies certain broad principles capable
of general application. These results emphasize the
necessity of taking account of psychological processes
in the rise and development of all religions, and they
make clear the importance of social and cultural forces
for the determination of religious phenomena. But
more immediate help comes from observing the actual
historical situation in which the early Christians lived.
Within the last half-century various scholars have
devoted themselves to the study of later Judaism, with
the result that the historian can now know, for the most
part, the actual religious situation which conditioned
the lives of the first disciples on Jewish soil.
But only in its veriest beginnings was Christianity
confined to a strictly Jewish setting. Even before the
earliest extant New Testament book was written the
advocates of the new movement were using the Greek
speech of the gentile world; perhaps by the middle of
the first century Christians outside of Palestine were
more numerous than those residing in the Holy Land;
and certainly the membership of many gentile churches
was constituted largely of persons whose youthful
religious training had been received in some heathen
faith. From an early date the cultural, social, and reli-
gious environment of Christians had been distinctly
Hellenistic, consequently some students of Christian
Preface vii
origins have recently insisted upon the necessity of
greater familiarity with the Hellenistic setting of the
new religion. -
As yet this particular field has received all too little
attention. Indeed, it is not uncommon even today to
find its rights to consideration either denied, or ignored,
or greatly minimized. The difficulties of the subject
are many, for the sources of information are not readily
available. They are vast in extent and are scattered
through thousands of pages of Greek and Latin authors,
inscriptions, and papyri—not to mention Semitic docu-
ments. While some excellent pioneer work has already
been done, there are no books treating the Hellenistic
environment of the early Christians in the same com-
prehensive way that Schürer and numerous other writers
expound the Jewish setting.
It is in this less-worked field that the present volume
aims to render its chief service. The book is necessarily
introductory in character, mainly emphasizing a point
of view and a method of procedure. It will have ful-
filled its intended mission if it has demonstrated the
importance of this line of study, if it has made clear the
general course to be pursued in such inquiry, and if it
has helped in any degree to a better understanding of
the vital character of primitive Christianity.
SHIRLEY JACKSON CASE
UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO
August 12, 1914
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CELAPTER
I.
II.
III.
IV.
. THE BREACH BETWEEN CHRISTIANS AND JEws .
VI.
VII.
VIII.
IX.
. THE TRIUMPH OF CHRISTIANITY . . . . .
THE DEVELOPMENTAL NATURE OF CHRISTIANITY
THE IMPORTANCE OF ENVIRONMENT FOR CHRISTIAN
ORIGINS
THE MEDITERRANEAN WORLD IN NEW TESTAMENT
TIMES g
THE EARLY CHRISTIANS’ JEWISH CONNECTIONS
THE EARLY CHRISTIANS’ CONTACT WITH GENTILE
RELIGIONS .
THE RELIGIOUS SIGNIFICANCE OF EMPEROR-WoRSHIP
THE RELIGIOUS SIGNIFICANCE OF PHILOSOPHICAL
SPECULATION
HELLENISTIC RELIGIONS OF REDEMPTION
PAGE
26
48
78
I23
I66
I95
239
284
33I
CHAPTER I
THE DEVELOPMENTAL NATURE OF CHRISTIANITY
The Christian religion has undergone numerous
changes in the course of its history. Not only has its
form in one period differed from that of a subsequent
age, but different groups of people within the same
period have become exponents of varying types of faith.
As a consequence of these variations, modern Chris-
tianity in its totality is a widely diversified phenomenon.
The Grcek and the Roman churches have many distinc-
tive features; Protestantism is sharply differentiated
from Catholicism; Protestant denominations differ
more or less widely from one another, and divergent
tendencies may often be observed among members of
the same communion.
These variations, which have persisted in spite of
many attempts to establish or maintain uniformity,
seem to imply that Christianity is primarily an affair
of life, with varying characteristics according to the
individuals and the circumstances which have deter-
mined its historical manifestation. As each new
generation reacts upon its peculiar world of reality,
appropriating data from the past and attaining new
experiences in the present, its religious activities show
new and varying characteristics. While Christians
may preserve a keen sense of historical continuity and
may acknowledge large obligations to the past, in
the last analysis their religion is identical with the
Spiritual attainments of different individuals, or groups
I
2 The Evolution of Early Christianity
of individuals, whose experience, conduct, and thinking
have been very effectively influenced by immediate sur-
roundings. Since Christianity is thus fundamentally an
expression of spiritual life evolved under specific con-
ditions in successive periods of history, its form naturally
varies with the changing circumstances of life.
But change, instead of being made a primary item
in Christianity’s nature, is usually thought to be quite
incidental, or even detrimental, to its true character.
Its fundamental constitution is commonly seen in some
static quantity of experience, doctrine, conduct, or
ritual which is assumed to have been established in the
days of Jesus and the apostles, and to be reproduced
in all other circles where this faith is maintained in its
purity. The fact of variation is disposed of by setting
aside as spurious all phases not in agreement with some
particular type which its devotees call “genuine.” Or,
if more generously inclined, one may find the essentials
of Christianity in a modicum so small and so broadly
defined that it can be thought to exist in several differ-
ent communities where variations in other respects may
be very pronounced. Beneath all differences there is
a static quantity called “essence,” while all divergent
phenomena are merely excrescences.
This situation suggests a crucial problem. Is Chris-
tianity ultimately vital and developmental in nature,
or is it static and quantitative P This question is funda–
mental to any study of the new religion’s origin, and
especially to the problem of its relation to other faiths
in the world in which it arose. Hence the necessity of
ascertaining at the outset the view of Christianity’s
nature according to which our interpretation of the early
The Developmental Nature of Christianity 3
A
evolution of the new religion is to proceed. If we think
of it as vitally developmental, a genuine growth, the
circumstances surrounding the lives of its earliest advo-
cates must form an important consideration in the inter-
pretation of its history. If, on the other hand, it is
treated as a static quantity whose essential character
and content are fixed at the start, the question of rela-
tionship to other faiths is not fundamentally important.
This question may have a secondary interest because of
its bearing upon external matters, but it has essentially
nothing to do with an understanding of Christianity’s
real genius. -
To which of these two main positions is the preference
to be given P The static character of Christianity has
been maintained from an early date in both Catholic
and Protestant circles. Orthodox Romanists have
always defined their religion in terms of a God-given
quantum of revelation, original in content, complete
at the outset, and historically unconditioned except
that its completeness and perfection were displayed
7more fully in the expanding life of the historic church.
Changes may be admitted in the course of history, even
changes necessitated by contemporary conditions, but
Christianity is not in any real sense a product of evolu-
tionary forces. This assertion applies even to its rela-
tion to Judaism. While Christianity is assumed to
preserve everything of permanent worth in the latter,
the relation of the two is not one of organic evolution.
Christianity is really a new and fuller revelation, a fresh
divine insert into history; for which Judaism has merely
prepared the way. In the course of subsequent history
popular pagan religion may have affected somewhat

4 The Evolution of Early Christianity A
the church's rites and ceremonies, and Greek philosophy
may have had some influence upon the development of
doctrine, but it is a gross error, according to the Catholic
view, to think of these outside forces as introducing
anything in the least alien to the original substance of
the Christian revelation. Historical growth is but the
further unfolding of the heavenly robe brought to earth
by Jesus, passed on by him to the apostles, and intrusted
by them to the divinely established and officered church.
The garment never needs to be altered or repaired, but
only to be further unfolded."
The older Protestant estimate of Christianity’s
nature rested upon the same basic principle. The
new religion as revealed by Jesus and perpetuated by
the apostles was a purely divine deposit, essentially
complete from the first. The fundamental divergence
between Protestantism and Catholicism lay in their
different theories about the preservation of the deposit.
According to the latter the infallible church was its
perpetual guardian and interpreter, Consequently the
whole ecclesiastical development within orthodox Ro-
manism was the continuation of genuinely original
Christianity. The Protestant Reformers, on the other
hand, took the Scriptures rather than the church as
their ultimate authority, and so found original Chris-
tianity in the Canon. It could be recovered only by a
return to the age of the apostles, its divine character
being assured by an infallible Scripture. Thus Storrs
* Cf. articles “Christianity,” “Development of Doctrine,” and
“Revelation” in the Catholic Encyclopedia (New York, 1907 ff.) and
the article “Eglise” in Dictionnaire de théologie catholique (Tome IV
Paris, 1911).
The Developmental Nature of Christianity 5
in his lectures on The Divine Origin of Christianity" says
of the New Testament books that they hold Christianity
as nothing else does. While it has been “variously
tinted and refracted” by human representations of it,
still these primitive writings continue to reveal its spirit-
ual Substance and vital force. They are our inheritance
from God, and this faith “is the one system of religion
On earth for which the eternal creative spirit, from whom
the Spirit of man is derived, is directly responsible, and
to which his veracity is pledged” (p. 6).
This did not mean that ecclesiastical organization and
doctrinal elaboration were thought by Protestants to
form no part of Christianity. On the contrary, many
features which emerge in post-apostolic times were
regarded as legitimate because believed to be scriptural.
Thus Anglicans could retain the notion that the church
is a Supernatural organization, divinely equipped to
administer the rites of salvation. Though inculcating
only that which is “agreeable to the doctrine of the
Old and New Testaments and which the Catholic
Fathers and ancient bishops have collected from that
very doctrine,” still according to a canon of 1604 the
Church of England differs from the Catholics only “in
those particular points wherein they were fallen both
from themselves in their ancient integrity and from the
apostolic churches which were their first founders.”
According to this conception Christianity is still, as
in Catholicism, a purely supernatural contribution to
* Boston, 1884.
*Cited from the Convocation of 1571, by A. C. A. Hall in the article
“Protestantism” in the Wew Schaff–Herzog Encyclopedia, Vol. IX
(New York, 1911).
6 The Evolution of Early Christianity
human history, its integrity being carefully preserved
within divinely determined limits.
Other sections of Protestantism attached less signifi-
cance to the perpetuation of the divinely authorized
ecclesiastical organization and placed chief stress upon
individual religious life. Yet Christianity was a signifi-
cant historical quantum, more especially on its doc-
trinal side. While Scripture was the ultimate norm for
faith, much genuine Christianity was to be recognized
in the doctrinal development of post-apostolic times.
This position has been stated more recently by Orr.
He believes “the labor spent by myriads of minds on
the fashioning of dogma has not, as so many in our day
seem to think, been utterly fatuous, and the mere forging
of fetters for the human spirit.” This work of doctrinal
elaboration has not been a merely human affair, but has
been pursued in agreement with the divine character
and intention of Christianity. The general tendency of
this type of interpretation is to define Christianity’s
essential content in terms of a divinely directed type of
metaphysical speculation guaranteed in the first instance
by the teaching of Jesus and the apostles. The exposi-
tion of sound doctrine never goes beyond this original
revelation, nor are the intellectual attainments of a
later age ever able to import anything essentially new
into its content. If a contribution is new it must in
the nature of the case be untrue. The function of
interpretation is only to expound in greater detail the
perfect original.
These various opinions of both Catholics and Protes-
tants are in fundamental agreement on the question of
* The Progress of Dogma (New York, 1901), p. v.
The Developmental Nature of Christianity 7
f
Christianity’s nature. It is a quantity of divine instruc-
tion, Supernaturally given and designed to cover all the
essentials of true religion. Whether it is more perfectly
preserved in an ecclesiastical organization, in a canon
of Scripture, in a system of metaphysical speculation,
or in some combination of these is only a subsidiary
question. In any case it has a truly other-worldly origin
and maintains its unique originality in every legitimate
stage of its career. Human experience and historical
circumstances contribute nothing to its making; they
merely provide channels for its spread, in so far as they
do not obscure or retard its progress.
The nineteenth century witnessed a general expansion
of man’s mental horizon and with it came a keener sense
of real connection between earlier and later periods of
history. Scholars became more vitally conscious of
progression in the course of human experience, so that
the notion of development entered by degrees into the
realm of historical study. Religion was naturally tardy
in accepting and applying to itself the conception of evo-
lution, yet some scholars, Catholic as well as Protestant,
recognized that the older method of interpretation did
not do full justice to the developmental side of Christian-
ity. The changes through which it had passed were felt
to be more extensive and thoroughgoing than were pos-
sible on the traditional view. Cardinal Newman, from
the side of Catholicism, recognized the pressure of this
demand and sought to meet it in his Essay on the Develop-
ment of Christian Doctrine." He is more generous than
most of his Catholic predecessors in finding extensive
changes in the history of doctrine, a fact which, he says,
* London, 1845, 18949.
8 The Evolution of Early Christianity
“embarrasses us when we consult history for the true
idea of Christianity.” While it is a supernaturally re-
vealed religion, its historical manifestation is humanly
conditioned and so is subject to “the general method
by which the course of things is carried forward.”
Have we here a new conception of Christianity's
nature according to which it becomes a product of
religious life rather than a divine insert into history P
Such might, at first sight, seem to be the case, but
Newman very quickly assures his readers that this is
not his thought. No matter how extensively Chris-
tianity may appear humanly conditioned, “the powers
which it wields and the words which proceed out of its
mouth attest its miraculous nativity.” Furthermore,
no phases of development are legitimate which do not
ultimately fall within the pale of ecclesiastical sanction,
and these “natural” and “true” developments were all
contemplated by Christianity’s author, “who in design-
ing the work designed its legitimate results.” Security
against error and perversion is obtained by the main-
tenance of the original type which has remained from
first to last unalterable.
Thus it is apparent that Newman does not really
believe it is Christianity's nature to evolve, at least not
in the sense of genuine, organic evolution. Changes in
its history do not inhere primarily in its character as a
religion, but are due to the medium through which it is
compelled to work. Variation is necessary only be-
cause it is the inevitable attendant of “any philosophy
or polity which takes possession of the intellect and
heart”; it is in the nature of the human mind that “time
is necessary for the full comprehension and perfection
The Developmental Nature of Christianity 9
of great ideas and that the highest and most wonderful
truths, though communicated to the world once for all
by inspired teachers, could not be comprehended all at
Once by the recipients . . . . but have required only
the longer time and deeper thought for their full eluci-
dation.” Thus it is not essential Christianity which
evolves but only its historical elucidation, and the two
things are in reality treated as separate entities. After
all, Newman signally fails to find any vital place for the
Conception of growth as fundamental to Christianity’s
nature. -
Among Protestants the problem of development was
approached from a different angle. Newman had been
Compelled to face this question in order to legitimize the
history of the church in which change and variation
no longer could be denied. If the authority of the
ecclesiastical organization was to be maintained, the
notion of development must be admitted into Christian-
ity far enough to cover the changes which time had
wrought in the outward history of the church. Protes-
tants, on the other hand, except those Anglicans who
swung far toward Rome in their reaction against liberal-
ism—a movement of which Newman was a leader before
his outright adoption of Catholicism—easily dismissed
all ecclesiastical developments as mere perversions of
true Christianity. Its history was not a vital growth,
but a process of degeneration and decay. The problem
of so defining Christianity as to give the notion of
development any important place in the definition did
not become a real issue for Protestant scholars until
they felt it desirable to bring religion into more vital
relations with the historic life of the human spirit and
IO The Evolution of Early Christianity
to recognize that the New Testament, which had con-
stituted the Protestant norm for faith, was itself the
product of growth.
A tendency to ally religion more closely with human-
ity, and so to make it less a thing from without, early
appeared in English deism and German rationalism.
But these movements were more negative than positive
in their results. They denied to Christianity much
that had traditionally been regarded as essential to its
nature, without formulating a new definition of its
character with a view to displaying the real genius of
its historical development. But German idealism,
especially as expounded by Hegel, made an effort to
supply this needed definition. For him the universe
is at heart spiritual, or perhaps better, intellectual, being
grounded in the divine Idea, the absolute Reason, whose
essential nature consists in living development. Ideally
the world is the very product of this development of
the logical thought of the absolute spirit. Since thought
and being are thus a unit, philosophical dialectic repro-
duces, at least in kind, the evolutionary process of the
absolute, and every historic product of the human spirit
—custom, law, art, Science, philosophy, religion—is a
more or less perfect expression of the absolute. Progress
is the result of conflict and discord in the general trend
of all things which are synthetically evolving nearer
and nearer to the divine Idea, itself the ultimate and
absolute truth. Similarly in the realm of religion every
new stage in the development of the human spirit marks a
new revelation of divine truth.
What, then, is the Hegelian understanding of Chris-
tianity’s nature ? Seemingly the notion of development,
&
The Developmental Nature of Christianity II
not only in externals but also in essentials, has been
made central. Closer inspection, however, shows that
even this mode of interpretation does not find Chris-
tianity to have been so thoroughly developmental, a
process of vital historical growth, as might at first
sight be imagined. To begin with, Hegel had little
interest in the historical life of Christianity as a whole.
His primary concern was with doctrine only. Nor did
he view this in its entirety; much less was he interested
in its actual historical growth. In closing his lectures
On the philosophy of religion” he affirms that his aim
has been “to reconcile reason and religion, to show how
we know this latter to be in all its manifold forms neces-
sary, and to rediscover in revealed religion the truth
and the idea.” In other words, he is concerned with
supposed abstract elements of universality in Chris-
tianity rather than with its concrete phenomena, and
he discovers the universal through a process of philo-
Sophical reflection acting upon the content of religious
ideas. The vital situations out of which these ideas
come are not made the norm for estimating their char-
acter. That is determined by relating them to the
imaginary absolute. Accordingly, Hegel can say of
the religious situation in his own day that “philosophy
which is theology is solely concerned with showing
the rationality of religion,” and so “forms a sanctuary
apart and those who serve in it constitute an isolated
order of priests who must not mix with the world and
whose work is to protect the possessions of truth.”
This is not the attitude of one who thinks Christianity
* Vorlesungen über die Philosophie der Religion (Berlin, 1832, 1840°),
English tr., Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion (London, 1895).
I2 . The Evolution of Early Christianity
a genuine product of vital historical forces. It is, on
the contrary, ultimately an esoteric philosophy con-
structed according to a pre-arranged divine pattern
called the Absolute.
Thus interpreted Christianity is ultimately unde-
velopmental. The human attainment of truth is, in-
deed, an evolutionary process, but the real content and
Substance of that truth are determined from without.
The growth of Christianity, as a historical phenomenon,
is recognized, but it is not a purely spontaneous growth,
since it must conform to a model called the Absolute
which fixes the goal before the process of development
begins. Thus Christianity is essentially the reproduc-
tion of a set of ideas divinely determined beforehand.
Man's struggle to attain them may be long and laborious,
but they are in no true sense a product of his struggle.
He is able to grasp them because of the fortunate cir-
cumstance that he is made in their image; he is never
to be regarded as their creator. Newman, we found,
restricted the notion of development to the historical
elucidation of Christianity, leaving its essential content
quite untouched by conditions of historical growth.
Hegel applied the principle of development more rigor-
ously to the method by which man attains the essential
in religion, but he still defined that essence as an inde-
pendent entity, the Absolute, whose real content was
not in the least determined by the developmental
forces of history.
Hegel’s neglect of historical phenomena was recog-
nized even by his followers, and they early attempted
an application of his philosophical principles to the
specific data of Christianity, especially in reference to
The Developmental Nature of Christianity I3
the origins of dogma. F. C. Baur,” and the members of
the Tübingen school in general, found early Christianity
to be a development out of specific, conflicting historical
forces. The Jewish particularism of the Palestinian
community on the one hand, and Pauline universalism
on the other were finally synthesized through an evo-
lutionary process into early Catholicism, and the books
of the New Testament were thought to represent differ-
ent points of view emerging in the course of the contro-
versy. Although Baur's procedure thus approximated
to a truly scientific historical method—a fact not always
appreciated by critics of the Tübingen school—he con-
fined attention so exclusively to the intellectual side of
human activity, neglecting its emotional and volitional
phases, that his conception of Christianity’s content was
not sufficiently comprehensive. He did maintain in a
more realistic way than Hegel had done that human
ideas and historical events are closely interwoven.
Hence early Christianity, on its doctrinal side, was more
vitally developmental, but its ultimate essence was still
defined in terms of the Hegelian doctrine of the Abso-
lute, and, therefore, necessarily remained undevelop-
mental in the last analysis.
In more recent years the Hegelian interpretation of
Christianity has been considerably modified, especially
in the direction of recognizing more fully its concrete,
historical character. Accordingly, the Absolute be-
comes less a predetermined quantum and more a prod-
uct of historical growth. Troeltsch, for example,
maintains that the Christian religion is to be placed
* See in this connection his Das Christenium und die christliche
Kirche der drei ersten Jahrhunderte (Tübingen, 1853, 1860°).
I4. The Evolution of Early Christianity
side by side with other faiths, and is to be studied by
the same general Scientific method of investigation.
Since they must be treated as normal evolutionary
developments in the life of humanity, so it must be
viewed as a strictly historical evolution. If it is to take
precedence over other religions its supremacy can be
maintained solely on the ground of actual merit histori-
cally demonstrated. It appears, however, that Chris-
tianity as a matter of fact is the best religion, and so
has a just claim to the title “absolute.” As yet its com-
plete finality may not be fully established, but its devel-
opment is Surely moving toward this end. Enough of
its distinctive characteristics have already emerged to
furnish adequate ground for faith in its ultimate abso-
luteness. So Troeltsch can speak of an “essential”
Christianity in whose history the fundamental “ideal”
is being realized through progress toward the “absolute
goal.” &
Idealistic philosophy, even in this form, does not
Supply a vitally developmental conception of Chris-
tianity’s nature. While a process of evolution is recog-
nized, it is supposed to issue in an Absolute no longer
subject to the laws of growth. Thus the more essen-
tial phases of Christianity have already become static,
and when the process of development has reached a
further stage it will result in fixing a comparatively
complete quantitative entity which will transcend the
historic evolution by which it is said to have been
* See his Die Absolutheit des Christeniums und die Religionsgeschichte
(Tübingen, Igo2, 1912°); also articles “Dogmatik” and “Glaube und
Geschichte” in Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart, II (Tübingen,
I9Io); and “The Dogmatics of the religionsgeschichtliche Schule,”
American Journal of Theology, XVII (1913), I-2I.
The Developmental Nature of Christianity I5
produced. Even if this outcome were possible, how
could a result be called “absolute” unless an external
criterion were applied for determining the ultimate P So
long as history is being made—and it is vain to theorize
about a time when history will cease to be in the making
—it is quite impossible to be certain that an ideal goal
has been reached at any particular stage of religious
life. Certain results attained may be exceptionally
valuable, but according to a genuinely developmental
conception of life these attainments cannot be called
completely ideal and absolute. In fact such terms are
not consonant with the notion of vital growth. From
this point of view all objective items are merely the
product of certain religious activities on the part of
individuals who may attempt to make their attain-
ments serviceable for future generations by labeling
these results “ideal” and “absolute.” But the only
ideal which true development knows is the necessity
of constantly striving to produce a genuine religious
life in each new generation which shall not only emulate .
the past but shall endeavor to transcend all previous
so-called ideals. Even to say that certain past attain-
ments have not yet been transcended does not alter the
situation. It is still, and always will be, the business
of a truly developmental and vital religion to strive,
nor can any limit be fixed beyond which it may be said
that striving becomes useless. This does not imply a
depreciation of the past, but only the abandonment
of the Platonic Absolute in favor of a strictly empirical
criterion for estimating the worth of religious values.
Another mode of thinking, which received a strong
impetus from Herder and Schleiermacher, which was
16 The Evolution of Early Christianity
adopted by Ritschl, and which has become widely
prevalent, especially among the so-called modern
“liberal” theologians, has exerted an important influ-
ence upon the definition of Christianity’s nature.
Although representatives of this view commonly hold
to some form of belief in an Absolute, they do not
attach primary worth to philosophical formulation of
dogma, but place chief stress upon personal religious
experience. They define Christianity mainly as a type
of experience realized within the community of believers.
While absolute identity of experience for all members of
the community cannot be affirmed, there is supposed
to be a common element sufficiently representative to
Constitute the essence of Christianity, and to furnish a
basis for belief in its distinctiveness and finality.
Schleiermacher advocated essentially this position
when he defined religion as a “feeling of dependence,”
a consciousness of the individual’s relation to Deity.
Christianity, however, he regarded as a genuine product
of the human spirit rather than a new divine insert into
life. Man has been so created that spiritual growth is
a fundamental law of his constitution; in fact, all
spiritual life has its ground in the creative purpose of
God, who by hidden laws effects a revelation of himself,
now dimly, now brightly, through the medium of earthly
individuals but supremely in the person of Jesus. Thus
even Jesus’ God-consciousness is fundamentally a
personal attainment on his part, reached through the
normal exercise of his own spiritual personality. Simi-
larly believers, while availing themselves of historical
means of grace, must find the essential content of re-
ligion in a personal experience of God, worked out in
The Developmental Nature of Christianity I7
accordance with the inherent capabilities of the indi-
vidual. The help which comes from without does not
create religion, but only stimulates and brings to fruitage
powers already latent in man.
On this interpretation Christianity is developmental,
but only in a restricted sense of the term. There is
development in the personal attainment of experi-
ence, yet this experience is conditioned by an original
supernatural endowment bestowed upon humanity at
creation. Moreover, the perfect embodiment of the
God-consciousness in the person of Jesus is a norm for
determining the true character and content of experi-
ence. Thus, ultimately, Christianity is supernaturally
conditioned and is made to conform to an objective cri-
terion, so that the process of growth pertains only to
the working-out of these given data in the religious life
of the individual and of the community. Furthermore,
Schleiermacher paid little attention to the historical
career of Christianity. He generally ignored the influ-
ence of varying local conditions and contemporary
thinking as possible factors influencing religious experi-
ence in successive periods of history.
To Ritschl the need of treating Christianity in a more
strictly historical fashion appealed more strongly. This
seemingly was an inheritance from his earlier training
in the Tübingen school. He followed Schleiermacher,
however, in defining religion as man’s sense of depend-
ence upon God. Christianity more specifically is the
religion in which the God-consciousness is most truly
realized because of the revelation of God in Christ.
* See particularly his Die Enistehung der alikatholischen Kirche
(Bonn, 1857)." g
18 The Evolution of Early Christianity
Ritschl sought to correct the strong individualism of
Schleiermacher by emphasizing the significance of the
community, the church, which constitutes the visible
kingdom of God, but he followed Schleiermacher rather
than Baur in defining the distinctive features character-
izing the historical life of the community. For him the
significant thing in its history was not a conflict of ideas
issuing in doctrinal postulates, but a type of experience
which remained essentially uniform in content from the
time of Jesus and the apostles on. In this fundamental
respect there was unity between Paul and the primitive
Palestinian believers, and this same original feature was
also held to be preserved in the early Catholic church,
though it was gradually obscured by degenerating
influences from the contemporary heathen world,
particularly in the realm of philosophical speculation.
Thus for Ritschl, as for Schleiermacher, Christianity
was in no fundamental sense developmental; there was
no vital interaction between essential Christianity and
contemporary life during the course of history.
Between Ritschl and the modern “liberals,” as repre-
sented for example by Harnack, there is no radical
difference of view regarding Christianity's nature.
Harnack insists that the historian nowadays must show
how one thing has grown out of another, he recognizes
that religion too is no ready-made structure but a
genuine growth, and he finds Christianity not only to
have been subject to change in the past, but to be in a
* Cf. his Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte (Freiburg, 1886–90, 1894–
973), English tr., History of Dogma (London, 1896); Christianity and
History (London, 1907); Das Wesen, des Christentums (Leipzig, 1900),
English tr., What Is Christianity ? (New York, 1901).
The Developmental Nature of Christianity I9
state of constant development. Yet “essential” Chris-
tianity is something quite distinct from the totality of
these varying historical phenomena commonly summed
up under the general designation “Christianity.” A
restricted section of the whole is chosen as kernel while
the remainder is declared to be only husk, and the
principle of selection is determined by defining this
“essence” in terms of a particular type of individual
experience, the consciousness of fellowship with God,
the believer thus repeating Jesus’ experience of God’s
fatherhood and man’s sonship. This ethical-religious
element formed the heart of Jesus’ message and con-
stitutes the kernel of Christianity in every genuine stage
of its career.
Since this essence is ex hypothesi a distinctively
Christian possession, the influence of contemporary life
upon primitive Christianity becomes a question of only
minor importance. While environment does, in a
general way, affect personal experience, the source of a
truly Christian experience is God as mediated by the
historical Jesus whose personal influence is perpetuated
by believers. As Harnack puts it, “at the end of the
series of messengers and agents of God stands Jesus
Christ. They point back to him, and it is from him that
has sprung the river of life which they bear in themselves
as their own.” The tributaries which empty into
this river are either so small as to have no appreciable
effect, or else their impure waters only discolor the
original stream, and necessitate the work of filtration.
Thus Christianity is essentially static and quantita-
tive rather than developmental, and the problem of its
* Christianity and History, p. 44.
20 The Evolution of Early Christianity
relationship to contemporary life practically drops out
of sight." g
The so-called Modernist movement within Roman
Catholicism also places much emphasis upon Christian
experience, though not confining its scope so narrowly
as many “liberal” Protestants do. The collective
Christian consciousness and the doctrine of divine
immanence are basal in the Modernist’s definition of
Christianity. It is primarily an affair of the human
spirit in fellowship with the immanent God of Chris-
tian faith, and so is largely developmental in character.
In contrast with the traditional Catholic view, primitive
Christianity is not regarded as a perfect robe to be
further unfolded but as a vital organism constantly
expanding into new stages of life; and, as opposed to
the Protestant notion of deterioration, every stage in
this development is held to be part of a legitimate and
necessary growth.” Christianity at first was a religion
of spiritual simplicity, “formless and undogmatic,”
which spread over the Roman world, “adapting itself
to the mentality and spiritual education of every region
* Similarly Mezger, Die Absolutheit des Christentums und die Religions-
geschichte (Tübingen, IQI2), makes the untranscendable nature of
Christian experience as revealed in Jesus the guaranty of Christianity’s
absoluteness. Christian development pertains to the more perfect.
realization of fellowship with God, but this type of experience is not
subject to change, and can never be transcended, nor does it owe its
genesis to evolutionary forces. In other words, Christianity is ulti-
mately a canonical experience, and everything else that goes into the
making of its history is of secondary moment if not, indeed, really
Spurious.
* See Loisy, L'Évangile et l'église (Paris, 1903, 19084), English tr., The
Gospel and the Church (London, 1903).
The Developmental Nature of Christianity 2I
and borrowing from each the elements most suited for
its own further development.”
Yet by a kind of dualism Christianity from the start
is found to contain a static element which remains un-
affected by development. To cite the Modernist
Programme, “everything in the history of Christianity
has changed—doctrine, hierarchy, worship; but all
these changes have been providential means for the
preservation of the gospel spirit which has remained
unchanged through the ages.” There is “a religious
experience which once evoked by the preaching of Christ
has remained substantially the same thing under all its
successive embodiments.” Since this immutable essence
constitutes the fundamental and distinctive thing in
primitive Christianity, the Modernist does not need to
be concerned primarily with the question of environ-
mental influences. They have no vital bearing upon
Christianity’s ultimate genesis and essential character,
but pertain only to its later expansion.
This survey of opinion shows how generally Chris-
tianity has been defined in static and quantitative terms.
At one time it is said to be identical with an ecclesiastical
* The Programme of Modernism (New York, 1908), pp. 79 f.
* P. 92.
3 P. 77. Cf. also Loisy, The Gospel and the Church, p. 171: “Setting
aside all theological subtleties, the Catholic church, as a society founded
on the gospel, is identical with the first circle of the disciples of Jesus
if she feels herself to be, and is, in the same relation with Jesus as the
disciples were, if there is a general correspondence between her actual
state and the primitive state, if the actual organism is only the primi-
tive organism developed and decided, and if the elements of the church
today are the primitive elements grown and fortified, adapted to the
ever-increasing functions they have to fulfil.”
22 The Evolution of Early Christianity
organization, which is attested by mechanical revelation
or approved by practical tests of efficiency. Again, it
is a fixed system of doctrine, whose finality is established
by appeal either to a scriptural canon, or to a certain
form of metaphysical speculation. Finally, it is a
specific type of religious experience, either narrowly
restricted in content, or else made broad enough to
include different varieties. Even when the notion of
development is introduced to account for changes in the
course of history, a certain immutable and historically
unconditioned “essence” appears at the outset, or
emerges in the process of growth. This forms the primal
element in Christianity’s constitution, and is the ultimate
ground of its distinctive character as a religion. The
student of Christian origins is, therefore, mainly con-
cerned with this initial and fundamental essence. The
question of contemporary influences is wholly secondary,
since it relates only to the later history of this given
original and never to its primary constitution. All
phenomena fall into two categories, namely, original
or borrowed, genuine or spurious, essential or unessen-
tial. +
It is becoming more and more difficult to maintain the
legitimacy of these distinctions. Any effort to fix upon
an irreducible minimum of genuine “essence” can suc-
ceed only by setting up some quantity of experience, or
belief, or practice as essential, while all other features
are denominated unessential. But this is a doubtful
procedure. In the first place, instead of defining
Christianity comprehensively, attention is centered
upon certain restricted phases of the whole. Even if
it were possible to ascertain with perfect certainty a
The Developmental Nature of Christianity 23
given sum of items possessed in common by all Chris-
tians, it would still be quite unfair to neglect all other
features which may have been equally important and
essential at certain periods and within particular circles.
To affirm, for example, that the essential elements of
Christianity in the first century were only those items
which believers of that day have in common with the
“liberal” theologian of the twentieth century, is to
eliminate as unessential to first-century believers their
realistic eschatology, their belief in demons and angels,
their vivid supernaturalism, their Sacramentalism, their
notion of the miraculous content of religious experience,
and various other features of similar importance. Cer-
tainly primitive Christianity cannot be perfectly under-
stood without taking full account of these items, and
one may fairly question the legitimacy of any interpre-
tation which does not make them even “essential” to
Christianity’s existence in the first century.
Furthermore, the customary distinction between
genuine and spurious is likely to prove misleading. It
assumes that a sharp line can be drawn between what
we know to have been original with a certain group of
persons like, say, Jesus and the apostles, and constituent
items from other sources. But this rigid distinction is
not always possible, not even in the case of Jesus him-
self. He and his followers all lived in vital contact with
specific environments and their religion was the outcome
of personal reaction upon their several worlds of reality.
Not only is it thus impracticable to distinguish between
“genuine” and “spurious” in their religion, but the
attempt to do so leads to a false inference. It is a
mistake to assume that only those items were genuine
24 The Evolution of Early Christianity
which chanced to be strictly novel, while those which
can be proved to be old or secondary are therefore
spurious. Everything was genuine in so far as it was
the expression of genuine conviction and experience on
their part, and answered a real religious need of their
time. Similarly in later times reaction upon new data
produces different phases of religion whose genuineness,
however, cannot be impugned merely on the ground
either of newness or of want of newness. All items
which answer the actual demands of any age constitute
genuine factors in its religious life. Only when one
assumes that a specific set of data from a particular
group of individuals can be justly said to embrace every-
thing belonging to real religion, may all other items be
called spurious. But this, both practically and theo-
retically, is a very precarious assumption.
An even more serious difficulty connected with defin-
ing Christianity as a static essence is the fact that any
such definition deals with certain products or objective
characteristics of this religious movement rather than
with its real life. It is true that Christian persons for
nearly nineteen hundred years have been contributing
toward a rich fund of historical data on the basis of which
we may describe various phases of their religious activity.
They have established organizations, formulated doc-
trines, and defined the content of their experience in
order to conserve and legitimize for the benefit of others
the results of their own religious living. Their work in
these respects certainly has its value, yet no given quan-
tity of excerpts from these data can be said to constitute
“Christianity” in the ultimate sense of that term. Such
things will at best be only products—perhaps in some
The Developmental Nature of Christianity 25
instances merely by-products—of the great vital religious
movement as a whole. In order to understand the real
genesis and the peculiar genius of the Christian move-
ment we must penetrate beneath these historical remains
to the vital forces by which they were produced and
Sustained from age to age.
In this fundamental and comprehensive sense Chris-
tianity is coterminous with the actual religious living
of individuals and communities who from generation
to generation have inherited the Christian name and
made the religious attainments of former Christians a
part of their own world of objective reality. Historical
Christianity is a result of this religious living and must
of necessity show a variety of features corresponding to
different conditions of life at different times and in
different localities. A quantitative definition of this
religious movement must, if it is to be comprehensive or
even representative of the whole, be true to the totality
of past historical phenomena and must accurately antici-
pate all future variations. A statement which includes
only a certain selected “essence,” or which sets limits
to the possibilities of future development, is in reality
only a partial definition of certain phases which have
appeared in the historical career of the movement.
Christianity can be ultimately and comprehensively
conceived only in the developmental sense, as the
product of actual persons working out their religious
problems in immediate contact with their several worlds
of reality, the process being renewed in the religious
experience of each new generation.
CHAPTER II
THE IMPORTANCE OF ENVIRONMENT FOR
CHRISTIAN ORIGINS
A developmental conception of Christianity's nature
carries with it important implications for a genetic
study of the new religion’s early history. If the move-
ment is understood to have been from the outset an
affair of real life, the variant factors entering into the
making of life in that day will naturally have much to
do with fashioning the historical phenomenon which we
commonly term primitive Christianity. In that case ;
any effort to understand the real inner constitution of
this new movement must be based upon a careful study
of the vital forces dominating the first believers’ imme-
diate environment. Must the student of Christian
origins relate the new religion thus closely to its con-
temporary world?
The problem of origins is a comparatively simple one
when Christianity’s nature is defined statically. Then
a particular quantity of instruction, especially com-
municated to certain individuals and passed on by them
to their successors, constitutes the substance of the new
religion. It is a quantity of revelation uniquely and
authoritatively mediated through specified agencies.
One has only to define the proper channel of revelation
in order to learn the secret of Christianity’s being. If
an ecclesiastical organization is vested with this divine
authority, the pronouncements of the church regarding
the origins of religion are final. If a canon of Scripture
26
Importance of Environment for Christian Origins 27
is made the norm for testing revelation, the New Testa-
ment version of the rise of Christianity can be accepted
without reserve or supplement. If the writers of the
New Testament books are thought to be interpreters
who do not always report tradition completely and in-
fallibly, the divine deposit of truth may yet be found in
the teaching of prominent persons like Paul or Jesus.
Christianity is still essentially a gift from heaven,
granted to certain select individuals. At stated times
in the past God has determined to make himself known
to specific persons who, in turn, have left to posterity
definite instructions to be observed by all later genera-
tions who would be truly religious. Thus the initial
force which brought the new religion into being and the
power by which it is at present maintained act from
without and guarantee its other-worldly character.
This emphasis upon externalism is out of harmony
with a thoroughly vital conception of religious develop-
ment. According to the latter notion, communion with
God was not in the past arbitrarily conditioned by special
displays of the divine initiative, nor is it to be obtained
at present by any one set of specific prescriptions. It is
available for every individual on a strictly empirical
basis. Therefore spiritual attainments are conditioned
by one's surroundings, they are colored by the character-
istics of one’s personality, and they are measured by the
vigor of one's religious activity. The content of experi-
ence will vary according to individual circumstances and
will be variously expressed in the language of different
persons. Since experience is not externally and mechani-
cally mediated, variation does not invalidate its con-
tent nor does uniformity guarantee its normativeness.
28 The Evolution of Early Christianity
Consequently Christianity may quite properly embrace
different types of religious attainment in accordance with
variations in environment and personality.
From this point of view the primary activity which
called the Christian movement into existence was not the
ab extra insertion of some other-worldly quantity of
ritual, doctrine, or ethical instruction into the realm of
human experience, but an outburst of spiritual energy
on the part of Jesus and his followers striving after new
and richer religious attainments under the stimuli of a
new and more suggestive environment. It was only
natural, from the standpoint of ancient psychology and
metaphysics, that those attainments should have been
portrayed in the language of externalism; but from the
modern standpoint they must be estimated in terms of
various individuals’ response to their religious environ-
ment, their direct reaction upon their own peculiar
world, and their personal conquests in the realm of
spiritual experience.
The importance of becoming familiar with the early
Christians' world as a means of understanding their life
is coming to be more fully appreciated by students of
Christian Origins. In the first place, the language in
which the New Testament books are written is now
regarded as a distinct product of Graeco-Roman times.
This language is Greek, but it is not the Greek of Plato
or Xenophon either in its style or in its vocabulary.
Centuries of life under new conditions had produced a
language which was in Some respects new. Old words
underwent a change in meaning, new words were coined,
syntactical usage changed, and new standards of literary
style were established. This new world-speech—the
Importance of Environment for Christian Origins 29
koine (Kouvī)—is the product of post-classical times and
can be properly understood only in the new setting.
Formerly it used to be supposed that the New Testament
Contained a large number of hapax legomena, and that
the New Testament writers had been forced to create this
unique vocabulary in order to express their new religious
ideas. Similarly other words apparently had in their
New Testament setting a significance not exemplified
elsewhere in Greek literature. But in the great majority
of instances these unusual words have since been found in
the everyday speech of that age. Thus we are brought
to realize the necessity of reading the New Testament
books primarily in the light of linguistic usage in the
first century of our era."
The political and social background of early Chris-
tianity is also largely a Hellenistic product. Even
within Palestine the conditions under which Jesus and
his followers lived were quite directly the result of
contact with the outside world. It was this force
which had caused the Maccabean rebellion, and the
* The literature on this subject is already voluminous. A few
representative books are Thumb, Die griechische Sprache im Zeitalter des
Hellenismus (Strassburg, Igor); Deissmann, Bibelstudien (Marburg,
1895) and Neue Bibelstudien (ibid., 1897), English tr., Bible Studies
(Edinburgh, 1901), also Licht vom Osten (Tübingen, 1908, 1909°), English
tr., Light from the Ancient East (New York and London, 1910); J. H.
Moulton, A Grammar of New Testament Greek (Edinburgh, 1905, 1906°);
Radermacher, Neutestamentliche Grammatik (Tübingen, 1911). For
periodical literature, being mostly a survey of recent books, see Wit-
kowski, “Bericht tiber die Literatur zum Koine aus den Jahren Igo3–6,”
Jahresbericht für Alteriumswissenschaft, CLIX (1912), I-279; Deiss-
mann, “Die Sprache der griechischen Bibel,” Theologische Rundschau,
XV (1912), 339–64; Stocks, “Das neutestamentliche Griechisch im
Lichte der modernen Sprachforschung,” Weue kirchliche Zeitschrift,
XXIV (1913), 633-53 and 681-700.
3O The Evolution of Early Christianity
subsequent political and social problems of Jewish life
were solved under the influence of constant pressure
from without. The existence of such parties as Sad-
ducees, Pharisees, and Zealots, the presence of the tax-
Collectors and the exaction of the tribute money, the
policing of Jerusalem with foreign soldiers and the
Roman control of the high-priesthood, the establish-
ment of synagogues where the service was conducted
in the Greek language—these are a few indications of the
extent to which foreign forces had affected conditions of
life even in Judaea; while for the Jews of the Dispersion
this sort of influence was necessarily much greater.
The early Christians soon found themselves in even
closer touch than the Jews had been with gentile life.
When they broke with the synagogue, as they were soon
forced to do, and when the membership of the community
became largely gentile, the background of their life and
thinking became increasingly non-Jewish. Their cul-
tural status in general was that of the society in which
they had been reared, the activities of their everyday
life were determined by contemporary economic con-
ditions, in fact their whole world of reality with all its
complicated relationships was the Graeco-Roman world
of the first century A.D. In so far as these relationships
affect the religion of individuals—and such influence is
always more or less pronounced—it is important that the
Contemporary political, Social, and cultural situation
should be taken into account in studying the beginnings
of Christianity.
Still more important for our present study is the
religious setting which the Graeco-Roman world fur-
nished for the life of the early Christians. It is easy,
Importance of Environment for Christian Origins 31
however, to overlook the importance of this background.
Until within comparatively recent times the nature of
Christianity has been so defined as practically to exclude
the notion of important contemporary religious relation-
ships for the early Christians, and the subject has accord-
ingly been very generally neglected.
We do not always realize that Christianity arose in
a “very religious” world. Its ultimate triumph leaves
moderns with the impression that it has always been
the same dominant and self-sufficient religion which it
seems to be in our day. Even when the existence of
its original competitors is recognized, their popularity
and strength may be greatly discounted. The religions
of the Roman Empire in the first century A.D. were not
SO completely decadent as has often been imagined.
This was in reality a period of remarkable religious activ-
ity in which various types of faith spread themselves
Over the Mediterranean world. The strength and extent
of Judaism at that time, both in Palestine and in the
Diaspora, are a well-known fact. The Gentiles also
were hardly less religious in their own way than were the
Jews. Paganism offered men the help of many different
deities with a variety of doctrines and ceremonies
designed to meet the needs of different classes of wor-
shipers. Religion was a subject of general interest. It
Occupied a large place in the life of the common man,
it was discussed by poets and philosophers, and even the
State claimed to be established upon a religious basis.
Christians, instead of being among the first advocates
of religion to enter this territory, were really among the
last. Consequently they were brought into immediate
Contact with other faiths, a contact so close and so long
32 . The Evolution of Early Christianity
continued that it at once suggests the probability of
important genetic relationships between the new reli-
gion and its contemporaries. However extensively the
former may seem to abound in original features, one
must recognize that in childhood it was rocked in a
Jewish cradle and that it grew to maturity in a gentile
home. Its Jewish connections are admittedly extensive,
but at an early date the new movement was transferred
to gentile lands. Long before the first century closed
the chief centers of Christian activity had moved from
Palestine to Syrian Antioch, Ephesus, Corinth, Rome,
and possibly to Alexandria. All these places were
strongholds of other religions, with which Christians
were thus living in close contact during the impression-
able period of youthful life in the new faith.
Nor did the contemporary religions fade away quietly
before the new propaganda. On the contrary, they
offered a stout resistance. Although Christians vigor-
ously proclaimed the utter worthlessness of any religion
except their own, their hearers were by no means ready
to accept this interpretation of the situation. It would
be a grave mistake to suppose that the adherents of all
other faiths were generally dissatisfied with their past
religious history. Just as Yahweh retained the alle-
giance of his chosen people, so the pagan deities had
not only loyal followers but in some instances also
energetic missionaries. We must not think that the
Christian evangelists cultivated purely virgin soil, for
in reality they worked fields already occupied by formi-
dable competitors. Opposition came first from the Jews
and then from the Gentiles, and continued in force for
several generations. Certainly at no time within the
Importance of Environment for Christian Origins 33
first century could it be said that the new religion had
SO completely displaced other faiths, or had so thoroughly
isolated itself, as to make their influence an item of no
possible consequence for its own life.
Since Christian missionaries were thus forced to com-
pete for a place in occupied territory, they were not at
liberty to create all religious data de novo. Their audi-
ences were composed of people who had already worked
out an extensive religious vocabulary, who gave much
attention to the observance of stated rites, and who
thought in terms of certain generally accepted ideas.
While the Christian preachers could not have won con-
verts without proclaiming the newness and superiority of
Christianity, still their prospects for success would
seemingly have been slight had they not used the
terminology which was familiar to their hearers and
shown that the new religion, however novel and self-
sufficient it might claim to be, conserved and enhanced
the values of the old. The latter could not be totally
ignored in actual practice if Christianity was to meet, as
its advocates manifestly intended it should, the same
practical religious demands which its predecessors had—
inadequately, according to the Christian view—aimed
to satisfy. Under these circumstances it was necessary
for the Christian preacher to state his message in the
religious language and thought-forms of the age. While
he doubtless had no intention of deliberately borrowing
from foreign sources, he certainly did not have ready at
hand in Christian tradition the full solution of these
practical problems. It was his task to make adjust-
ments to new situations. This pragmatic necessity
may easily, though quite unconsciously, have resulted
34 The Evolution of Early Christianity
for Christians in the enrichment of experience and the
evolution of ideas and practices under the influence of
Contemporary religions.
This possibility is further supported by the fact that
Christianity did not start out full grown, but developed
Some of its important characteristics in response to
the exigencies of expansion. At first the Christian com-
munity seemed to think of itself chiefly as a messianic
company of Orthodox Jews, but Jewish rejection of its
messianic teaching forced the development of an inde-
pendent organization. The practical demands of gentile
missions also compelled a change of attitude toward the
Jewish ceremonial law, a change to which some Pales-
tinians strenuously objected. But the gentile forces
prevailed. And ultimately the realistic Jewish escha-
tology, so dominant in the early days, had to be recast
and the religious values which it embodied restated,
to correspond with the actual course of history and the
more stable circumstances in which gentile Christians
found themselves. s
Furthermore, the membership of the churches in these
formative days must have consisted mainly of converts
from other faiths. Christianity was not yet old enough
to have trained up men from youth within its own
communion. At first very little attention seems to have
been given to the children, doubtless because it seemed
improbable that they would have time to grow to man-
hood before the end of the world should come. The
importance of bringing them up within the church was
later realized, but the procedure apparently was con-
trary to apostolic practice, since tradition sought to jus-
tify the innovation by recalling that Jesus had overridden
Importance of Environment for Christian Origins 35
the apostles’ views when he said, “Suffer the little chil-
dren to come unto me; forbid them not, for of such is
the kingdom of God.” Yet in all probability during the
first century many members of Christian communities—
until the last quarter of the century certainly a large
majority—had previously been adherents of other
religions, and it is quite unlikely that their past would
be completely obliterated in making the transition from
one communion to another. The effect of past training
was evident in the case of Palestinians like James and
his conservative associates in Jerusalem, as well as in the
case of Hellenists like Stephen, Paul, and Apollos. That
the situation would be similar among gentile converts is
intrinsically most probable. When they espoused the
new movement they must of necessity have brought with
them a certain intellectual, moral, and religious heritage
which would thus become a vital part of developing
Christianity.
These conditions must have been very significant for
the origins of the new religion. Since its advocates
lived in a world already full of competing religions, since
they were in close contact with other faiths and even
contended with them for territory already occupied,
since many aspects of developing Christianity were
determined under the pressure of these conditions, and
since the membership of the Christian communities was
drawn largely from other communions, the importance of
consulting the religious situation in the contemporary
Graeco-Roman world is self-evident.
Does it follow that Christianity was not in truth a
new religion but only a recasting of religious data already
*Mark Io: I4; Matt. Ig: 14; Luke 18:16.
36 The Evolution of Early Christianity
present in the ancient world P. This has sometimes been
affirmed. Yet no serious historian cares to deny that a
new religious awakening began with the preaching of
John the Baptist, that its scope was enlarged and its
force accelerated through the work of Jesus, and that
in the century following his death the new movement
grew rapidly in numbers until its sway extended far
beyond its original Palestinian home. That the move-
ment was new in the formal sense of being another
religion among others already in existence is a generally
recognized fact. Not only was it one among others, but
in a relatively short time it almost completely supplanted
all competitors. Though the popular faiths and the
philosophies of the day endured for a few generations,
they ultimately disappeared. Judaism indeed main-
tained an independent existence, but only under the
shadow of intense opposition and in remote places.
Within a few centuries Christianity became not merely
the most prominent but virtually the only recognized
religion of the Mediterranean world. This success
is sometimes thought to prove its absolute independence
of all environmental relationships; had it not been a
strictly new creation it could not have routed all oppo.
nents so thoroughly, nor could it have answered so ade-
quately the various religious demands of that day.
This, however, is not the only possible interpreta-
tion of the data. May not Christianity’s phenomenal
success have to be ascribed in large measure to the
skill with which zealous missionaries like Paul—who
strove to become “all things to all men” that he might
save some—adapted themselves to contemporary con-
ditions? In no other way is it possible, we are sometimes
Importance of Environment for Christian Origins 37
told, to explain how a movement begun by a small Jewish
Sect could expand so widely and rapidly, could add so
many new features in the process of expansion, and
could meet the needs of so many different types of
people. Its champions, particularly on gentile soil,
are credited with having possessed a real genius for
adopting and readjusting current religious values, thus
fortifying their cause with the more vital and permanent
elements of contemporary faiths. So Christianity has
been explained as a collection of ancient myths, an
appropriation of current rites, and a combination of
already existing religious ideas, without any essentially
new features. In its most extreme form this type of
interpretation can even dispense with the historical Jesus,
since his personal activity is no longer necessary to
account for the origin of Christianity.
This disposition to ignore the significance of historical
personalities, and to attach undue importance to ideas
and rites, may easily be overstressed in recognizing the
importance of environment for the genesis of a religious
movement. Jesus’ personal activity, as well as that of
his disciples, forms an indispensable factor in the origin
of Christianity." Yet can their work be called “new” if
they did not obtain the main content of their religion
by means of formal revelation and if at the same time
their thought and activity were molded and influenced
by surroundings P. On a static definition of Christianity’s
nature this question would be answered negatively, for
then newness must be measured by the quantity of
absolutely new dogmas, ethical ideals, or ecclesiastical
rites produced. But a vitally developmental conception
* See Case, The Historicity of Jesus (Chicago, Igi 2).
38 The Evolution of Early Christianity
of Christianity’s character finds the new religion's
distinctiveness in its devotees’ fresh attainment of
religious experience through personal religious living.
Not only the content of the experience, and the doctrines
or rites based upon it, but also the use which Christians
make of their spiritual energy in their efforts to answer
the religious demands of their age constitute, in the last
analysis, the uniqueness of Christianity.
While a forceful personality like Jesus or Paul will
naturally be in many respects distinctive in the realm
of religion, we must guard against assuming that original
features are necessarily, merely in virtue of their new-
ness, more valuable than appropriated items. When
religious values are tested by the criterion of vital
efficiency, the question of novelty and unique origin
is not primarily important. If it were possible to
duplicate many experiences of the Christians in the
lives of their predecessors or contemporaries, and if the
majority of the ideas they advocated and the rites they
observed should be found to have been already current
in earlier times, the Christian movement would still
retain its significance because of the way in which its
exponents co-ordinated their religious activity with the
life of their day. While their experience may not always
have been absolutely “new,” it was a fresh and vital
spiritual attainment on their part. Such attainment
was, to be sure, conditioned by past religious training and
contemporary ideas, but it also represented the results of
a new reaction upon given objective data. Similarly the
ideas and rites employed to objectivize, evaluate, and
convey to others the content of experiential religion
may for the most part have existed already in the
Importance of Environment for Christian Origins 39
contemporary world, but these things took on a new
significance in the Christians' own thinking when made
to function anew in their solution of vital religious prob-
lems. In this sense “old” and “new” may be equally
valuable and equally germane to early Christianity.
The fundamental worth of Christianity lay in the
manner in which its advocates ministered to the vital
religious needs of the time, not in the assumption that the
methods and tools employed had never been used before.
On first thought, we may be disposed to infer that they
must have used new tools else they could not have accom-
plished their great task, but is this a necessary assump-
tion ? Historical investigation may show that they
generally employed tried instruments and customary
methods, adopting new ones only when the old failed to
serve their purpose. Even then they need not have
assumed the rôle of inventor; they may quite as likely
have made a new selection from existing materials. In
any case, the uniqueness of the Christians’ work lay
fundamentally in their vital experience and vigorous
activity rather than in any creation of a new body of
quantitative data. -
Hence the need to study their life in the light of en-
vironment. Here they found their religious problems;
these problems were worked out through reaction upon
this environment; it supplied the materials for use in
the construction of their religious thinking, and it fur-
nished stimuli for their richest spiritual developments.
This does not mean that there was no originality in
Christianity, for it does not ignore the creative activity
of those forceful personalities who were responsible for
starting the new movement on its way and who added
4O The Evolution of Early Christianity
from time to time momentum to its life. They indeed
felt themselves divinely guided in the work of giving the
world a new religion, but their conviction had been
attained, and continued to receive new impulse and
power, through a strong spiritual reaction upon their
immediate world of reality. Their faith was born and
grew to maturity amid conflicts fought out in the arena
of real life. As this scene of action was at first distinctly
Jewish, but soon became mainly gentile, the early
Christians' relation both to their Jewish and to their
gentile environment is one of the primary facts to be
reckoned with in a study of Christian origins.
This problem, particularly on the side of gentile con-
nections, has as yet received a relatively small amount
of serious consideration. In describing the rise of Chris-
tianity much stress has been placed upon the personal
contributions of Jesus and the apostles. Their peculiar
significance for the founding of the new religion may to
some extent justify this procedure, yet even here the
environmental problem at last forces itself to the front.
While literary criticism of the Gospels has greatly clari-
fied Jesus' historical figure, the exact determination of
even the earliest source documents yields only certain
more or less primitive versions of Jesus’ words and deeds.
Neither these documents, nor the Jesus whom they
portray, produced Christianity in the first instance;
Christians—or different circles of Christians—produced
the documents, describing Jesus as seen from their
point of view and interpreted in terms of their special
problems. The incentives prompting communities or
individuals to produce documents, and the influences
which guided them in the selection and revision of
Importance of Environment for Christian Origins 41
materials, are the ultimate factors in the situation a
knowledge of which conditions, all genuinely historical
Study. Hence the historicity of all tradition must be
judged ultimately in the light of believers’ immediate
Surroundings."
Moreover, if complete information regarding Jesus’
life and teaching could be obtained this would not fully
disclose the origins of Christianity, if the latter is a
vital growth rather than a static quantity. As a his-
torical movement, it arose out of what early believers
made of Jesus and his teaching, not through the mere
preservation of a deposit which he committed to them
for Safe-keeping. Their heritage from him may have
been one of the most significant objective factors upon
which they reacted—though historical study cannot
take this statement to be simply axiomatic—yet it is
to their own vital activity that we must look for the
real secret of Christianity’s life. Their activity was
prompted, not by one agent, but by a host of stimuli
which intermingled to produce the various phenomena
of Christianity. In short, its origins must ultimately
be read in the light of the many determining factors
Supplied by the entire contemporary life.
The history of early Christianity has often been
written—and well written—from the standpoint of the
* Regard for environment is also fundamental for interpretation of
the Gospels as a whole, as well as for other New Testament writings. It
is a mistake to imagine that the Gospels have served their entire pur-
pose for the historical student when he has sifted from them a set of
excerpts which are thought to represent Jesus accurately. On the
contrary, they are throughout excellent testimonials to the growing life
of the new religion, and, in turn, can be interpreted accurately only
from the standpoint of their own historical origin.
42 The Evolution of Early Christianity
inner history of the community, without special refer-
ence to the influence of other surroundings upon the lives
of believers. The inner life of the new society is unques-
tionably a very important phase in the history of the
new religion. The energy which this sense of community
life developed, the growing consciousness of a distinc-
tive mission, the formulation of a common doctrine, the
establishment of ecclesiastical organization and ritualis-
tic Observances, and the production of a body of religious
literature are all valuable items in the story of Chris-
tianity’s origin. But if the lives of Christians were
temporally conditioned and if their contact with environ-
ment was really a vital one, as we have come to believe,
the story of their career is not complete until the various
genetic forces which acted upon their lives have been
taken into account. In this way only shall we truly
understand the real inner life of the community itself.
In the genesis of early Christianity the contribution
received from Jesus, and the forces which were generated
within the inner circle of the first believers, formed sig-
nificant items, but all these things were blended into
one effective whole under the pressure of forces supplied
by the immediate world in which Christians lived.
Consequently the primary problem in a study of
Christian origins is not to ask how many static items
other religions may have contributed toward the com-
position of a quantity of doctrine, conduct, or ritual
* E.g., Weizsäcker, Das apostolische Zeitalter der christlichen Kirche
(Tübingen, 1886, 19013), English tr., The Apostolic Age of the Christian
Church (New York, 1892, 1899°); McGiffert, A History of Christianity
in the Apostolic Age (New York, I897, 1899°); Ropes, The Apostolic
Age in the Light of Modern Criticism (New York, 1906); Achelis, Das
Christentum in den ersten drei Jahrhunderten (Leipzig, 1912); et al.
Importance of Environment for Christian Origins 43
said to constitute the “essence” of Christianity. This
latter statement of the problem not only rests upon a
misconception of Christianity’s real nature, but does
equal injustice to other faiths which were also ultimately
vital and developmental rather than static and quanti-
tative existences. The genetic relation between religious
movements with constantly changing vital connections
cannot be adequately estimated simply on the basis of a
series of similarities or differences in dogma and ritual.
It is not at all inconceivable that similar items may have
been produced independently, or may have had but a
very remote common ancestry; while differences which
may seem on the surface radical may be only regional or
temperamental variations of items which are genetically
closely akin. It is exceedingly difficult if not impossible
to determine genetic kinships by any atomistic pro-
cedure, which touches only the surface of the problem.
The deeper currents of actual life must be fathomed
before one can trace the truly genetic relationships of
religious movements in any age. ſ
The atomistic method, which has been used by some
students in defense of the complete originality of Chris-
tianity and by others to prove its totally secondary
character, is open to other serious objections. It too
easily permits the hypostatizing of ideas or rites, thus
treating them as though they have a real existence
apart from the life of the people by whom they are
cherished. We must not forget that ideas function
only when entertained by persons and reinforced by
environmental stimuli; they have no power apart from
these social relationships. When isolated and pushed
into the center of the stage, the discussion which revolves
44 The Evolution of Early Christianity
f
about them too readily becomes a mere academic
debate. “Ideas” cannot really be compared in any
truly genetic sense until they have been connected in a
vital way with the actual soil and the particular atmos-
phere which nourished their life.
In line with the tendency to hypostatize ideas, it has
also become customary to make a sharp distinction
between the term used to describe the idea and the con-
tent of the idea. Thus items in Christianity designated
by the same terms as similar items in other faiths are
yet found to be sufficiently unique to allow the supposi-
tion that only the form is borrowed while the idea is
wholly original.” Whether this separation of form from
content is to be made as sharply in real life as in our
academic discussions may be fairly doubted. Certainly
ideas have an exceedingly tenuous existence apart from
the phrases embodying them, though it is inevitable
that different people should stamp their individuality
upon the ideas they entertain and the words they
employ. But it is quite another thing to assume that
the early Christians, when using terms already current
among their religious contemporaries, first emptied the
language of its common meaning and then filled it with a
new content. Even had they done this, how would the
people to whom they were speaking know what had hap-
pened P Conceding that the Christians knew the mean-
ing generally attaching to current religious terminology,
* This argument is frequently advanced in such treatises as Clemen,
Religionsgeschichtliche Erklärung des Neuen Testaments (Giessen, 1908),
English tr., Primitive Christianity and Its Non-Jewish Sources (Edin-
burgh, 1912), also Der Einfluss der Mysterienreligionen auf das ālteste
Christentum (Giessen, 1913); Bonhöffer, Epiktet und das Neue Testament
(Giessen, 1911); Kennedy, St. Paul and the Mystery-Religions (London,
I913).
Importance of Environment for Christian Origins 45
and finding that it was used by them without definition
of a change in meaning, normal procedure must assume
that they–apart from individualistic variations—moved
in the same thought-world as their contemporaries.
Yet another danger attending the method of itemized
Comparisons lies in the tendency to isolate ideas or
persons from the totality of their historical environment.
For example, instead of setting a New Testament writer
into vital relation with his entire surroundings as a
means of understanding his thought, an effort is made
to expound his thinking as an independent entity. We
are sometimes told that the interpreter's first duty is
to define the exact meaning of a New Testament author
before placing him into relation with his contemporaries.
The non-Christian religions are, naturally, treated in a
similar manner. When the content of two contemporary
religions has been thus independently defined, each
having been studied in vacuo, we might almost say, then
the two entities are compared, with a view to observing
genetic relationships. The fundamental fallacy of this
procedure lies in supposing that any historic faith, or
any particular exponent of that faith, can be fully under-
stood without reference to the great vital milieu which
environment supplies. An interpretation of religion,
whether Christian or non-Christian, which does not pro-
ceed from a close examination of, and a sympathetic
touch with, the total surroundings in which its adher-
ents lived cannot be truly historical in the fullest sense
of that term.
Finally, the real question at issue in a study of Chris-
tian origins is not whether certain items in the new
religion can be classified as “original” while others may
46 The Evolution of Early Christianity
ſ
be only “derived.” If Christianity were fundamentally
a static quantity of data it might be desirable at the out-
set to maintain the originality of these items in order
to defend the new religion’s right to exist. But the
situation is very different when its real nature is defined
in terms of the activities of actual persons whose spiritual
experience was vitally linked with a definite social and
religious environment. In their case everything may
be called “original,” in so far as it was a product of their
own personal religious reaction upon their several
worlds of reality; and everything may be said to be
“derived,” in the sense of being the immediate product
of this reaction upon data supplied by history or by
immediate environment, and interpreted under the
impulsion of stimuli furnished by the actual world in
which believers lived.
Even mystical items of spiritual attainment cannot
be exempted from these realistic connections. The early
Christians actually found God in contemporary life, as
well as in history and personal experience. Their age
equipped them with a psychology and a metaphysics
which frequently measured the highest religious values
in terms of ecstasy, miracle, revelation, and externalism
in general. These things in turn became a means of
arriving at the heights of spiritual experience. While
we may without hesitation affirm that such experience
was often truly original, a new creation in the lives of
believers, it cannot be hypostatized and treated as
though it were an isolated entity having some existence
apart from the actual conditions in which it was shaped
and by which it was sustained. The founders of Chris-
tianity, like Christians in subsequent times, found God
Importance of Environment for Christian Origins 47
through contact with their own world, employing the
agencies and responding to the stimuli furnished by their
immediate surroundings.
In other words, Christianity was not at the outset,
nor did it ever become, primarily an abstract quantity
of doctrine, ethics, or ritual. Christians produced dogma,
defined rules of conduct, and established ritualistic
observances, but these were secondary to the vital
activity of actual Christian persons. A new generation
might be greatly influenced by the static items which it
received from its ancestors, yet it chose, interpreted, and
supplemented these according to its own needs and in
response to the vital demands which its own experience
furnished. Its objective historical inheritance formed
only a part of its total world of reality, and so constituted
only one phase in its religious life. Thus the advocates
of the new religion had from the start vital social rela-
tionships, and many important factors entering into the
making of their faith from age to age must have been
supplied by their contemporary world, a knowledge of
which is therefore essential to any thorough under-
standing of Christian origins.
The following survey of the evolution of primitive
Christianity is made with special reference to the religious
setting of believers. We shall not be chiefly concerned
to discover just what items in the New Testament may
be called “original” and what may be called “derived.”
Our task is broader and more fundamental. It is to
study the early Christians’ career in the light of their
Own vital reaction upon their immediate environment
as they worked out their religious problems in New
Testament times.
CHAPTER III
THE MEDITERRANEAN WORLD IN NEW TESTAMENT
TIMES
The territory about the eastern Mediterranean had
been occupied successively by a variety of civilizations
before the Christian era. The fertile Nile valley, the
regions watered by the Tigris and the Euphrates, the
Iranian plateau, the highlands of Asia Minor, the coast
lands of Phoenicia, the shores of the Aegean, and distant
Italy, all made from time to time their respective con-
tributions to the life of antiquity. Each of these civiliza-
tions shows distinctive characteristics corresponding
to different climatic conditions and physical environ-
ments. Varying physical features, constituting natural
barriers to unification, resulted in emphasizing tribal
distinctions and in arousing national hostilities. Instead
of developing a common world-culture on the basis of
friendly intercourse between different peoples, one nation
or another sought in turn to Crush all rivals and to impose
its own civilization upon the foreigner. Not until the
political control came to be exercised by some one
authority sufficiently strong to dominate the entire terri-
tory and sufficiently tolerant of different nationalities
to allow all peoples a fair measure of equal rights, could
anything like a common world-culture be established.
This goal had been at least partially attained in New
Testament times. Under Alexander the Great all the
country from Greece on the west to the Indus on the
east, from the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea on the
48
The Mediterranean World in New Testament Times 49
north to the Indian Ocean, the Persian Gulf, and Egypt
on the South had been made one kingdom. Alexander
had not aimed simply at Conquest; he sought to estab-
lish both political and national unification by a process
of fusion. The success of his work is demonstrated by
the degree of uniformity and the extent of common inter-
course which continued to show itself in this territory
in spite of the political disruption following Alexander's
death. Later, Rome continued the process of unification
in the western part of Alexander's empire. The Roman
dominions at the end of Trajan’s reign (117 A.D.) included
all of Europe northward as far as Britain, the Rhine, and
the Danube; in the East, Asia Minor, Armenia, Meso-
potamia, Assyria, Babylonia, Syria, Palestine, and
Arabia Petraea; in the South, Egypt and the entire
North African coast lands. Though Roman authority
was never firmly established east of the Euphrates,
still communication with the Farther East was main-
tained for commercial purposes. In the first century of
Our era there was comparatively free intercourse between
all parts of that ancient world resulting in a fusion of its
various elements such as had not been possible in any
previous period of history."
* The ancients themselves had become much interested in the study
of geography, as a work like Strabo’s shows (English tr. by Hamilton
and Falconer, 3 vols., London, 1913). For modern treatises see Smith,
Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography (London, 1854); Bunbury,
A History of Ancient Geography among the Greeks and Romans (2 vols.,
London, 1879); Ramsay, Historical Geography of Asia Minor (London,
1890), and article “Roads and Travel (in the New Testament) * in
Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible (extra vol., New York, 1904); G. A.
Smith, Historical Geography of the Holy Land (14th ed., New York, Igo8);
Hogarth, The Nearer East (New York, 1902); Forbiger, Handbuch der
alien Geographie (3 vols., Leipzig, 1844–48; 2. Aufl., Hamburg, 1877);
5O The Evolution of Early Christianity
To what part of this territory did the early Christians
belong? Tradition places their first assembly in Jerusa-
lem, although Jesus' own activity, according to Mark at
least, had been chiefly in Galilee. Even if the first
important gathering of believers was in Jerusalem where
the mother-church remained until shortly before the
fall of the city in 70 A.D., Christians in general by no
means confined themselves to this narrow territory.
No One set of geographical or climatic surroundings
conditioned the entire life of all Christians in New
Testament times. There were, of course, Christians
at Jerusalem who probably remained in that particular
vicinity all their lives, but others who were greatly
in the majority were scattered about the Mediterranean
in different localities, many of them frequently changing
residence as they moved with the shifting currents
of life. The New Testament data alone furnish ample
evidence of this cosmopolitan character of the new
movement. Christians were already in the outlying
districts of Palestine when Paul persecuted the new
faith, and after his conversion he propagated the same
teaching in Arabia, Syria, Cilicia, Asia Minor, Mace-
donia, and Greece. But Paul was only one—though the
principal one about whom the writer of Acts cares to
tell Theophilus—of many others who had adopted this
new religion and continued to preach it in their travels.
Kiepert, Lehrbuch der alten Geographie (Berlin, 1878), English tr., A
Manual of Ancient Geography (London, 1881); Jung, Grundriss der Geo-
graphie von Italien und dem Orbis Romanus (München, 1887, 1897°);
Götz, Die Verkehrswege im Dienste des Welthandels (Stuttgart, 1888),
pp. 312-514. Murray's Handy Classical Maps, edited by Grundy, are
convenient for use. For the present study those of “The Eastern
Empires,” “The Roman Empire,” and “Asia Minor” will be found most
valuable.
The Mediterranean World in New Testament Times 51
Harnack has made a list of places where Christians, or
Christian communities, can be traced in New Testament
times, and it is both astonishingly large and of wide
geographical range. It includes the chief cities of Syria
and Asia Minor as well as important centers in Mace-
donia, Achaia, and Italy. The failure of any New
Testament writer to mention Africa is probably a mere
accident, for the prominence of Christianity there in
the Second century suggests an early planting. While it
may be very possible that Paul never carried out his
intention of going to Spain,” it is not improbable that
other Christians in their travels had already reached
that point. Early Christianity as represented in the
New Testament is no mere local product, but a wide-
spread religious movement embracing individuals from
different places and from among different peoples.
Since historical Christianity of New Testament times
is a product of Christians’ activity within the Graeco-
Roman world as a whole, it becomes necessary to examine
the chief characteristics of this civilization as a back-
ground for the study of Christian origins. But the
specific situation in the first century A.D. cannot be
understood in isolation from the history of the imme-
diately preceding period. In order to set the world of
the New Testament age in its proper perspective some ac-
count must be taken of the main cultural forces brought
into prominence by the work of Alexander the Great,
carried forward under his successors (the “Diadochi”),
* Mission and Expansion of Christianity in the First Three Centuries
(New York, 1908%), II, 91 ff.; translated from the German, Die Mission
wnd Ausbreitung des Christentums in den ersten drei Jahrhunderten
(Leipzig, 1906°).
* Rom. I5: 24, 28.
52 The Evolution of Early Christianity
and their descendants (the “Epigoni”), and perpetuated
without any very extensive transformations in Roman
times.
Alexander’s work marks the beginnings of a new epoch
in ancient history. The type of culture which flourished
in this period is commonly designated “Hellenistic,”
in contrast with the earlier “Hellenic” civilization of
Greece proper. Formally speaking, we may say the
Hellenistic age opened when Alexander of Macedonia
set out upon his conquest of Asia in the spring of
334 B.C. His defeat of Darius at the battle of Issus
in 333 B.C. and again at Arbela in 331 B.C. brought
an end to Persian rule in western Asia." Though the
conqueror's own career was a short one—he died at
Babylon in 323 B.C.—Macedonian rulers continued to
govern the chief portions of Alexander's divided empire
until Rome appeared upon the scene, finally taking over
Macedonia in 146, Greece in 146, Syria in 64, and
Egypt in 30 B.C.
Thus Macedonian rule disappeared. From this time
on the controlling authority of the Mediterranean
world was Roman. But in fixing dates we must not
think that any section of humanity’s life can be sharply
isolated from its immediate context. The Hellenistic
* The year 338 B.C. is commonly made the beginning of the Hellenistic
age, since this is the date of Philip's victory at Chaeronea after which the
Diet of Corinth elected him a Tpatmºyos añrokpárap of the Greek forces.
After Philip's assassination in 336 Alexander was given the same appoint-
ment, but it required nearly two years to establish himself firmly in this
position, by quelling disturbances in various quarters, and administering
to his opponents in Greece a crushing defeat at Thebes. Not until the
spring of 334 had he really completed the foundation upon which the new
Hellenism was to be reared. To be sure, the initial stages of the move-
ment were much earlier, earlier even than the battle of Chaeronea.
The Mediterranean World in New Testament Times 53
age has many clearly distinguishable antecedents both in
Greece and in the conquered lands, for the establishment
of Roman dominion did not mean the obliteration of the
previous civilization. In fact the distinctive char-
acteristics of Hellenistic culture remained very largely .
unchanged under the Roman emperors. Consequently
the surroundings of Christians in New Testament times
were virtually Hellenistic, even though in the more formal
sense the world of that day was Roman.
This Graeco-Roman age has often been termed a de-
cadent period in history, and therefore its importance
has usually been greatly underestimated. When judged
according to classical Hellenic standards the culture of
Hellenistic times does at first sight seem quite inferior.
This later age produced no poets to vie with Aeschylus,
Sophocles, or Euripides; no philosophers who compete
for first place with Socrates, Plato, or Aristotle; and no
historian whom we read by the side of Herodotus,
Thucydides, or Xenophon; yet, in contrast with Hellen-
ism proper, “Hellenicism,” if we may use this rare
though much-needed word, produced a distinctive cul-
ture whose significance for the history of human progress
is none the less worthy of attention because it does not
chance to be a mere replica of classical Hellenism.
The political events of this period form a long and Com-
plicated story which can here be traced only in broadest
outlines. The brilliant military career of Alexander has
been recorded by several ancient historians. One of the
* Some attention is usually given to this period in the standard his-
tories of Greece, of which Holm, Geschichte des Griechenlands bis zum
Ausgange des sechsten Jahrhunderts vor Christus (Berlin, 1836), English
tr., A History of Greece (Vol. IV, New York, 1899), and Beloch, Griechi-
sche Geschichte, III, I (Strassburg, 1904), 260-556, and the same author’s
54 The Evolution of Early Christianity
most Critical and accurate extant accounts is by Arrian,
a Greek writer of the second century A.D. Of the source
materials at his disposal the author employed chiefly a
work by Ptolemy and another by Aristobulus. Both
these persons had accompanied Alexander, the former
being the founder of the Egyptian kingdom after
Alexander's empire fell to pieces. As both works were
compiled after their hero's death and by two persons
of such prominence, Arrian believed their narratives to
be generally trustworthy where their accounts agreed,
“Griechische Geschichte Seit Alexander” in Gercke and Norden, Ein-
leitung in die Alteriumswissenschaft, III (Leipzig, 1913°), are among the
best. Books dealing specifically with the Hellenistic age are: Droysen,
Geschichte des Hellenismus (3 vols., Gotha, 1836–42, 1877–78%), the latest
edition of which is a French translation, Histoire de l'hellénisme (Paris,
1883–85), made under the direction of Bouché-Leclercq; Mahaffy, The
Story of Alexander’s Empire (London, 1887), Greek Life and Thought
from the Age of Alexander to the Roman Conquest (New York, 1887, 18964),
and The Progress of Hellenism under Alexander’s Empire (Chicago, 1905);
Niese, Geschichte der griechischen und makedonischen Staaten seit der
Schlacht be? Chaeronea (3 vols., Gotha, 1893–1903); Kaerst, Geschichte
des hellenistischen Zeilalters (2 vols., Leipzig, 1901–9). The situation in
Roman times may be studied in Hertzberg, Geschichte Griechenlands
wnter der Herrschaft der Römer (3 vols., Halle, 1866–75); Marquardt,
Römische Staatsverwaltung, being Vols. IV (Leipzig, 1881*), V (ibid.,
1884°), and VI (ibid., 18853) of Handbuch der römischen. Alterthümer by
Marquardt and Mommsen; Mommsen, Römische Geschichte (Vol. V,
Berlin, 18944), English tr., The Provinces of the Roman Empire from Caesar
to Diocletian (2 vols., New York, 1887); Colin, Rome et la Grèce de 200 d
146 avant Jésus-Christ (Paris, Igoş); Mahaffy, The Silver Age of the
Greek World (Chicago, Igo0) recast from the same author’s Greek World
wnder Roman Sway (New York, I890); Hahn, Rom und Romanismus im
griechisch-römischen Osten bis auf die Zeit Hadrians (Leipzig, 1906);
Thieling, Der Hellenismus in Kleinafrika: Der griechische Kultureinfluss
ſin den rômischen Provinzen Nordwestafrikas (Leipzig, IQII). For accounts
of this period among the ancient historians see Polybius, iv. f., and xviii-
xxxiii; Diodorus, xvii-xx; Livy, xxxi-xlv; and Appian, ix–xii.
The Mediterranean World in New Testament Times 55
but where they disagreed he selected what appeared
to him the more creditable and more worthy of pres-
ervation. No modern work can supplant this con-
Scientious account by a biographer who has sufficient
admiration for his hero to write appreciatively and
yet possesses a remarkably keen sense of loyalty to
truth. The author's attitude throughout is well de-
scribed in his closing words: “In relating the history
of Alexander’s achievements there are some things which
I have been compelled to censure but I am not ashamed
to admire Alexander himself. Those actions I have
branded as bad both out of regard for my own truthful-
ness and at the same time for the good of humanity.
For this reason it was not without the agency of God that
I myself undertook the task of writing this history.”
Here Arrian shows the effects of the strongly ethical and
religious training he had received from Epictetus, a
training which seems to have inculcated intellectual
accuracy among its moral and religious precepts."
Alexander’s career was as strikingly brilliant as it was
brief. He moved his army, thirty to forty thousand
Strong, across the Hellespont in the spring of 334 B.C.
First he visited the site of ancient Troy, performing
religious ceremonies and going forward on his mission in
the spirit of the ancient Homeric heroes. Though a
Persian fleet held the Aegean, he seemed to have no fear
* Plutarch's Alexander is also important. Though not so lengthy as
Arrian's account it is more interesting as a character sketch. Plutarch's
information was doubtless also derived mainly from the works of Ptolemy
and Aristobulus, whose writings unfortunately are no longer extant. A
great many ancient historians wrote about Alexander, e.g., Diodorus,
xvii. For fragments from many sources see Müller, Scriptores rerum
Alexandri Magni (Paris, 1877).
56, The Evolution of Early Christianity
of being cut off from his base in Macedonia. In fact,
it soon became evident that he intended to conquer so
thoroughly the whole territory about the eastern Medi-
terranean that the fleet would be effectually isolated
from the Persian land forces and thus would be rendered
comparatively harmless. Accordingly Alexander did
not follow up his victories over Darius first on the banks
of the Granicus in 334 and again at Issus in 333. Instead
of pursuing the Persians inland he proceeded to take
possession of Syria and Egypt.
• He passed the winter of 332–31 in Egypt. While
here he founded Alexandria, which was destined to
become the chief commercial city of his empire as well
as a most important center of culture in later times. At
this time Alexander displayed again his usual attitude
of deference toward the religion of the conquered peoples.
The joy with which the Egyptians received him as their
deliverer from the rule of the less sympathetic Persians
is reflected in the tradition of his visit to the oracle of
Ammon in the oasis of Siwah where the oracle is said to
have informed him that he was a son of the god, though
there is much variant ancient tradition on this subject."
Josephus’ reports a similarly favorable attitude of
Alexander toward Jewish religion. While Josephus
can hardly be called an unbiased authority on this
subject, it would have been perfectly consistent with
Alexander's attitude toward other foreign faiths for him
to have treated Jerusalem with favor even to the extent
of offering a sacrifice in the temple.
* Cf. Arrian, iii. 4; vii. 29; Plutarch, Alexander, 27; Diodorus, xvii. 51;
Strabo, xvii. I.43; Livy, ix. I8.
* Ant., XI, 8.
The Mediterranean World in New Testament Times 57
The conqueror was now ready for his eastern expedi-
tion. He set out in the spring of 331 and passing through
Syria and Mesopotamia he arrived at the Tigris River
which he crossed September 20. Here the Persian forces
made their last stand, but the Macedonians won an
easy victory. Alexander did not pursue Darius imme-
diately, but turned south to take possession of the rich
Babylonian lands. Having gathered wealth here and at
Susa, where the Persian kings had stored vast treasures,
he ascended into the plateau of Iran. Here he captured
the royal city of Persepolis and with it a great store of
treasure. Pursuing the fleeing enemy he traversed
Media, passed through the Caspian gates into the regions
of Hyrcania, southeast of the Caspian Sea, and by
forced marches with a few chosen followers finally
overtook the fleeing Persians. He at last captured the
dead body of Darius, slain by his companions and
guarded only by his faithful dog." The body was buried
with kingly honors at Persepolis. The countries of
Media and Parthia were placed under the rule of Alex-
ander's appointees and he pushed his way on toward
India.
He came into the valley of the Kabul in the winter
of 330–329,” and the next spring crossed the Hindu-Kush
range, entering Bactria. The summer of the next year
found him in India where he passed over the Indus and
established his dominion in the Punjab. His army
refused to accompany him farther east, so he turned
southward, following the Indus to the Sea. In the
* Aelian, De natura animalium, vi. 25.
* According to the common dating, but some scholars Say 329–328,
e.g., Hogarth, Philip and Alexander of Macedon, pp. 296 ft.
58 The Evolution of Early Christianity
meantime a fleet was prepared which was sent to explore
the sea route from India to Babylonia, while Alexander
with the last of his forces set out in October to make the
journey by land. After a weary march through the
desert of Gadrosia the various parts of the army came
together again in the Carmanian territory lying north
of the mouth of the Persian Gulf. On reaching Susa
in the spring of 324 Alexander took some time to adjust
the affairs of government throughout his widely extended
dominions. The next spring he moved to Babylon and
made preparations for exploring the water route from
Babylonia to Egypt. Incidentally he also planned to
conquer Arabia, which was reported to be a land of
wealth. All was in readiness for the expedition when
Alexander fell sick and died in June, 323 B.C.
With the death of Alexander the political unification
which had been established began to crumble. It had
been his custom to appoint governors like the Persian
satraps over different provinces of the empire. This
custom was continued, and an effort was made to main-
tain unity by setting up Alexander's infant son, and also
his imbecile brother, Philip Arrhidaeus, as joint kings
under the regency of Perdiccas, a distinguished general of
Alexander's army. But this arrangement proved wholly
inadequate for the complicated situation. The ease
with which certain cities like Rhodes, and districts like
Pontus, which had never been thoroughly conquered by
the Macedonians, broke away from the central con-
trol, the existence of jealousies among the leading person-
ages in the government, and an ambition on Perdiccas’
part to possess himself of the entire empire precipitated
internal warfare which ultimately resulted in a threefold
The Mediterranean World in New Testament Times 59
division of the whole territory. In Macedonia the
Antigonids ruled, claiming authority also over Greece
and Thrace. The Seleucid rulers inherited the Asiatic
dominions, and the Ptolemies established themselves
in Egypt.
The Antigonid kingdom arose only after a hard
struggle. Antigonus Cyclops, one of Alexander's
generals, had been made governor of Phrygia in 333, and
on Alexander's death Lycia and Pamphylia were added
to his territory. He assumed the title of king in 306,
though he had not yet established himself in Macedonia.
After his death in 3or his son Demetrius took up the
fight and set himself upon the Macedonian throne in
2.94. From that time on the descendants of Antigonus'
ruled, with a few interruptions, the ancient kingdom
of Macedonia until it was dismembered by Rome in 168
and finally converted into a Roman province in I46 B.C.
In general the Asiatic dominions of Alexander passed
into the hands of Seleucus, a Macedonian who had dis-
tinguished himself in the Indian campaign. He was
made chiliarch after Alexander’s death, and two years
later, satrap of Babylonia. The defeat of Antigonus
Cyclops at Gaza in 312 was so important for the author-
ity of Seleucus that this has become the generally
accepted date for the beginning of Seleucid rule. He did
not at once gain control of western Asia, but he asserted
his power effectively in the East. Not until the death
* The Antigonid line, with approximate dates, consists of Antigonus
Cyclops (323-301), Demetrius I (30I-283), Antigonus Gonatas (283–
239), Demetrius II (239-229), Antigonus Doson (regent 229–221),
Philip V (221–179), Perseus (179–168). Tarn, Antigonos Gonatas
(Oxford, 1913), gives an account of the most important representative
of this house.
6o The Evolution of Early Christianity
of Antigonus in 3oE did Syria come under Seleucus
authority. On gaining this territory he founded the city
of Antioch on the Orontes, making it the capital of his
empire. Later he subdued the greater part of Asia
Minor and was about to establish himself in Macedonia
when he was assassinated. The history of the Seleucid
rulers is a troubled one. They were at war now with
one enemy and now with another. They were almost
constantly competing with the Ptolemies for the control
of Palestine and with the Antigonids, or with native
rulers, for the control of Asia Minor. In the East
they were perpetually troubled by uprisings of native
princes whom they were frequently unable to dislodge
from power. Furthermore, internal troubles so hastened
the disintegration of their authority that Antiochus XIII
was incapable of offering serious resistance to Pompey,
and Syria was constituted a Roman province in 64 B.C."
The situation in Egypt was, on the whole, a more
stable one. Ptolemy, son of a Macedonian nobleman
* The Seleucid rulers may be listed as follows: Seleucus Nicator
(312–281), Antiochus I Soter (281–262), Antiochus II Theos (262-246),
Seleucus II Callinicus (246-227), Seleucus III Soter (227–223), Antiochus
III the Great (223–187), Seleucus IV Philopator (187–176), Antiochus
IV Epiphanes (176–164), Antiochus V Eupator (164-162), Demetrius I
Soter (162–150), Alexander Balas (150–145), Demetrius II Nicator
(145–140 and I29-126), Antiochus VI (145-143), Tryphon (143-138),
Antiochus VII Sidetes (138–129). After this the line of succession is
hopelessly confused, rival claimants maintaining themselves con-
temporaneously. One line traced its descent from Antiochus VII and
another from Demetrius II. Important books on this period are Frölich,
Annales compendiarii regum et rerum Syriae (Wien, 1750); Gardner,
Coins of the Seleucid Kings of Syria in the British Museum (London, 1878);
Babelon, Rois de Syrie, d'Arménie et de Commagéne (Paris, I890); Bewan,
The House of Seleucus (2 vols., London, Igo2); Bouché-Leclercq, Histoire
des Séleucides (Paris, 1913).
The Mediterranean World in New Testament Times 61
| -
named Lagus, became Satrap of Egypt after Alex-
ander’s death. His task in governing this territory
was much less difficult than that of Antigonus or
Seleucus, hence he was able to develop extensively
the commercial possibilities of his dominions. This
condition of affairs continued with his successors,
whose wars were mainly for the purpose of control-
ling the commerce of the eastern Mediterranean. For
this very reason it was inevitable that the Romans,
who had crushed the Carthaginians in order to con-
trol the West, should also covet Egypt. But the
Ptolemies in general were not aggressive rulers, they
became willing allies of Rome, and their power had
been greatly weakened at an early date by domestic
strife. Consequently, Rome removed its more danger-
ous enemies in Macedonia and Asia before deposing
the Ptolemaic dynasty and converting Egypt into a
province in 30 B.C."
* The rulers of the Ptolemaic dynasty are: Ptolemy I Soter I (323–
285), Ptolemy II Philadelphus (285–246), Ptolemy III Euergetes I
(246-221), Ptolemy IV Philopator I (221–2O4), Ptolemy V Epiphanes
(204-181), Ptolemy VI Philometor (181–145), Ptolemy VII Euergetes
II (145—II6), Ptolemy VIII Soter II (116–108 and 88–80), Ptolemy
IX Alexander I (Io8–88), Berenice (80), Ptolemy X Alexander II
(80), Ptolemy XI Philopater II Philadelphus Auletes (80–58 and 55–51),
Cleopatra (51–30), Ptolemy XII Philopator III (51–47), Ptolemy XIII
Philopator IV (47–44), Ptolemy XIV Caesar (51–30). Of the extensive
literature on the Ptolemies, cf. Champollion-Figeac, Annales des
Lagides (Paris, 1819); Letronne, Recueil des inscriptions grecques et
latines de l’Egypte, etc. (Paris, 1842, 1848); Mahaffy, The Empire of
the Ptolemies (London, 1895), and A History of Egypt under the
Ptolemaic Dynasty (New York, 1899); M. L. Strack, Die Dynastie der
Ptolemãer (Berlin, 1897); P. M. Meyer, Das Heerwesen der Ptolemáer
wnd Römer in Aegypten (Leipzig, 1900); Bouché-Leclercq, Histoire des.
Lagides (4 vols., Paris, 1903–7); Steiner, Der Fiskus der Ptolemáer
(Leipzig, 1913).
62 The Evolution of Early Christianity
Under the early emperorsº Roman rule was firmly
established in the East as far as the Euphrates and the
borders of Arabia. While various native rulers were
permitted to exercise a measure of autonomy, as for
example the Herods in Palestine, Rome ruled with a
strong hand and was much more successful than Alexan-
der's successors had been in preserving peace. Never
before in the history of that ancient world had
people known for so long a period the same measure of
political unity and stable government as that given to
them by the Roman emperors in the first century of the
Christian era.
This process of unification, which had been going on
intermittently since the time of Alexander the Great,
resulted in a new and distinct type of world-culture.
The dominant item in it was, however, Greek, for Mace-
donia had become quite thoroughly Hellenized before
becoming a world-power. Philip of Macedon had
brought the Athenian philosopher Aristotle to Pella
to become the tutor of his son Alexander, and when
the latter went upon his eastern expedition he took along
scholars to gather information of all sorts from the new
country. Even before Alexander's day the Macedonians
had come to admire Greek literature and art. The
Macedonian kings who imported the culture of Greece
into their court affirmed that they themselves were Greeks,
for their ancestors, so they said, had originally migrated
* A list of the early emperors may prove useful for future reference:
Augustus (27 B.C.-I4 A.D.), Tiberius (14–37), Gaius Caligula (37–41),
Claudius (41–54), Nero (54–68), Galba (68–69), Otho and Vitellius (69),
Vespasian (69–79), Titus (79–81), Domitian (81–96), Nerva (96-98),
Trajan (98–117), Hadrian (II.7–38), Antonius Pius (I38–61), Marcus
Aurelius (161–8o, with whom Verus was associated from 16I-69).
The Mediterranean World in New Testament Times 63
from Argos to Macedonia. Nor is Alexander alone
responsible for the dissemination of Greek culture in
antiquity. Previous to his time Asia Minor, Italy,
Phoenicia, Egypt, and even countries farther inland,
such as Persia, had received cultural influences from
Greece. But with Alexander the expansion became
much more general and assumed many totally new
forms.
This new expansion of Hellenism meant a very sub-
stantial transformation of Hellenism itself. In the first
place the ancient conception of the city-state as the
political unit gave place to the notion of world-empire
under monarchical rule. The thought of kingship had .
early become repugnant to both Greeks and Romans.
The former had never been able to present for any
extended period a united front against Persia, for the
very reason that there was no central authority within
Greece itself. The Greeks needed a king. The con-
ception of a pan-Hellenic movement began to take shape
in the days of Xenophon and Isocrates. The former in
his treatise on the education of Cyrus tacitly praises
the monarchical ideal, and Isocrates definitely advocates
with all his trained eloquence that the Greeks unite
under Philip of Macedon for the triumph of Greek
power. But no one could have anticipated the success
which was to attend Alexander. Although the free
Greek city still retained a place within the empire of
Alexander and his successors, it never could be restored
to its full former glory. With the exception of a few
of the stronger and wealthier cities, freedom meant only
a measure of autonomy subject to the will of themonarch.
* Herodotus, v. 20 and 22; viii. I37; ix. 45.
64 The Evolution of Early Christianity
The Romans were destined to undergo a similar
experience. A republican form of government was
adequate So long as the city of Rome was practically
the nation, and while Constant warfare against common
foes fostered loyalty to the state. But the conquest of
the Roman legions added so many distant provinces to
the kingdom that the republic inevitably gave way to
the empire with One ruler who was virtually an abso-
lute monarch. Though he bore only the title of emperor,
Augustus was as much a king as any of the oriental
potentates had been. In the case of both Greeks and
Romans the triumph of the monarchical idea was in
reality a triumph of Orientalism.
The cultural consequences of this new unification are
very significant. One of its most important effects
is to be seen in the cosmopolitan currents which the
new order of things set in motion. Greek exclusiveness
and disdain for foreigners were displaced by a degree
of toleration and respect. Not only did artisans and
merchants from the Orient invade every Greek city of
importance, bringing with them their own culture, but
Greeks themselves traveled into foreign lands where
they learned that the foreigner could not be simply
dismissed with the epithet “barbarian,” and that the
“world” (oikovgéum) could no longer be thought to coin-
cide with the boundaries of ancient Hellas. Alexander
had founded Greek cities at numerous points in his new
empire, and since many of these places were important
commercial centers Greek inhabitants became closely
associated with peoples of other nationalities. In fact, it
was always Alexander's policy to bring about as thorough
a fusion as possible between Greeks and natives.
The Mediterranean World in New Testament Times 6 5
This policy also had its marked effect upon the
Orientals. Their culture was not ruthlessly suppressed
by the Conqueror but, on the contrary, it was given a
new and less restricted field of activity. The stability
of Greek rule enabled the Asiatics to exhibit and pursue
unmolested their industrial and commercial genius,
while their adoption of the Greek language made them
at home in all parts of the world where they were gener-
ally free, however, to maintain as much of their national
individuality as they might choose. But this very
freedom of intercourse, which resulted in a large infusion
of Greek ideas and manners of life, naturally tended
to obliterate national distinctions and to issue in a
strongly syncretistic form of culture. The Orient
became Greek, though not in the classical sense; it
was not Hellenic but Hellenistic.
When Roman domination displaced Greek rule the
situation did not greatly change. The cultural forces
of the period continued to follow the lines laid down in
the previous age. Rome did not crush the civilization
of its conquered peoples any more than Alexander had
done, and the stable government it established only
permitted fusing tendencies to work all the more effect-
ively. Hellenistic manners gained so substantial a
place among Romans themselves that their culture had
become largely Hellenistic in the first century A.D.
Even in the time of Horace it could be remarked that
captive Greece took her fierce conqueror captive and
introduced her arts into rustic Latium."
The component factors in this new Graeco-Roman
Culture are far too numerous to be listed in detail in this
* Epistles, ii. I. I56. "
66 The Evolution of Early Christianity
connection.” Our primary interest is in the religious
status of society, but the latter cannot be correctly under-
stood except in relation to the total cultural situation.
At that time Society was greatly diversified in character,
both because of the mixture of nationalities and on
account of wide differences between individuals’ stations
in life. There was a very distinct court life from the
time of Alexander on, which was not always wholly bad
in spite of its many reprehensible features. At an
early date the Macedonian kings had brought Greek
culture to their Courts, to which Alexander later added
many Oriental adornments. His successors were some-
times men of letters, or at least they were interested in
the literary and Scientific pursuits of the day. In addi-
tion to the citics of Grccoc, where men of culture still
* Some useful works, in addition to those of a more general character
cited above (p. 53, note I), dealing with this side of the Graeco-Roman
world are Hausrath, Neutestamentliche Zeitgeschichte (4 vols., München,
1868 ft.), English tr., A History of New Testament Times (4 vols., Lon-
don, 1895); Hatch, The Influence of Greek Ideas and Usages upon the
Christian Church (London, 1890); L. Friedländer, Darstellungen aus der
Sittengeschichte Roms in der Zeit von Augustus bis zum Ausgang der
Antonine (3 vols., Leipzig, 1888–96), English tr., Roman Life and Manners
under the Early Empire (4 vols., New York, 1908–13); Dill, Roman
Society from Nero to Marcus Aurelius (New York, 1904); Geffcken, Aus
der Werdezeit des Christentums (Leipzig, 1904, 1909°); Wendland, Die
hellenistisch-römische Kultur in ihren Beziehungen zu Judentum und
Christentum (Tübingen, 1907, IoI2°); Staerk, Neutestamentliche Zeit-
geschichte (Leipzig, 1907, 1912°); Deissmann, Licht vom Osten (Tübingen,
1909°), English tr., Light from the Ancient East (New York, 1910);
Wilamowitz-Moellendorff und Niese, Staat und Gesellschaft der Griechen
wnd Römer (Leipzig, IQIo); Fowler, Social Life at Rome in the Age of
Cicero (New York, 1909); Tucker, Life in the Roman World of Wero and
Saint Paul (New York, 1910); A. Bauer, Vom Griechenium zum Christen-
tum (Leipzig, 1910); T. C. Hall, Historical Setting of the Early Gospel
(New York, 1912); Baumgarten, Poland, und Wagner, Die hellenistisch-
römische Kultur (Leipzig, 1913).
The Mediterranean World in New Testament Times 67
assembled, Antioch in Syria and Alexandria in Egypt—
particularly the latter—formed seats of learning sup-
ported chiefly by royal patronage.
But the work of the court philosopher or littérateur was
not the only factor, nor even the chief factor, in stamping
the influence of the ruler upon the life of the people.
The poorest subject in the empire felt directly or indi-
rectly the weight of supporting the monarchical insti-
tution, although he may never have witnessed a royal
procession. While the payment of taxes was a burden,
yet not all peoples in the empire resented this imposition
So seriously as did the Jews. In fact, many persons so
appreciated the stability of Roman rule and others
were so hypnotized by its splendor that not a few were
ready to hail the emperor as a savior and god. Even
those who clung to the ancient forms of worship naturally
found themselves phrasing their religious thinking in
terms of imperialism. Thus the court, which embodied
the monarchical principle so overwhelmingly in these
days, exerted a most powerful and permeating influence
in the Graeco-Roman world in New Testament times.
In addition to the court, with its favorites and officials
scattered over the empire, there was a large class of
fairly prosperous citizens who had made their own
way in the world. The Hellenistic age with its enlarged
arena for action gave great opportunity for the develop-
ment of individualism. In the small city-state the
citizen lived for the state, but a world-empire was too
large and depended too little upon individual support
to call forth the personal loyalty and service which had
been so manifest in former times. The whole world
was now the sphere of action for the individual, his
68 The Evolution of Early Christianity
primary motive for activity being his own personal
welfare. Not a few citizens of the empire profited by the
opportunity thus opened to them.
While this was distinctly a commercial age, still it was
an age of intellectualism. Naturally it was less idealistic
than classical Hellenic culture had been, for realism is a
normal accompaniment of individualism. Plato philoso-
phized for philosophy's sake, but the Stoics, who were
in the ascendency in Hellenistic times, philosophized for
man's sake. The various sciences—geography, astron-
omy, mathematics, mechanics, medicine—were divorced
from philosophy where they had originally belonged and
were given an emphatically empirical bent. Not even
Oratory, literature, and religion escaped. Rhetoric was
cultivated primarily as a means by which the individual
earned a livelihood; the poets wrote not to exalt an
abstract ideal but to please the court; historians became
realistic also, gathering facts by accurate research instead
of recording fanciful legends;" and, as for religion, the
type most in demand was the one which gave the indi-
vidual the most positive and realistic assurances of his
own personal salvation. This whole tendency toward
individualism and realism was part of the spirit of the
* For the extensive Greek literature of the period see von Christ,
Geschichte der griechischen Litteratur, 2. Teil (München, 1911–125);
Croiset, Histoire de la littérature grecque (Vol. V, Paris, 1899); Susemihl,
Geschichte der griechischen Literatur in der Alexandrinerzeit (2 vols.,
Leipzig, 1891–92). For Latin writers see the standard histories of the
literature, e.g., Schanz, Geschichte der römischen Litteratur (München,
1907–123), or Teuffel, Geschichte der römischen Literatur, particularly
Vol. II (Leipzig, 1910%), English tr., from the 5th German ed., Teuffel's
History of Roman Literature (2 vols., London, 1891–92). A good general
survey is given by various authors in “Die griechische und lateinische
Literatur und Sprache,” Kultur der Gegenwart, I, 8, 3 (Leipzig, 19123).
The Mediterranean World in New Testament Times 69
age which produced a class of industrious, self-reliant,
and often prosperous citizens.
An age of Competitive individualism in producing its
successful class also begets a class of failures. The
“survival of the fittest” in society does not mean elimina-
tion, but rather distress, for the unfit. This was emi-
nently true of the Graeco-Roman world, where destitute
people were to be found in great numbers, particularly
in all the large cities. The ranks of these unfortunates
were augmented by vast numbers of slaves, though the
latter were often more favored in having a sure support
from Some good master. Slaves who were sometimes
skilled laborers, tradesmen, or educators frequently
obtained their freedom and became wealthy citizens,” but
at other times these freedmen merely swelled the numbers
of the needy proletariat who eked out a living with diffi-
culty in the overcrowded centers of population.* This
proletariat was exceedingly complex. The pressure of
* It is quite possible that these tendencies had begun to appear
before Alexander's day (cf. Corssen, Über Begriff und Wesen des Hellen-
ismus,” Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft, IX [1908],
81–95), but they certainly received a great stimulus in Hellenistic times.
* It is of such that the aristocratic Horace writes (Epode, iv):
Howe'er, proud of your cash, Rome's streets you range,
Your breed, mere fortune cannot change.
3 Cf. Beloch, Die Bevölkerung der griechisch-römischen Welt (Leipzig,
1886); E. Meyer, “Die Bevölkerung des Altertums,” Handwórterbuch
der Staatswissenschaften, II (Jena, 1909), 898–913. On the subject of
slavery see Wallon, Histoire de l'esclavage dans l'antiquité (3 vols., Paris,
1879°); Schneider, Zur Geschichte der Sklaverei im alten Rom (Zürich,
I892); E. Meyer, Die Sklaverei im Alterium (Dresden, 1898); Calderini,
La manomissione e la condizione dei libertà in Grecia (Milano, Igo3);
Buckland, The Roman Law of Slavery (Cambridge, 1909); Kautsky, Der
Ursprung des Christentums (Stuttgart, Igo3), pp. 26–69; Steinmann,
Die Sklavenfrage in der alten Kirche (Berlin, 1910).
7o The Evolution of Early Christianity
competition caused artisans, tradesmen, and laborers to
change residence frequently, and the freedmen, who as
slaves had been imported from some remote part of the
empire, added another heterogeneous element to the
already Complex society. The total result was a fusion
of many nationalities within the population, particularly
in the large cities. Tacitus says, speaking of Rome,
that it was the place into which abominations from all
parts of the world flowed together and prospered. A
similar complexity in the life of the masses might have
been observed, though perhaps in a less degree, at many
places in the Mediterranean world.
This chaotic and unfortunate condition of society did
not pass entirely unheeded by people of that age. The
Compulsion of Common needs drew various classes of
persons together in gilds, social groups, and religious
societies.” Even the rulers concerned themselves with
the situation. In Rome, for example, Augustus had
taken measures to restrict the extent of manumissions in
order that the helpless element of society might not be
increased any more than possible. The political authori-
ties, even if not prompted by humanitarian motives,
sought as a police measure to restrain the growth of
this element in the population and to provide means,
such as the free distribution of corn, for alleviating its
distresses. The Cynic-Stoic preachers ministered less
materially to contemporary needs, but they aimed to
give a more permanent relief by teaching men to endure
* Annals, XV, 44. -
* Cf. Poland, Geschichte des griechischen Vereinswesens (Leipzig, 1909);
von Pöhlmann, Geschichte der sozialen Frage und des Sozialismus in der
antiken Welt (München, Igſ 2), particularly II, 415 f.; Troeltsch, Die
Soziallehren der christlichen Kirche (Tübingen, 1912), pp. 15–178.
The Mediterranean World in New Testament Times 71
hardship unfalteringly. Religion also with a vast num-
ber of cults and rites offered its consolations and promises
to needy humanity, groping its way through what seemed
to be a very dark and hostile world.
What, finally, was the contemporary religious situa-
tion P. The Hellenistic world produced no single religion
distinctive to itself, unless Christianity be called such.
This age was content for the most part to inherit and
transform religious legacies from the past. These inher-
itances were drawn from a variety of sources with the
result that religious life exhibited great complexities.
But the fusion of diverse elements was never so complete
and general as to produce any unified result which could
be called the one dominant religion of the time. Con-
sequently, the religious life of that day can be best under-
stood by fixing attention upon some of its more prominent
constituent factors and characteristics."
This religious syncretism was as complex as Society
itself. Every nationality which contributed to the
making of Hellenistic life had something to do with
determining the religious character of the new society.
When Asia was conquered by the Macedonians the latter
had no fixed national faith to impose upon the foreigner,
but already in Asia and Egypt various religions had
become firmly established and continued to hold their
ground even before the conqueror. Indeed, it was the
Orient which supplied the new culture with some of its
most important religious features. This was quite as
true of conditions under the Romans as under the Mace-
donians. The former brought with them no one domi-
nant national faith to supply the religious needs of all
* For details see below, chaps. vii—ix.
72 The Evolution of Early Christianity
those peoples whose political needs were so often met by
Rome. While the Romans were teaching their govern-
mental science to the Orientals the latter were teaching
their religions to the Romans.
The religious forces of the Graeco-Roman world of
New Testament times are so varied that they almost defy
even the most general classification. There were many
survivals from ancient seats of culture, such as Egypt,
Babylonia, Persia, Palestine, Greece, and Rome, while
many local faiths native to different groups of people
still persisted. Among these survivals from earlier times
we are doubtless most familiar with Judaism, but the
disproportionately large place it occupies on our horizon
is due to the fact that it has been the object of our con-
tinued attention while other religious movements within
that world have been generally ignored. There were in
reality a great many religions which, in conformity to
the cosmopolitan spirit of the age, no longer remained
within former national boundaries but became in vary-
ing degrees world-movements. When the Egyptian, the
Babylonian, the Persian, the Syrian, the Greek, or the
Roman carried his religion to a foreign city the deities,
as would be expected, often lost many of their local char-
acteristics. Nor was the traveler averse to hearing
about other gods if they could offer him new hopes
or greater satisfaction for the yearnings of his soul.
Indeed, he often encountered ardent missionaries who
affirmed that their own peculiar faith was alone worthy
of allegiance. These conditions made the period one
of great religious unrest.
Although this syncretism is exceedingly complex,
exhibiting various blendings of historic elements, still
The Mediterranean World in New Testament Times 73
we can distinguish in it certain main tendencies. There
is, first, the nationalistic type of religion. Formerly,
many of the local historic faiths had also been national,
but with the downfall of the local government which the
deity was supposed to protect, and with the elimination
of national boundaries by the foreign conqueror, the local
deities often lost their national character. The relation
between the god and the worshiper became more exclu-
sively a personal one, in keeping with the strongly indi-
vidualistic tendencies of the time. Even though the
national ideal was sometimes retained, as was con-
spicuously the case with the Jews, when the religion was
transplanted to foreign soil, the national emphasis was
Subordinated to the personal. In general we may say
that the people of the Graeco-Roman world had given
up the search for a god that could save a nation and were
looking for a deity who could save an individual, or a
group of individuals set apart as the nucleus of a new
Society which was conceived to be other-worldly in
its essential character. Yet the notion of humanity's
Solidarity produced a new national ideal stimulated by
the unity of empire. Thus emperor worship became a
substitute for the national religions of former times.
This is a distinct phase of Graeco-Roman religions,
which, though embodying earlier elements, was largely a
product of this age and had great significance for the life
of the time.
A second item in these complex religious developments
may be termed the religion of philosophy. This was the
faith of the educated and thoughtful, but it showed
many variations corresponding to different types of
philosophy then current. Platonism had some vogue,
74 The Evolution of Early Christianity
though it was less popular in the first century A.D.
than in later times when revived in the form of neo-
Platonism. The influential philosophies in the first
century were more truly Hellenistic products. The
two most important schools, each of which had its own
distinctive religious significance, were the Epicureans
and the Stoics. The former were significant religiously
chiefly for the criticisms they leveled against traditional
notions, while the latter, with their Cynic kinsmen,
stood out uniquely as the exponents of a monotheistic
faith infused with a vigorous ethical idealism.
A third type may be termed the mystery-religions.
These were cults of particular deities worshiped by
certain groups of people, who had been formally initiated
into the society of devotees. After observing prescribed
religious rites and witnessing at initiation certain sym-
bolic performances termed “mysteries,” they became
members of the society and believed that their hope of a
blessed immortality was secure. This type of religion
was widely current in the Graeco-Roman world in pre-
Christian times. Some of the best known of these cults
were those of Demeter and Dionysus in Greece and
Thrace; Cybele and Attis in Phrygia; Atargatis in
Cilicia; Aphrodite and Adonis in Syria; Ashtart and
Eshmun (Adon) in Phoenicia; Ishtar and Tammuz in
Babylonia; Isis, Osiris, and Serapis in Egypt; and
Mithra in Persia. Apart from the Demeter cult, which
had become especially localized at Eleusis, these religions
often traveled far from their native land, following the
current of syncretistic life in Graeco-Roman times.
With the exception of Mithraism, they were located in
* Herodotus, ii. I71.
The Mediterranean World in New Testament Times 75
various places about the Mediterranean world a century
or more before the opening of our era.
Numerous popular superstitions were also rife in
this age and so must be noted among its religious char-
acteristics. Many persons consulted oracles and prac-
ticed divination. They believed in demon possession,
cultivated the art of exorcism, and were in fact the vic-
tims of vast numbers of superstitious fears and practices.
This was true not only of the lower classes, but of many
others beside, not even exempting the Roman emperors.
Suetonius' Lives of the Caesars gives many illustrations
of this fact. Perhaps it was fear of physical harm only
which made Augustus flee to the cellar and caused
Caligula to hide under his bed whenever a severe
thunderstorm arose, but it was certainly crass super-
stition that led Augustus, on account of a dream he
Once had, to attire himself as a beggar on a certain day of
the year and solicit alms in the street.
The Graeco-Roman world was not without theologi-
cal reflection also. There were certain persons who
emphasized metaphysical speculation as the summum
bonum of religion. This interest was not necessarily
embodied in one special movement, but showed itself in
various quarters and within different religious circles.
It dealt with such problems as the nature of the soul,
the character of its relationship to the body on the one
hand and to the deity on the other, the process by which
the relationship might be readjusted for the soul’s
welfare, and the ultimate disposition of both body and
soul. The relation between the deity and the individual
was often defined in terms of mystical union, more or
less realistically conceived according to the cultural
76 The Evolution of Early Christianity
status or personal bias of the interpreter. Such theo-
logical speculations seem to have thriven best in the
Orient, but they became widely diffused in the Graeco-
Roman world. In Pythagoreanism and Orphism, in
many of the mystery-cults, in early Gnosticism, and
even in Stoicism they had made their influence felt in
one form or another already in pre-Christian times.
Such was the world in which the early Christians lived.
Their association with the ancient faiths which had sur-
vived to that day, and their contact with those religious
tendencies which were more especially distinctive of
Hellenistic times furnished the setting for their lives
and defined many of the great religious problems which
they sought to solve." The lines along which these
* The foregoing survey of religious conditions is so brief that it may
well be supplemented by further references to literature. On the
various national religions which formed the background of the Hellenistic
age one may consult Lehrbuch der Religionsgeschichte (edited by Chante-
pie de la Saussaye, 2 vols., Tübingen, 19053); G. F. Moore, History of
Religions (New York, 1913), or Toy, Introduction to the History of Reli-
gions (New York, 1913), where representative works are listed. For
ancient Egypt see Steindorff, Religion of Ancient Egypt (New York,
1905); Wiedemann, Die ágyptische Religion (Berlin, 1909°), also article
“Religion of Egypt” in Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible (extra vol.,
New York, 1904); Erman, Die ágyptische Religion (Berlin, 1905, 1909°),
English tr., A Handbook of Egyptian Religion (London, 1907); Breasted,
Development of Religion and Thought in Ancient Egypt (New York, 1912).
Of the many workers in the field of Babylonian and Assyrian religion
see especially Jastrow, Religion of Babylonia and Assyria (Boston, 1898),
a long article on the same subject in Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible
(extra vol.); also Aspects of Religious Belief and Practice in Babylonia
and Assyria (New York, 1911), Die Religion Babyloniens und Assyriens
(Giessen, 1905–12) and Hebrew and Babylonian Traditions (New York,
1914). Cf. also King, Babylonian Religion and Mythology (London,
1899); Dhorme, La religion assyro-babylonienne (Paris, 1910).
Persian religion is treated by Jackson, “Die iranische Religion,”
in Gieger und Kuhn, Grundriss der iranischen Philologie, II (Stuttgart,
The Mediterranean World in New Testament Times 77
surroundings influenced the evolution of early Chris-
tianity must now be given more detailed consideration.
1904), 612–708; J. H. Moulton, Early Zoroastrianism (London, 1913)
and Early Religious Poetry of Persia (Cambridge, 1911); Tiele, The Reli-
gion of the Iranian Peoples (London, 1912) and Geschiedenis van den
Godsdienst in de oudheid tot op Alexander den Groote, II (Amsterdam,
I902).
In addition to such reference works as Farnell, Cults of the Greek
States (5 vols., Oxford, 1896–1909) and Gruppe, Griechische Mythologie
wnd. Religionsgeschichte (München, Igoó), the more recent studies on
Greek religion are Jane Harrison, Prolegomena to the Study of Greek
Religion (Cambridge, 1903, 1908%) and Themis (Cambridge, 1912);
Farnell, The Higher Aspects of Greek Religion (New York, 1912); and
Murray, Four Stages of Greek Religion (New York, Igr 2).
Roman religion has been treated in several standard works. Among
the latest are Carter, The Religious Life of Ancient Rome (Boston, 1911);
Fowler, The Religious Experience of the Roman People (New York, 1911);
Wissowa, Religion und Kultus der Römer (München, Igo2, 1912°). The
last-named work is rich in reference to the literature.
The religion of other parts of the Mediterranean world and the
syncretistic developments of Graeco-Roman times have not been studied
so generally and comprehensively. In addition to the works to be cited
below in connection with special topics, see Cumont, Les religions orien-
tales dans le paganisme romain (Paris, 1906, 1909°), English tr., Oriental
Religions in Roman Paganism (Chicago, 1911), and Astrology and Religion
among Greeks and Romans (New York, 1912); Reitzenstein, Poimandres
(Leipzig, 1904) and Die hellenistischen Mysterienreligionen (Leipzig,
1910); Otto, Priester und Tempel im hellenistischen Aegypten (2 vols.,
Leipzig, 1905–8); Glover, The Conflict of Religions in the Early Roman
Empire (London, 1909); Schmidt, Kultilbertragungen (Giessen, 1910);
Toutain, Les cultes paiens dans l'empire romain, I., ii (Paris, 1911).
For literature on Judaism see below, chap. iv, passim; and on
Buddhism in its relation to Christianity, p. 194, n. 2.
CHAPTER IV
THE EARLY CHRISTIANS JEWISH connectIONS
Among the ethnic faiths which had survived in the
Mediterranean world of the first century A.D., Judaism
was the one with which Christians at the outset were
most intimately associated. The relationship was closest
in Palestine, but it was not confined exclusively to this
territory. Christian preachers even in gentile lands
must have been in almost Constant contact with Jews,
who were scattered widely over the Roman empire.
In Palestine, however, the association was particu-
larly close. The antecedents of the Christian move-
ment in the first period of its career were all Jewish, and
in the main also Palestinian. While we must not
assume that life within Palestine in pre-Christian times
might not already have received important contribu-
tions from without, we may affirm that the earliest
Christians derived their chief religious heritage directly
from their Palestinian environment. This supplied to
them the initial religious forces later fused into that new
movement which in time came to be differentiated from
Judaism, and to be distinguished by the name “Chris-
tianity.” It was the life of Palestine that furnished
the chief problems with which the first Christians were
concerned; it was this background which gave them
John the Baptist and Jesus, from whom they derived
so much; and it was Judaism which had provided them
with religious training from earliest childhood. The
general persistence of Jewish features within primitive
78
The Early Christians’ Jewish Connections 79
Christianity was a perfectly natural consequence of
existing conditions.
It is not necessary at this point to give a detailed
account of first-century Judaism. While there are still
many unsolved problems in this field, in general it is
familiar ground today, or may easily be made such by
Consulting some of the many valuable treatises upon the
subject. For our present purposes a brief survey of
the more prominent features in the Jewish religion of the
first century A.D. will suffice.*
The political history of the Hebrew people had much
to do with shaping the development of their religion.
At one time or another they had been subject to every
important political power that had arisen in that ancient
world. The Egyptians, the Babylonians, the Assyrians,
* Some of the more important works on the subject are: Grätz,
Geschichte der Juden, III (Leipzig, 1905–65); Keim, Geschichte Jesu
von Nazara, I (Zürich, 1867), English tr., History of Jesus of Nazara
(London, 1876); Toy, Judaism and Christianity, A Sketch of the Progress
of Thought from the Old Testament to the New Testament (Boston, 1890);
Schürer, Geschichte des jiidischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi (3 vols.,
Leipzig, 1901–94; see especially I, 4 ft., for literature), English tr.,
History of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ (New York, 1891);
O. Holtzmann, Neutestamentliche Zeitgeschichte (Tübingen, 1895, Igoé”);
Mathews, History of New Testament Times in Palestine (New York,
1899, Iglo"); Thackeray, The Relation of St. Paul to Contemporary
Jewish Thought (New York, Igoo); Bousset, Die Religion des Judentums
im neutestamentlichen Zeitalter (Berlin, 1903, 1906%); Oesterley and Box,
Religion and Worship of the Synagogue (New York, 1907); Fairweather,
The Background of the Gospels, or Judaism in the Period between the Old
and the New Testaments (New York, 1908); Felten, Neutestamentliche
Zeitgeschichte, oder Judentum und Heidentum zur Zeit Christi und der
Apostel (Mainz, 1910); H. J. Holtzmann, Lehrbuch der neutestament-
lichen Theologie (Tübingen, 1911°), I, 27–159; Bertholet, Die füdische
Religion von der Zeit Esras bis zum Zeitalter Christi (Tübingen, Igir);
Juster, Les Juifs dans l'empire romaine, leur condition juridique, éco-
nomique et sociale (2 vols., Paris, 1914).
8o The Evolution of Early Christianity
the Persians, the Macedonians, and the Romans all
exercised, at different times, dominion over Palestine.
In addition to this pressure of foreign influence from
without the Jews themselves pressed out into the life
of the surrounding peoples. They had established
important colonies in Egypt and Babylonia at an early
date, and in Graeco-Roman times they were so numerous
in every land that Strabo remarks, if Josephus reports
him correctly, “It is difficult to find a place in the habit-
able earth that has not admitted this tribe of men and
is not possessed by them.”
In spite of both foreign oppression and residence in
foreign lands, the Jews in a remarkable degree preserved
intact their national individuality. This was due
primarily to the strong nationalistic character of their
religion. They believed that in days of old Yahweh
had chosen them to be a peculiar people whom he would
one day exalt to a position of primacy among the nations.
Political reverses had not shattered their hopes, for their
prophets had declared that these misfortunes were a
consequence of the people's sin and not a denial of the
Deity’s power. He was still the God of Israel and would
ultimately fulfil his promises when his people had shown
themselves worthy of his favor, consequently the ruling
motive in life was to learn and to do his will. Loyalty
to this ideal and the consequent isolation it involved set
* Josephus, Ant., XIV, vii, 2. See further on the dispersion of the
Jewish people, Harnack, The Mission and Expansion of Christianity, I,
I—18; T. Reinach, article “Diaspora” in the Jewish Encyclopedia
(New York, 1903), IV, 559 f.; Schürer, Geschichte, usw., IIIA, I-188,
English tr., History of the Jewish People, II, ii, 220 ft., and article
“Diaspora” in Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible, extra vol., pp. 91-Io9;
Juster, op. cit., I, I 79-209.
The Early Christians’ Jewish Connections 8I
the Jews apart as a distinct people, whether in Palestine
or among the Gentiles.
The three chief institutions used for realizing their
ideal were the temple, the synagogue, and the Scrip-
tures. The temple, while it stood, was the central
Sanctuary, Serving as a focal point for the maintenance
of the national faith. This was the visible dwelling of
Yahweh, and all loyal Jews contributed regularly toward
its support. The synagogue was in many ways a much
more important institution, for it furnished a local
rallying-point for the life of particular communities.
Every Jew, no matter how far removed from the Holy
City, longed to visit the Jerusalem temple at least once
in his lifetime, but this hope, often long deferred and
sometimes never realized, would alone hardly have been
vital enough to preserve the unity of the scattered nation.
The synagogue was really the institution which kept
alive the national faith. Hence the destruction of the
temple did not materially affect the religion of the
Jewish people as a whole.
Their sacred writings were the chief means by which
the Jews believed they could learn to do God’s will.
. This was the one source of authority from which rules
were derived for the direction of every phase of conduct.
From the day of birth until the day of death the life
of the true Jew was ordered according to the divine
instruction, expressed or implied in the Torah, the
“Teaching” in which God had revealed his will to his
chosen people. But already in the first century A.D.
these books were ancient documents and so had to
be expounded in order to be understood and made
available for guidance in daily living. This necessity
82 The Evolution of Early Christianity
produced the scribe, who played a very important part
in the making of later Judaism. The exposition of the
Scriptures involved the task of finding therein rules
for conduct in every sphere of activity, incentives for
the cultivation of moral character, materials for the
construction of religious doctrine, and stimuli for the
enrichment of religious experience. These three great
institutions—the temple, the synagogue, and the Torah
—made the Jews a unique people, distinguishing them,
whether in Palestine or in the Diaspora, from all their
contemporaries. -
Though the Jews were thus distinct from other
peoples, their own life had many complexitics. The
popular notion, that Judaism in the first century was a
uniform system of barren legal observances, is not true
to facts. Like all real life it was subject to specific
environmental forces, which produced a variety of tend-
encies even in the realm of religion. In the first place,
politics had exerted a strongly determining influence
upon the Jews from times of old, but in the Graeco-
Roman period new problems arose producing distinct
parties such as Sadducees, Pharisees, and Zealots.
Strife between these rival parties had a marked effect
upon religion as well as upon the destiny of the Jewish
state. Society also was complex and diversified. Some
persons were hospitable to foreign manners, while others
were bitterly hostile. The population included prosper-
ous citizens as well as those who lived in great poverty.
Even in matters of religion there were many variations.
The Torah was expounded differently by different rabbis,
who had their respective followers; the national hope
was variously interpreted in different circles; and even
The Early Christians' Jewish Connections 83
ritual observances were made the subject of divergent
opinions, as the Essene movement alone shows.
The conditions under which the Jewish people lived,
particularly from the Exile on, had tended to diversify
their interests. Upon many of their numbers influences
from Babylonia and Persia had been acting vigorously
for a long time. Greek influences also became very
powerful among certain circles a century or more before
the Christian era, and under the Romans the pressure
of these and other foreign forces continued to be felt.
These influences were not simply political; they were
also religious, and stimulated a religious reaction on the
part of the Jewish people. As the circumstances varied
so the reaction varied, resulting in the formation of
different sects within Judaism and the advocacy of
various opinions on matters of religion. It is not at
all improbable that the reference of II Esdras 14:46
to the seventy esoteric books, in addition to the twenty-
four in common use, correctly represents different lines
of religious interest, such as we see, for example, in the
Essenes and in the Zadokite sectaries. One who sup-
poses that Judaism in New Testament times was a
thoroughly unified system of doctrine, ritual, or conduct
must have observed but very superficially the actual
conditions of life in that age. -
Yet this diversity was mainly a matter of emphasis.
Members of different parties were none the less Jews
because they found their special interests leading in
different directions. A Philo or a Josephus may have
lived in a very different world of reality from that of a
Judaean rabbi, but they all admired alike their ancient
religious heritage and were equally ready to undertake,
84 The Evolution of Early Christianity
each in his own way, the task of its defense. Each used
data from the past and under the stimulus of his
own peculiar environment worked out an interpretation
answering to his own needs. Some persons dwelt upon
the legalistic features of the ancient faith, others found
their inspirations in the older prophets, others meditated
on the teachings of the sages, others elaborated the
apocalyptic imagery suggested in Daniel, and others
exalted the national ideal of an earthly prince. The
environment also varied. In some circles the horizon
was narrow, extending only to the limits of a local Jewish
community, in others a new impetus to religious think-
ing had been supplied by contact with Babylonia or
Persia, while in still others the new stimulus had come
in from the Graeco-Roman world. Yet with all this
variety in point of view and environment there was no
thought of disloyalty to Jewish tradition. Since all
these variations arose in response to vital conditions,
they did not tend to disintegrate but really served to
strengthen the life of Judaism.
The early Christians were in close touch with Judaism
in many of its varied phases. While a very close con-
nection between the two religions is generally admitted,
the nature of the relationship is not always clearly
defined. The fact of extensive common possessions on
the part of Jews and early Christians no longer calls
for demonstration, nor are the main lines of agree-
ment in serious need of restatement; but the genetic
character of the relationship is a question of primary
importance, particularly for Our present study. Was
Christianity connected with Judaism in a vital way,
or did the connection consist merely in the common
The Early Christians’ Jewish Connections 85
possession of a quantity of static items of theological
Speculation or traditional customs which were ultimately
to be discarded in order that the new religion might
be free to express itself according to its own original
constitution?
The abundant use of the Old Testament in the New
seems to prove that the old and the new religions were
intimately related at the outset, yet there is also ample
evidence that the breach between the two was both wide
and deep even before the close of the first century A.D.
According to the New Testament representation, Jesus
was in almost constant conflict with the scribes and
Pharisees who finally brought about his death, Stephen
was stoned by the Jewish mob at the instigation of
religious leaders who were zealous for the traditions of
the fathers, Paul after his conversion was persistently
persecuted by his own countrymen, and the antagonism
between Jews and Christians grew more and more bitter
as time advanced. |
In view of this early and continued hostility, how is
it possible to think of a close genetic kinship between the
two religions? Among Christians the prevailing method
of maintaining this connection has been to pass over
later Judaism as a perversion of ancient faith and to
connect the religion of Jesus and the apostles most
closely with that of the old Hebrew worthies. The
fulfilment of messianic prophecy in the person of Jesus
is the main link connecting the old and the new orders.
He was the redeemer whom God, from the day Adam
and Eve were driven out of Eden, had appointed to
deliver mankind and had foreshadowed in all the
prophets. In addition to the fulfilment of messianic
86 The Evolution of Early Christianity
predictions, the more truly spiritual and ethical elements
of Old Testament religion are also said to be genuinely
perpetuated within Christian circles only, and the
Mosaic legislation is believed to have reached its only
Correct interpretation and application among members
of the new Community. So the argument runs, in the
traditional Christian apologetic.
Furthermore, Christians early discovered, by means
of the exegetical methods then in vogue, many Old
Testament passages to indicate that God had intended
Christianity to supplant Judaism. On this hypothesis,
Jews, in the interim between the Old and New Testa-
ments, had become blind to the intent of prophecy, had
lost the spiritual vision of the ancients, and had con-
verted the teaching of Moses and his successors into a
deadening casuistic legalism. Therefore God rescued
the treasures of revelation from degradation at the hands
of the Pharisees and committed them to the care and
keeping of Christians. The fall of Jerusalem and the
dispersion of the homeless people were cited as further
proof that God had withdrawn his favor from the
descendants of his chosen people and had transferred his
affections to Christians alone."
The correctness of this deprecatory estimate of Juda-
ism in relation to the origin of Christianity has often
been called in question. Naturally the Jews have always
* To cite a typical statement of this opinion, Origen (Cels., II, 8)
says: “For it is indeed manifest that when they beheld Jesus they did
not see who he was, and when they heard him they did not understand
from his words the divinity that was in him and which transferred God’s
providential care, hitherto exercised over the Jews, to his converts from
the heathen. Therefore we may see that after the advent of Jesus
the Jews were altogether abandoned and possess now none of what were
The Early Christians’ Jewish Connections 87
protested against this interpretation of their history.
They will not concede that they have perverted the
faith of their fathers, nor do they believe that they have
been abandoned by God. On the contrary, they still
claim to be his chosen people and the custodians of the
divine oracles. A recent defender of their position says:
“The Jew still believes that the mission of Israel is a
real living power in the world of today. To live the
true Jewish life is the highest ideal he knows. He
has learnt from the prophets and from history that
Israel has been chosen to be a “light to the Gentiles,’
but he has also been taught that the light of Israel
is God.”
Likewise from the standpoint of history the tradi-
tional view of Christianity’s relation to contemporary
Jewish religion has been subjected to several criticisms.
Among other things, we are told that the character of
Judaism in Jesus' day has usually been misrepresented.
Many of the Gospels' unfavorable statements regard-
ing the Pharisees are said not only to be untrue but
to have been prompted by Christian hatred of Jewish
opponents. Just as Christians think the Talmud gives
a grossly distorted picture of Jesus and his followers—
when it does not utterly ignore them—in order to serve
the interests of Jewish antagonists, so many Jews see
considered their ancient glories, so that there is no indication of any
divinity abiding amongst them. . . . . For what nation is an exile
from their own metropolis, and from the place sacred to the worship
of their fathers, save the Jews only P And these calamities they have
suffered because they were a most wicked nation which, although guilty
of many other sins, yet had been punished so severely for none as for
those that were committed against our Jesus.”
*G. Friedlander, Hellenism and Christianity (London, 1912), p. x.
88 The Evolution of Early Christianity
in the Gospels a similar bias against the Pharisees."
Not only are the Sweeping charges made against them
in the New Testament said to be false, but as a class the
Pharisees are declared to have been exponents of a
genuinely spiritual religion, while Judaism as a whole
in Jesus' time was not so utterly devoid of vital spiritual-
ity as its critics have frequently affirmed. This opinion,
so stoutly defended by Jews,” has of late found sup-
porters even within Christian circles.3
* Among recent expressions on this point, Montefiore's is one of the
more moderate. Commenting on Mark 7: 9–13, he says that the usual
interpretation, which makes the Pharisees and scribes set duty to the
temple above obligation to parents, is “in flat contradiction to the law
as laid down by the Mishnah, as commented on by the Talmud, and
as universally accepted and interpreted by all the Jewish codificrs.”
Furthermore, “the truth is that the rabbis taught a tremendous respect
and reverence for parents. In this matter they are perfectly sound;
indeed on family relations they are keener than Jesus” (Synoptic Gos-
pels [New York, Igo9], I, I64 f.).
* We should expect “orthodox” Jewish apologists to insist on the
ideal character of Judaism in every stage of its history. But even
“liberal” Jews, who give more attention to historical considerations,
find themselves compelled to disagree at various points with such
Christian expositions of Judaism as Weber’s System der altsynagogalen
palástinishen. Theologie (Leipzig, 1880; 2. Aufl., Die Lehren des Talmud,
1886; 3. Aufl., Jüdische Theologie auf Grund des Talmud und verwandter
Schriften, 1897); Schürer's Geschichte des jiidischen Volkes, usw., par-
ticularly the chapter on “Das Leben unter dem Gesetz,” II, 545–79,
English tr., History of the Jewish People, etc., II, ii, 90–125; or Bousset's
Religion des Judentums. For recent “liberal” Jewish defense of the
“spiritual” character of Pharisaism, see Montefiore, op. cit., also
Origin and Growth of Religions (London, 1892, pp. 465-552), The Reli-
gious Teaching of Jesus (New York, 1910); Schechter, Some Aspects of
Rabbinic Theology (New York, 1909); Horodezky, “Zwei Richtungen
im Judentum,” Archiv für Religionswissenschaft, XV (1912), 99–136;
, Abelson, The Immanence of God in Rabbinical Literature (New York,
1912) and Jewish Mysticism (London, IQI3).
3 E.g., Hart, Hope of Catholick Judaism (Oxford, 1910), thinks the
idea of hope with the Jews has always been fundamentally and Con-
sciously a personal trust in God; and Herford, Pharisaism: Its Aim and
Method (New York, 1912), defends most vigorously the Spirituality
The Early Christians’ Jewish Connections 89
In the second place, the Christian claim for unique
originality in the teaching of Jesus and the apostles has
often been denied by Jewish critics. The main content
of personal religion as depicted, for example, in the
Sermon on the Mount, is said to offer no features of
importance not already current in the teaching of the
rabbis. On its ethical and spiritual side the New Testa-
ment as a whole is found to be mainly a fruit of Pharisaic
Judaism. That which differentiates it from Judaism,
making it inferior and false from the Jewish point of
view, is its doctrine of Jesus’ messiahship with its accom-
panying belief in his supernatural personality. When
these items have been set aside the spiritual and ethical
residuum of New Testament religion is declared to be
Only an appropriation from Contemporary Judaism."
A disposition on the part of certain modern scholars
to find Christianity’s “essence” in Jesus’ teaching
of the Pharisees: “Why should not the Christian be glad to own that
the Jew, even the Pharisee, knew more of the deep things of God than
he had supposed, and after a way which was not the Christian way,
yet loved the Lord his God with heart and soul and strength and mind—
yes, and his neighbor as himself?” (p. 333).
* Among older works the following are representative: Nork, Rab-
binische Quellen und Parallelen zu neutestamentlichen Schriftstellen
(Leipzig, 1839); Grätz, Geschichte der Juden; Grünbaum, Die Sitten-
lehre des Judenthums (Mannheim, 1867; 2. Aufl., Strassburg, 1878);
Rodrigues, Les origines du Sermon du Montagne (Paris, 1868); Duschak,
Die Moral der Evangelien und des Talmud (Brünn, 1877); Schreiber,
Die Principien des Judenthums verglichen mit denen des Christeniums
(Leipzig, 1877). Cf. more recently G. Friedlander, The Jewish Sources
of the Sermon on the Mount (London, 1911). Christian interpreters
have often sought illustrative materials in later Jewish writings but
have not thought the New Testament to be secondary, e.g., J. Lightfoot,
Horae hebraicae et talmudicae in quatuor Evangelistas (Leipzig, 1684);
Schöttgen, Horae hebraicae et talmudicae in universum. Wovum Testa-
mentum (Dresden and Leipzig, 1733); Meuschen, Novum Testamentum
ex Talmude et antiquitatibus Hebraeorum illustratum (Leipzig, 1736);
90 The Evolution of Early * Christianity
regarding spiritual Sonship to God and love to one's
neighbor raises more sharply than ever the problem of
originality in this phase of New Testament religion.
When the uniqueness of the new movement is not found
in its christological and Soteriological doctrines, but in
the superiority of its ethical-religious ideals, an inferior
estimate is readily implied for this side of Jewish religion
in Jesus' day. But Jewish scholars strenuously object
to this implication. Even when they admit that Jesus
was a remarkable teacher possessed of keen spiritual
insight, they still claim him as a true son of Israel. His
greatness is but additional evidence for the greatness
of their ancestral faith, so that Judaism and “essential”
Christianity are at the outset practically identical.
The acceptance of this conclusion leads Montefiore to
remark that “in future Christianity and Judaism will
be able to shake hands over the Sermon on the Mount
and the fundamental elements in the moral and religious
doctrine of Jesus.” Adopting Wernle’s view" that
what is crucial in Jesus is “trust in God, purity of heart,
compassion, humility, forgiveness, aspiration—this and
nothing else,” and that he who does the will of God as
thus expressed in the Sermon on the Mount is “Jesus’
Wettstein [Wetstenius], Novum Testamentum Graecum (Amsterdam,
1751-52); T. Robinson, The Evangelists and the Mishna (London, 1859);
Siegfried, Analecta rabbinica (Jena, 1875); A. Wünsche, Neue Beiträge
zur Erläuterung der Evangelien aus Talmud und Midrasch (Göttingen,
1878); Bennett, The Mishnah as Illustrating the Gospels (Cambridge,
1884); Herford, Christianity in Talmud and Midrash (London, 1903).
E. Bischoff, Jesus und die Rabbinen (Leipzig, 1905), contends for Jesus’
absolute originality.
*Sources of Our Knowledge of the Life of Jesus (London, 1907),
pp. 162 f. (translated from the German, Die Quellen des Lebens Jesu
[Tübingen, 1905, 1913°]). -
The Early Christians’ Jewish Connections 9I
mother and sister and brother,” Montefiore believes
that “there have been very many Jewish mothers and
sisters and brothers of Jesus all these long years from
Jesus until now.” Christianity, then, began as a new
awakening within Judaism, a revival and elaboration of
the more distinctly ethical and spiritual aspects of
prophetic religion. Thus Christianity is connected with
Jewish religion through the medium of the ancient.
prophets, as Christians have so generally maintained,
but this bond of union is ethics and not christological
dogma.
The Judaism with which Montefiore thus identifies
“essential” Christianity is itself an “essence” of
prophetism, which he thinks had fallen into decay until
revived by Jesus. But Jewish writers of a more “ortho-
dox” type reject this supposition and affirm that con-
temporary rabbinism itself preserved the very elements
which Christian authors like Harnack and Wernle find
to have constituted the “essence” of Christianity.”
Even though nothing of a notable character is discerned
in the religion of Jesus, the breach between him and the
Pharisees, who are taken to represent the best in con-
temporary Judaism, is found to have been far less serious
* Synoptic Gospels, I, cvii f.
* For Jewish reaction upon Harnack’s Das Wesen des Christeniums
see “L’Esprit du Christianisme et du Judaisme,” by “M. L.,” Revue des
études juives, LI (1905-6), 191–216, and LII (1906–7), I-23, where the
principal literature on the subject is noted. For monographs see Bäck,
Das Wesen des Judentums (Lamm, 1905); Eschelbacher, Das Judentum
wnd das Wesen des Christentums (Berlin, Igoş); Güdemann, Jüdische
Apologetik (Glogau, 1906); Bergmann, Jüdische Apologetik im neutesta-
mentlichen Zeitalter (Berlin, 1908). Brief excerpts from many writers
are given in de le Roi’s Neujiidische Stimmen ilber Jesum Christum
(Leipzig, 1910).
92 The Evolution of Early Christianity
than the Gospel writers assume. In fact, his death,
for which the New Testament makes the Pharisees
chiefly responsible, is said to have been brought about
by the political rather than the religious authorities.
The blame should be placed upon the Sadducean high
priest and the Romans, and not upon the Pharisees with
whom Jesus was in essential harmony. According to
this interpretation (the Christian movement did not
become noticeably differentiated from Judaism until
after Jesus' death when certain of his followers began
to preach his messiahship, to reverence him as God,
and to proclaim his speedy coming in judgment. These
features are conceded to have been new—in so far as
they were not borrowed from heathen sources—but the
ideals and content of personal religious living within
* This opinion has been held by Jews of various schools since the
publication of L. Philippson's Haben wirklich die Juden Jesum gekreu-
zigt 3 (Berlin, 1866). For its more recent advocacy see Hirsch, The
Crucifixion from a Jewish Standpoint (New York, 1892, 1908%); Drucker,
The Trial of Jesus from Jewish Sources (New York, 1907); Montefiore,
Synoptic Gospels, I, 345°ff.; Klein, Ar Jesus en historisk personlighet 2
(Stockholm, 1910); Chwolson, Über die Frage, ob Jesus gelebt hat (Leip-
zig, 1910). Büchler, Das Synedrion in Jerusalem, usw. (Wien, 1902),
posits two Sanhedrins in Jerusalem, one a body of priestly authorities
connected with the temple and the other the Sanhedrin proper, composed
of scribes and rabbis. It was the former assembly which condemned
Jesus. The French Protestant scholar, Goguel, finds two trials narrated
in the Gospels, one conducted by the Jews and the other by the
Romans. The latter alone is historical. Pilate had consulted the
Sanhedrin merely to make sure that his extreme action against Jesus
would not be resented by that body. The Sanhedrin had taken
no initiative in the matter, nor had it any real part in carrying out
Pilate's program. Later he threw the responsibility upon the Jews,
and this idea was elaborated in Christian polemic against them (Juifs
et Romains dans l'histoire de la passion [Paris, 1911]). For further
literature see Juster, Les Juifs dans l'empire romain, II, 137 f.
The Early Christians' Jewish Connections 93
the new community are thought to have been supplied
by contemporary Judaism. Hence bitter antagonism
toward the Jews, although prominent in the New Testa-
ment account of Jesus’ life, must belong historically
to a subsequent period. It cannot have been the atti-
tude of Jesus, or of the earliest Christians, who are
assumed to have had no thought of a break with Jewish
religion. *
Moriz Friedländer, a Jewish writer of the “liberal”
School, offers a still different interpretation of the genetic
relationship between the two religions. Although he
does not trace the line of succession through orthodox
legalism, he still gives the new movement excellent
Jewish Connections. At the beginning of the Christian
era the Jews of Palestine, he believes, comprised several
distinct and rather sharply differentiated classes such
as Pharisees, Apocalyptists, Essenes, ‘Am-ha'arets, ,
and Minim. Heterogeneous elements, represented for
instance by the Wisdom writers and the Therapeutae,
were likewise discernible in Hellenistic Judaism. Since
the Pharisees are assumed to be a distinctly separate
class of bigoted nationalists and rigid formalists, genuine
Hebrew faith can have been truly perpetuated only
outside these official circles, and it is from these extra-
official sources that the true Jewish heritage of Chris-
tianity is derived. Genetically it was most closely akin
to the ‘Am-ha'arets, who were the pious people of the
land and who were, therefore, opposed to the Pharisees.
* The rôle of the “Am-ha'arets in the first century A.D. is very
uncertain. Cf. Schürer, Geschichte, usw., II, 468 f.; Büchler, Der
galiläische ‘Am ha-Aretz des Zweiten Jahrhunderts (Wien, 1906); Monte-
fiore, Synoptic Gospels, I., lxxvi.
94 The Evolution of Early Christianity
*-
The connection with Essenism was also close. These
tendencies were represented in the movement of John
the Baptist, they were perpetuated by Jesus, and so
formed the basis of the Christian movement. Formerly
Friedländer located the transition from Judaism to
Christianity in Hellenistic lands, but in his Synagoge
tund Kirche he definitely fixes upon Perea as the place of
Christianity’s birth.*
The idea of connecting primitive Christianity with
certain Jewish sects instead of with the main line of
Palestinian Judaism had already been advocated before
Friedländer wrote. In the early eighteenth century the
English Deist Toland wrote a treatise entitled Nazarenus,
or Jewish, Gentile and Mahometan Christianity, in which
he made primitive Christianity an Ebionite movement
beside which the Pauline movement later arose.” The
name Ebionite was suggested by the mention of a
Jewish-Christian heresy bearing that title in certain of
the Church Fathers. A century after Toland another
English writer, Thomas DeQuincey, suggested that
* Note particularly his Zur Entstehungsgeschichte des Christentums
(Wien, 1894), Das Judentum in der vorchristlichen griechischen Welt:
Ein Beitrag zur Entstehungsgeschichte des Christentums (Wien, 1897),
Geschichte der jüdischen Apologetik als Vorgeschichte des Christentums
(Zürich, 1903), Die religiösen Bewegungen innerhalb des Judentums im
Zeitalter Jesu (Berlin, 1905), and Synagoge und Kirche in ihren Anfängen
(Berlin, 1908).
a This division of early Christianity into an Ebionite and a Pauline
school resembles the antithesis “Petrine” and “Pauline” made by
Baur. On Toland as a forerunner of the Tübingen School see Patrick,
“Two English Forerunners of the Tübingen School: Thomas Morgan
and John Toland,” Theological Review, No. LIX (1877), pp. 562–603.
3 E.g., Irenaeus, Haer., I, xxvi, 2; Hippolytus, Haer., VII, 35;
Origen, Cels., V, 61. The word “Ebionites” (PºS) signifies poor
people.
The Early Christians' Jewish Connections 95
Christianity was a perpetuation of Essenism. This
notion had begun to be used in the first half of the nine-
teenth century as material forming the basis for fanciful
lives of Jesus, his skill at miracles being ascribed to
wisdom derived from early association with the Essenes,
under whose direction he was assumed to have conducted
his public activity.” This type of interpretation is now
confined almost exclusively to writers who deny outright
the historicity of Jesus. These Jewish sects, which are
sometimes said to be largely influenced by non-Jewish
ideas, are thought to furnish sufficient vitality to account
for the origin of the new religion. |
What is to be said of the view, so generally held by
Christians and so commonly denied by Jews, that Chris-
tianity at the start had essentially no relation to con-
temporary Judaism P. While Jewish opinion is often
discounted—for Judaism as well as Christianity may
have its zealous apologists—it is an undeniable fact that
the early Christians were closely associated with Jews,
were indeed Jews themselves, and so are likely to have
been as truly obligated to their immediate environment
as they were to ancient prophetism. While members
of the primitive community may have been distinctly
original in many respects, and may have drawn freely
upon the Old Testament, it does not follow that they
were not intimately related to the religious situation
which produced them, and upon which they in turn
reacted most immediately in their efforts to measure
up to contemporary religious demands. Their problems
were not merely their own personal concern, but were
f
* See Case, Historicity of Jesus (Chicago, 1912), pp. 32–34, for
literature on this subject.
96 The Evolution of Early Christianity
framed if not indeed answered with reference to the
pressing demands of the day. Under these circum-
stances early Christianity in Palestine must be set into
much closer relation with contemporary Judaism than
some interpreters of Christian Origins have been accus-
tomed to allow. The supposition of Christianity’s
unique independence is tenable only on the hypothesis
that Judaism at this time was, in the estimation of early
Christians, utterly devoid of all religious values. But
this conclusion is far from self-evident, and a closer study
of primitive Christianity raises grave doubts regarding
its validity.
On the other hand, the historical conditions are not
satisfied by the disposition, manifest among some Jew-
ish writers, to deny all distinctiveness to the new
religion. Had nascent Christianity been only a com-
posite of excerpts from Judaism there would have been
no room for that display of Creative personal leadership
so characteristic of the new movement, nor would the
conditions have been such as to bring about sharp
antagonism between the two religions. The latter
phenomenon is particularly striking. Though the
evangelists may have Overstressed its prominence in
the time of Jesus, it cannot be doubted, quite apart from
any dispute as to who was immediately responsible for
Jesus' death, that he was unacceptable to many Jews.
It would have been absurd for the Gospel writers in
their anti-Jewish polemic to make Jesus SO eminently
persona non grata to the Jews of his day if exactly the
contrary relationship had been the historical fact.
Granting that the notion of hostility may be over-
emphasized by the evangelists, we are still forced to
The Early Christians’ Jewish Connections 97
believe that it had some basis in fact." And the same
situation is seen in the experience of the primitive com-
munity. While the early believers did not immediately
break with their ancestral faith there was something
about them which aroused the hostility of their Jewish
brethren. Even if the description in Acts is held to be
historically uncertain at many points, there can be no
reasonable doubt about the bitter hostility of the Jewish
leaders both before and after Paul's conversion.” When
the Gospels were written it is perfectly evident that the
cleft had become so wide between the Christians and
their Jewish kinsmen that hope of ever bridging the
Chasm was beginning to be abandoned. Little as the
early Christians may have desired to break with the
faith of their fathers, there was something sufficiently
distinctive about them to invoke Jewish hostility and
to force separation.
Yet this enmity does not imply the complete lack of all
Connection between the two religions, nor must we con-
clude that this relationship can have been maintained
only through the medium of Jewish sects. It would
not be inherently impossible to suppose that Christian-
ity grew out of a Jewish sectarian movement with which
John the Baptist and Jesus were allied. The difficulty
with this hypothesis is the impossibility of finding
substantial historical evidence for the existence of any
sect which has sufficient likeness to Christianity to be
reasonably called its source. Essenes, Zealots, Thera-
peutae, and the like, all fail to meet the requirements.
* Cf. I Thess. 2:15. Paul is likely to have been accurately informed
on this point, however much one may suspect the statements of later
writers.
* Gal. I: 13; I Cor. I5:9; Phil. 3:6.
98 The Evolution of Early Christianity
If one could assume the existence of a well-defined sect
of Messianists in pre-Christian times it might be made
the special source of the new movement, but apart from
Zealot enthusiasts—with whom the early Christians
are certainly not to be reckoned in spite of the fact that
Jesus apparently was condemned on the charge of being
a messianic pretender—there is no intimation that such
a sect existed as a sect. The early Christians' connec-
tions are with contemporary Judaism as a whole, and
not with some incidental phase of that religion.
Among Christian scholars, F. C. Baur was one of the
first to recognize a real point of attachment between
primitive Christianity and contemporary Judaism, yet
he accepted as historical the New Testament representa-
tion of a sharp antagonism between the two religions.
How was it possible for Christianity to have real Jewish
connections and at the same time to be strongly anti-
Jewish P Baur solved this problem by positing two
conflicting divisions within Christianity itself. One
was a Jewish party led by Peter and his associates in
Jerusalem where legalism was emphasized in agree-
ment with strictly Jewish principles, and the other was
a Hellenistic party established by Paul in his fight for
freedom from the law." This did not mean that Jeru-
salem Christianity was not fundamentally different
from Judaism, or that Paul, on the other hand, was
entirely free from Jewish influences. Since Baur was
# Of Baur's many works see especially “Die Christuspartei in der
corinthischen Gemeinde,” Tübinger Zeitschrift für Theologie, Heft. 4
(1831), 61–206; Paulus, der Apostel Jesu Christi (Stuttgart, 1845,
1866–67°), English tr., Paul the Apostle (Edinburgh, 1873–75); and
Vorlesungen über neutestamentliche Theologie (herausgegeben von F. F.
Baur, Leipzig, 1864). Cf. above, p. 13.
The Early Christians’ Jewish Connections 99
not so much interested in explaining how Christianity
arose out of Judaism as in accounting for the early
transition of the new religion from the Jewish to the
gentile thought-world, he concerned himself for the
most part with but one item in Christianity’s Jewish
Connections. That was the position of the ceremonial
law as related to the doctrine of redemption. In contrast
with Paul’s gospel of freedom, the Petrine community
still adhered to the Mosaic ordinance of circumcision
as a necessary accompaniment of faith. Apart from
this main difference the two parties had much in com-
mon, and even the conservatives seem, in Baur's thought,
to represent a religion which is quite distinct from Juda-
ism. When compared with the Pharisees, Jesus is found
to have been unique in his emphasis upon ethical
inwardness and personal piety. To some extent the
early community did, indeed, obscure his teaching by
dragging it down to their lower spiritual level, yet
their new religion was primarily a heritage from Jesus
and so transcended all immediate Jewish connections.
Although Paul was the first to make a formal break
with Judaism he was but carrying to a logical issue
what was already implicit in Jesus’ own teaching and
what was fundamental to the Jerusalem community’s
faith in Christ.*
* Since Baur is often thought to have divided primitive Christianity
into two sharply differentiated parties, one being emphatically Jewish
and the other distinctly Greek, it may be well to note how closely he
follows the traditional view of Christianity’s essential independence of
Contemporary Judaism, and how truly a unit both the Petrine and the
Pauline parties are in this respect. He says: “In dem Apostel Paulus
war zuerst derwesentliche Unterschied des Christentums vom Judentum,_
die Unmöglichkeit, auf der Grundlage des Judentums das von Christus
IOO The Evolution of Early Christianity
Baur's recognition of a cleft within early Christianity
has given direction to the main lines of much subsequent
discussion. Taking their cue from him, some inter-
preters divide Jewish Christianity itself into two sec-
tions, the former representing the chief apostles who
stood quite aloof from Judaism except for the matter of
circumcision, and the latter being a body of Judaizers
who adhered tenaciously to hereditary customs and
beliefs." While the primitive apostles kept the “pure”
gospel in the foreground, to that extent being in harmony
with Paul, the Judaizers remained so seriously entangled
with Jewish religion that they were scarcely worthy of
the name Christian, and so ere long fell back into the
Jewish fold. By this method the Christianity of the
first believers as a whole is made to transcend Judaism,
it derives its main content directly from Jesus, distinctly
contemporary Judaism exerts no essential influence upon
the new faith, and its Jewish heritage is really only the
Old Testament, religion. •
Another line of development from Baur makes Paul
its point of departure. His breach with the Palestinian
erworbene Heil sich zuzueignen, zum bestimmten Bewusstsein ge-
kommen.” Yet Paul did not create this distinction, “nur hat er bloss
für das Bewusstsein ausgesprochen, was an sich, principiell und tatsäch-
lich, oder implicite schon in der Lehre Jesu enthalten war.” The same
thing was true of the “Petrine” Christians, although they “iberhaupt
noch keine Ahnung davon hatten, welcher Keim eines tiefgehenden
Zwiespaltes mit dem Judentum in ihrem Glauben an Christus verborgen
lag” (Vorlesungen, usw., pp. 128 f.).
* A characteristic defense of this position may be seen in Sorley,
Jewish Christians and Judaism (Cambridge, 1881), or Hort, Judaistic
Christianity (London, 1894). Hoennicke, Das Judenchristentum im
ersten und Zweiten Jahrhundert (Berlin, Igo3), takes essentially the same
position, though believing the breach between Paul and the primitive
. . . apostles to have been more serious. *
The Early Christians’ Jewish Connections IoI
church is thought to be much more fundamental than
Baur supposed, for the principle of universalism, which
Baur allowed to be implicit with the first apostles, is now
conceded to Paul only. The gulf separating him from
the Jerusalem community is made so wide that he vir-
tually becomes the founder of the new religion on gentile
Soil. It still has Jewish connections, but these are most
immediately with the Judaism of the Diaspora in which
Paul had been reared, rather than with the Palestinian
milieu in which Jesus and the first disciples lived. The
Central item of Paul’s gospel is found to be his concep-
tion of universal redemption made possible through the
death of Christ. This notion is an expansion of uni-
versalistic tendencies already begun by Hellenistic Jews,
but in its Christian form it is a distinctly Pauline crea-
tion. In comparison with the legalistic and nationalistic
ideal of the Jerusalem community, the preaching of the
new doctrine is to all intents and purposes the beginning
of a new religion." While it has specific Hellenistic
Jewish connections at the outset, they are only peripheral
and are easily dismissed by later generations who wish
to restate Paul's religion in terms of Greek thinking.
Several objections may be urged against this mode of
interpretation. To make Paul and his immediate asso-
ciates the sole founders of gentile Christianity is a doubt-
ful historical procedure. The New Testament is so
* This view has been most recently advocated by Wrede, Paulus
(Tübingen, 1904), English tr., Paul (Boston, 1908). But the main lines
of the representation were already present in the works of Tübingen
Scholars such as Holsten, Zum Evangelium des Paulus und Petrus
(Rostock, I868) and Das Evangelium des Paulus (Berlin, 1880, 1898°);
Pfleiderer, Der Paulinismus (Leipzig, 1890°), English tr., Paulinism
(London, 1891*). This is also one of the crucial points at issue in the
much-debated Paul-and-Jesus controversy.
I O2 The Evolution of Early Christianity
deficient in its description of gentile missionary work,
except as Carried on by Paul and his colaborers, that one
all too easily forgets to take account of similar work on
the part of those who did not come within the range of
Paul’s immediate influence, or who did not work under
his supervision. While he and his companions were
vigorously pushing forward the evangelization of one
section of the Graeco-Roman world other laborers were
cultivating other fields, and contributing effectively
toward the world-expansion of the new religion. We
learn from one of Paul’s letters that an important church
had been established at Rome, and the fame of its faith
had become world-wide, without any assistance from
Paul." When Paul was working the territory to the
northeast of the Mediterranean the others were carrying
the propaganda to the West and probably to the South.
Sometimes even in the East Paul was anticipated and
helped by laborers from other fields.” History has not
fully recorded the activities of persons who are men-
tioned in the early part of the Book of Acts, but who
drop out of sight as soon as Paul takes the center of the
stage. Did their missionary labors cease as suddenly as
the story of their career breaks off in Acts? That is
hardly probable. In fact, various hints to the contrary
may still be gleaned from the New Testament. Paul
speaks of the missionary methods of Barnabas, Peter,
and the Lord’s brethren as well known to the Christian
community in Corinth.” The variety of our New Testa-
ment literature all of which is written in Greek and so
is more or less directly a product of gentile Christianity,
* * Rom. I :8–15.
* Acts 18:24 f.; 19:1; cf. 18:2. 3 I Cor. 9:4–6.
The Early Christians’ Jewish Connections Iog
the widely scattered places in which we find the new
religion at the end of the New Testament period, and
the slight extent to which so-called Pauline views mani-
fest themselves in the Christian literature of the second
century, all go to show that gentile Christianity was not
a peculiarly “Pauline” creation.
Furthermore, Paul never conceives his work to be
the establishment of a new religion as compared with
that which he had previously persecuted, and to which
he had been converted on the road to Damascus. He
may show independence when defending his apostleship,
or when advocating the liberties of the gentile converts,
but he derives his apostolic credentials from the same
Source as do his predecessors," and he does not even claim
to have been original in creating the notion of justifica-
tion by faith.” When he preaches the coming of an
apocalyptic Messiah in the person of the crucified Jesus,
who had been raised from the dead and elevated to a
position of dignity in heaven—an item which he unques-
tionably makes fundamental in his gospel—is he not
distinctly “Christian” rather than Pauline, and Chris-
tian too in the “Jewish” sense? Since Paul emphati-
cally affirms that there is only one gospel which he and
all others share alike, that is, the gospel of faith in this
heavenly Messiah, perhaps the legalistic controversy
did not in the long run cut so deep as the later Tübingen
Scholars have been wont to assume.
This brings us to a consideration of eschatology, as
demonstrating the close and vital relationship between
the early Christians and their Jewish contemporaries.
The Jewish expectation of the heavenly Messiah whose
* I Cor. I5:8 f.; Gal. 2:8. * Gal. 2: I4 ff.
IO4 The Evolution of Early Christianity
coming will bring the present evil age to a close and
result in the establishment of a new order of existence,
though only vaguely suggested in the Old Testament, is
held to have been a prominent item in the Judaism of
Jesus' day. Until within the last half-century very little
notice has been taken of this side of Judaism, but of
late it has been much emphasized." When the early
Christians preached the coming of the heavenly Messiah
who was to bring all evil to an end and set up a new
kingdom in righteousness, they were, it is said, not
* A beginning in this direction was made by Dillmann, Das Buch
Henoch (Leipzig, 1851), and Hilgenfeld, Die füdische Apokalyptik (Jena,
1857). The study was furthered by Colani, Jésus-Christ et les croyances
messianiques de son temps (Strassburg, 1864); Vernes, Histoire des idées
messianiques depuis Alexandre jusqu’à l'empereur Hadrian (Paris, 1874).
At present this subject has an extensive literature dealing with both
Judaism and Christianity. Jewish views are expounded in various
treatises on Judaism (see above, p. 79), e.g., Schürer, Geschichte, usw.,
II, 609–51, English tr., History of the Jewish People, II, ii, 126–87; Volz,
Jüdische Eschatologie von Daniel bis Akiba (Tübingen, Igo3); Bousset,
Die Religion des Judentums, pp. 233 f.; Gressmann, Der Ursprung der
ſisraelitisch-jūdischen Eschatologie (Göttingen, 1906); Lagrange, Le messia-
nisme chez les Juifs (Paris, Igo3); Bertholet, Die füdische Religion,
pp. I33 ff., 435 ft. A Comparative study of Jewish and Christian views
is made by Charles, Eschatology, Hebrew, Jewish and Christian (New
York, 1899), and Mathews, The Messianic Hope in the New Testament
(Chicago, Igos). Recent studies on Jesus and on Paul devote consider-
able attention to this element in early Christianity, e.g., J. Weiss, Die
Predigt Jesu vom Reiche Gottes (Göttingen, 1892, 1900°); Baldensperger,
Das Selbstbewusstsein Jesu im Lichte der messianischen Hoffnungen seiner
Zeit (Strassburg, 1888, 1892*, 30 ed., of first part, Die messianisch-
apokalyptischen Hoffnungen des Judentums, 1903); Brückner, Die
Entstehung der paulinischen Christologie (Strassburg, 1903); H. J. Holtz-
mann, Das messianische Bewusstsein Jesu (Tübingen, 1907); E. F. Scott,
The Kingdom and the Messiah (New York, 1911); Schweitzer, Geschichte
der paulinischen Forschung (Tübingen, 1911) and Geschichte der Leben-
Jesu-Forschung (Tübingen, 1906, 1913°), English tr., The Quest of the
Historical Jesus (New York, 1910).
The Early Christians’ Jewish Connections IoS
deriving their message simply from Jesus, but were phras-
ing their estimate of him in the familiar terminology of
Contemporary Jewish apocalyptic. So far as this phase
of doctrine is thought to be central in early Christianity
—and it is now so regarded by many interpreters—the
new religion proves to have had substantial and imme-
diate connections with later Judaism.
Much can be said in favor of this opinion. The
presence of this type of messianic hope in late Judaism
is attested both in the first century before and in the
first century after the opening of the Christian era."
The extant literary evidence is, to be sure, not so exten-
sive as one could wish, yet the existence of this type of
hope is well attested. Nor is there any uncertainty
regarding the strong resemblance between these Jewish
expectations and the early Christians' picture of their
coming Messiah. Readjustments are made to suit the
Christian situation, but still the gospel portrait of the
heavenly Son of Man to come on the clouds in glory,”
the description in Acts of the appointed Messiah whose
coming awaits the restoration of all things,” the Pauline
Messiah to be revealed in judgment,” and the reigning
Messiah of the Apocalypse, all hark back most distinctly
to the apocalyptic conceptions of later Judaism. Quite
apart from the much-debated question of Jesus' own
idea of his messianic program, it is perfectly clear that
his disciples after his death evaluated his personality by
means of this current Jewish coinage.
* E.g., Enoch, IV Ezra, Baruch, etc.; cf. Schürer, Geschichte, usw.,
III, 263 ff. For texts see Charles, Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha
(Oxford, 1913).
* Mark 8:37; 13:24 ft.
3 Acts 3:20 f. 4 I Cor. I :8 f.; 4:5, etc.
Ioé The Evolution of Early Christianity
If Paul and his predecessors reared the superstructure
of their faith upon a Jewish type of messianic hope
re-worded in terms of belief in Jesus’ resurrection,
exaltation to lordship, and imminent Parousia, and if
other Christians besides Paul and his companions were
also propagating the same faith in gentile lands, no
reasons remain for following the later Tübingen scholars
in finding Christianity’s Jewish connections chiefly in
the Diaspora. It may be quite true that the new
religion was freshly influenced by Judaism in gentile
territory, where the gospel was, in the first instance,
often proclaimed in Connection with the synagogue
assemblies, and from which it doubtless drew converts.
These persons who had been reared in a Hellenistic
atmosphere, retained after their conversion, as would be
expected, many religious values which their past experi-
ence had supplied. But a similar situation existed
earlier in Palestine. Certainly Christianity had dis-
tinctly Jewish features before it became an extra-
Palestinian propaganda, and, since many of the earlier
missionaries had themselves been Palestinians, Chris-
tianity even on gentile soil cannot have been very differ-
ent from that of the primitive community. Changes,
of course, took place with the passage of time and the
rise of new situations. But so far as Jewish influence
is concerned, conditions in the Diaspora were not so
very different from those of Palestine as to call for exten-
sive readjustment in Christianity’s Jewish relationships
in gentile lands.
Much less are we able to believe that gentile Chris-
tianity was a new creation by Paul. To what extent
he was original, or how far he adopted Greek or Graeco-
The Early Christians’ Jewish Connections Io'7
Jewish ideas in working out the logic of the redemptive
scheme, is another question. Whatever answer one
may give to this, the fact remains that Paul and his
predecessors shared alike in this fundamental item of
common Christian belief. He and they had identically
the same recipe for obtaining salvation: a confession
of Jesus’ messianic lordship on the basis of a belief,
that God had raised him from the dead.* Also the
consummation of salvation was, both for him and
for them, to be accomplished by Jesus’ return in
judgment. Differences in details ought not to be
allowed to obscure these central elements in their
common faith.
Another school of interpreters finds Christianity’s
Jewish connections to have been relatively insignificant
for the genesis of the new religion, particularly when it
became a gentile movement. This independence is not
ascribed to the Christians’ possession of new christologi-
cal doctrine, or to their unique religious experience, as
some earlier interpreters have often insisted. Nor is
this credited to Paul’s doctrine of universalism, as the
later Tübingen scholars affirmed. The new movement
is thought to have been independent of Judaism because
it had so generally taken up from its gentile environ-
ment Hellenistic features of a non-Jewish character.
Even the messianism of the primitive community is
thought to have had a comparatively insignificant place
under the new conditions. Since the success of Chris-
tianity outside of Palestine is credited largely to the
appropriation of items from the contemporary gentile
world, this view implies, even if it does not explicitly
* Rom. Io:9.
Io3 The Evolution of Early Christianity
affirm, that Christianity on gentile soil was only remotely
connected with Judaism.
Not all representatives of this so-called religions-
geschichtliche school hold identically the same opinions
on the question of Christianity’s genetic relation to
Judaism. Non-Jewish elements are sometimes said to
have come in directly through Palestinian connections .
where syncretistic influences are thought to have been at
work even before Christianity arose.” Under these
conditions the genetic relation between the two religions
is really close and vital in so far as Judaism at that time
was actually syncretistic. But other adherents of the
religionsgeschichtliche school attach much less importance
to contemporary Jewish faith, and derive the foreign
elements of Christianity from the believers’ first-hand
contact with the Hellenistic world. This procedure
results in a separation of gentile Christianity from Pales-
tinian Christianity similar to that made by Tübingen
scholars, although a very different explanation is given
for the necessity of the separation.
The view in question appears most fully worked out
in Bousset's recent volume, Kyrios Christos.” Accord-
* E.g., Gunkel, Zum religionsgeschichtlichen Verständnis des Neuen
Testaments (Göttingen, 1903, IQIO*). r
* Bousset, Kyrios Christos: Geschichte des Christusglaubens von den
Anfängen des Christentums bis Irenaeus (Göttingen, 1913); cf. also
Heitmüller, “Zum Problem Paulus und Jesus,” Zeitschrift für die
neutestamentliche Wissenschaft, XIII (1912), 320–37; Böhlig, “Zum
Begriff Kyrios bei Paulus,” ibid., XIV (1913), 23–37. Reitzenstein,
Poimandres and Die hellenistischen Mysterienreligionen; Böhlig, Die
Geisteskult:ur von Tarsos (Göttingen, 1913), and similar studies in con-
temporary Hellenistic religions furnish a basis for this type of interpreta-
tion. J. Weiss, Das Urchristentum (Göttingen, 1914), though freely
employing data supplied by the religionsgeschichtliche School, is more
reserved in breaking Christianity’s Jewish connections.
The Early Christians' Jewish Connections To9
ing to this interpretation the primitive Christians shared
the current eschatological form of the Jewish messianic
hope, the distinctive Christian feature being the iden-
tification of Jesus with the apocalyptic Son of Man.
The next stage of development is seen in the early
Hellenistic community with its center probably at
Antioch in Syria. While it was not without Jewish
Connections, its most distinctive characteristic was
neither Jewish nor primitive Christian in origin, but
purely Hellenistic. This distinctive item was reverence
for Jesus as Lord (Küptos, Kyrios). From being a
religion of faith in a coming Messiah, Christianity has
now become the cult of the present Lord. Thus the
Kyrios cult becomes a powerful rival of primitive Chris-
tian eschatology, and is destined to push it quite com-
pletely into the background.” Paul represents a further
stage in this course of development, he being entirely
*“ Der Menschensohn wird so ziemlich vergessen werden und als
eine unverstandene Hieroglyphe in den Evangelien stehen bleiben,
dem im Kulte gegenwärtigen Kyrios gehört die Zukunft” (Bousset,
op. cit., p. T25). J. Weiss states the matter more cautiously and prob-
ably more accurately: “In dem starken Hervortreten dieses Namens
(Kyrios) vor dem Messiastitel kündigt sich nun auch eine sehr be-
merkenswerte sachliche Verschiebung gegenüber der Urgemeinde an.
Mit dem Zurücktreten des nationalen Moments trat auch das eschatolo-
gische wenn auch nicht in die zweite Linie, so doch ein wenig aus der
vordersten Stellung zurück. Das Verhältnis zu dem erhöhten Kyrios
behielt natürlich seine eschatologische Perspektive; die Parusie Christi
blieb ein äusserst wichtiges Moment, namentlich für die aus dem Juden-
tum gekommenen Gemeindeglieder. Aber für die Mehrzahl der Heiden-
christen war doch hiermit eine neue Gegenwarts-Religion gegeben; damit
war ein Gegengewicht gegen die vorwiegend eschatologische Religion der
Urgemeinde vorhanden; . . . . der himmlische Herr war immer da und
bot alles, was man brauchte, schon jetzt in reichster Fülle. So kommt
es, dass an Stelle des grossen Weltendramas immer mehr der individuelle
Vorgang der Erlösung des Einzelnen in den Vordergrund trat” (Das
Urchristentum, I, I28 f.). «-
I IO The Evolution of Early Christianity
removed from contact with the Palestinian Christians.
It was the Hellenistic community only that he had per-
secuted, and it was this circle alone which later furnished
him all his historical data about Christianity. Thus
the new religion for Paul was, from the first, the worship
of a present Lord—a Kyrios cult—rather than a Judaeo-
Christian belief in an eschatological Messiah. In post-
Pauline times Christianity’s Jewish connections grew
still more remote and of less vital significance for the
existence of the new religion.
In how far is this type of interpretation valid P. While
it may have been a perfectly normal thing for Chris-
tians in a gentile atmosphere to phrase their religion in
the language and spirit of the gentile world, it is still a
question whether advocates of the new faith, like Paul
and his Hellenistic Jewish predecessors, did so soon
break with their past religious heritage. That Paul was
* a product of gentile Christianity is perhaps nearer to
the truth than was the Tübingen view that he was its
creator. At least he and his immediate associates were
neither the first nor the only missionaries in gentile
lands, but that gentile Christianity before Paul and
Paul himself were so remotely related to the Chris-
tianity of Palestine as Bousset affirms, and hence so far
removed from Judaism, is more doubtful.
This opinion is open to one of the chief objections urged
against the Tübingen view, namely, it passes too lightly
over the eschatological features in Paul’s letters. It was
perhaps only natural, in view of Schweitzer's recent one-
sided use of eschatology to explain everything in Paul,
* Cf. his Geschichte der paulinischen Forschung (Tübingen, 1911),
English tr., Paul and His Interpreters (London, 1912).
The Early Christians’ Jewish Connections III
that the pendulum should swing to the opposite ex-
treme, but in avoiding the Scylla of Schweitzer has not
Bousset become involved in the perils of Charybdis P
Whatever else Paul may have included within the hori-
zon of his religious world, he certainly did retain and
make prominent a Christianized form of the Jewish
apocalyptic hope. He admonished the Thessalonians
to prepare for the end of the world, which was coming
suddenly as a thief in the night." The Corinthians are
exhorted to suspend judgment upon their fellows since
they are all alike waiting for the revelation of Jesus when
every man’s work will be tested by the fire of the final
judgment day. The interim is so short that marriage
is discouraged, and those who are questioning regarding
the resurrection of the dead are told of the Parousia of
Christ when he is to conquer death and complete the
work of restoration by giving over the newly established
kingdom to the Father.” The Romans are warned that
the night is far spent and the day at hand when all shall
stand before God’s judgment seat, and the Philippians
are encouraged to go on to perfection until the day of
Jesus Christ, confident that the Lord is at hand. Paul
endures his present afflictions as a missionary the more
cheerfully because of the prospect of reward in this
coming day of judgment. The Thessalonians are to be
his joy and crown of glorying “before our Lord Jesus
at his coming”; and his sufferings on behalf of the Gen-
tiles, being “a sweet Savor unto God,” he gladly bears
as “light afflictions” in comparison with the “eternal
* I Thess. I : Io; 3: I3; 4: I5-18; 5:2, 23.
*I Cor. I : 7 f.; 3: 13; 4:5; I5:23 ff.; 16:22; II Cor. 5: Io.
3 Rom. I3: I2; I4: Io; Phil. I:6, Io; 4: 5.
II 2 The Evolution of Early Christianity
weight of glory” which is to be his when he stands in
the judgment and there presents the fruit of his mission-
ary labors.”
On the whole would it not be more truly descriptive
of Paul’s attitude to call his religion a “Christ” (Mes-
siah) cult rather than a “Lord” (Kyrios) cult? It is
very true that Paul makes much of Jesus’ lordship over
the community. Christians are those who “call upon
the name of the Lord”; to be saved one must “confess
with the mouth that Jesus is Lord,” and “the Lord is
the Spirit,” whose presence in the believer is the very
cornerstone of the Christian life. Yet in all this there -
is no disposition on Paul’s part to minimize Jesus’
function as Messiah, or to discount the supreme sig-
nificance of that moment in history when Jesus will
appear in messianic splendor bringing the present evil
age to an end, establishing an eternal kingdom in right-
eousness, and at last handing over to God the perfected
product of his messianic work. At best the present
lordship of Jesus over the community is only a make-
shift, a temporary expedient to bridge over the time
until the day of judgment breaks, manifesting the ulti-
mate triumph of Jesus as Messiah and establishing the
dominion of God forevermore.
Furthermore, for Paul “Lord” is only a title for
Jesus, while “Christ,” though originally a title, has come
to be practically a proper name co-ordinate with the
name Jesus, consequently “Christ” identifies the indi-
vidual himself and does not merely describe one of his
attributes. Therefore it is not surprising that Paul
*I TheSS. 2: 19 f.; I Cor. 9:23-27; IS:31; II Cor. 2: 14 f.; 4: 14–17;
Rom. 8:17; Phil. 2: I6.
The Early Christians’ Jewish Connections II3
uses this term more frequently than “Lord.” Also in
the rites of the cult, “Lord” does not predominate over
the term “Christ,” although Bousset seems to assume
that it does. In speaking of baptism, for instance, he
Says that in the Pauline age this rite was performed in
the name of “the Lord Jesus,” the name and the Spirit
being the effective factors in the sacrament.” But if we
state the matter in Paul’s language it is Christ rather
than Lord which is most frequently associated with the
baptismal rite. When writing to the Galatians he insists
upon the adequacy of the religion of faith in “Christ
Jesus,” reminding his readers that all who have been
“baptized into Christ have put on Christ” and so are
all one “in Christ Jesus.” They now have member-
ship in the “Christ Jesus” religion, which is superior
to all rivals. Speaking of the labels by which the differ-
ent parties in Corinth have designated themselves, Paul
asks the schismatics, “Is the Christ divided P4 Has
*Including Colossians and Ephesians, but not the Pastorals, the
figures for Pauline usage are approximately as follows: Xpwarós alone,
206 times (77 times with the article); Xptotôs 'Imaoûs, 56 times;
"I'mgoûs Xplotós, 20 times; Kºptos alone, referring to Jesus (though
whether used of Jesus or of God cannot always be positively decided),
139 times; Kºptos 'Imaoûs, 16 times; Kºptos 'Imaoûs Xplotós, variously
combined, 61 times; 'Imaoûs alone, 15 times but 143 times combined
with other terms. Thus for individual words, Xplotós occurs 343 times;
Rúptos, 216 times; 'Imaoûs, 168 times. -
* Kyrios Christos, p. IoI; cf. Wernle, Die Anfänge unserer Religion
(Tübingen, 1904, p. 176; The Beginnings of Christianity, I [New York,
I903], 247 f.), who says the word Christ had a strange sound for Greek
ears and on that account Paul used Köpuos instead, introducing it “als
Aequivalent für Messias in die offiziellen Bekenntnisformeln.”
3 Gal. 3:26–28.
4 I Cor. I: II–13. Although Paul writes 6 Xpwortós, the article is
probably simply anaphoric, so that Paul is not using Christ as a title,
but in the dynamic personal sense to emphasize the fact that the Corin-
thians individually and collectively belong to Christ (cf. I Cor. 3:23).
II.4. The Evolution of Early Christianity
Paul been crucified for you, or have you been baptized
into the name of Paul ?” Since this question must
be answered negatively there is no logical place for
schism. All are members of the “Christ” into whom
they have been baptized. Similarly, jealousies which
are prone to arise through the exercise of different spir–
itual gifts are to be avoided by exalting the notion of the
community's unity, all having been baptized in one
Spirit, into one body, and having drunk the same
spiritual drink, that is, “the Christ.” Again, the
Israelites in the wilderness were “baptized into Moses,”
but their real spiritual drink was “the Christ.” Over
against the “Moses” religion, bringing it to comple-
tion, stands the “Christ” religion with its seal of baptism
“into Christ.” In arguing for the distinctiveness and
adequacy of the new religion, Paul reminds the Romans
of the supreme significance of their having been baptized
“into Christ.” For as Christ was raised from the dead
by the glory of the Father so they live a new life unto
God “in Christ Jesus.” Even if the statement that the
Corinthians had been washed, sanctified, and justified
“in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ” is a reference to
baptism, as seems probable, still the term “Christ” is
not displaced but is merely supplemented by the title
“Lord,” and the immediate context goes on to emphasize
that the Christian life should be one of purity because
Christians now are members of “Christ.”
Paul does speak of the Lord’s table and the Lord’s
(kvpuaków) Supper, but the religious significance of the
* I Cor. I2: I2 f. * * I Cor. Io: I–4.
3 Rom. 6: I–II; also Col. 2: II f. speaks of being buried with “Christ”
in baptism.
4 I Cor. 6: II-I5.
The Early Christians’ Jewish Connections II 5
rite consists in bringing the communicant into fellowship
with the blood and the body of “the Christ,” and the
dynamic significance of “the name” which Phil. 2:9 ff.
is taken to illustrate” does not inhere in the name Lord,
but rather in the name Jesus, the dynamic quality of
which—the name being equivalent to the person—
produces confession of “Jesus Christ’s” lordship.3
There is really quite as much reason to believe that
the religion of Paul, and of the Hellenistic community
he represents, was a “Christ” cult as that it was a “Lord”
cult. We do not mean to deny the importance attached
to confession of Jesus' lordship. We would only affirm
that Jesus and Christ were the terms used to identify
specifically that powerful personage who had primary
significance for the community’s life, while the thought
of Jesus' lordship was a secondary, though indeed an
important, notion. Christians spoke of the Lord “Jesus
Christ,” while other religionists spoke of the Lord
“Serapis,” and others of the Lord “Caesar.” In this
general sense each was a Kyrios cult—a fact which
Bousset seems to be entirely correct in emphasizing—
but a more truly descriptive definition must set in the
foreground the specific, divine potency about which
the faith of the community centers and from which the
rites derived their significance. This is, respectively,
Caesar, Serapis, or Jesus Christ. On this point Paul
expresses himself explicitly: “there are many gods and
* Toj Xptoroij (I Cor. Io: I6).
* Bousset, Kyrios Christos, pp. Iof f.
3 We ought to remember that what Paul really said was, “God hath
exalted him and given him the name that is above every name in order
that in the name of JESUS every knee should bow . . . . and every
tongue confess that JESUS CHRIST is LORD.” See below, p. 158, n. 3.
II6 The Evolution of Early Christianity
many lords, but for us there is one God, the FATHER
. and one Lord, JESUS CHRIST.” This centrality
of the Christ name, though adjusted to a new setting,
shows a close genetic kinship between the new propa-
ganda on gentile soil and its earlier exponents in Pales-
tine. Both Paul and the Hellenistic Christians who
preceded him were not only advocates of a Jewish-
Christian apocalyptic hope, but they alike employed
the Jewish term “Christ” (Messiah) to designate the
object of their faith.”
Even the notion of Jesus' lordship is likely to have
been already an item in the faith of the Palestinian
community.” When Paul teaches gentile converts the
prayer “maranatha,” he would seem to be perpetuating
* I Cor. 8: 5 f.
* The persistence of this name in gentile territory is further attested
by the name “Christianity.” The founder of this religion is also known
to outsiders, e.g., Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny, Josephus, as “Christ,”
and the world at large seems for some time to have thought Christianity
a Jewish sect.
3 The evidence for this conclusion is given in detail in the article
“Kºptos as a Title for Christ,” Journal of Biblical Literature, XXVI
(1907), I51–61; see also Bacon, Jesus the Son of God (New Haven, 1911),
pp. 53–77; and J. Weiss, Christus: Die Anfänge des Dogmas (Tübingen,
I909), English tr., Christ, the Beginnings of Dogma (London, 1911),
pp. 45–55, and Das Urchristenium, I, 25 ft. (but also 127 ff. and 351 ff.).
4 papavaffa (I Cor. I6:22; Did. Io:6; cf. Rev. 22:20) is a trans-
literation of Nº. 8.7%), meaning “Our Lord, come!” This is the more
probable reading, though Sºns ſºn, “Our Lord has come,” or “is
Coming” (perfectum propheticum), is possible. It is conceivable that
the full form NnN may have been an imperative (cf. L.; in Syr. Sin.
Mark Io: 21; Luke I6: 2, etc.), but Paul would probably have transliter-
ated this effa or 16a. For Ninºx as an imperative, sometimes vocalized
with sere and sometimes with hireq, see Dalman, Grammatik des jiidisch-
palástinischen Aramäisch (Leipzig, 1905°), pp. 356 f. It seems pref-
erable, therefore, to read & Sºnº. Its meaning is more natural to
The Early Christians’ Jewish Connections II.7
terminology which had already become stereotyped in
the Aramaic-speaking Community at Jerusalem. But
this Bousset will not concede. He will allow that the
Palestinians did pray maranatha, but he says they only
meant “Our Teacher, come!” The word mar may
have been used of a professional teacher in Jesus' day,
but it certainly was used in a great many other connec-
tions, some of which seem much more appropriate to the
primitive Christians' enthusiastic hope and prayer for
the coming of their heaven-exalted Messiah than would
be indicated by the sober ejaculation, “Our Teacher,
come!” They were calling for the coming of one
whose authority had been demonstrated by a resurrec-
tion from the dead, one who had been appointed to
conduct the great assize at the end of the present age,
one whose triumph over death gave him primacy among
angelic spirits and established him as the champion of
the forces of good over against Satan and his hosts.
When they called him Marana they surely would have
used the word to Connote those higher phases of author-
ity with which it was so commonly associated in their
day and their environment." They were really praying
Paul’s situation. The older form of the suffix 8.5 is attested in Paul’s
day and vicinity by the 85&T'a, used of King Aretas in the Nabatean
inscriptions (CIS, II, 199 and 206). Sºn is also a regular form of the
imperative (cf. Dalman, op. cit., pp. I52, n. 3, and 357, n. I; also the
familiar ... of Syr. Sin., e.g., Matt. 5: 24; Luke 18:22; John I :46;
4:16; II:43; see also Nöldeke, Göttingische gelehrte Anzeigen [1884],
p. Io23; and Zahn, Einleitung in das Neue Testament, RiDeipzig, 19083],
216 ft.).
* The term was one of wide application among Semitic-speaking
peoples to denote different degrees of authority from that of the owner
of property to that of God in his capacity as ruler of the universe. It
was also very commonly used to designate the authority of the king in
118 The Evolution of Early Christianity
for the coming of the Lord of the new kingdom; other-
wise it is altogether improbable that they would have
prayed at all for his advent."
Paul’s interest in, and connection with, the Jews and
the Jewish Christians of Palestine is shown in a number
contrast with his subjects who were “servants.” But it was not a
proper name for God, as the Septuagint Kūptos might mislead us to
suppose, nor was it a current surrogate for TTT". Jewish Christians
would therefore feel no hesitation about using it of Jesus, for it would
imply no rivalry with Yahweh. To be sure, Yahweh is Tºº Tºnº and
Nºt Nº (Dan. 2:47; 5:23), in the sense that he possesses supreme
authority, and if Jesus spoke in Aramaic the words assigned to him in
Matt. II:25; Luke Io: 21 he probably said Nºmy" Nºtt" Nºnº. But
NT'º was used equally freely of various grades of authority, as Onkelos
attests, although it was apparently a favorite term in Aramaic for describ-
ing the authority of kings. In the Zenjirli inscriptions Tiglath-pileser is
Spºns "yan Sºn and "Nºno. In the Nabatean inscriptions of the first
century A.D. Aretas is SNT'º (CIS, II, 199, 201, 205 f., 208 f., 35o).
The people of Palmyra address Ba‘al Shamin as Nºy Nºn; their
favorite prince is nº and Tºo, and the Roman emperor is in: "Op.
It would be perfectly appropriate and natural for the Aramaic-speaking
Christians of Palestine to call the exalted Messiah 77% in this elevated
sense, as a person who now occupied a position of special authority in
the realm of spirits. *
* The only positive argument which is urged against this use of 77%
in the primitive community is the absence of Kºptos in the earliest stratum
of synoptic tradition. But this argument rests upon too many uncer-
tainties to carry much weight. The absence of the term from this
tradition may merely show good historical perspective on the part of
the writers who knew that the word had not been applied generally to
Jesus during his earthly life. They do not represent that “Christ”
was a common designation for the earthly Jesus. Yet we can hardly
doubt that in their own circle he was commonly spoken of as the “Mes-
siah.” He was the humble “Jesus” while on earth, he is now the com-
munity’s “Lord” in the realm of spirits, and also “Messiah” to be
revealed at the end of the age. Paul, too, on referring to tradition
received from his predecessors, uses “Lord” or “Lord Jesus” as though
it were a common designation in these earlier circles, e.g., I Thess.
I:6; 2: I5; 4:15; Gal. I: I9; I Cor. 6: I4; 7: Io, I2, 25; 9:5, 14; II:23,
26 f.; Rom. 4:24.
The Early Christians’ Jewish Connections II9
of other ways. He affirms his own Jewish ancestry most
emphatically.” He longs for the conversion of the Jews,
and believes that this ideal will finally be realized.” He
visited Jerusalem several times and regarded it a matter
of real importance that he should win the approval of
the Jerusalem church in his gentile missionary work.
It gave him no slight satisfaction to be able to say that
the Judaean Christians on hearing of his missionary
work in Syria and Cilicia gave glory to God for him who
had once persecuted them.” And he gathered from his
gentile fields the collection for the Palestinian Christians
with as much zeal and fidelity as he would have displayed
in making the appointed contribution to the temple
had he remained within the Jewish fold. Paul seems
to have believed that the new religion had a close genetic
kinship with Judaism, but above all that Christianity
on gentile Soil was genetically the very same religion
as Christianity in Palestine. Paul regards it the crown-
ing act of his labors in the East to be able to requite
in Small measurc the Jerusalem Christians ſor supply-
ing to the Gentiles the true religion.* Although he had
* II Cor. II:22; Rom. II: I; Phil. 3:5.
* Rom. 9:1 ff.; II: I ff. t
3 Gal. I:21, 24. The assertion that Paul never persecuted Judaean
Christians (Bousset, op. cit., p. 92; See also Mommsen, “Die Rechts-
verhältnisse des Apostels Paulus,” Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche
Wissenschaft [1901], 31 f., and Heitmüller, “Zum Problem Paulus und .
Jesus,” ibid., XIII (1912), 377), rests mainly upon the remark of vs. 22:
“I was unknown by face to the churches of Judaea.” But the context
does not bear out so general an inference. All Paul says is that he made
no personal visit to those churches while he was working in Syria and
Cilicia (étrelta \ffou . . . . jump 6é d'Yvootºpeuos); cf. also J. Weiss, Das
Urchristentum, I, I36, n. I.
4 Rom. I5:26–28.
I2O The Evolution of Early Christianity
not received his commission from the Jerusalem apostles,
he had received no new commission in comparison with
theirs, and although the first period of his Christian
Career had been spent in Damascus and Arabia, he
reckoned his evangelizing activity territorially as
beginning at Jerusalem."
So in general the New Testament writers believed
that their religion, although it possessed new and truer
items, had a substantial foundation in Judaism. It was
also a unit in itself, notwithstanding the diversities of
Christian activity in scattered fields. While the New
Testament is so largely a gentile Christian book, it
uniformly attests the consciousness of a close genetic
kinship with Judaism. When the Gospels were written
the Old Testament was used as a source book for mes-
sianic prophecy and for Christian instruction generally.
John the Baptist and Jesus were represented as working
almost exclusively in a Jewish setting, the first disciples
were believed to have been closely attached to Judaism,
the new propaganda was said to have been carried on
frequently in connection with the synagogue. Paul
himself not only thought Judaism the true ancestor of
the new religion, but looked for the speedy reconcilia-
tion of these two estranged kinsmen. The author of
Matthew, in spite of his anti-Jewish polemic, emphati-
cally affirmed both Jesus’ loyalty to the law and the
permanent character of that institution.” The third
evangelist, in proving to Theophilus the validity of the
new faith, closely associated its origin and early history
with Jerusalem.” And so anti-Jewish a writer as John
* Rom. I5: Ig. * 5: I'7–19.
3 Cf. Acts I:8 f.; 2: I f.; 8: I4 ff.; 9:26–30.
The Early Christians’ Jewish Connections I2I
approvingly reported Jesus to have said that “salvation
is of the Jews.”
The early Christians and their Jewish kinsmen
certainly had much in Common religiously. This com-
mon possession was not merely a legacy from the Old
Testament, it was also a heritage from the religious
life of later times. Nor did it consist primarily in the
adoption of ideas and customs which were essentially
foreign to the real nature of the new religion, with the
consequence that these things had to be dismissed before
the new movement could realize its universal destiny.
On the contrary, it carried its rich Jewish heritage to the
Gentiles and, though extensive transformations took
place in the course of time, Christians continued to feel
that their religion had a substantial Jewish background.
In this feeling they were unquestionably correct.
Yet we cannot set apart a definite quantum of early
Christian doctrine or ritual, labeling it “Jewish” in
contrast with other items which are distinctively
“Christian”; nor can we restrict the Christian’s debt
to Judaism within one particular sphere. This is
because the relationship between the two religions was
one of life and SO was subject to much variation. The
connections were as numerous and varied as were the
individuals in whose career these relations actually
existed and found expression. The religious lives of .
different persons amid different surroundings and with
different types of experience all went into the making
of the new religion’s history. Some persons had ab-
sorbed into the fiber of their religious life one type
of Jewish influence and some another, according to
* 4: 22.
l
I 22 The Evolution of Early Christianity
individual tastes and circumstances. Other members
of the new community had received their training from
earliest childhood within Jewish circles, and so owed
that ancient faith a much larger debt than they could
possibly realize. A similar situation was true of those
who had been proselytes to Judaism before adopting
Christianity. Of others, who came under Jewish influ-
ence only indirectly through contact with Christian
converts from Judaism, or through the use of Jewish
books within the new community, the heritage from the
Jews was doubtless less extensive but no less real. As
these varied relationships were a matter of actual life,
Christianity’s Jewish connections in New Testament
times must be admitted to have been vital in character
as well as wide and varied in extent.
CHAPTER V
THE BREACH BETWEEN CHRISTIANS AND JEWS
The relation between the first Christians and their
Jewish kinsmen was so close, and the two had so much
in common, that the rapid development of bitter hos-
tility between them demands detailed explanation.
The Jews seem to have taken the initiative in forcing
separation. The early group of disciples described in
the Book of Acts apparently had no thought of severing
traditional religious connections, or of establishing any
movement outside the pale of Judaism. Is this repre-
sentation of Acts historical ? It is true that the writer
was desirous of assuring Theophilus that the new
religion had the full authority of antiquity, therefore
primitive Christianity was given the best of Jewish
credentials and was allowed to become a gentile propa-
ganda only after Jews had consistently rejected the
gospel. From this representation one might infer that
Acts had overrated the attachment to Judaism. Yet
this accusation would hold only for the formal side of
the relationship, since the author was himself convinced
that the new faith by its very nature was destined from
the beginning to become universal and so to be inde-
pendent of the old. This led him to make the connec–
tion between the two formal rather than essential. The
characters who work out this historical transition often
move upon the stage like figures performing mechani-
cally, and arriving at a result which surprises no one
because the outcome had been fully anticipated. Hence
I23
I24 The Evolution of Early Christianity
the intrinsic possibility that the relation to Judaism,
though less official and formal, was in reality more
genuine and natural than Acts represents.
Furthermore, Paul’s account of the situation in
which his liberalism was a stumbling-block to many
Palestinian Christians also suggests that their attitude
was a conservative one. They observed diligently the
Customary religious conventions and were so true to the
ancestral faith that the thought of carrying the gospel
of the Messiah into Samaria, or into gentile territory,
dawnca upon them only gradually, and the legitimacy
of the procedure was admitted only hesitatingly. Loy-
alty to the religion of their fathers is one of the best-
attested characteristics of the first Christians. The
message they preached was intended by them primarily
if not exclusively for Israelites, and its fulfilment was
to be the perfect realization of Israel’s long-deferred
hope. Thus they had no desire to break with Judaism,
and did not even think of themselves as a separate sect.
They were the true Judaism, bringing to every Israelite
the message of the coming Messiah.
Their hopes were doomed to disappointment. Their
kinsmen so generally refused to agree with them, and
indeed so vigorously opposed them, that they were
early forced into a position of isolation. It cannot have
been long before vigorous measures were taken to sup-
press their activity. The Book of Acts gives no explicit
information about the date of the early persecution, but
it was in full swing when Paul’s conversion took place,
perhaps only a year, or at most within three years, after
Jesus’ crucifixion. Nor did opposition cease with Paul.
On the contrary, he himself now became the object of
The Breach between Christians and Jews 125
persecution directed against the new propaganda on
both gentile and Palestinian soil." Too much must
not be inferred from the idealistic statement of Acts
9:31 to the effect that the church throughout all Judaea
and Galilee and Samaria had peace after Paul’s hand
was stayed. While the narrative is henceforth inter-
ested mainly in the opposition encountered by Paul,
there are still some indications that even in Judaea the
Christian situation continued to be precarious. On
One occasion James, the brother of John, was put to
death and Peter barely escaped a similar fate.” Accord-
ing to one tradition, accepted as authentic by several
scholars, John also suffered martyrdom at this time.3
When Peter removed from Jerusalem, James seems to
have become the chief personage in the mother-church.
A definite date for this event cannot be fixed. Eusebius
reports Clement of Alexandria to have said that Peter,
James, and John were not covetous for honor and so
chose James for the head of the community after Jesus’
ascension.” It is possible, perhaps probable, that
Herod’s persecution (44 A.D.) resulted in Peter's leaving
Jerusalem, so that James henceforth was looked upon
* Cf. I Thess. 2: I4 f.; II Cor. II: 24, 32 f.; Acts 9:23, 29.
* Acts, chap. I2.
3 See de Boor, “Neue Fragmente des Papias,” Texte und Untersuch-
wngen, V, 2 (Leipzig, 1888), pp. I67 ff.; Badham, “The Martyrdom of
St. John,” American Journal of Theology, III (1899), 729–40, VIII
(1904), 539–54; Schwartz, “Ueber den Tod der Söhne Zebedaei,”
Abhandlungen der königlichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttin-
gen, Neue Folge, VII, No. 5 (Berlin, 1904); Bousset, Die Offenbarung
Johannis (Göttingen, 1906), pp. 34-49; Moffatt, Introduction to the
Literature of the New Testament (New York, I911), pp. 601 ff., where
other literature is cited.
4 HE, II, I.
I26 The Evolution of Early Christianity
as leader of the community." Clement of Alexandria
preserves a fragment in which Peter says that the
apostles had been instructed to preach to Israel twelve
years, after which time they were to go forth to the
world.” This may have been about the length of time
spent by the apostles in their most strenuous activities
to evangelize their own countrymen, an effort yielding
such meager results that they now sought members
for the new messianic kingdom in other lands. Accord-
ing to Josephus, James, the Lord’s brother, also fell a
victim to Jewish hatred in the year 62 when the Saddu-
cean high priest Ananus had him stoned along with
others for breaking the law.” This is a very strange
charge to bring against James who elsewhere in tradi-
tion figures as a staunch supporter of the law." Josephus
says that the fairer-minded Jews, probably meaning
Pharisees, protested against Ananus’ conduct, but
Hegesippus makes the scribes and Pharisees directly
responsible for James's death. Certainty on this point
is not now attainable; we can only say that James met
death at the hands of the Jews. Finally, the withdrawal
of the Jerusalem Christians to Pella during the war
against Rome (66–70 A.D.)" severed forever any lingering
bonds of sympathy between the two faiths and showed
how completely even the most Jewish Christians had
lost their concern for the nation’s preservation. This
* Acts 12:17; 15: 13; 21:18; Gal. I: IQ; 2: 9.
* Strom., VI, 5, 43. 3 Ant., XX, ix, I.
4 Cf. Gal. 2:9; Acts I5: I.3.
5 According to Eusebius, HE, II, 23.
6 Eusebius, HE, III, v. 2 f.; Epiphanius, Haer., XXIX, 7 (Migne,
XLI, Col. 401), and De mensuris et ponderibus, I5 (Migne, XLIII, col.
261).
The Breach between Christians and Jews 127
rapid sketch makes it clear that Jewish opposition to
Christianity had been Constant, though varying in
intensity at different periods, from an early date both
in Palestine and in the Diaspora. *.
What was the ground of this opposition P There is
nothing to indicate that it was a continuation of that
conflict between Jesus and the Pharisees which is so
prominent in the Gospels. The disciples were not
opposed because they had been followers of the Cruci-
fied One; they incurred hostility on account of their
Own ecstatic, pneumatic, dynamic conduct. The details
given in the early chapters of Acts may, it is true, be
Somewhat idealized under the influence of subsequent
interpretation. Since this book, like the former treatise
by the same author, was doubtless composed for the
purpose of strengthening Theophilus' faith," and since
the author’s own faith was surely strong enough to
surmount many difficulties which a lack of first-hand
information might occasion, it becomes necessary in a
strictly historical inquiry to deal critically with his
narrative. He certainly employed genuine historical
tradition when it was available, and he not improbably
used oral or even documentary Source materials in the
composition of the Acts as he did in the writing of his
Gospel.” But the discovery of these sources by a pro-
cess of literary analysis, though never so successful,
does not supply the ultimate criterion of historical
* Luke I: 3 f.; Acts I: I.
* Luke I: I-3. One of the most recent and most successful attempts
at analysis is Harnack’s Die Apostelgeschichte (Leipzig, 1908), English
tr., The Acts of the Apostles (New York, 1909). For a survey of the
literature see Moffatt, Introduction to the Literature of the New Testament,
pp. 268 f.
I28 The Evolution of Early Christianity
accuracy. This must be sought in a critical estimate
based upon internal indicia, tested on the one hand by
comparison with the Jewish background of the early
Community, and on the other by data from Paul’s letters.
Notwithstanding these difficulties, it is still possible
to determine the chief factors in the situation which
brought about the early Christians’ separation from
Judaism. There are various indications to show that
it was in the first instance their own pneumatic activity
which gave offense to the Jews. The new movement had
begun in ecstasy. Paul explicitly affirms that his new
faith, as well as that of his predecessors, rested upon
a vision-experience of the risen Jesus. These ecstatic
phenomena had occurred in the case of Cephas, of the
Twelve, of a company of approximately five hundred
persons, of James, of all of the apostles, and finally of
Paul himself." —Heneeforth they identified the heavenly—
Jesus with the expected heavenly Messiah of Jewish
apocalyptic. The notion of a unique spiritual endow-
ment was naturally associated with this new faith in the
risen Jesus. The Messiah himself in Jewish thinking was
to possess a special pneumatic equipment.” Isaiah’s
description of the messianic king upon whom the spirit of
Yahweh was to rest, “the spirit of wisdom and under-
standing, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of
* I Cor. I5:5 ff.
*See Bousset, Die Religion des Judentums, pp. 452–58, and Volz,
Der Geist Gottes (Tübingen, 1910), pp. 87 ff. For the prominent place
which the idea of the Spirit occupied first in Jewish religion and then in
Christianity, see further Gunkel, Die Wirkungen des heiligen Geistes
(Göttingen, 1888, 1908%); Weinel, Die Wirkungen des Geistes und der
Geister (Freiburg, 1899); Wood, The Spirit of God in Biblical Literature
(New York, 1904). -
The Breach between Christians and Jews 129
knowledge and of the fear of Yahweh,” had been freely
applied by later Jewish writers to the apocalyptic
Messiah. Thus in En. 62: 2 the elect one is seen seated
upon the throne of glory of the Lord of spirits and the
spirit of righteousness is poured out over him.”
His subjects were also to share in this pneumatic
equipment, either by way of preparation for his coming
Or else as part of their inheritance in the messianic
blessing. Joel recounts among the special acts to be
performed by God before the day of judgment an out-
pouring of the Spirit upon all flesh, so that the sons and
daughters of Israel should prophesy, their old men should
dream dreams, and their young men should see visions.3
In the Testament of Judah, section 24, it is said that the
heavens will Open over the Messiah, pouring down upon
him the blessings of the Spirit from the Holy Father, and
the Messiah himself will pour out the spirit of his grace
upon his subjects who will become truly his sons.
* Isa. II: 2; cf. 42:1; 61: 1 ff. Christian tradition made extensive
use of this notion in defending its doctrine of Jesus’ messiahship while
on earth (see Mark I: II and parallels; John I :33; Luke I:8o; Acts
Io:38; Gospel according to Hebrews; Jerome, Com. Isa. II:2).
* See further En. 49: I-4; Pss. Sol. 17:42; 18:8; Test. Levi, 18.
3. Joel 2: 28 f.; cf. Zech. I2: Io. The prophet Joel seems to make
these phenomena merely premonitory signs of the coming of the
messianic age, but the author of Acts, according to the usual inter-
pretation, uses the prophecy to describe the character of the messianic
community itself. While such freedom in use of Scripture was char-
acteristic of that period, it may be that the early Christians were in
reality still looking to the future for the true messianic age, consequently
the charismata were for them a fulfilment of the prophecy in its original
sense. As later Christian thinkers gradually changed the messianic
emphasis from the future to the lifetime of Jesus, they came to treat
charismata as less anticipatory and more as an actual realization of the
messianic blessings.
I3O The Evolution of Early Christianity
Similarly the Zadokite sectaries believed the Anointed
One mediated a knowledge of the Holy Spirit."
The ecstatic experiences which established faith in
Jesus’ resurrection and exaltation to messianic dignity,
the current idea of the Messiah’s own unique spiritual
endowment, and the expectation of an unusual demon-
stration of charismatic activity among men, either as
an anticipation of the end or as a participation in
messianic blessings, lead us to expect that the first
disciples would assign a large place to the activities
of the Spirit in their new life.
The probability of this supposition is further con-
firmed by the central position which is given to the
Spirit in Christianity as expounded by the New Testa-
ment writers. This power is active in connection with
the birth and childhood of both John the Baptist and
Jesus.” Jesus is initiated into the work of his public
ministry by a special spiritual endowment at baptism;’
his conduct is sometimes determined by the dictates
of the Spirit;4 his numerous encounters with demons
demonstrate that the Holy Spirit, which took up its
abode in him at baptism, is superior in power to Satan,
the prince of evil spirits, and his demonic representatives
upon earth; and blasphemy against the Holy Spirit
as its power is manifest in the work of Jesus is the One
unforgivable sin.”
* Schechter’s edition, Text A, II, 13.
* Mark I: 18, 20; Luke I: I5, 35, 41, 67, 80; 2: 25 f.
3 Matt. 3: I6 f.; Mark I: Io f.; Luke 3: 21 f.; John I: 33a; Acts
Io:38.
4 Matt. 4:1; Mark I: I2; Luke 4: I, I4; cf. John 3:34.
5 Matt. I2:25 fſ.; Mark 3: 23 ff.; Luke II: I7 ff.
* Matt. I2:32; Mark 3:29; Luke I2: Io.
The Breach between Christians and Jews 131
Christians themselves are similarly endowed for
of his career it is affirmed that he will baptize his fol-
lowers with the Spirit, a promise fulfilled according to
the Fourth Gospel on the day of his resurrection, but
at Pentecost according to Acts.” Henceforth believers'
lives constantly display the workings of the Spirit; in
fact, the Book of Acts might be called a history of
the activities of the Holy Ghost.” Throughout Paul’s
epistles the indwelling of the Spirit is the ground and
inspiration of the entire Christian life." Indeed it
might be said that Christianity as described by the
various New Testament writers is in general a religion
of the Holy Spirit. This entire situation prepares us
to believe that Christians from the first were pre-
eminently pneumatic individuals.
When and how did the first believers receive their
special spiritual equipment? It is a noteworthy fact
that the New Testament offers no one stereotyped
formula for obtaining this endowment. Jesus himself
received it immediately after baptism,5 and John the
Baptist declared that Jesus would administer a baptism
of the Holy Spirit to his disciples." In Acts this promise
was fulfilled in a miraculous demonstration at Pentecost,
* Matt. 3: II; Mark I:8; Luke 3: I6; John I : 33b; Acts II: I6.
* John 20:22; Acts 2: I f.
* E.g., I:2, 5, 8; 2: Iff.; 4:8, 31; 5:3, 32; 6:3, 5, Io; 7:51, 55;
8: I5 f., 29, 39; 9: I7, 31; Io:44–47; II: I5-17, 24, 28; 13:2, 4, 9, 52;
I5:8, 28; 16:6 f.; 19:2, 6; 20:23, 28; 21:4, II; 28:25.
4 To cite only a few representative passages, Rom. 8:1–17; I Cor.
2: Io-I6; 14: I f.; II Cor. 3: I'7 f.; Gal. 3: 2-5.
5 Matt. 3: I6; Mark I: Io; Luke 3:22; John I : 33a.
* Matt. 3: II; Mark I:8; Luke 3: I6; John I : 33b; Acts II: 16.
I32 The Evolution of Early Christianity
while in the Gospel of John Jesus exhaled the Spirit
upon his followers on the evening of the day he rose
from the dead." Of later converts, some became pneu-
matic on hearing the preaching of the gospel; others
received the gift as Jesus did in connection with baptism;”
On other occasions the desired endowment was obtained
by the laying on of hands.4 To determine from this
complicated situation how the early believers obtained
their first consciousness of spiritual equipment is not
an easy task.
Apparently Paul connected his unique pneumatic
endowment most immediately with his conversion experi-
ence. Although he subsequently had frequent visions
and revelations, his ecstatic experience on the road to
Damascus was the one outstanding event in his life
which marked the beginning of his career as a spiritual
individual.5 Those who became Christians in response
to Paul’s preaching passed through a similar experience,
if we may take the Galatian situation to be typical. The
apostle exhibited before the eye of his audience Jesus
crucified," and as his hearers exercised faith in the
redeeming work of the Messiah as portrayed by Paul,
they received the charismatic endowment which enabled
them to work “miracles.” Paul does not say that the
spiritual equipment of the new convert was fully
attained at this particular moment; in fact, he frequently
intimates that the new life was to be cultivated and
increased by various means, but conversion was the
* 20:22.
* Gal. 3:2; I Thess. I:6; Acts Io:44–48; II: I5.
3 Acts 2:38; cf. I Cor. I2: 13. 5 Gal. I: I5 f.; 2:20.
4 Acts 8: I4–17; 9: I7; IQ: 2 ft. * Gal. 3: I-5; cf. I Cor. 2: 2.
The Breach between Christians and Jews 133
initial stage in the Christian's career as a pneumatic
person.
It is conceivable that the first disciples also associated
the beginnings of their pneumatic life with those ecstatic
experiences in which they had seen the risen Jesus.
There were significant Jewish precedents for positing
an activity of the Spirit in connection with vision and
ecstasy. The ecstatic activity of King Saul was ascribed
to the presence of the Spirit of God, and the same cause
produced a similar phenomenon in the case of messengers
whom Saul sent to arrest David." But the most striking
Old Testament illustration is to be found in Ezekiel.
His prophetic career opened with a wonderful vision
of the heavenly glory of God. When he fell face down-
ward upon the ground God spoke to him out of heaven
and the Spirit straightway entered into him, setting
him upon his feet. Henceforth his whole life was per-
vaded by demonstrations of a pneumatic character.
The Spirit repeatedly “entered into” him or “fell
upon” him, Commanding him to speak or transporting
him from place to place.” When the first Christians
saw Jesus in his resurrection glory, the feeling of assur-
ance and elation which took possession of them at that
* I Sam. Io: Io; Ig: 20–24.
* See, e.g., 2:2 f.; 3: I2, 24; 8:3 ff.; II: 1, 5, 24. Christian tradition
made extensive use of these ideas; cf. the bright light and the voice in
connection with Paul’s conversion (Acts 9:3 ff; 22:6ff.; 26: I2 ff.; cf.
Ezek. 1:28; 2: 1 ff.); the opening of heaven above Jesus at baptism, the
descent of the Spirit, the voice, and the subsequent impulsion of the
Spirit (Mark I: Ioff. and parallels; cf. Ezek. I : I; 2: 2 ft.; 3:12–24);
the career of the evangelist Philip (Acts 8:29, 39 f.); or Jesus’ statement
in the Gospel according to the Hebrews: “My mother, the Holy Spirit,
took me by one of the hairs of my head and carried me off to Mount
Tabor” (cf. Ezek. 8:3).
I34 The Evolution of Early Christianity
time would most surely have been interpreted in terms
of pneumatic endowment, if, indeed, the Spirit was not
Credited with making the vision possible. This for a Jew
would be the natural way to explain such experiences.
In the Opening chapters of Acts the pneumatic endow-
ment of the disciples is depicted in a most formal manner.
The Company of believers assemble in the upper room
where they perfect the organization and wait for Pente-
cost when the new movement is to be equipped by the
promised outpouring of the Holy Spirit, and is thereby
to be started officially on its world-conquering career.
This is the formal beginning of the new religion, and the
event quite appropriately takes place on the very day
which commemorated the giving of the law, the birth-
day of the old religion which the new is intended to
supplant. Just when Pentecost came to be celebrated
in this special way is not perfectly clear, but the author
* For a similar comparison between Christianity and Judaism see
Gal. 4:29 f.; Heb. 2: 2–4; 12:18–24. According to Benzinger, article
“Pentecost” in the Encyclopedia Biblica, III (New York, 1902), it was
not until after the fall of Jerusalem that the Feast of Pentecost was
observed as a commemoration of the giving of the law. The reason for
this opinion is the silence of Philo and Josephus. The writer of the
article “Pentecost” in the Jewish Encyclopedia, IX (New York, Igos),
says: “The traditional festival of Pentecost as the birthday of the
Torah, when Israel became a constitutional body and a distinguished
people, remained the sole celebration after the exile” (p. 593). This
interpretation of the giving of the law seems to have been current in
Philo's day, whether or not it was connected with Pentecost. He pro-
tests against its crassness, but does not deny the miracle. God did not
utter a voice, “for he is not like a man in need of a mouth and of a tongue
and of a windpipe, but as it seems to me he at that time wrought a most
Conspicuous and evidently holy miracle, commanding an invisible sound
to be created in the air, more marvelous than all the instruments that
ever existed. . . . . A rational soul filled with clearness and distinct-
ness, which fashioned the air and stretched it out and changed it into a
The Breach between Christians and Jews 135
of Acts, or his source, was certainly acquainted with
this custom and used it in his interpretation of Chris-
tianity’s origin. The forty days of waiting by the dis-
ciples are the same as Moses’ period of preparation in
Sinai; the thunder and lightning, with the voice of
God coming from the midst of the fire, correspond to the
roaring sound and tongues of flame in Acts;” and the
proclamation of the gospel in different languages repeats
the midrastic representation of the manner in which the
law was promulgated from Sinai, when seventy voices
proclaimed it to as many different peoples, but all save
Israel rejected. This type of interpretation was per-
fectly natural to Christians after they had attained
their consciousness of independent solidarity and had
begun to make their propaganda a world missionary
movement.
Even if the details in Acts are somewhat idealized,
as seems most probable, this first Pentecost after Jesus’
death may still have been unusually significant for the
disciples. It probably was the occasion of their return
to Jerusalem, if, as many interpreters think, they had
fled when Jesus was put to death. Possibly they needed
no incentive for returning other than a desire to observe
kind of flaming fire, and so Sounded forth SO loud and articulate a voice
like a breath passing through a trumpet, so that those who were at a
great distance appeared to hear equally with those who were near to it”
(De decalogo, 9). Again, “A voice Sounded forth from out of the midst of
the fire, which had flowed from heaven, a most marvelous and awful
voice, the flame being endowed with articulate speech in a language
familiar to the hearers, which expressed its words with such clearness
and distinctness that the people seemed rather to be seeing than hearing
it” (ibid., II).
* Exod. 24: 18.
* Exod. 20:18 ft.; Deut. 5:4 f.; 33: 2 f.; Ps. 68:8.
I36 The Evolution of Early Christianity
the feast, but those who had already come to believe
in Jesus’ resurrection and messiahship may have been
expecting some unusual demonstration on his part at
this time. Their hope of his speedy coming in glory
will, at the latest, have begun to take shape the moment
their faith in Jesus’ resurrection and exaltation became
established. Pentecost was an occasion which might
easily have stimulated this hope. In general, a feast
Season brought together a large company and was a time
of renewed expectation when messianic pretenders
easily took advantage of the excitability of the multi-
tude. This feast doubtless was remembered as the time
when the Jews, after the death of Herod the Great, had
made one of their most vigorous protests against the
Roman authority, and when the people zealously gave
their lives in the cause of liberty.” The desire for free-
dom was so deep-rooted in their faith that various leaders
successfully assumed for a time the rôle of deliverer.
The large attendance at Pentecost would bring together
* According to the Fourth Gospel, the Last Supper was not the
observance of Passover, but was an ordinary meal on the previous even-
ing. The events of the next day prevented the disciples from keeping
the Passover, hence they might return a month later to observe this
feast as prescribed by Num. 9:9-II. Others insist that the disciples
lingered expectantly in the vicinity of Jerusalem and did not witness the
appearances of the risen Jesus first in Galilee. So Frey, Der Schluss des
Marcus Evangeliums und die Erscheinungen des Auferstandenen (Leipzig,
I913); cf. also J. Weiss, Das Urchristentum, I, 9 f.
* Josephus, Ant., XVII, Io; War, II, 3 f. In addition to the notion
that Pentecost marked the beginning of Israel’s career as a separate
people, according to Jubilees various other significant events occurred
on that date, e.g., the covenant with Noah regarding eating blood, the
covenant between Jacob and Laban, and renewal of the blood Covenant
with Abraham and Moses. It was a fitting season for the establishment
of a new order of things.
The Breach between Christians and Jews 137
former followers of Jesus, who thus renewed their
acquaintanceship. Those who had come to believe in
his resurrection and exaltation found here a favorable
opportunity for the propagation of their new faith.
Now that Jesus had been elevated to a position of author-
ity in the realm of spirits earthly messianic aspirants
could no longer appeal to his followers. They looked
for an other-worldly demonstration of divine power, a
real sign from heaven to effect the deliverance of Israel.
Pentecost with all its peculiar associations might very
easily stimulate their expectations, and mark some fresh
experiences in their ecstatic life.
Preaching was naturally one of the earliest forms of
activity undertaken by the reassembled believers. Their
consciousness of spiritual equipment easily suggested
the work of the prophetic preacher. In the Old Testa-
ment Moses was credited with expressing a wish that
all Yahweh’s people, like Eldad and Medad, might
become prophets through receiving the Spirit. The
exercise of this gift by the seventy elders, as well as by
the bands of prophets with which Saul was connected,”
was probably a display of ecstasy not essentially different
from speaking with tongues described by Paul in the
fourteenth chapter of I Corinthians. Similar phenom-
ena in the life of the new community would be only a
natural outcome of their Jewish inheritance interpreted
in the light of their recent experiences. But the great
prophets of Israel, in addition to being ecstatics, had
uttered a divine message of warning or of Consola-
tion in different crises of history. They proclaimed
so vigorously the advent of the days of visitation and
* Num. II: 29. * I Sam. Io:5 ff.
I38 The Evolution of Early Christianity
recompense against Israel that one might say “the
prophet is a fool, the man that hath the spirit is mad,
for the abundance of thine iniquity.” And again, “The
Spirit of the Lord Yahweh is upon me, because Yahweh
hath anointed me to preach good tidings to the meek, he
hath sent me to bind up the broken-hearted, to proclaim
liberty to the captives, and the opening [of the prison]
to them that are bound, to proclaim the year of Yahweh’s
favor and the day of vengeance of our God.” These
and many similar passages in their Scriptures furnish
Christians ample guidance for the prophetic interpreta-
tion of their mission as believers in the risen and exalted
Jesus.
The office of “prophet,” like that of “apostle,” had
become an established institution in Paul’s day. Ability
to prophesy was specifically a “spiritual” gift,” but in
contrast with tongues, prophecy was an intelligible utter-
ance tending toward the edification, exhortation, and
consolation of believers, while for - the unlearned and
unbelieving it was intended to produce a conviction of
sin, a fear of judgment, and worshipful recognition of
God’s presence with Christians.4 Paul gives no inti-
mation that this work of the prophet was a new thing
on gentile soil. In fact, the spiritually endowed man
of God, calling sinners to repentance, exhorting back-
sliders to renew their allegiance to the Deity, comfort-
ing the faithful, and announcing the future program of
the Almighty, was a characteristically Jewish figure from
the time of the ancient prophets to the days of John
the Baptist and Jesus.
* Hos. 9:7. - 3 I Cor. I2: Io, 28.
* Isa. 61: I f.; cf. Luke 4: I6 ft. *I Cor., chap. I4.
The Breach between Christians and Jews I 39
It is quite true that Judaism in post-exilic times
became largely a book religion and so gave less promi-
nence than formerly to the prophet; still the Jewish
people were constantly involved in embarrassing political
circumstances which called forth champions of righteous-
ness, liberty, and hope, who did a work very similar
in spirit to that of the earlier prophets. In taking up
this same duty the leaders of the primitive Christian
community found in their new pneumatic equipment
and in their belief that Jesus had triumphed over death
an additional incentive for assuming the prophetic
rôle. Now they were better qualified than any of their
predecessors had been to disclose the details of the com-
ing deliverance. The risen Jesus of their faith supplied
the needed center about which a new interpretation of
the messianic hope could revolve.
The preaching activity of the first Christians was
probably the initial cause of Jewish opposition, yet the
new movement as a whole may at first have seemed quite
harmless. The private life of Christians, even on its
ecstatic side, is not likely to have occasioned offense,
nor would public preaching necessarily involve opposi-
tion. Freedom in the expression of opinion was not
only characteristic of synagogue life, but the appearance
of various teachers and preachers, especially at feast
seasons, was a phenomenon to which the Jews by this
time had become well accustomed. Neither would a type
of teaching which concerned itself with the national hope,
offering a brighter prospect and demanding as its Con-
dition renewed devotion to God, necessarily be offensive.
Even the prediction of the imminent kingdom to be
ushered in by divine intervention must have been an
I4o The Evolution of Early Christianity
acceptable notion to large numbers of Jews. These gen-
eral characteristics of the Christian movement were too
closely in line with much that was characteristic of Juda-
ism at this time to occasion any serious break between the
first disciples and their immediate religious environment.
The ground of separation must be sought in other and
more distinctive characteristics of the disciples’ life.
In general, preaching of Jesus’ messiahship with the
Consequent implications for conduct and doctrine was
the chief occasion of Jewish hostility. This phase of
Christian teaching assumed different aspects. Just
how much blame was placed upon the Jews for the death
of Jesus is not clear from our sources of information,
but at the outset probably not a great deal. The dis-
ciples at first are not likely to have approached their
hearers with those severe upbraidings of later times when
the situation had been aggravated by a persistent rejec-
tion of belief in the messiahship of the risen Jesus as
well as by the bitter persecution of those who defended
this faith. Then the crime of the Jews, and the conse-
quent doom awaiting them as punishment were por-
trayed in vivid colors. But in earlier times Jesus’
death seems to have been viewed more as the result
of misunderstanding than as a crime.
In Paul's day, when the relationship between the two
movements had become very strained, the Jews’ hos-
tility to Jesus was one of the many performances done
“to fill up their sins always,” yet they will hardly have
been wiser, in Paul’s thought, than the evil angelic
powers who were ultimately responsible for the event,
yet who did it in ignorance.” Furthermore, the wrong,
* I Thess. 2: I5 f. 2 I Cor. 2: 6–8.
The Breach between Christians and Jews 141
great as it was, could be righted, and Paul was still
hopeful that it would be when his kinsmen who had a
zeal for God, but not according to knowledge, should
accept Jesus as the coming Messiah." Earlier believers
will naturally have judged still more leniently,” par-
ticularly since the death of Jesus was now understood
to be the indispensable link in the chain of events
leading up to his final manifestation in messianic glory. …
The idea that his executioners had condemned him
through ignorance was complementary to the disciples’
own failure adequately to perceive the messianic char-
acter of his work previous to his resurrection. As they
excused themselves on the ground of short-sightedness
so they probably would be disposed to excuse, for a
similar reason, those who had crucified Jesus.
Much less would they at the outset think of upbraid-
ing the Jews for failure to recognize the messianic claims
of the earthly Jesus. Since his personal followers had
been so tardy in this respect and had not arrived at any
full appreciation of his messiahship—for this is the repre-
sentation of the earliest tradition—until they attained
their resurrection faith and received the accompanying
outpouring of the Spirit, it would be manifestly absurd
for them to charge outsiders with deficiency of belief.
Failure to believe that Jesus was the coming Messiah,
not doubt about his messiahship while upon earth,
was the main complaint which the early preachers would
have to urge against their Jewish hearers. This was a
criticism of the Jews for rejecting the Christian preachers’
assertions about Jesus, and not an accusation against
them for rejecting Jesus' teaching about himself.
* Rom. 9:30–Io: 4; II: 25–32. * Cf. Acts 3: I'7; 13:27.
I42 The Evolution of Early Christianity
This latter phase of criticism doubtless developed at
an early date, as the disciples’ own mission was inter-
preted primarily in terms of prophetic preaching. But
they seem at first to have placed chief stress upon
Jesus’ career as a prophetic teacher. Our custom of
distinguishing two types of primitive gospel tradition,
sayings and doings, while misleading if used too rigidly,
does serve to designate two main interests prominent
among the framers of early tradition. The non-Markan
Source materials employed in common by Matthew
and Luke are mainly of the “saying” type. Jesus’
work finds its climax in the assertion that the poor have
the gospel preached to them and that that man is blessed
who does not stumble at this interpretation of Jesus’
mission." Similarly in Acts, chap. 3, Jesus is the martyr-
prophet whom God had promised to raise up from among
the people of Israel, and who by his message should
bless them in turning them away from their iniquities.
This portrait is evidently primitive, being derived from
one of the sources employed by the author of Acts. It
Certainly is not a picture such as a later writer would
Create on the basis of the much more elaborate repre-
Sentation of Jesus in his earthly messianic career
described by Mark and incorporated into the Third
Gospel. In the earlier picture Jesus, like the first dis-
ciples, is a prophet of the coming kingdom with a mes-
sage of moral reform and renewed consecration to God,
a message with which Jewish audiences had, in a general
way, long been familiar. *
None of these circumstances is likely to have brought
Jews and Christians into very bitter conflict, though
* Matt. II: 5 f.; Luke 7:22 f.; cf. 4: I6 ft.
The Breach between Christians and Jews I43
the way for a serious breach was certainly being made
ready. Even when believers came to place more stress
upon the evidences of Jesus’ right to messianic reverence
during his lifetime, and when they, having thus estab-
lished their own faith, could more consistently blame
others for rejecting these credentials, there was still
but little inducement for Jews to do more than turn
a deaf ear to the Christian preachers’ accusation. It
was not a custom among the Jews to persecute messianic
claimants; they left that work to the foreign ruler who
was always on the watch to anticipate any messianic
agitation which might arise. The Jews, for the most
part, were anxious and expectant, more concerned
with the credentials of any proposed Messiah than
with his suppression. While they rejected Christians’
advocacy of Jesus’ claims, the main proof of these
claims, even for the disciples, was an affair of the
future. Hence Jewish unbelievers could easily rest
satisfied, so far as the simple affirmation that Jesus
had been or was yet to be the Messiah was concerned,
with demanding a sign from heaven. They would
believe when they should see Jesus fulfilling the Mes-
siah’s rôle by coming in glory. The disciples' asser-
tions were doubted, but they did not necessarily call
for persecution. It was easy to tolerate these extrem-
ists whose numbers cannot have been large in spite of
Acts' idealized multiplication of church members," while
they remained loyal to traditional Judaism, and pro-
claimed with only slightly varying details the realiza-
tion of a religious hope, the cherishing of which was
* Cf. Brun, “Etwa 3ooo Seelen Act 2, 41,” Zeitschrift für die neu-
testamentliche Wissenschaft, XIV (1913), 94-96.
I44 The Evolution of Early Christianity
regarded by many Israelites to be the world-mission of
their nation. - -
The phases of the Christian propaganda which aroused
more vigorous opposition were, according to Acts, three-
fold. There was first an arrest of the disciples on the
charge of performing a miracle by unlawful means, a
Suspected violation of the Deuteronomic injunction
against the practice of magic." Again, it was the
disciples’ reverence for, and proclamation of, Jesus
raised and exalted at God’s right hand, which gave
further offense—perhaps seeming to Jews to endanger,
if not actually to deny, the monotheistic faith which
they so zealously guarded.” In the third place, there
are intimations that Christians were persecuted because
they had criticized the Jews for being untrue to the
ancient faith, the edge of the criticism being turned
against the Christians by charging them, falsely says
Acts, with laxity toward the temple and the religious
customs established by Moses.”
* Acts 3:6, I2–16; 4:7 ff.; 5: I6–18, 40; Deut. I8: 9 ff.
* Acts 4:33; 5: 28 f.; 7:54–58; cf. I : 23; 4: I-3.
3 Acts 6: I–7:53. A fourth point, closely akin to the last, at which
Christians are supposed to have made themselves intolerable in the eyes
of the Jews, is often said to have been their laxity toward legalism, due
to an inherent universalism in their faith received from Jesus, latent in
the life and teaching of the primitive community, and brought to new
and extended expression in the career of Paul. The validity of this
hypothesis is, as we have discovered (see above, pp. IoI-3), not so cer-
tain as has commonly been supposed, and so far as Acts is concerned,
there are only vague hints that this feature was present in primitive
Christianity (Acts I:8). Here the representation is that the gospel goes
to the Gentiles because of Jewish rejection of Jesus’ messiahship, not
because its universalistic features called forth hostility. This situation
is as true of Paul in Acts’ account as of other Christian preachers (Acts
8: I; 9:22 f.; I3:46; 18:6; 22: 19-21; 26: Ig–21; 28: 25–28).
The Breach between Christians and Jews 145
These different items stand variously blended and
combined with other data in the Book of Acts. Hence
it is not easy to ascertain the exact degree in which they
represent the actual facts in the history of the early
Christian community. As for the hostility aroused
by miracle activity, One might suspect that the wonder-
ful deeds of the apostles were largely an idealization on
the part of the narrator, carrying over into Acts the
miraculous element in the Gospels. That the narrative
does contain much idealization cannot plausibly be
denied. Furthermore, if Jesus were allowed to work
miracles so freely as the Gospels represent, it is scarcely
probable, we might say, that the first disciples would be
sharply opposed on this ground. This problem cannot
be solved from the data of Acts alone. Appeal must
also be made to the distinctive characteristics of the
first Christians’ life, to their Jewish antecedents, and
to the testimony of Paul.
The Christians’ consciousness of special pneumatic
endowment, with the accompanying ecstatic element in
their life, forms a natural background for the practice
of mighty works. The notion that an individual
especially favored by the Deity was on that account
possessed of extraordinary powers, not only finds a
place in the religious psychology of primitive peoples
everywhere, but is characteristic of certain types of
believers in practically all ages. The Spirit-filled man
of the Old Testament freely displayed miraculous abil-
ities.” When God took of his Spirit from Moses, who
himself performed various mighty works, and endowed
* E.g., 2:43; 5: I5 f.
* See Volz, Der Geist Gottes, pp. 33 ff.
I46 The Evolution of Early Christianity
the seventy elders, they at once became ecstatic
prophets.” When the Spirit of Yahweh came mightily
upon Saul he, along with the bands of wandering
prophets, exhibited a miraculous ecstatic frenzy." The
mysterious man of God from Judah who spoke against
Jeroboam was attested by signs and even the presence
of his dead body miraculously restrained the natural
impulses of the lion whose ferocity ceased with fulfilling
the divine command to slay the prophet.4 Elijah,
the man of God par excellence, was a miracle-worker
from the outset,5 and Elisha who received the firstborn's
portion of his master’s spirit immediately exhibited his
new endowment by means of a miraculous parting
of the waters of the Jordan.” Elisha in turn sought
at his death to convey the prophet’s divine potency to
Joash the king by placing his hands upon the king's
hands, but the king proved to be a very poor medium
of ecstatic frenzy."
When the early Christians associated their ecstatic life
with the idea of special spiritual endowment, and when
they interpreted their mission in terms of prophetic
preaching to prepare Israel for the imminent advent
of the Messiah, it was only natural that they should
expect for themselves displays of the divine favor
similar to those shown to Moses, Elijah, and Elisha—
prophets who had been raised up to save Israel in past
crises, none of which could, however, equal in importance
the crisis now imminent. The heroic age was about to
* Exod., chaps. 8-12; 14:21 ff.; 15:23 ff.; Num. 16:29-35; 17:5 ff.
* Num. II: 25. 5 I Kings I'7: I.
3 I Sam. Io:6ff.; 19:23 f. ° II Kings 2: 9–15.
4I Kings I3:4 f., 28. 7 II Kings I3: I4–19.
The Breach between Christians and Jews 147
dawn with unparalleled splendor, and the disciples were
its forerunners. At first they may have thought the end
so near that the work of Elijah, who was to return and
prepare Israel for the coming of the great and terrible day
of Yahweh, had been intrusted to their hands." Elijah
had been the greatest of the miracle-working prophets,
and the preparatory work preceding the end of the age
might well be expected to show these same characteristics.
Thus far we have been dealing mainly with mere
possibilities. Paul’s letters supply a more certain
historical basis. He speaks as though the working of
miracles was generally recognized to be a fundamental
feature of early Christianity. In his list of significant
persons within the church, apostles stand first, prophets
second, teachers third; in his list of important activities
the gradation arranged in the descending scale runs,
miracles (Övvágets), gifts of healings, helps, guides,
varieties of tongues.” The leading personalities in the
* Mal. 4:5 f. Just what early Christians actually did with this
prophecy is not clear. In some circles John the Baptist’s work was, by
implication at least, identified with that of the promised Elijah (Matt.
3:4; 17:9-13; Mark I:6; 9: II-13). Yet opinion was not unanimous.
Matt. II: I4 makes the identification subject to one’s willingness to
believe it. The Gospel of Luke says John came “in the spirit and power
of Elijah” (I : I7), and this evangelist seems more reluctant than Mark
and Matthew to identify John with Elijah. Other tradition affirms, or
makes John himself affirm, that he is not Elijah (Acts 13:24 f.; John
I:20; cf. I : 21, 25; 6:14; 7:41 f.). There were two main considerations
affecting early Christian interpretation of this subject: (1) fluctuation of
opinion regarding the time of Parousia, and so doubt as to when Elijah
was to return, and (2) the necessity of meeting problems raised by the
presence of John’s movement side by side with the Christian movement.
But as neither of these problems had become acute in the earliest period,
it is doubtful whether the first Christians discussed the question of John's
relation to Elijah.
* I Cor. I2:28; cf. vss. 8 ff.
I48 The Evolution of Early Christianity
community would, of course, display the most important
activities, hence the appropriateness of citing as evidence
of his apostolic authority the “miracles” which were
wrought in connection with his preaching in Corinth."
He often refers to the dynamic display (6üvapus) which
attended his work generally. His gospel came to the
TheSSalonians not simply as a spoken message, but as a
Convincing miraculous manifestation of pneumatic
activity.” The Corinthians had been evangelized in
the same manner,” and Paul reminds the Romans that
throughout his entire missionary career Christ wrought
through him for the conversion of the Gentiles, not only
in preaching, but also in signs and wonders performed
by the dynamic of the Holy Spirit."
Did Paul claim this ability for himself alone? Ap-
parently not, for other Christians, in the Pauline
churches at least, had this spiritual power. Among the
diversity of charismata displayed in Corinth some
persons, exercised gifts of healings (xaptopata tapátov)
while others worked miracles (6vváplets), though these
several gifts were the endowment of the same Spirit
in every instance. Thus the fundamental condition
of wonderful works is spiritual equipment, shared by
* II Cor. I2:12: “Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among
you in all patience by signs ſo muetots], and wonders ſtéparty] and
miracles [Övvápeov].” The same language is used in Acts 2: 22 to
defend the uniqueness of Jesus: ävöpa &Troöeóetypévov &rö roß 6eoû els
ūpās 8vvápeat kal Tépaoru kat a muetous. Also the lawless one to appear
before the end will be similarly equipped by Satan (II Thess. 2:9).
* I Thess. I : 5.
3 I Cor. 2:4 f. 4 Rom. I5:18 f.; cf. I : I6.
5 I Cor. 12:9 f., 28. Here Paul seems to be guarding against the
gentile notion of polytheistic spirits.
The Breach between Christians and Jews 149
the community as a whole and expressing itself in
miracles where and when God wills. Similarly, when
Paul wishes to give the Galatians a sure criterion for
deciding the superiority of his gospel over that of the
Judaizers he asks only one question: “Was it by works
of law or by hearing of faith that you received the
Spirit?” And then repeating the question, he sets in
the foreground as a recognized item of Christianity’s
superiority the miraculous activities which spiritual
endowment effected: “Does he who supplies you with
the Spirit and works miracles among you do so because
of your obedience to the law, or because you are obedient
to the gospel of faith ?” The same display of miracles,
so strikingly manifest in Paul’s own career as to attest
his very apostleship, is also to be found among other
believers, owing to the primary fact that the new
religion is characterized by a special outpouring of the
Spirit.
What was true of the Pauline communities need not
necessarily have been true of others. Yet it is equally
unsafe to conclude offhand that the Pauline churches
were essentially distinctive in these fundamental matters.
Paul emphasizes the idea of uniformity among his own
churches,” and he not infrequently cites the example or
* Gal. 3:3, 5. It is possible, so far as the mere wording of the passage
goes, to affirm that Paul is here referring simply to his own performance
of miracles while among the Galatians. But such an interpretation is
quite unnatural; it certainly was God, or the exalted Christ, who sup-
plied the Spirit and also made possible the working of miracles, and since
the primary endowment is not confined to Paul there is no real reason for
restricting the latter to him. In fact, if this restriction were made, his
argument would lose its natural force.
* Cf. I Cor. 4:17; 7: II; II Cor. I2: I3.
I5O The Evolution of Early Christianity
authority of his predecessors, thus implying substantial
agreement with them. His reference to the “churches
of Judaea.” shows that they were not only treated with
respect but were regarded as in a measure normative
among Gentiles. This was the source from which all
authoritative words of Jesus must have been ultimately
derived," and Paul was careful to note that the Pales-
tinian church approved of his work among the Gentiles.”
The Judaean churches were models for the Thessalonians?
and if Paul’s own authority seemed insufficient to the
Corinthians, they were reminded that “the churches
of God”—perhaps those of Judaea are especially in
mind—had no such custom as the things for which
certain disturbers in Corinth were agitating.4
It was important that the gentile communities should
be conscious of their essential agreement with earlier
Christians, for the latter were universally admitted to be
the first heirs of the new salvation. If Paul’s churches
differed from those founded by other leaders, his converts
naturally would be fearful lest they should inherit only
an inferior place in the new kingdom. Doubtless his
enemies preyed upon this fear, not only affirming the
inferiority of the churches Paul founded, but also reflect-
ing unfavorably upon his apostolic credentials. Apropos
of this crucial question he said to the Corinthians:
“Even if I am nothing, as my opponents affirm, yet
in no one thing did I fall behind those who are called
pre-eminently apostles. In my work among you the
tokens of the apostle were accomplished persistently
* I Cor. 7: Io, I2, 25; 9: I4; II:23; I TheSS. 4: IS.
* Gal. I:22 f.; 2:1 ff.
3 I Thess. 2: I4. * I Cor. II: I6; cf. II: 2; I4:33.
The Breach between Christians and Jews 151
in signs and wonders and miracles. What then is there
in which you were made inferior to the rest of the
churches—unless it be the fact that I did not burden
you with supporting an apostle P” This reference to
the apostle's Support, taken in connection with I Cor.
9:5, shows, if this were not already clear, that Paul has
in mind the leaders of the original Palestinian com-
munity, “the rest of the apostles, the brothers of the
Lord and Cephas.” Thus miracles seem to have been
generally accepted as the supreme test of validity for the
pillar apostles and their communities. In this incidental
way Paul clearly testified to the working of miracles in the
early Christian movement in consequence of the ecstatic
life which had been awakened by the Christian's con-
Sciousness of special pneumatic endowment.”
But Paul does not explicitly define “miracles,” nor
does he say how these phenomena were effected. His
readers were so familiar with these things that explana-
tions were quite unnecessary. At present the actual
situation can only be inferred by deduction from certain
incidental statements. Paul seems to distinguish be-
tween gifts of healings (xaptopata tapiáTay) and work-
ings of miracles (évépyńuara övvágeav), the latter being
the greater endowment, and both being ultimately
accomplished through the possession of the Spirit whose
genuineness is attested by the acknowledgment of Jesus’
lordship.” It is sometimes said that Paul merely used
* II Cor. I2: II–I3.
* Cf. Gal. 3:3-5. The Judaizers in their stress upon legalism natu-
rally minimized the ecstatic phase of primitive Christianity, empha-
sizing instead those items in which Christianity was most in conformity
with contemporary Judaism.
3 I Cor. I 2: I–Io, 28–30.
I52 The Evolution of Early Christianity
miracles as a general term of which gifts of healing formed
a specific class. While the two things are doubtless
Closely akin, they certainly are set into two separate
Categories and are treated as two distinct phases of
spiritual activity." Why he should have listed them
Separately and what real distinction he made between
them, he does not explicitly state.
Perhaps it was customary in that age to distinguish
between healings and certain other phases of dynamic
activity, such as casting out demons. To be sure, all
sickness was generally thought to be the work of hostile
demonic powers, and any sort of healing was thus a
triumph over demons. Yet there was one type of
malady, differing from ordinary physical ailments, in
which the presence of the demon was more realistically
displayed. This was demon possession par excellence.
In such cases special means were employed to Cast out
the demon, or to ward off dangers with which demons
might threaten an individual. The more ordinary
sicknesses were often treated in a quite diſſerent way.
Thus in Tobit” the gall of the fish is preserved to be used
in anointing and healing blind eyes, while the heart
and liver of the fish are useful for exorcising a demon.
Josephus’ seeks to establish the superiority of Solomon
over all the ancients and particularly over the Egyptians
by affirming that he provided both (1) incantations for
the relief of diseases (tà voghuata), and (2) methods of
exorcism by which demons can be so thoroughly driven
out that they never return. Healings and exorcisms,
though both have to do with the evil effects of demons,
* #tretta Övvápºets, éreira Xaptopata lap &rwu (I Cor. I2:28).
* 6:8; 8:2 f.; II: I–I3. 3 Ant., VIII, ii, 5.
The Breach between Christians and Jews 153
form two fairly distinct types of activity on the part
of the ancient wonder-worker. A great variety of
means were employed for each, but healings were fre-
quently effected through touching or anointing." Exor-
cisms, on the other hand, were commonly accomplished
by pronouncing sacred names and formulas of incanta-
tion. Thus the exorciser whom Josephus describes
employed a ring and a root of some plant named by
Solomon, but he completed and confirmed his work by
making “mention of Solomon and reciting the incanta-
tion which he composed.” The magical papyri abun-
dantly attest the extensive use of sacred names and
formulas in the practice of exorcism.
This general distinction between exorcisms and heal-
ings is reflected in Mark’s statement that Jesus, because
of the people's unbelief, was unable to perform any
miracle (öövapuv) in Nazareth except to heal a few sick
people through the laying on of hands.” While Jesus
frequently effects cures by means of touch,” more striking
wonders result from his spoken word.4 In every case of
exorcism it is the simple word of Jesus which produces
the miracle. He taught “as one having authority and
not as the scribes” means, for Mark at least, this dis-
play of Jesus' superiority over demons—“with authority
* Weinreich, Antike Heilungswunder (Giessen, 1909), has shown how
widely the healing power of the hand was believed in by Greeks and
Romans. Healing by touch is illustrated in the stories of Elijah and
Elisha, is frequent in the account of Jesus’ career, and is practiced in
early Christianity. See also Behm, Die Handauſlegung im Urchristen-
tum, usw. (Leipzig, 1911).
* 6:5 f.
3 E.g., Mark I:31, 41; 3:9; 5:23, 25, 41; 6:56; 7:32; 8:22.
4 E.g., Mark I: 25 f.; 2: II; 3:5; 4:39; 5:13; 7:29; 9:25; Io:22;
cf. 6:41, 5o; 8:6.
I54 The Evolution of Early Christianity
he commandeth even the unclean spirits and they obey
him.” The contrast which Mark here draws between
Jesus and the scribes is essentially the same as that
drawn by Paul in Gal. 3:3–5 between his religion and
that of the Judaizers. The former represents the new,
authoritative, dynamic religion; the latter is a dead
traditionalism. The circle of Christians represented by
Mark commonly grouped Jesus' wonders into two main
classes: those effected by touching and those accom-
plished by the dynamic of his personality expressing
itself in speech. The latter were treated as unquestion-
ably the more distinctive and significant, exorcism
being the chief miracle in this group. Hence to accuse
Jesus of casting out demons by any other means than
by the divine Spirit within him was the one unpardon-
able sin.” Likewise the disciples—and here Mark had
better opportunities than he had in the case of Jesus
for obtaining first-hand information—performed two
sorts of wonders: (1) they cast out demons, and (2) they
anointed many with oil and healed them.”
Here perhaps is the key to Paul’s classification.
“Gifts of healings” represent ability to effect cures by
* Mark I:22, 27. • * Mark 3:29 f.
3 Mark 6: I3; cf. Luke Io:9, 17. Just as Jesus began his career
by this twofold demonstration of divine power (I:32 f.) so the disciples
follow the same course. Mark seems here to assign this work to the
Twelve during Jesus’ lifetime, but this is perhaps idealization on the
basis of their activities in the early church. Indeed, we find them
toward the close of Jesus’ career making an unsuccessful attempt to
exorcise, the explanation of their failure being insufficient prayer (Mark
9:29). After Jesus’ death his followers attained their miracle-working
power by the intensity of a meditation which issued in the enthusiasm
of their new ecstatic life interpreted in terms of special spiritual endow-
ment. Thus they became equipped for healing the sick and working
The Breach between Christians and Jews 155
means of anointing, and the like; while “miracles”
are a more distinctive display of the new spiritual power
with which Christians had been especially endowed.
Could these latter have been, as in Mark, a display of
exorcising ability ? Interpreters sometimes remark that
no one has yet been able to convict the apostle Paul of
practicing exorcism. Are we fair to him, however, when
we say “convict” P Would it not be truer to say
“credit” P Certainly in his thought-world the stage is
fully set for such a performance. The present evil age
is dominated by Satan and his hosts.” He is the per-
petual enemy of Christians and constantly schemes in
conjunction with the demonic powers subject to him to
lead astray, afflict, and destroy believers.” Demons are
behind all idol-worship, and while the idol itself is
nothing, the demon is a dreadful power whose harm-
ful influence is to be strenuously avoided.4 The ills of
miracles. Mark is likely to have been fairly familiar with this situation,
and to have viewed the earlier history in its light. In fact, his portrayal
of Jesus' miraculous career is suspiciously like that of the ideal Christian
in this respect—he is first filled with the Holy Spirit, under its guidance
he next encounters the prince of evil spirits, and his life henceforth is
pre-eminently that of the ideal pneumatic individual who no longer fears
Satan and his emissaries.
* Cf. Jas. 5: I4–18.
* Gal. I:4; I Cor. 2:6, 8; II Cor. 4:4; 6:15. For Paul’s peculiar
world-view, according to which the present age is ruled by demonic
powers, while good powers, especially in the person of the risen Jesus
and his spiritually endowed followers in whom he is realistically present,
are already pitted against the evil one and his agents, See Everling, Die
paulinische Angelologie und Dámonologie (Göttingen, 1888); Dibelius,
Die Geisterwelt im Glauben des Paulus (Göttingen, Igo9); Gunkel, Die
Wirkungen des heiligen Geistes, pp. 57 ff.
3 I Cor. 7: 5; II Cor. 2: II; II: I4; I2: 7; I Thess. 2: 18; 3:5.
4 I Cor. Io: Ig ff.; cf. 6: I5 fſ.
I56 The Evolution of Early Christianity
life are due to Satan's activity. Paul’s bodily affliction
is a messenger of Satan, which the Lord has failed to
remove in spite of Paul’s efforts to have the troubler
driven away." Obstreperous members of the com-
munity, when turned over to Satan, become subject to
his afflictions in this life and so suffer sufficient punish-
ment to permit the bestowal of salvation upon them
in the next.” Sickness and death are the extreme forms
of punishment in this life and they will hold sway until
the final triumph of Christ when the complete power
of Satan, as expressed even in death itself, shall have
been utterly abolished."
Over against the powers of evil which rule the present
age stand the Lord Jesus Christ and his Spirit-filled
followers who owe their sole allegiance immediately to
Christ, though ultimately to God. With the exalta-
tion of Jesus, the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, and
the establishment of the Christian community, the do-
minion of Satan has received its death sentence. The
crucifixion may have seemed a temporary triumph for
the forces of evil, but in reality it was only the beginning
of the final conflict which is to result in their complete
* II Cor. I2:7 ff. * I Cor. 5: 5.
3 I Cor. II: 29–32.
4 I Cor. I5:25 f. Paul seems to have started out with the belief
that the Christian who had received the divine Spirit could not be
harmed by Satanic powers of sickness and death, and so would live until
the Parousia. If he failed to do so it was because he had been dis-
obedient to God, who gave him over to the power of Satan for punish-
ment (cf. I Cor. 5: 5; II: 29 f.; I Thess. 5:23). But as the Parousia
was delayed, death, though it still may have been due to demonic
activity, came to be regarded as the One way of immediate deliverance
from the present evil age (Phil. I:23 f.).
5 I Cor. 8:4 ff.
The Breach between Christians and Jews 157
overthrow." The Christians have anticipated the privi-
leges of the new age; in fact, they already stand safely
within the new kingdom.” Not only are they superior
to all the powers of evil, but ultimately they are to
preside in judgment over angels.” The surety of all
this lies in the fact that they are equipped with the
Spirit." The yoke of Satan has been forever cast off,
So far as the new spiritual community is concerned.
Thus Christians represent the light of the new age already
breaking into the darkness of the evil age; as Christ-
men they stand over against Satan and his demonic
representatives.5
What then is the normal attitude of Christians toward
the powers of evil? It must be one of unremitting
hostility as well as one of triumphant activity. For
Paul who thus believed realistically in the activity of
demons on the one hand, and in the truly supernatural
character of the Christian's spiritual equipment on the
other, the practice of exorcism would be a perfectly
normal procedure. And, indeed, the particular method
employed by Paul is not only easily surmised but is
quite clearly indicated in certain passages of his letters
where he refers to the dynamic significance of “the
Name.” Christians are those who call upon the name
of our Lord Jesus Christ." Since God has temporarily
committed all authority unto the risen Jesus he is now
Lord of all. Those who believingly accept the Chris-
tian preaching regarding the exalted Jesus are saved
* I Cor. I:28; 2:6, 8; 15:24-27; II. Thess. 2:8 f.
* Rom. 8:38 f.; Gal. I:4; I Cor. 3: 21 ff.
3 I Cor. 6: 3. 5 I Cor. 3: I6; 6:15 f.; Io: 21.
4 Rom. 8: I4–17. 6 I Cor. I : 2.
I58 The Evolution of Early Christianity
through Calling upon his name." The excommunica-
tion of disobedient members of the community also
takes place in the name, and so through the power of the
Lord Jesus.” This absolute power of the name has been
granted to Jesus as a reward for his voluntary submis-
sion to God. Wherefore God exalted him to the posi-
tion of lordship in order that in the name of JESUS—
not “Lord”—all heavenly, earthly, and catachthonic
beings, whether angels, men, or demons, should become
Subject to his authority. This display of the dynamic
quality of the name of Jesus becomes in turn a complete
demonstration of the Christian contention that Jesus
had been exalted to a position of lordship second only
to that of God, the Fathcr.3
That the name of Jesus was used in exorcism, as well
as for other dynamic purposes by Paul and his associates,
is a most probable inference from the above data. Nor
is this likely to have been a novel procedure with Paul.
The notion that special virtue attached to the name of
a revered person was prevalent in the world of that day,
* Rom. Io:9–I4.
* I Cor. 5:3 f.; cf. II. Thess. 3:6.
3 Phil. 2: 5-II. The name is Jesus, the title is Lord. It may be
somewhat difficult for moderns to maintain this distinction since Lord
is so often used by us as a proper name for God. The Septuagint did,
to be sure, use Kºptos to render the proper name Thrin, but for Greek
readers the mere name Lord cannot of itself have seemed uniquely
significant. The term was too common a One, being applied to various
personages to denote different degrees of authority from that of the
owner of a small bit of property to that of the emperor, or of God as
ruler of the universe. In contrast with all other lords, excepting God
alone, Jesus Christ is the individual who holds the position of unique
authority over the Christian community, and who is ultimately destined
to abolish all other authorities except that of the one true God (I Cor.
8:5 f.; 15:25–28). See above, pp. II5 fſ.
The Breach between Christians and Jews 159
even among the Jews, and it is so pervasive in New
Testament Christianity that one cannot consistently
make Paul alone responsible for its genesis. In fact,
the use of Jesus' name in exorcism, even outside the
circle of leading Christians, was gaining ground already
in New Testament times, although some persons held
that this was the sole prerogative of the apostolic com-
munity.”
It is probable, therefore, that Christians before Paul’s
day did assume the rôle of miracle-worker, and that they
performed wonders through the power of Jesus' name.
Hence the representation of Acts to the effect that this
phase of Christian activity aroused at the outset sharp
Jewish hostility is probably in the main true to fact.
Orthodox Judaism, in Palestine at least, was sensitive
upon the subject of such practices, since they so readily
led to the introduction of foreign deities’ names. For
Some time the Jewish populace had probably been favor-
ably disposed toward this innovation, otherwise the law
would not have pronounced so emphatically against it.”
* See Heitmüller, Im Namen Jesu (Göttingen, 1903), pp. 132 ff.:
“Nach all diesem kann es keinem Zweifel unterliegen, dass der, oben
namentlich mit Zügen aus der rabbinischen Litteratur gezeichnete,
Glaube an den göttlichen Namen und seine Wirkungen zur Zeit des
Neuen Testaments im Judentum zum mindesten làngst vorhanden und
wirksam war” (p. I53).
* Mark 9:38 (was this foreign exorcist Paul ?); Matt. 7:22. Even
Jewish exorcists sought to avail themselves of this new name (Acts
I9: I3; Tosephta, Hullin, II: 21–23).
3 Deut. I8: 9–22; cf. Ezek. 20:26–28, 31, 39. Similarly Philo:
“Moses, knowing that the act of divination co-operates in no slight
degree with the errors of the lives of the multitude so as to lead them out
of the right way, did not suffer his disciples to use any species of it what-
ever, but drove all who paid it any observance far from his everlasting
constitution” (De spec. leg., i=on Monarchy, i, 9).
160 The Evolution of Early Christianity
This prohibition did not mean that the Jews’ own sacred
names might not be so employed if the pressure of
circumstances required this," or that their exorcists and
healers did not, on Occasion, Smuggle in foreign names.
But Christians were openly acknowledging the power of
Jesus’ name, which to every Jew must have seemed a
direct violation of the Deuteronomic law. Christians,
indeed, readily defended their position by reminding
their persecutors that Moses in this very same connec-
tion had promised that God would raise up from among
the Jews a prophet unto whom they were to give heed,
and now this prediction had been fulfilled in the person
of Jesus.” But outside the Christian circle the Jews did
not so interpret Moses, and they instituted a vigorous
persecution against those who did.
The crime of the Christians lay not simply in breaking
a commandment of the law. This new faith in Jesus’
name rested upon a belief in his resurrection and exalta-
tion to heavenly dignity which placed him on the plane
of divinity, and so must have seemed to unbelievers
to be a violation of monotheism. This was the funda-
mental reason why Christianity had been offensive to
Paul, if we may trust, in the absence of more explicit
testimony, the psychology of his experience as revealed
in his own statements about his conversion, and the
cardinal items of the new faith which he was thus led
to accept. Its cornerstone was confession of Jesus’
lordship based upon a belief in his resurrection, the latter
* Matt. I2:27. Yet the evidence that such practices had become
current in Palestine in Jesus’ day is exceedingly meager, whatever the
situation may have been among the Jews of the dispersion.
* Deut. I8: I5; Acts 3:22–26; 4:8–I2.
The Breach between Christians and Jews I6I
being guaranteed through actual visions of the Risen
One vouchsafed to certain persons prominent in the
leadership of the new movement. Since these things
are now made central and fundamental, they doubtless
were the features which incensed him most as a per-
secutor. He has now cast in his lot with those who call
upon the Name, who regulate their lives by his power,
and who believe in the triumphant lordship of Jesus soon
to be revealed in glory.
When, finally, Acts represents Jews and Christians in
Conflict regarding the proper interpretation of Jewish
tradition, the situation depicted probably does not belong
to the very earliest times. Even Hellenistic Jews who
adopted Christianity—for example, Paul—did not lose
their respect for the temple or for Moses.” They were
ultimately compelled, because of the inevitable breach
with the Jews, to interpret anew their relationship to
these institutions. But this break was not at the outset
occasioned by dissatisfaction either with their ancestral
religion or with their Jewish kinsmen’s attitude toward
the past—except as that attitude bore upon the question
of belief in Jesus’ messiahship. Here, as at other points,
the primary cause of hostility is the Christian claim that
Jesus has been raised to the divine sphere and so is
worthy of reverence. Though the Book of Acts gives
a long speech of Stephen arraigning the Jews for dis-
loyalty to their religious inheritance, the context in
which the speech is set—and perhaps this context was
supplied by the author's source material—shows that
it was against the pneumatically endowed Stephen,
* Cf. Gal. I: I; Rom. I : 4; Io:8 f.; I Cor. I5: 5-II.
* See above, pp. II.8 ft.
I62 The Evolution of Early Christianity
declaring his faith in the Lord Jesus standing on the right
hand of God, that the outburst of Jewish hatred was
directed. In acknowledging Jesus' lordship Stephen
had committed the heinous sin of blasphemy, for which
stoning was an appointed means of punishment."
Thus it appears that the chief incentive for vigorous
Jewish hostility toward the first Christians lay in the
Christians’ attitude toward the risen Jesus, whom they
now assigned a unique position in the world of angelic
beings. And this was no mere doctrinaire matter either
in the Christians’ own experience, or in their relation to
others. They believed Jesus occupied this new position
because he had actually manifested himself in visible
form to certain members of their community. Various
ecstatic experiences, interpreted in terms of new spiritual
endowment, were taken to indicate that a new order of
things was impending if not indeed actually present.
The name of the heavenly Jesus proved dynamically
effective against sickness and demon-possession, thus
adding strength to the Conviction that Jesus now
occupied a position of lordship in the angelic realm.
Conviction necessarily found expression in propaganda,
which gradually attracted more and more attention.
At first the Jews seemed to have been rather indif-
ferent toward these new enthusiasts. Perhaps the
police authorities were the first to take action against
them on the ground that they were endangering the
* Lev. 24:II–I6. It seemed probable to the Gospel writers as they
surmised what happened in the Council chamber of the high priest,
interpreting it in the light of their own subsequent experience, that Jesus
himself had been condemned on the charge of blasphemy when he was
finally induced to acknowledge his own claim to divine honors (Matt.
26:65 f.; Mark I4:63 f.; Luke 22:69).
The Breach between Christians and Jews 163
peace." Religious opposition was also aroused by a sus-
picion of magical practices. But hostility did not burst
into full flame until Jews became generally aware that
Christians were virtually rendering the risen Jesus
divine honors, which ought, they said, to be accorded
to God alone. This was the situation which called out
the activities of the arch-persecutor Saul of Tarsus who,
in his zeal for the traditions of the fathers, determined
to demolish the new heresy.
Christians bore persecution with great fortitude.
They were not inspired by hostility toward, but by the
fullest sense of community with, their Jewish kinsmen.
At first they regarded it as their mission to preach to
Israel alone, for Israel’s interests were their only concern.
They did not wish to be disinherited by their Jewish
brethren nor did they for a long time cease to hope that
their missionary efforts would one day prove successful.
Even Paul, who had turned from Judaism to become a
vigorous champion of the new movement, and who had
consequently suffered great afflictions at the hands of
the Jews, after years of rejection cried in anguish of
heart, “I could wish that I myself were anathema from
Christ, for my brethren’s sake, my kinsmen according
to the flesh, who are Israelites, whose is the adoption,
and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the
law, and the service of God, and the promises, whose
* Acts says the Sadducees were the first to arrest the Christian
preachers. The author of Acts improbably conjectures that this was
because of doctrinal objections. A messianic agitation based upon faith
in Jesus’ resurrection might well have aroused suspicion because of
political danger, and the Sadducees who were interested in preserving
order would desire to disperse any crowds that might grow sufficiently
enthusiastic to create a riot.
I64 The Evolution of Early Christianity
are the fathers, and of whom is Christ as concerning
the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever.” All
Christians of Jewish descent—and at first they consti-
tuted the entire membership of the community—must
have felt that their religious inheritance was thoroughly
Jewish, that their hopes for the future rested solely
upon the fulfilment of God’s promises to Israel, and that
their heavenly Messiah was the realization of a purely
Jewish hope. Religious differences between them and
their opponents, in time greatly magnified by the heat
of controversy, cannot in reality have been regarded as
serious, so far as the great historical religious heritage
of Israel was concerned. It would be quite unfair to
the psychology of the first Christians to affirm that
they were ever conscious of standing outside the limits
of the true Jewish faith. In so far as appeal was
made to Gentiles it merely aimed, as in Paul’s case,
to accomplish the salvation of Gentiles along with that
of Jews.
Yet Jews persistently rejected the new propaganda,
primarily because it ascribed to Jesus a dignity which in
their eyes he did not deserve. Although this was an
impassable barrier, Christians for a long time continued
to press their cause upon Jewish hearers, and thus there
developed, as the breach widened and the Christian
movement became more strongly differentiated, the
strong anti-Jewish polemic so largely reflected in varying
stages of progress in our New Testament books. In
the meantime many advocates of the new movement
were adapting themselves to, and drawing fresh strength
from, a new set of religious surroundings. Otherwise
* Rom. 9:3-5. . .
The Breach between Christians and Jews I65
their cause must soon have perished from sheer lack of
adherents. Since this new environment was gentile,
the further growth of the new movement must be
followed in connection with contemporary religious
life outside Palestine.
CHAPTER VI
THE EARLY CHRISTIANS’ CONTACT WITH GENTILE
RELIGIONS
When the early Christians were forced out of Judaism
because of the ecstatic life which their faith in the risen
Jesus produced, that fact alone would not have made it
absolutely necessary for the new movement to become
a gentile propaganda. It might conceivably have con-
tinued to exist in some remote place as an obscure,
unorthodox Jewish sect. How did it happen that
the new religion, instead of becoming thus exclusive,
moved in the opposite direction even to the extent
of ultimately including the entire gentile world within
its horizon P
This result was not attained immediately, nor was the
thought of gentile missions shared alike by all Christians.
There were differences of opinion, not only regarding
the method of evangelization, but also regarding the
very advisability of the undertaking. Representatives
of different views were so sincere in their respective
convictions that each party believed itself to be in
full agreement with Jesus' teaching. On the one
hand, he was reported to have said that he was not
sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel,
that it was not meet to take the children’s bread and
cast it to the dogs, that holy things ought not to be
given to the dogs nor pearls cast before swine, and
that the Twelve should go neither to Gentiles nor to
Samaritans, for there would not be time to complete
I66
Farly Christians’ Contact with Gentile Religions 167
the evangelization of Israel before the end of the world
would come." -
In other passages the outlook is much wider. The
disciples are told that they must pass through many
trials in order to bear testimony unto the Gentiles;
Jesus admires the faith of the heathen in contrast with
the Jew’s lack of faith; the end of the world is to be
delayed until the Gentiles are evangelized; the natural
descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are to be
rejected from the kingdom and their place is to be taken
by those who come from “the east and the west”; and
the disciples are finally commissioned to make disciples
of all the nations. Beginning with Jerusalem they are to
extend their activities through Judaea, Samaria, and unto
the uttermost parts of the earth.” This variety of con-
ception shows the process of development through which
the early Christians passed. Whatever Jesus' own atti-
tude may have been,” he certainly impressed no definite
program upon the disciples, or if he did, they failed to com-
prehend his meaning. They worked out the problem in
reaction upon their own situation and in accordance with a
variety of opinions among themselves. Therefore it is
not surprising that the language of Jesus should have
been refracted by the atmosphere of controversy through
which it passed in the Apostolic age.
But by the close of the New Testament period the
notion of gentile missions had come to occupy a prominent
place in the Christians’ program. In fact, their program
* See Matt. 7:6; Io:5 f., 23; I5: 24, 26; 19:28.
* See Matt. 8: II f.; Io:22; IS:37-43, 47–50; 21:33-44; 22: I-I4;
24; I4, 34, 45 f.; 26: I3; 28: IQ; Acts I:8; cf. Io:47; II: I7.
3 Cf. Spitta, Jesus und die Heidenmission (Giessen, Igo9).
I68 The Evolution of Early Christianity
had, to their minds, been carried well along toward com-
pletion. Mark affirmed that the gospel must be preached
to the Gentiles before the end would come, yet he
thought the end would come while members of Jesus’
own generation were still alive." Paul, who strove so
hard to fulfil these preliminary conditions, believed that
he had already accomplished this task “ from Jerusalem
and round about even unto Illyricum.” Others had
preached in Italy, while perhaps still others had worked
in Africa, so Paul was anxious to push on to Spain in
order to bring the work of world-evangelization to com-
pletion.” The Book of Acts is a history of missions,
tracing the spread of the gospel, chiefly as preached
by Paul, from Jerusalem to Rome. The remaining
New Testament books, if not witnessing to immediate
missionary enterprises, at least show Christianity in
possession of various fields throughout the Roman
empire.
Numerous forces were at work to bring about this
result. In the first place the Christians had been
missionaries from the start, their mission being the
conversion of Israel to belief in Jesus' messiahship.
The kingdom was imminent, and they were the heralds
of its coming. But the advent of the Messiah awaited
certain preliminary conditions, chief among which was
the work of gathering members for the new kingdom.
This task was in their hands, and a consciousness of the
obligations resting upon them spurred them on to zealous
missionary activity. In this way they hoped not only
to hasten the coming of the new age, but to receive at
last the “well done, good and faithful servant, enter
* 9: I; 13: Io, 26 f. * Rom. I5:18–28.
Early Christians' Contact with Gentile Religions I69
thou into the joy of thy Lord.” They acted upon two
fundamental convictions. First, salvation could not
be fully attained until the present evil age had been
brought to an end, and secondly, no one would parti.
cipate in the blessings of the messianic age who had
not previously acknowledged belief in Jesus’ resurrection
and exaltation to lordship in heaven whence he had
already come in the Spirit—or had made the Spirit's
Coming possible—but would come in messianic glory
at the end of the age. Under these circumstances the
Supreme duty of Christians was speedily to assemble the
largest possible number of members for the coming
kingdom.
Probably at the outset no one supposed it would ever
be necessary to go outside of Israel in order to procure
these citizens. But the Jews failed to respond as gener-
ally as the Christian missionaries had hoped they would,
and the kingdom's coming was delayed. At this point
the Christians were confronted by some of the most
difficult problems they had to face during the first half-
century in the history of the new movement. What
would be the consequences if they were not successful
in converting the Jews? This question has lost its
difficulty for us since we can answer it in the light of his–
tory, but the early Christians had no such easy solu-
tion at hand. Their hopes were from the foundation
up constructed of strictly Jewish materials, and if the
Jews now failed to unite in finishing the structure could
the work really come to completion ? Some Christians
hoped it could, even with a scanty following which they
* Matt. 25: 21; cf. I Thess. 2: 19 f.; I Cor. 9:23-27; 15:31; II Cor.
2: I4 ff.; 4:14–17; Rom. 8:17; Phil. 2:6.
I7o The Evolution of Early Christianity
had gathered from among the Jews—those who were
to be saved were after all only a few. Others conceived
the notion of bringing in help from without; they would
go out into the byways and hedges to gather guests for
the messianic banquet. But this consciousness of a
gentile mission was arrived at only gradually and not
without many misgivings. Even Paul, who labored so
strenuously in gentile fields, still looked for the climax
of missionary activity to be reached through the conver-
sion of the Jews." -
To be sure, Christians had good Jewish precedent for
seeking converts from among the Gentiles. The mis-
sionary idea had come to expression among the Jews in
the latter part of the Old Testament period, and it con-
tinued to gain strength with the growing importance of
Judaism in the Diaspora.” But this implied no notion
of breaking with Judaism, for missions to the Gentiles
aimed simply at the conversion of foreigners to the Jewish
faith. Experience among foreign peoples often did have
a liberalizing effect upon the missionary, but he never
thought of abandoning the religion of his fathers in order
to establish a new religion on gentile soil.
At first Christians also assumed the same attitude,
only their conception of what constituted true Judaism
was phrased in the language of messianic faith. Thus
Paul, epitomizing the results of his work in Thessalonica,
says, “Ye turned unto God from idols to serve the living
and the true God and to wait for his Son from heaven
* Rom. II: 25–32.
2 See Schürer, Geschichte, usw., III, 150–88; Bousset, Religion des
Judentums, pp. 60–99; Bertholet, Die jüdische Religion, pp. I49 f.;
Staerk, Neutestamentliche Zeitgeschichie, II, 41–53.
Early Christians’ Contact with Gentile Religions 171
t
whom he raised from the dead, even Jesus, who deliver-
eth us from the wrath to come.” These converts had
simply adopted Jewish messianism as recast by Chris-
tians who, on the basis of their belief in Jesus’ resurrec-
tion, identified him with the coming Messiah. The
Corinthians likewise were a messianic community
“waiting for the revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ,”
whose resurrection established the validity of the new
religion.” Similarly the “righteousness which is of
faith” is defined for the Romans in terms of the con-
fession of Jesus' lordship, which proceeds from belief in
his resurrection.” Thus the Christian missionaries were
preaching the new “true” Judaism in gentile lands—
the one God, his appointed Messiah, the imminent king-
dom, and the consummation of salvation at the end of
the age.
The very fact that Christianity was, at first, a spon-
taneous, ecstatic movement greatly facilitated the
gentile mission. If it had begun as a well-defined sys-
tem of doctrine and ritual, numerous questions of detail
would have offered initial difficulties which might have
greatly hampered the activities of the new enthusiasts.
As it was, they acted first and reflected afterward. .
Consequently some of their most troublesome problems
did not become acute until the new enterprise was strong
enough to survive the turmoils of controversy. It is
true that the writer of Acts seems to suppose the exercise
of a careful official supervision from the start, but the
data of Paul’s letters do not bear out this hypothesis.
For some time he and Barnabas, and doubtless still
* I Thess. I : 9 f.
* I Cor. I : 7; I 5:14 ft. 3 Rom. Io:9.
I72 The Evolution of Early Christianity
other workers, had been gathering gentile converts
who were “waiting for the revelation of the Lord Jesus,”
before any academic discussions arose regarding the
methods to be employed in the mission, or the relation
between Jewish and gentile converts within the same
community. The Council at Jerusalem was a result and
not a precursor of the Gentiles' evangelization.
When the question of the Gentiles' freedom did come
up for debate Paul evolved a dialectical defense of his
conduct in the form of the doctrine of justification by
faith. The fact that some of his longest extant letters
were written largely to defend himself and his work
against opponents tends to overemphasize the dialectical
side of Paul's activity. Nevertheless, it is perfectly
clear that his primary concern had been to preach the
risen Son of God, who was revealed to him at conversion.
This, he says, was the way in which both he and Peter
had been “energized” for their respective, but funda-
mentally common, tasks." In the early days when the
coming of the kingdom was felt to be near at hand, the
important matter was to believe in the risen Jesus and
await his Parousia. Other things—family relation-
ships, slavery, politics, Jewish ritual, and the like—
were of secondary moment on account of the “shortness
of the time.” It greatly grieved Paul to find that some
Christians were dwelling upon these minor items instead
of stressing faith in Jesus Christ and cultivating the
Spirit-filled life which this faith made possible. The
possession of the Spirit was the practical criterion of
Christianity’s validity,” a vision of the risen Jesus was
* Gal. I: 16; 2:8.
* I Cor. 7:8–31; Gal. 5:6; 6:15. 3 Gal. 3:3-5.
Early Christians' Contact with Gentile Religions 173
the essential thing in an apostle's equipment, and to as-
Semble a company of expectant, Spirit-filled persons, who
awaited Jesus’ Coming in messianic glory, was the primary
task of both the Jewish and the gentile missionary.
Although the Christian mission had the advantage of
being a spontaneous movement, it also profited much
from its Jewish connections. Notwithstanding the con-
tempt which Greek and Latin writers often express for
Jews,” the Jewish religion did appeal strongly to many
Gentiles, even among the more cultured classes. Strabo
is not alone in his admiration for Moses, though it is
perfectly clear that this ancient geographer had no
thorough acquaintance with the history or the literature
of the Hebrews.” Admiration for Moses did not,
however, necessarily include admiration for the Jews.
This is commonly recognized in the case of the Christians,
but the same thing seems to have been to some extent
true of the attitude which others took toward the Jews
and their religion. Moses lived far enough in the past to
be idealized, hence the more attractive elements in this
ancient faith could be associated with his name, while
less acceptable features were regarded as later perversions
for which the more ordinary Jew was made responsible.
Thus Strabo calls Moses and his companions right-
minded persons who established no ordinary kind of
government, and whose successors followed in his foot-
steps for some time “worshiping God with sincerity,”
* Gal. I: I, I6; I Cor. 9: I; I5:8.
* See T. Reinach, Texies d’auteurs grecs et romains relatifs au Judaïsme
(Paris, 1895); Schürer, Geschichte, usw., III, 529–45; Ståhelin, Der
Antisemitismus des Alteriums (Basel, 1905).
* Strabo, xvi. 2. 35–39.
I74 The Evolution of Early Christianity
but later there arose a period of “superstition” when
Jewish ritualistic practices were introduced. Thus were
the mighty fallen; “their beginning was good but they
degenerated.”
This was essentially the attitude of many Gentiles
who knew Jewish religion much more intimately than
Strabo did. Long before Christianity arose the Jews
had translated their Scriptures into Greek, had estab-
lished synagogues in their various communities scattered
about the Mediterranean, and were seeking to com-
mend their religion to the Gentiles. Their efforts were
attended by a measure of success. They not only won
proselytes but attracted others who admired their
religion, even though unwilling to become identified
with the Jewish nation. The New Testament speaks of
the “God-fearers” as a distinct class who were thus
attracted to Judaism." They attended the synagogue
service, admired the Jewish Scriptures for their antiquity,
their ethical ideals, and their monotheistic faith, but
hesitated at adopting the Jewish ritual and casting in
their lot with the Jewish race. To admire the ancient
religious heritage of the Jews was one thing, but to
* They are designated pogoûlévot rôv beów (Acts Io: 2, 22, 35; 13:16,
26), geföpſevol Tov beów (Acts I6: I4; 18: 7; cf. 13:43, 5o; 17:4, 17;
Josephus, Ant., XIV, vii, 2). Their exact standing in Judaism is a
matter of dispute. It has been affirmed that they were the talmudic
“proselytes of the gate,” a view which Schürer formerly held, but later
abandoned completely in favor of the opinion that they were in no sense
reckoned among proselytes. See Schürer, Geschichte, usw., III, I72 f.;
Porter, “Proselyte” in Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible, IV (New York,
1903); Lake, The Earlier Epistles of St. Paul (London, 1911), pp. 37 ff.
It is certain that these persons were, for the New Testament writers,
not full-fledged Jews, but Gentiles who sympathized with the Jewish
religion.
Early Christians’ Contact with Gentile Religions I75
become a full-fledged member of the Jewish com-
munity was quite another. Many Gentiles refused to
take this latter step, although they were sympathetic
toward the Jews' religion.
The Christians offered these “God-fearers” an easy
solution for their problem. If they would join the Chris-
tian movement they might not only share the full
blessings of the ancient religion without the hindrances
involved in attaching themselves strictly to the Jewish
Community, but they would also participate in new
blessings which Judaism was utterly incapable of con-
ferring. Since many of the earlier Christians were
themselves Jews, they began their preaching in con-
nection with the synagogue where they sometimes
won converts directly from Judaism, but their greatest
success seems to have been among the “God-fearers.”
The crop for which the soil had been prepared and
planted by the Jews was harvested by the Christian
missionaries, Consequently it is not surprising that Jew-
ish hostility toward Christians should have been quite
as bitter in gentile lands as in Palestine.
In preaching directly to Gentiles, Christians also
availed themselves of much preliminary work already
accomplished by Jewish apologists. This feature of
the Christian propaganda is more pronounced in the
second and third centuries, yet in the New Testament
period Christian preachers certainly employed current
Jewish methods of approaching Gentiles. In the first
* See Geffcken, Zwei griechische Apologeten (Leipzig, 1907); M.
Friedländer, Geschichte der jūdischen Apologetik als Vorgeschichte des
Christentums (Zürich, 1906); Krüger, Philo und Josephus als Apologeten
des Judentums (Leipzig, 1906); Schürer, Geschichte, usw., III, 545–53.
I76 The Evolution of Early Christianity
place, they used the Jewish Scriptures in the Greek
translation which had been made, not only for the
convenience of Greek-speaking Jews, but probably also
with some intention of commending their religion to
outsiders." These ancient writings could not be used
without interpretation, but here again the Jews had set
an example which Christians followed and extended.”
The criticisms which Jewish preachers leveled against
idolatry were also taken over by Christian missionaries.3
On the whole the new- religion even in gentile lands
had much in common with Judaism and profited greatly
by the preliminary evangelistic work which had been
carried on by the Jews.
Yet Christians were compelled to establish an inde-
pendent movement because of the central position which
the risen Jesus occupied in their preaching. While some
converts were won from among the Jews, others from
among proselytes to Judaism, and others from the God-
fearers, the real success of the new religion depended upon
the ability of its advocates to draw followers directly
from the gentile world. Though we now have no means
of determining the exact numbers, these apparently
constituted the majority of the membership in most of
: Doubtless many Jewish scholars had come to feel it their duty to
write in Greek in order “to profit them which are without” (Prologue
to Eccles.). See Bertholet, Die füdische Religion, pp. 478 f.
* See Case, “The Scribes’ Interpretation of the Old Testament” and
“The New Testament Writers' Interpretation of the Old Testament,”
Biblical World, XXXVIII (1911), 28–40 and 92–Io2.
3 See Wernle, “Altchristliche Apologetik im Neuen Testament,”
Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft, I (1900), 42–65; E. F.
Scott, The Apologetic of the New Testament (New York, 1907), pp. 110–45;
J. Weiss, Das Urchristentum, I, 162 ft.
Early Christians’ Contact with Gentile Religions 177
the churches outside of Palestine in New Testament times.
The Galatian converts are clearly Gentiles for whose
“liberty in Christ” Paul is contending; the Thes-
Salonian converts had previously been idol-worshipers;”
it was not easy to persuade the Corinthians to sever
their former connections with idolatry or to abandon
the heathen vices in which “some” of them had been
steeped;’ Paul evidently thought there was a large
gentile constituency among the Christians at Rome;4
the Ephesians had formerly been “Gentiles in the flesh;”;
and the Pastorals are interested in training teachers for
the Gentiles." Other parts of the New Testament also
have a prevailing gentile outlook. The Gospel of Mark
shows many signs of having been intended for this class
of readers.” Although there is a strong Jewish interest
in Matthew,” yet the rejection of Jews and the recep-
tion of Gentiles into the kingdom is a favorite theme
with this author.” The writings of Luke, though less
* Gal. 1:16, 2:2 ff.; 3:8 ff.
*I Thess. I : 9; cf. 2: 16; 4:3-7.
3 I Cor. 8: I f.; 6:9-II; Io: I4 ff.; 12:2.
4 Cf. Rom. I : 13–16; 2:8–16; 3:9, 29 f.; 9:22–31; II: II f.; 15:7–13.
5 Eph. 2:11; 3:1, 6, 8; 4:17; cf. Col. 1:27.
* I Tim. 2:7; 3: I6; II Tim. I : II; 4:17.
7 E.g., 3: I7; 5:41; 7:2-4, II, 19, 34; Io:46; I2:18, 42; 13:3;
I4: 2, 32; IS:34, 42, where an explanation is given of Some Jewish word,
custom, or situation for the benefit of gentile readers.
* This is shown in the stress placed upon the fulfilment of Old Testa-
ment prophecy (I:22; 2: I5, 17, 23; 4: I4; 8: I7; I2: I7; 13: I4, 35;
21:4; 27:9), in the representation that Jesus worked particularly for the
benefit of the Jews (Io:5 f., 23; 15:24; 19:28), and in the definition of
Christianity as a completion of the ancient religion (5: I'7-20; 23:3a,
23b; 24: 20).
* See above, p. I67, n. 2.
178 The Evolution of Early Christianity
bitter toward Jews, clearly regard Christianity’s mission
to be world-wide." In the Fourth Gospel the transition
from Jews to Greeks already takes place during Jesus’
lifetime.”
In appealing directly to Gentiles, Christians were
brought into immediate contact with other religions
beside Judaism. At first the dominant environmental
influence affecting them had been solely Jewish. But
when the missionary enterprise came to be directed
chiefly toward Gentiles the varied religious phenomena
of this new world brought new factors into their lives.
A convert from the circle of “God-fearers,” or even from
among Jewish proselytes, might bring into Christianity
some religious heritage from his earlier training in a
gentile faith. But when converts were made directly
from a Greek audience, and when the membership of
the Christian community received larger and larger
accretions from this source, contact with gentile religions
became a very significant fact for the history of the new
propaganda. While this transition was made gradually,
in the case of some Christians it occurred at a relatively
early date. Almost from the beginning of his Christian
career Paul worked in gentile surroundings, and pre-
sumably several of his contemporaries shared a similar
experience. Certainly by the middle of the first century
Christianity had become very generally a gentile mis-
sionary enterprise, and consequently the fresh environ-
mental influences which contributed to the growing life
of the new movement have to be sought in the religious
atmosphere of the gentile world.
* Cf. Luke 2:31 f.; 3:6; 4:24-27; 24:47; Acts I:8, etc.
* Cf. John I2:20, 32. -
Early Christians’ Contact with Gentile Religions 179
To what extent did these new surroundings affect
the life and thinking of Christians in New Testament
times? On this question there have been, and still are,
various shades of opinion. One might at first sight
question whether it was at all possible for the early
missionaries in view of their belief in Christianity’s
Superiority to admit into the new religion any influences
from the surrounding gentile world. Undoubtedly they
felt themselves to be the advocates of the only true
religion, particularly when opposed by Jews and Gentiles.
Notwithstanding Paul’s very substantial Jewish heritage
and his continued reverence for the religion of his fathers,
when opposed by Jews he sharply criticized them for
their rejection of Jesus and pronounced doom upon SO
much of their religious activity as did not allow itself to
pass over into Christianity." Similarly Paul’s formal
criticism of the gentile religion was thoroughly con-
demnatory, in spite of his disposition at other times to
give Gentiles favorable consideration.” In his more
antagonistic moods, the wisdom of the Greeks was set
aside as utterly worthless and doomed to destruction;
while the popular religion of the gentile world was con-
demned for its immorality, its senseless idolatry, and its
demoniacal character.3 Other Christians may not have
held views identical in all respects with Paul’s yet in
the main his opinions probably are fairly representa-
tive, particularly in the estimate of paganism made by
* I Thess. 2:15 f.; Gal. 3:19-29; Rom. 3:9-20; 9:31 ff.
* E.g., Rom. 2: I4 f.; 3:29 f.
3 See Rom. I : 18–32; I Cor. I : 18–25; 2:8; 6:9; 8:4; Io:20; I2:2;
II Cor. 4:3 f.; Gal. I:4; 4:8 f.; I Thess. 4:5; II. Thess. I: 7; Eph. 2:
2 f., I2; 4:17 f.; 5:8, 16; 6: I2; Col. I:21; 2: I3, 18.
I8o The Evolution of Early Christianity
Christians who had previously been trained in Judaism.
Those who had received their early training in some
gentile religion were perhaps in the formal sense just as
antagonistic to it as Paul was to his ancestral faith,
though in reality the gentile convert would owe, as Paul
did, a very substantial debt to the religion of his fathers.
Sweeping condemnations were to be expected under
the circumstances, for formal criticism must in the nature
of the case be wholesale. No competing religious move-
ment could, as such, be allowed favorable comparison
with Christianity. Since all other religions are held
to be erroneous in principle and inferior in practice, the
Christian critic does not stop to note items of value amid
masses of alleged error. But it would hardly be safe to
conclude from this doctrinaire attitude of the critic that
valuable elements were not recognized on occasion, or
that many such values were not actually absorbed by
Christianity. Rarely does a victor fail to profit from
contact with, and conquest over, a competitor, even
though the latter's possessions are, in the heat of conflict,
pronounced quite worthless. We know, for example,
that Paul’s formal criticism of the Jews did not deter
him from retaining so much of Judaism as seemed to him
valuable and suitable to the purposes of his new propa-
ganda. Nor did his condemnation of the Gentiles pre-
vent him from recognizing that they might please God
by living according to the dictates of Conscience."
Christians who had been converted from paganism would
certainly not have been less favorably disposed toward
Gentiles, while normal obligations to the past would,
in their case, have been similar to Paul’s debt to Judaism.
* Rom. 2: I4 f.
Early Christians’ Contact with Gentile Religions 181
Opposition to other faiths as systems of religion did not
necessarily prohibit a practical appropriation of worthy
aspirations, noble ideals, or useful ideas from the con-
temporary religious world.
Moreover, Christianity was, for some time, not so
fully developed that its advocates were primarily con-
Cerned with details of apologetic, minutely differentiating
their faith from all others. While they doubtless felt
themselves to be distinctive in many particulars, they
did not at the outset propound an elaborately worked-
out scheme of doctrine and a fully organized ecclesiastical
system. Their interests revolved about certain central
items, such as Jesus’ resurrection, impending judgment,
and believers' spiritual endowment. The full content
of religious living, and the details of organization and
dogma, which were ultimately to characterize the new
society, resulted from a process of gradual growth in
which the genealogical connections of new features seem
at first to have attracted little if any attention. Under
these conditions influences from the contemporary reli-
gious world were easily possible since they would operate
for the most part unconsciously, being inherent in the
religious fiber of converts from other faiths, or gradually
absorbed from the atmosphere of the mission field.
Belief in Christianity’s superiority would not necessarily
prevent such a course of development.
These conditions were not materially changed, even
when we recognize that Christians felt themselves
divinely guided in the establishment of the new religion.
The thought of a formal and completed revelation was
hardly prominent enough in the consciousness of the
first missionaries to constitute a totally impassable
182 The Evolution of Early Christianity
barrier between them and their contemporaries. Before
the New Testament Canon was definitely fixed the con-
ception of revelation was much more elastic than in
the later period. In fact, its very content was the
product of experience. Judaism was believed to offer
a genuine historic revelation which supplied certain
items of the new faith, but it did not furnish, at least
not in the thought of Paul, a complete equipment for
Christianity. This task had not been accomplished
even by Jesus himself. Since cértain gaps remained
to be filled in by believers from their own experience,
they courageously set about this undertaking, in all
good conscience accounting themselves worthy on the
ground of their belief in Christ and in response to neces-
sities arising in the course of their work, to equip the new
faith with all features needful for the proper expansion
of its life." This work, to be sure, was done under God’s
direction, but the result was a matter of immediate
experience, its character and Content being determined
by the religious impulses of living Christians. Since their
convictions were a product of actual life, and since their
experiences matured under the pressure of new problems
arising out of the peculiar circumstances in which they
found themselves, we must guard against reading into
the thinking of early believers the views of later genera-
tions who so objectivized and hardened the conception
of revelation as to make it the historically unconditioned
source of all details in organization, ritual, and dogma,
which emerged with the gradual growth of the Christian
society. At first revelation was not defined so formally
nor was it made so exclusively a thing of the past as to
* I Cor. 7:25, 40.
Early Christians’ Contact with Gentile Religions 183
preclude the possibility of the Christians’ own vital
reaction upon, and obligation to, their immediate reli-
gious environment, even on gentile soil.
The possibility of receiving influence from this source
was enhanced by the Christians' habit of assuming that
their religion was the legitimate heir of all goodness which
had previously existed in the universe. If Judaism or
paganism held anything that seemed estimable, this
without further ado was credited in Christianity’s
favor. Paul believed that not only his pre-Christian
career, but the entire Old Testament dispensation and
the whole course of past history had been ordered with
reſerence to the establishment of Christianity, and
Consequently formed a proper part of its history in so
far as Paul was able to make these things fit into his
scheme of thinking. When appropriated religious
values were recognized, the Supremacy and uniqueness
of Christianity were thought to be adequately guarded
by affirming that these items had been rescued from their
false setting in Judaism or paganism and had been
restored to their divinely intended position in the new
religion. Although both contemporary Judaism and
Contemporary paganism might be scathingly condemned,
Christians still could highly esteem as their own proper
possession items which a gradual process of vital growth
had brought to them from these sources.
This method of reasoning became quite general among
the early Church Fathers. Justin Martyr after his con-
version retained his high estimate of Greek philosophy
by affirming that Heraclitus, Socrates, and many Stoics
were virtually Christians because they had been enlight-
ened by the Logos, later to be more perfectly revealed
I84 The Evolution of Early Christianity
in the person of Christ.' Athenagoras said that Greek
poets and philosophers possessed an “affinity with
the afflatus from God,” and Tertullian called Seneca
“frequently ours.”3 Clement of Alexandria defended at
length the partial inspiration of the Greek philosophers
and poets;4 and Origen allowed that many philosophers
were in harmony with God’s law in that they declared
the one who created all things to be God. Lactantius
believed that no sect of paganism was so erroneous and
no philosopher so vain as not to see something of the
truth." Augustine affirmed that “the very thing which
is now called the Christian religion existed among the
ancients even from the creation of mankind, yet not
until Christ himself came in the flesh did the true
religion, which already existed, begin to be called
Christian.”7
This appreciation of the Gentiles quickly turned into
sharp criticism when opponents used the similarities
between paganism and Christianity to argue that the
latter lacked originality and so must be secondary and
inferior in character. Christians did not deny the
existence of similarities, but they declared that the
Christian features of paganism were not indigenous.
They had been pilfered from Moses and the prophets
either directly or else through the intermediate activity
of evil demons who wished to forestall Christianity.
* Apol., i. 5, 46; ii. 8, Io, I3.
* Apol., vii. 3 De anima, xx.
4 Strom., i. 2, 4 f., 13, 17, 19; v. 13; vi. 8.
5 In Genesim Homilia, xiv. 3; cf. Cels., vi. 1 ff.
6 Inst., vii. 7.
7 Retract., I. xiii. 3 (Migne, XXXII, 603); cf. Conf., vii. 9 and 13 f.
Early Christians’ Contact with Gentile Religions 185
Justin, recognizing the parallels which Greek writers of
antiquity furnished for such Christian ideas as the
activity of the Logos in creation, the incarnation of the
Logos, the virgin birth, the miracles of Jesus, his divine
Sonship, the rites of baptism, and the Lord's Supper,
stoutly affirmed that the ancients had learned these
things from the wisdom of the Hebrews where Christian-
ity was fully prefigured." Tertullian similarly explained
the origin of pagan rites, which seemed to anticipate those
of Christianity, and he also declared the Old Testament
to be the fountain from which all poets and sophists
had drunk, their wisdom being but an imitation of the
prophets.” Clement of Alexandria accused the Greeks
of plagiarizing from the more ancient wisdom of the
Hebrews, Plato even being a debtor to Moses.* Pagans,
on the other hand, charged Christians with unscrupu-
lously appropriating their sacred rites and held that
their religion contained all the essentials of Christianity.
Augustine complains that the Phrygian priest endeavored
to seduce Christians by saying that “the bonneted one
[of Attis] is himself a Christian.”
In more recent times discussion has followed the same
general lines. One class of writers, discovering exten-
sive similarities between Christianity and paganism,
exploits them for Christianity’s detriment—a method
* Apol., i. 23, 54 f., 59, 62, 66; Dial.., 78.
* De corona, I5; Ad haer., 40; De jejunio, I6; Apol., 47.
3 Strom., i. 21-29; v. I4.
4 “Et ipse pilleatus christianus est” (In Joannis Evangelium trac-
tatus, vii. 6 [Migne, XXXV, 1440). For this type of controversy
between Christians and pagans see Cumont, “La polémique de l’Ambrosi-
aster contre les paiens,” Revue d’histoire et de littérature religieuses, VIII
(1903), 423–36.
I86 The Evolution of Early Christianity
of procedure in vogue since the days of Celsus at the
latest." Even when this type of study is not deliber-
ately derogatory in aim, it nevertheless frequently
results in denying the possibility of any substantial
originality with the Christian religion. Since all its
constituent factors are derived from a variety of con-
temporary Sources, the new religion can be only a
reassembling of items from paganism. Sometimes
Current philosophical notions are thought to constitute
its chief ingredients; other writers draw more extensively
upon ancient mythology to explain its origins; others
place stress upon pagan cults, making Christianity the
perpetuation under a new name of earlier forms of
worship. Thus the new religion is essentially paganism
redivīvus.”
* Origen, Cels., i. 2, 4, etc.
Works of this sort are numerous and widely varied in character, e.g.,
Le Christianisme dévoilé (published anonymously in 1767); Volney, Les
ruines (Paris, 1791); Dupuis, Origine de tous les cultes (3 vols., Paris,
I794); Richter, Das Christentum und die àltesten Religionen des Orients
(Leipzig, 1891); Gfrörer, Kritische Geschichte des Urchristentums (2 vols.,
Stuttgart, 1831–38); Hennell, An Inquiry concerning the Origin of Chris-
tianity (London, 1838); Havet, Le Christianisme et ses origines (4 vols.,
Paris, 1871–84); Bosc, La vie ésotérique de Jésus de Nazareth et les origines
orientales du Christianisme (Paris, 1902); Whittaker, The Origins of Chris-
tianity (London, Igo4, 1909°); Promus, Die Entstehung des Christentums
(Jena, 1905 (a pseudonymous brochurel); Vollers, Die Weltreligionen in
ihrem geschichtlichen Zusammenhange (Jena, Igo7), pp. 122 f.; Kautsky,
Der Ursprung des Christeniums (Stuttgart, 1908); Maurenbrecher, Von
Nazareth nach Golgatha: Eine Untersuchung über die weltgeschichtlichen
Zusammenhänge des Urchristentums (Berlin-Schöneberg, 1909) and Von
Jerusalem nach Rom (Berlin-Schöneberg, Iglo); Carus, The Pleroma: An
Essay on the Origin of Christianity (Chicago, Igo9); S. Reinach, Orpheus:
Histoire générale des religions (Paris, 1909), chaps. viii f. Here belong
also the various works denying the historicity of Jesus, which may be
found listed by Case, The Historicity of Jesus, chap. ii, or Schweitzer,
Geschichte der Leben-Jesu-Forschung, chaps. xi, xii, xxii.
Early Christians’ Contact with Gentile Religions 187
In contrast with this attitude, other interpreters
recognize, as did the patristic writers, that there are
many parallels between early Christianity and gentile
religions, but these parallels are not thought to lessen
Christianity’s uniqueness. They are not regarded as
contributions to its content but foreshadowings of its
coming, and as such they become proofs of its divine
authority. They are dim prophetic anticipations which
enhance its value as revelation, “for its glory lies, not in
its having relation to nothing which went before itself,
but rather in its having relation to everything, in its
being the middle point to which all lines, some con-
Sciously, more unconsciously, were tending and in which
all centered at the last.” This has been a favorite
theme with Christian apologists who, like Eusebius in
his Praeparatio evangelica, thought they could see in the
religious bankruptcy of the pagan world evidence that
the time was ripe for the dawn of Christianity. Every
real religious yearning of those times was a sign of
Christianity’s coming, for not until the new, truly
revealed faith became known could any religious desire
ever be really satisfied.
* Trench, Christ the Desire of All Wations, or The Unconscious Prophe-
cies of Heathendom (London, 1846; New York, I866). In a similar
vein are Pressensé, The Religions before Christ (Edinburgh, 1862); Spiess,
Logos spermaticos (Leipzig, 1871); Hicks, Traces of Greek Philosophy
and Roman Law in the New Testament (London, 1896); Jeremias,
Babylonisches im Neuen Testament (Leipzig, 1905), pp. 2 f.; Radau, Bel,
The Christ of Ancient Times (Chicago, 1908); Mills, Our Own Religion in
Ancient Persia (Chicago, Igrg). The same principle, though emanating
from a very different conception of revelation, was employed by Tindal,
Christianity as Old as Creation, or The Gospel a Republication of the
Religion of Wature (London, 1730). This so-called “Bible of Deism”
defined truly revealed Christianity as the religion of Nature or Reason,
consequently it must be as old as creation.
I88 The Evolution of Early Christianity
Another type of opinion is far more conservative in
admitting any real parallelism between gentile religions
and Christianity. At least in all its essentials Chris–
tianity is held to have been distinctly original. These
interpreters, whose position has already been defined,"
do not think of “essential” Christianity as the religious
life of various people in different times and circum-
stances, but as a selected quantity of religio-ethical
teaching, which is believed to have emanated from Jesus.
Hence only in secondary matters could other faiths make
any contribution to the new religion. Many of the
supposed similarities between it and its contemporaries
are, from this point of view, found to be of a purely
external and unessential character. Foreign influences
are sometimes allowed to come in through Judaism, but
otherwise New Testament religion was only slightly, if
at all, influenced by contemporary gentile faiths. In
later times the process of paganization went on within
the ancient Catholic church,” but this simply meant a
corruption of the earlier faith, which is found to be
essentially original in most parts of the New Testament.”
* See above, pp. 19 ft.
* Cf. Priestley, History of the Corruption of Christianity (Birmingham,
1782); Lewis, Paganism Surviving in Christianity (New York, 1892).
Soltau, Das Fortleben des Heidentums in der altchristlichen Kirche (Berlin,
1906), carries the process of corruption well back into the New Testament
where he finds large importations from heathendom, although he defines
“essential” religion in terms of Jesus' ethics.
3 The literature on Christianity’s relation to non-Jewish religions is
cited very fully by Clemen, Religionsgeschichtliche Erklärung des Neuen
Testaments (Giessen, 1909), English tr., Primitive Christianity and Its
Non-Jewish Sources (Edinburgh, 1912), and Der Einfluss der Mysterien-
religionen auf das ālteste Christentum (Giessen, 1913). Further illus-
trations of this general position are Bonhöffer, Epiktet und das Neue Testa-
Early Christians’ Contact with Gentile Religions 189
When we view Christianity as the religious life of real
persons, the problem of their relation to environment
Cannot be settled so easily. Those interpreters who
think they have discovered the secret of the new religion’s
Origin by assembling a Collection of similar ideas or prac-
tices from the contemporary world forget that these
things could not function anew in society until they had
been embodied in the lives of vigorous personalities.
However many items Christians may have taken over
from gentile religions, the fact of personal leadership is
One of the most prominent features of the new society.
In other words, there would have been no Christian-
ity had not the data which are said to have been
appropriated from the religious environment been sub-
jected to a personal reaction on the part of individuals
whose experience was sufficiently distinctive to lead
them to believe that they were advocates of the only
true religion.
On the other hand, one can hardly nowadays take
seriously the hypothesis that features of other religions,
later reproduced in Christianity, were merely foreshad-
Owings of a future revelation. This explanation is too
formal and unreal to be linked with a vital conception of
Christianity’s character. Such an interpretation can
be true only in the sense that Christians in response to,
or under the tutelage of, a gentile environment evolved
ment (Giessen, 1911); Nösgen, “Der angebliche orientalische Einschlag
der Theologie des Apostels Paulus,” Neue kirchliche Zeitschrift, X (1909),
231–83; Allo, L'Évangile en face du syncrétisme païen (Paris, 1910
[“Christianity is not a syncretism but a synthesis”]); Heinrici, Hellenis-
mus und Christenium (Berlin, 1909) and Die Eigenart des Christentums
(Leipzig, 1911); Kennedy, St. Paul and the Mystery Religions (London,
I913).
190 The Evolution of Early Christianity
an interpretation of religious experience along the lines
and in the language of the thought-world which con-
stituted for Gentiles the realm of greatest reality.
That this process actually did go on, and that it con-
tributed very fundamentally to the character, strength,
and usefulness of the new religion in the Greek world,
is coming to be recognized more and more fully as a
result of historical investigation into the origins of Chris-
tianity.
In the third place, to deny this vital relationship
between Christians and their gentile surroundings, or
to affirm that this environment could only contribute
secondary and detrimental features, is to ignore the
religious character of that contemporary world and at
the same time to stress only one phase of primitive
Christianity’s varied life. Highly as Christians may
have prized the religio-ethical teaching of Jesus, repre-
sented, for example, by the Sermon on the Mount, this
teaching did not furnish the sole and perhaps not the
chief driving force of the new religion as proclaimed
either in Jewish or in gentile territory. Faith in the
Risen One, the new ecstatic life which accompanied this
faith, escape from the present evil world, assurance of
blessedness in the world to come, these were the central
notes in the new propaganda. These data, arising out
of the early believers’ experience, called forth in the first
instance by the stimuli which their Jewish surroundings
supplied, later served as focal points, for gathering up
and enriching the religious activities, Convictions, and
aspirations of gentile converts. But the process was not
purely one-sided; it was one of both give and take. The
Gentiles accepted Christianity with the conviction that
Early Christians’ Contact with Gentile Religions 191
it offered them the best means of realizing the total
desiderata in religion, but the Christian missionary
did not create de novo the religious sense of gentile con-
verts, much as he may have quickened it by means of his
new message. They already cherished longings of a
religious character, they had capacities and means for
acquiring religious experience, they possessed definite
standards for estimating religious values, and they had
reached varying degrees of attainment in the cultivation
of religious living. All this formed the basis for the
cultivation and interpretation of their religious experi-
ence as Christians, and so it became an integral factor
in the growing life of the new religion.
Christianity’s close contact with paganism has often
been recognized, but chiefly in the period subsequent
to the New Testament; or when the new religion has
been allowed any real relationships with its gentile
environment, these have commonly been found in
classical Greece and Rome rather than in the popular
contemporary religious life." The further task, the
problem of the so-called religionsgeschichtliche Schule,
is to relate the Christianity of New Testament times
* E.g., Uhlhorn, Der Kampf des Christeniums mit dem Heidentum
(Stuttgart, 1874, 1899%), English tr., Conflict of Christianity with Heathen-
tsm (New York, 1886); Renan, The Influence of the Institutions, Thought,
and Culture of Rome on Christianity (London, 1880), also Histoire des
origines du Christianisme (Paris, I862 ft.); Keim, Rom und das Christen-
tum (Berlin, 1881); Hatch, The Influence of Greek Ideas and Usages upon
the Christian Church; von Arneth, Das classische Heidentum und die
christliche Religion (2 vols., Wien, 1895); Allard, Le Christianisme et
l'empire romain de Wöron d Théodose (Paris, 1897°); Harnack, Die
Mission und Ausbreitung des Christeniums, usw.; Duchesne, Histoire
ancienne de l'Église (3 vols., Paris, Igoó–Io), English tr., Early History
of the Christian Church (London, 1909).
I92 The Evolution of Early Christianity
to its immediate religious environment in the popular life
of the Graeco-Roman world.” The extent to which this
contact with gentile religions affected the development
of the new movement can be ascertained only by studying
more particularly the Christians' career in relation to the
chief religious forces dominating their gentile surround-
ings. This environment was, as we have earlier had occa-
sion to observe, a highly syncretistic one. While many
survivals from earlier times persisted within the Graeco-
Roman religions of this period, none of the older ethnic
faiths exerted so immediate an influence upon Chris-
tians as did Judaism. The influence of other ancient
national religions, if at all significant for the career of
Christianity, was mediated mainly through Judaism,
or through the syncretistic life of the gentile world.
* Until within comparatively recent times philologists rather than
theologians have been most interested in this field of inquiry, e.g.,
Eichhorn, Usener, Dieterich, Wünsch, Reitzenstein, Frazer, Cumont, et al.
A partial application of these materials to the study of Christian origins
was made by Pfleiderer, Das Christusbild des urchristlichen Glaubens in
religionsgeschichtlicher Beleuchtung (Berlin, 1903), English tr., Early
Christian Conception of Christ (New York, 1905). Further works which
employ the religionsgeschichtliche method either in part or in full are, in
addition to some already mentioned above (pp. 66 and Io& f.), Brückner,
Der sterbende und auferstehende Gottheiland in den orientalischen Religionen
wnd ihr Verhältnis zum Christentum (Tübingen, 1908); Heitmüller, Im.
Namen Jesu, and Taufe und Abendmahl bei Paulus (Göttingen, 1903),
also Taufe und Abendmahl im Urchristentum (Tübingen, IQII); Cony-
beare, Myth, Magic, and Morals: A Study of Christian Origins (London,
1909); Jacoby, Die antiken Mysterienreligionen und das Christentum
(Tübingen, 1910); see also various volumes in Lietzmann’s Handbuch
zum Neuen Testament (Tübingen, 1906 f.). A sympathetic Summary of
literature is given by Bousset, “Die Religionsgeschichte und das Neue
Testament,” Theologische Rundschau, VII (1904), 265–77, 3II–18, 353–
65; also Emerton, “The Religious Environment of Early Christianity,”
Harvard Theological Review, III (1910), 181—208.
Early Christians’ Contact with Gentile Religions 193
In so far as these foreign items came in through Juda-
ism they constituted an integral part of the early
Christians’ Jewish heritage, and so do not concern us
at present. Also within gentile circles contact with
these earlier faiths would hardly be direct, even though
their influence survived. It would be mediated more
particularly by the special religious activities which
the peculiar life of the Hellenistic age had called
into being. This was, in the main, probably true
even of the religious heritage received from Greece
and Rome, to say nothing of the more remote and
ancient civilizations. Hence, instead of attempting at
the outset to discover the particular items in Christian-
ity which were derived from, say, Egypt, Babylonia,”
* For the view that Egyptian religion had influenced the Hermetic
books, and, through these, Christianity, see particularly Reitzenstein,
Poimandres: Studien zur griechisch-ögyptischen und frühchristlichen
Literatur (Leipzig, 1904); Mead, Thrice Greatest Hermes, Studies in
Hellenistic Philosophy and Gnosis (3 vols., London, 1906); Petrie, Per-
Sonal Religion in Egypt before Christianity (London, 1909). Zielinski, on
the contrary, doubts any strong Egyptian influence in this literature
(“Hermes und die Hermetik,” Archiv für Religionswissenschaft, VIII
[1904-5), 321–72, and IX [1906], 25–60).
* Babylonian influence on Christianity is a much-discussed subject.
It is affirmed in various degrees by Schrader, Die Keilinschriften und das
Alte Testament (Berlin, 19033), pp. 377 ff.; Gunkel, Schöpfung und Chaos
£n Urzeit und Endzeit (Göttingen, 1895) and Zum religionsgeschichtlichen
Verständnis des Neuen Testament (Göttingen, 1903, 191o°); Jeremias, Baby-
lonisches im Neuen Testament (Leipzig, 1905); Jensen, Das Gilgamesch-
Epos in der Weltliteratur (Strassburg, 1906), Moses, Jesus, Paulus: Drei
Varianten des babylonischen Gottmenschen Gilgamesch (Frankfurt a.M.,
I909); Zimmern, Zum Streit um die “Christusmythe.”: Das babylonische
Material in seinen Hauptpunkten dargestelli (Berlin, 1910). For criti-
cisms of the pan-Babylonists’ contentions see Kugler, I'm Bannkreis
Babels (Münster i.W., 1910), and Toy, “Pan-Babylonism,” Harvard
Theological Review, III (1910), 47–84.
I94 The Evolution of Early Christianity
Persia, or India, we shall consider the life of the early
Christians in relation to certain religious phenomena
which were more especially distinctive of Graeco-Roman
times.
* Stave, Über den Einfluss des Parsismus auf das Judentum (Haarlem,
1898), discusses at length the question of Persian influence upon Judaism
and thus indirectly upon Christianity. See further Böklen, Die Ver-
wandtschaft der jüdisch-christlichen mit der parsischen Eschatologie (Göt-
tingen, 19o2); Moffatt, “Zoroastrianism and Primitive Christianity,”
Hibbert Journal, I (1903), 763-8o, and II (1904), 347-59; Jackson,
“Zoroastrianism and the Resemblances between It and Christianity,”
Biblical World, XXVII (19o6), 335-43; Mills, Avesta Eschatology Com-
pared with the Books of Daniel and Revelation (Chicago, 1908) and
Our Own Religion in Ancient Persia.
2 Several writers have stoutly maintained a Buddhistic influence upon
the New Testament. Among the more sober advocates of this opinion
are Seydel, Das Evangelium von Jesu in seinen Verhältnissen zu Buddha-
Sage und Buddha-Lehre, usw. (Leipzig, 1882) and Die Buddha-Legende
und das Leben Jesu nach den Evangelien (Weimar, 1897*); Van den Bergh
van Eysinga, Indische Invloeden op oude christelijke Verhalen (Leiden,
19oI); Edmunds, Buddhistic and Christian Gospels (2 vols., Philadelphia,
19o2, 19o8-94); Garbe, Indien und das Christentum: Eine Untersuchung
der religionsgeschichtlichen Zusammenhänge (Tübingen, 1914). Others
assert Buddhism's debt to Christianity, e.g., Hopkins, India, Old and
New (New York, Igor), pp. 122 ff.; Wecker, “ Christlicher Einfluss auf
den Buddhismus,” Theologische Quartalschrift, XCII (19Io), 417-57
and 538-65. Doubt about any mutual influence is expressed, for
example, by Lehmann, Der Buddhismus als indische Sekte, als Welt-
religion (Tübingen, 19II). The various views on this general subject
are conveniently summarized and critically estimated by von Hase, New
Testament Parallels to Buddhistic Literature (New York, 19o7), and Faber,
Buddhistische und neutestamentliche Erzählungen (Leipzig, 1913).
CHAPTER VII
THE RELIGIOUS SIGNIFICANCE OF EMPEROR-
WORSHIP
The national religions of antiquity commonly cher-
ished a belief that the gods were especially interested
in their followers' political welfare. This interest was
usually thought to find its expression in certain mutual
relations existing between the deity and the ruler. The
king was in some sense God’s representative, either being
of divine descent or else divinely chosen and endowed
for the exercise of sovereignty. This belief is exemplified
in the history of the Egyptians, the Babylonians and
Assyrians, the Hebrews, and also among less well-
known peoples of that ancient Orient. It persisted as
long as the various nations maintained any semblance of
independence or continued to hope for a restoration of
former glory.
The Macedonian conquest was a severe shock to the
national ideals of the conquered peoples. Alexander,
to be sure, did not abolish native religions, nor was he
even as hostile toward them as some earlier conquerors
had been. But the essential unification of nations
which followed his work and which was still further
advanced by the Romans hastened the necessity, which
had to some extent already begun to manifest itself in
the Persian period, for abandoning the national emphasis
in religion. This meant, for those ancient religions which
survived in Hellenistic times, the severance of political
ties and the substitution of a personal emphasis. This
I95
I96 The Evolution of Early Christianity
development is most familiarly illustrated in the history
of the Jews who held long and tenaciously to national
expectations but were finally compelled to abandon them
except as a vague and distant hope. One of the promi-
nent items in the early Christians' success was their
decision to forsake the narrow national ideals with which
they began their propaganda.
Yet the political status of people always has some sig-
nificance for their religion. This fact was as true of the
Graeco-Roman period as of earlier times. The con-
sciousness of political stability and human solidarity
resulting from unification of empire inevitably affected
the religious life of many persons in the first century A.D.
If the Macedonians and the Romans had possessed some
one strong national faith of their own this would natu-
rally have become the official religion of their respective
régimes. But this was not the case. The conquerors
were not without religion, but it was not sufficiently
developed and distinctive to become the dominant
faith of a world-empire, at least not without undergo-
ing important transformations. Moreover, the foreign
policy of the conquerors, in religion as in other things,
was rarely one of Superimposition, Consequently the
national side of religious feeling in the Hellenistic age
sought a new channel of expression. This was found
in the worship of the ruler.
Christians in New Testament times did not greatly
concern themselves with Roman politics," yet they
preached an emphatically imperial type of religion. The
dominant note in their message was the approaching
* But Weinel, Die Stellung des Urchristentums Zum Staat (Tübingen,
1908), finds the Christians’ attitude to have been more deliberately
hostile.
The Religious Significance of Emperor-Worship 197
kingdom to be ushered in by a heaven-sent ruler, Jesus
the Messiah, who had already, while on earth, demon-
strated his fitness for this new task. Instead of the
visible political order the Christians substituted a
Spiritual order—in fact, a dual spiritual order. At
present the kingdom of evil with Satan at its head was
in the ascendancy, but this condition of affairs was
nearing an end. The new kingdom of righteousness, the
earnest of which believers had already experienced, was
to be ushered in at an early date by the Parousia of the
Lord Jesus Christ. At first this faith did not necessarily
involve any hostility toward Rome, for the latter was
merely a temporary phase of the present order which
was rapidly to pass away. But as Christianity grew
to be a gentile missionary movement, it came into
competition with emperor-worship, and ultimately this
initial rivalry was displaced by bitter hostility. This
latter stage of development did not reach its climax
until after New Testament times, but Christians from the
first were confronted by emperor-worship as one of the
important religious phenomena of their environment.
Hence the propriety of asking what significance the
imperial cult, already established throughout Mediter-
ranean lands, had for the evolving life of Christianity—
the new imperial religion.
Emperor-worship in the New Testament period was
the climax of a long line of development in the politi-
cal and religious history of that ancient world." The
* See Beurlier, De divinis honoribus quos acceperunt Alexander et
successores ejus (Paris, 1890) and Le culte impérial, son histoire et son
organisation depuis Auguste jusqu’à Justinien (Paris, 1891); Boissier,
La religion romaine, I (Paris, 18924), Io9–86; Hirschfeld, “Zur Geschichte
des römischen Kaisercultus,” Sitzungsberichte der Königlich-Preussischen
I98 The Evolution of Early Christianity
**e
genetic connections between varying phases of this phe-
nomenon in different countries and at different times
are not always clear, but its early appearance and
increasing importance in the Graeco-Roman world
are beyond question. According to the usual view, wor-
ship of the emperor was a spontaneous evolution from
Greek hero-worship which gathered to itself in the
process of growth oriental features such as the separate-
ness of the sovereign, his divine equipment or descent,
and the notion of his mission as a world-savior. Other
interpreters make the Oriental elements primary, tra-
cing the genesis of the custom to the newly arising con-
ception of empire which the Greeks learned from the
Orient and passed on to the Roman." For the New
Testament student, however, it is of greater consequence
to understand the composite elements which had gone
into the making of emperor-worship, as it existed in
Akademie der Wissenschaften (1888), 833–62; Krascheninnikoff, “Úber
die Einführung des provinzialen Kaiserkultus im rômischen Westen,”
Philologus, LIII, Neue Folge VII (1894), 147-89; Kornemann, “Zur
Geschichte der antiken Herrscherkulte,” Klio: Beiträge zur alten Ge-
schichte, I (1901–2), 51–146; Heinen, “Zur Begründung des römischen
Raiserkultus: Chronologische Übersicht von 43 v. bis 14 n. Chr.,”
ſibid., XI (1911), 129–77; Beloch, Griechische Geschichte, III, i, 47-51
and 368–77; Deissmann, Licht vom Osten, pp. 243–87, English tr., Light
from the Ancient East, pp. 342–84; A. Bauer, Vom Griechenium zum
Christenium, pp. 53–92; Gruppe, Griechische Mythologie, pp. I499-15Ig;
Toutain, Les cultes paiens dans l'empire romain, I, i, 19-179; Wendland,
Die hellenistisch-römische Kultur, pp. 123–27 and I42–51; Wissowa,
Religion und Kultus der Römer, pp. 338-48.
* So Kaerst, Geschichte des hellenistischen Zeitaliers, II, i, 374-426,
who thinks the source of the practice to be “von oben her.” That is, the
king is worshiped in the first instance as the exponent of the monarchical
idea, the embodiment of the divine rule upon earth. See, on the Con-
trary, E. Meyer, “Alexander der Grosse und die absolute Monarchie.”
Kleine Schriften (Halle a..S., 1910), pp. 283-332;
The Religious Significance of Emperor-Worship 199
the first century A.D., than to decide which of these
items was genetically primary.
The notion of a unique relation between the king and
the deity was very ancient and widespread. From
remote antiquity Egyptian rulers had been regarded
as the incarnation of a god whose name they bore in
their official title. The ruler's coming into the world
was the rising of the sun-god in the east and his death
was the setting of the sun in the west. He did not
suffer the fate of ordinary mortals at death, but went by
a royal road to dwell with Reforever, the gods greeting
him upon his arrival as an imperishable glorious being.
Although the king in ancient times seems never to have
been made the object of worship, the notion of sover-
eignty was thoroughly religious in character, and the
king’s conduct was ordered according to rigidly pre-
scribed ritualistic requirements."
Likewise among the Babylonians and Assyrians the
king occupied a unique though quite different position.
The name of Sargon I has the determinative ilu, which
signifies that he was himself a god or that he bore a
divine name, and his son Naramsin is expressly desig-
nated “god.” Gudea of Lagash refers to himself as a
child of the goddess Gatumdug and prays to her:
“I have no mother, you are my mother. I have no
* See Moret, Du caractère religieux de la royauté pharaonique (Paris,
I902).
* Cf. Thureau-Dangin, Revue d’Assyriologie, IV (1897), 76. The
determinative ilu before Hammurabi’s name is now generally taken to
signify only that the first part of his name is that of a god, and not
that the king himself is divine; cf. Ungnad, Zeitschrift für Assyriologie,
XXII (1909), 8. For the legend of Sargon’s divine descent see Gress-
mann’s Altorientalische Texte und Bilder zum Alten Testamente (Tübingen,
1909), I, 79.
2OO The Evolution of Early Christianity
father, you are my father . . . . in the Sanctuary you
bore me.” Other ancient Babylonian kings affirm that
they were nourished by a goddess with holy milk."
But evidence that the king was ever deified outright as
in Egypt is very meager, and even the claim to divine
sonship is said to be less in evidence in later times.
Radau thinks that the Babylonians' hesitation in ascrib-
ing deity to their kings is due to Sumerian influence,
which dulled the original Semitic notion that the king is
always the Son of God, “nay, even a god himself.”
However this may be, the monarch is still distin-
guished by the unique relation between himself and the
gods, a relation which implies, even when it does not
explicitly affirm, divine descent. He is always their
favorite, they instruct him for the discharge of his
duty, and he is in general their agent in the exercise of
his functions as sovereign. A few sentences from the
prologue to Hammurabi’s Code will illustrate this
attitude: “When the lofty king Anu, king of Anunnaki,
and Bel, Lord of heaven and earth, who determines the
destiny of the land, committed the rule of all mankind
to Marduk, the chief son of Ea; . . . . when they pro-
nounced the lofty name of Babylon . . . . and in its
midst established an everlasting kingdom whose founda-
tions were as firm as heaven and earth, at that time Anu
and Bel called me, Hammurabi, the exalted prince, the
worshiper of the gods, to cause justice to prevail in the
* E.g., Ennatum, Entemena, Lugalzaggisi. For references see Lietz-
mann, Der Weltheiland (Bonn, 1909), pp. 48 f.
* Radau, Early Babylonian History (Oxford, 1900). On the relation
of Sumerians and Semites see E. Meyer, Abhandlungen der Königlich-
Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-historische
Classe (1906), III, I-125.
The Religious Significance of Emperor-Worship 20.1
land, to destroy the wicked and the evil, to prevent the
strong from opposing the weak, to go forth like the sun
over the black-headed race, to enlighten the land, and
to further the welfare of the people. Hammurabi,
the governor named by Bel am I, who brought about
plenty and abundance . . . . who rejoiced the heart
of Marduk, his lord, who daily served in Esagila, of the
seed royal which Sin begat, who filled the city Ur with
plenty, the pious and Suppliant one . . . . the exalted
One . . . . the divine city king, wise and intelligent
. . . . the lord adorned with scepter and crown whom
the wise God Ma-ma has clothed with complete power.”
Among the Hebrews also kingship had a distinctly
religious character. The ideal monarch who possessed
a special endowment of the spirit became the Son of
God through divine anointing and was henceforth
Yahweh’s vicegerent upon earth. When the succession
of rulers failed in Israel, or when the actual kings fell
short of the divine standard, the ideal itself was not
abandoned but was projected far into the future. One
day a prince would arise who would be endowed with a
full measure of the Spirit and would establish over all the
earth a kingdom of righteousness—an accomplishment
to be effected through “the zeal of Yahweh of hosts.”
In the process of time the conception of the sovereign's
divinity was so extended in some circles of thought that
God himself was the only monarch whose authority was
to be recognized;3 or his true representative was to be a
* Harper, The Code of Hammurabi (Chicago, I904), pp. 3 ff.
* Isa. 9:7; cf. II: I f.
3 The Zealots affirmed that God was their only hyepôva kal 6eatrótmv,
and they refused to call any man Öeo Tótms (Josephus, Ant., XVIII, i, 6).
2O2 The Evolution of Early Christianity
pre-existent heavenly being who would descend to earth
to destroy evil and set up the eternal kingdom of God.
Thus the idea of rulership had an emphatically religious
content, the king being either God himself or his espe-
cially equipped representative. Politics were primarily
a concern of the gods, and the king exercised a divinely
delegated authority as the vicegerent of heaven rather
than the representative of men. He possessed God-given
endowments which set him apart from ordinary mortals,
yet he was not the object of his subjects’ religion, not
even in Egypt, where he was believed to be the very in-
carnation of the Sun-god. On the Contrary, his religious
position was much more nearly that of the ideal religious
person, officiating in the ritual in an exemplary manner
on important occasions. Even the Pharaonic deity-king
was not free from the necessity of strict ceremonial
observances. It was not the figure of the ruler which
gave the monarchical idea its unique religious signifi-
cance in the Orient; it was rather the monarchical
position which made the ruler significant. Everything
rested upon the fundamental notion that monarchy was
a divine institution, a heaven-sent boon to mankind.
The ruler's position was unique because he represented
the gods rather than the people. He received laws from
heaven which he communicated to his subjects, they
rendered him obedience resembling in kind that which
they gave the deity, but they formally worshiped only
the mighty gods who ruled over both the monarch and
his subject. This notion of the divine status of the
monarchical idea continued down to Graeco-Roman
times and formed an important item in the early Chris-
tians’ religious environment.
The Religious Significance of Emperor-Worship 203
Greece and Rome originally presented a very different
situation. Their conception of government was funda-
mentally democratic; it was the people rather than the
gods who were primarily responsible for the national
weal. Rulers were revered for their own attainments,
their right to divine honors depending upon their own
display of prowess. Gods were made in the image of
great men, and men who had proved themselves superior
in bravery, or generous in bestowing benefits upon their
fellows, were at death elevated to the rank of divinity
and worshiped accordingly. A few illustrations will
suffice to remind us of the important rôle which hero-
worship played among the Greeks, and also its bearing
on the later practice of worshiping the monarch.
Herodotus often refers to the custom of honoring
heroic men and founders of cities with religious rites.
When Miltiades died the Chersonesians, because he had
built a wall to ward off the attacks of their enemies,
sacrificed to him “as is usual to a founder” and insti-
tuted games in his honor." Sometimes the custom was
observed in obedience to instruction received from the
oracle. This was the case with the Phocaeans who,
on gaining possession of Hyela, established sacred rites
to Cyrnus as a hero.” Also to Xerxes' giant friend
Artachaees, who was buried at Acanthus, the Acanthians
“in obedience to an oracle offered sacrifice as to a hero
invoking him by name.” Philippus, son of Butacides,
“on account of his beauty” was honored with a shrine
upon his sepulcher and was propitiated with sacrifices.4
Thucydides; records another good illustration. Brasidas,
* vi. 38. 3 vii. II.7.
*i. I67. 4 v. 47. 5 V. II.
2O4. The Evolution of Early Christianity
leader of the Spartan forces stationed in Amphipolis,
was slain in a bold but successful Sally against the
Athenians. He was buried at the public expense, a
fence was built about his tomb, offerings were made to
him as a hero, he was honored with games and annual
sacrifices, and he was called the founder of the settle-
ment, his memory supplanting that of Hagnon who had
formerly been so honored.
These pragmatic tests for determining one’s right to
religious honors were not confined exclusively to heroic
deeds. Philippus, as we saw, was revered because of his
beauty, but Herodotus says this procedure was quite
exceptional. Persons who had shown remarkable wis-
dom, or who had displayed poetical skill, also became
objects of reverence. Already in the fifth century B.C.
Empedocles had been honored by his followers as a god,
Protagoras was said to have been the son of Apollo,
Aristotle erected an altar to Plato, and later we find a
cult of Homer in Alexandria. The Greek mind readily
employed religious categories to express its reverence
for distinguished personalities. This was not merely a
disposition of the populace; it was also true of the edu-
cated. The divine was recognized in the human, so that
the divinity and pre-existence of the human Soul were
easily attainable ideas. The political theories of Plato
and Aristotle, constructed on this type of anthropology,
made the ideal ruler a veritable divinity among men,
ruling without regard to law because “he himself is the
law.” Thus Greek thinking arrived, though by a differ-
ent road, at a conception of rulership essentially more
despotic than that of the Orientals. The fundamental
difference was that in the Orient theology had been the
The Religious Significance of Emperor-Worship 205
determining factor in the religious interpretation of
monarchy, while in Greece the point of departure was
anthropology. The Greek theory of monarchy started
with man and made of him its god; the oriental notion
started with God and made the monarch in his image.
Both of these tendencies survived until Christian times
and were employed by the missionaries in defining their
notion of both the new kingdom of God and the mon-
archical functions of Jesus. -
The process of fusing these two conceptions began
with the career of Alexander the Great. He probably
learned from Aristotle the Platonic conception of the
ideal republic with its man-god king, and he held in high
esteem the memory of ancient heroes. One of his first
acts on crossing the Hellespont was to visit Troy in
order to pay his respects to the heroes of that conflict
before starting out on his own mission of conquest.
After arriving in Egypt he visited the oracle of Zeus-
Ammon, where tradition says he was pronounced by the
priest to be a son of the deity. Strabo reports various
traditions to the same effect. The long-silent oracle
of Apollo among the Branchidae revived in Alexander's
time and the Milesian ambassadors carried back to
Memphis numerous answers of the oracle regarding
Alexander's descent from Zeus and his future victories.
The Erythraean prophetess had also affirmed Alexander's
divine descent." Then came the further display of his
prowess in the East, where he surrounded his person
with the splendors of the Persian court and added to
the amazement of his generation the conquest of nearly
the whole of the then known world.
* Strabo, xvii. I. 43.
2O6 The Evolution of Early Christianity
The death of Alexander's favorite companion, Hephaes-
tion, called forth clearly Alexander’s own ideas on the
subject of hero-worship. He at once sent messengers
to the temple of Zeus in Egypt to inquire whether it
was permitted to offer sacrifices to Hephaestion as a
god. On learning that this could not be done, but that
his dead friend might be honored as a hero, Alexander
ordered chapels erected to him and insisted that a
reverence very closely akin to that shown the gods
should be paid to Hephaestion." Alexander’s zeal in
this matter was so great that he wrote Cleomenes,
governor of Egypt, “If I find the sacred rites and
chapels of the hero Hephaestion well completed I will
not only pardon you any Crimes you may have com-
mitted in the past, but in the future you shall suffer
no unpleasant treatment from me, however great may
be the crimes you commit.” As Cleomenes had little
interest in religion, but was much addicted to “crimes”
for which he might suffer severely when Alexander dis-
covered them, the inducement which Alexander held
out to him reveals the king's insight into human nature
as well as his willingness to sacrifice the welfare of the
living for the honor of the dead.
Whether Alexander ever claimed divine honors for
himself is a disputed point,” but he certainly accepted
such without protest. The Ionians, probably during his
lifetime, out of gratitude for the liberty he had won for
them, dedicated a sacred grove to him above Chalcideis
and celebrated, probably on his birthday, yearly games
in his honor.3 Greece proper was doubtless less apprecia-
* Arrian, Anabasis, vii. I4, 23. 3 Strabo, xiv. I. 31.
* See Kornemann, op. cit., p. 58, n. 4.
The Religious Significance of Emperor-Worship 207
2’
tive of Alexander's services, for he had figured as their
conqueror before he started upon his eastern career.
But the Greeks of the mainland so far overcame their
prejudices by the year 323 that shortly before Alex-
ander’s death messengers were sent to him wearing
golden wreaths upon their heads and offering him a
golden crown, thus signifying that they accorded him
divine respect." His Stoic biographer, Arrian, excuses
Alexander's acceptance of these compliments on the
ground that it was a concession to the customs and
thinking of the conquered peoples, and so was justifiable
as a practical governmental policy. But the Hephaes-
tion incident alone shows that the notion of deification
was so deeply ingrained in Alexander’s own thinking
that suggestions of his divinity during his lifetime prob-
ably did not seem to him wholly vain, particularly after
he had come into closer touch with the Orient and had
learned the religious significance it attached to the
monarch. If Alexander had come to feel that he was the
instrument of heaven in the establishment of world-
empire,” it would not be difficult for him to take seri-
ously the religious formalities connected with his name,
although such reverence had commonly been reserved
for Greek heroes until death.3
A cult of Alexander sprang up immediately after his
death. Ptolemy, who gained possession of the dead
* Arrian, Anabasis, vii. 23. * So Plutarch, De fort. Alex., i. 6.
3 Lysander is an exception if Duris, who is the source of Plutarch's
information, is reliable (Lysander, 18), but Duris belonged to the Hellen-
istic age when the worship of living rulers had become fully established,
and he may have read the earlier history in terms of later thinking. See
Diodorus, xvi. 20, 92, for suggestions that Dion of Syracuse and Philip
Tof Macedon had shared heroic honors while still alive.
208 The Evolution of Early Christianity
king's body, carried it to Egypt, ultimately interring it
in Alexandria where a temple was reared to Alexander's
memory and sacrifices were offered to him as a hero."
Eumenes affirmed that Alexander had appeared to him
in a dream and indicated his wish still to be the leader
of the people. Eumenes accordingly erected a beauti-
ful tent as a symbol of the dead king’s presence. Within
it was a throne with royal accouterments and before it
an altar for burnt offerings. Instead of the images of
ancient deities only, which had been used by Alexander
in stamping his coins, Alexander's own image with the
horns of the god Ammon appears upon the coinage.
It would seem that an Alexander cult was generally
popular with his successors, particularly in Asia and
Egypt. While this reverence doubtless bore the char-
acter of Greek hero-worship, it is also probable that the
disposition Alexander had felt to worship Hephaestion
as a god would find actual expression in the worship of
Alexander. According to Suidas, Antipater alone of the
Diadochi thought it sacrilege to call Alexander “god.”
It was not long before his successors and their descend-
ants applied to themselves in their capacity as sovereign
similar notions. After Alexander's death worship of
the living ruler soon became an established practice.
The custom grew rapidly in Egypt and Syria. It
appeared sporadically among the Greeks, but it made
little headway in Macedonia. At first it was a spon-
taneous outburst of Greek gratitude or flattery, as when
the city of Scepsis in 31 I B.C. consecrated a sacred
inclosure to Antigonus, erected him an altar, and set
up his statue. In 307 the Athenians, in gratitude for
* Diodorus, xviii. 28.
The Religious Significance of Emperor-Worship 209
|
deliverance from the Macedonians, called Demetrius
and his father Antigonus “savior-gods,” built them an
altar, established a feast in their honor, and chose a
priest for the new cult. Three years later the Rhodians,
in recognition of the assistance Ptolemy had given them
against Demetrius, built Ptolemy an altar and estab-
lished a yearly feast in his honor.
Deification of the living monarch did not appear
immediately in Egypt, but when Once the custom be-
gan it was carried much farther than in Greece. When
Ptolemy I died, his son Ptolemy Philadelphus declared
him to be a new god, “Ptolemy Soter,” and established
a yearly festival to be celebrated on the king's birthday.
Ptolemy and Alexander were now honored side by side,
the worship of each becoming a state cult. When
Philadelphus’ mother, Berenice, died in 279, she was at
once deified and her cult was joined to that of her hus-
band. The two were worshiped as “savior-gods” (6eol
oatſipes). In 271 the sister-wife of Philadelphus
died and she too was immediately apotheosized as
“Aphrodite Arsinoe Philadelphus.” Her worship be-
came a state cult in Alexandria, and probably also in
Arsinoe. Then came the significant transition from the
deification of the dead to the deification of the living
ruler. Philadelphus was given a place beside his sister-
wife and the cult of the living king and the dead queen
was officially recognized, the two being worshiped under
the designation “brother-gods” (6eol &öe)\bot). On
the Rosetta Stone the fifth Ptolemy, then reigning, is
called a god, sprung from a god and a goddess, just as
Horos is a son of Osiris and Isis. An inscription on the
wall of the temple at Edfu referring to the eighth Ptolemy
2IO The Evolution of Early Christianity
says, “Horos of Edfu, the god Api, lord of heaven, who
flames in the horizon, he beholds his house, he knows his
beloved son, King Ptolemy Soter Philometor, he estab-
lishes him upon his throne forever.” From the time of
Philadelphus on, the Ptolemaic rulers receive official
deification from the priest, they are associated as temple
Companions with certain of the ancient deities, and be-
come the deities’ representative—a new Aphrodite or a
new Dionysus—upon earth. In addition to “savior-gods”
and “brother-gods” we meet also “benefactor-gods”
(6eol evepyétat), “philopator gods” (6eol bu)\otátopes),
“manifest gods” (6eol étugavat), and so on down to
Roman times.”
Syria experienced a similar evolution. On the death
of Seleucus I, his son Antiochus consecrated to him in
Seleucia a Sacred grove with a temple and gave him, as
cult title, the name “Zeus Victor” (Zeis Nukátop). An-
tiochus I was hailed as savior by different communities,
he was honored with games, and at death he was deified
as Apollo Soter (Apollo savior). With Antiochus II,
who assumed the cult surname “Theos” (god), worship
of the living ruler became established within the Seleucid
empire as well as in Egypt. The origins of the practice
among the Seleucids are less well known, though its exist-
ence, not in the form of a centralized system like that pre-
vailing in Egypt but as a provincial cult established in
different satrapies of the empire, is a well-attested fact.
Among the official sacral surnames taken by different
rulers to illustrate their divinity were the terms “Kallini-
kos” (“gloriously triumphant,” an epithet of Hercules),
*Cited by Mahaffy, Empire of the Ptolemies, pp. 239 ft.
* For details see Kornemann, op. cit., pp. 67 ff.
The Religious Significance of Emperor-Worship 211
“Soter” (savior), “Philopator” (father-lover), “Theos
Epiphanes” (god manifest), “Nicator” (victor), “Theos
Nicator” (god victor), “Epiphanes Dionysus” (mani-
fest Dionysus), and probably in later times “Eusebes”
(pious). Thus the Seleucids claimed to be, in the fullest
sense, god manifest in the flesh. Their right to divine
honors was not determined by a priestly decree as in
Egypt, nor by the disposition of any community to insti-
tute religious ceremonies in their honor. It proceeded
directly from the ruler himself in his capacity as god-king.
He was “theos” in virtue of his monarchical position.
This was the Hellenistic notion with which the Jews
came into sharp conflict in Maccabean times and it was
the conception which had prevailed for centuries in the
lands where Christianity was first preached as a gentile
missionary movement.
Rome first appeared in eastern politics chiefly as
the liberator of the Greeks. The Roman general,
Flamininus, after his defeat of Philip V of Macedon,
was greeted by the assembly at the Isthmian games in
the year 196 B.C. as savior, and the city of Chalcis ren-
dered him divine honors. He was placed beside Apollo
with an appropriate temple and priesthood. In the
years following, Roman generals and governors were
similarly honored on various occasions by the Greeks.
Beside them was placed, as a personification of the new
political power, the goddess Roma, who took a position
similar to that of the divine queen in the Orient. This
goddess, who was a new religious creation of the East,
had a temple erected to her first at Smyrna in the year
I95 B.C., and other temples soon sprang up at different
places. The prowess of Rome in the East was greatly
2I 2 The Evolution of Early Christianity .
augmented in the first century B.C. by the brilliant
military career of Pompey. He was greeted as a god
by an inscription over the city gate through which he
passed into Athens, and in honor of his success against
Mithradates he was given a position beside the deified
Alexander. When Julius Caesar pursued the illustrious
Pompey to the East and defeated him at the battle of
Pharsalus in 48 B.C., it was Caesar's turn to receive the
compliments of the Greeks. This is attested by an
Ephesian inscription in which the Greek cities of Asia
honor him as “god manifest, Son of Ares and Aphrodite,
and common savior of human life.” In still other in-
scriptions he is designated “benefactor,” “founder,”
“savior,” and “the god and dictator and savior of the
World.”
On his return to Rome various honors of an unusual
sort were bestowed upon him which marked the first
stages in the development of emperor-worship in the
West. His triumphal chariot was placed before the
statue of Jupiter, and his statue was erected upon the
Capitol with an inscription in which he is called a demi-
god.” A little later his statue was set up in the temple of
Quirinus and bore the inscription “to the invincible
God.” Although many similar honors were bestowed
upon him in his lifetime, an official cult of Caesar was not
established in Rome until after his death. On the second
of August in the year 44 B.C. Octavian erected in the
temple of Venus a statue to Caesar with the inscription
Divo Julio, and on September first Antony applied to
the Senate to set apart a day for making yearly supplica-
* For references see Heinen, op. cit., pp. 130 f. and I32, n. 3.
* Dion Cassius, xliii. I4. 6; Suetonius, Julius Caesar, 76.
The Religious Significance of Emperor-Worship 213
tion to the new god. The deification of Caesar, as well
as the name Divus Julius, was fixed by law January first,
42 B.C. From this time on worship of the ruler, deified
after death when the Senate so decreed, became a legal
institution even at Rome itself. These new divinities
were divi rather than dei, that is, they were men raised
to the rank of gods rather than incarnations of ancient
deities, but in the popular feeling they were often quite
as truly reverenced as were the ancient deities. More-
Over, they were sometimes credited with pre-existence,
divine parentage, and miraculous birth.
The cult of the living ruler, however, did not gain
ready recognition in the city of Rome, but it was widely
prevalent in the provinces. Even Antony, who claimed
to be descended from Hercules, had been greeted as
Dionysus at Ephesus and Athens, an Egyptian inscrip-
tion called him god and honored him as Osiris, and
Cleopatra erected a temple to him in Alexandria, but
it seems to have been completed as a temple of Octavian."
The worship of Octavian, in association with the goddess
Roma, was widely established, particularly in the East,
In the year 29 B.C. he had permitted the Romans of the
province of Asia and Bithynia to erect a temple in Ephe-
sus to the goddess Roma and the divinity Julius Caesar.
But to the Greeks of this province he gave permission
to dedicate a temple to Roma and to himself. Thus he
openly permitted Roman citizens to worship the dead
ruler, whose apotheosis had been authoritatively con-
firmed, but this restriction was not imposed upon Greeks.
This reserve was part of Octavian's care not to offend
the democratic spirit of the Roman people. Even after
* Heinen, op. cit., p. 142, n. I.
2I4 The Evolution of Early Christianity
the establishment of the empire in 27 B.C., when the
Senate conferred upon him the cognomen “Augustus,”
he still preserved his tactful and cautious attitude.
Suetonius' says that within Rome he positively refused
any such divine honors as were abundantly bestowed
upon him in the provinces, and, melting down all the
silver statues that had been erected to him, he made
tripods for Palatine Apollo. He abhorred the title
lord, and was greatly offended once at a play when he
was addressed as “just and generous lord.” Yet all
this did not prevent an unauthorized deification of the
living Augustus from establishing itself in popular belief,
nor do we hear of any systematic punishments being
imposed upon those who transgressed his professed
wishes in these matters. At several places in Italy his
cult is known to have existed before the emperor's
death,” though to what extent the personnel of the
worshipers was Roman or foreign can hardly be deter-
mined.
Augustus' long and prosperous rule was particularly
conducive to the growth of emperor-worship, which
was in reality popular appreciation expressed in terms
of religion. Josephus’ says the temple IIerod built to
Augustus at Caesarea was remarkable for its size and
beauty. In it was a Colossus of the emperor not inferior
to that of Jupiter Olympus after which it was modeled,
and also one of Roma, the equal of that of Juno at Argos.
These temples with their official priests and stated
* Augustus, 52 f.
* For localities see Heinen, op. cit., p. 175, and L. R. Taylor, Cults of
Ostia (Bryn Mawr, 1912), p. 46, n. 2. -
3 Ant., XV, 9; War, I, 21.
The Religious Significance of Emperor-Worship 215
ceremonials existed in relative abundance, especially in
eastern lands, during the lifetime of Augustus. Of the
many complimentary inscriptions to him expressing
appreciation in religious terms, we may cite a portion
of the decree making his birthday the official beginning
of the year. The date is about 9 B.C. In part it reads:
“Since Providence which orders all of our life, introdu-
cing esteem and distinction, adorned our life most per-
fectly by granting us Augustus whom she filled with
virtue for the benefit of mankind, sending him to be
a Savior for us as well as for our descendants, bringing
all wars to an end and setting up all things in order, when
Caesar appeared he fulfilled the hopes of those who
pointed forward to him, not only excelling previous
benefactors, but leaving to future generations no hope
of surpassing him. The birthday of the god [Augustus]
was for the world the beginning of the good tidings
|gospels] because of him.” On various occasions he
is styled “savior of the Greeks and of the whole inhabited
earth,” “savior and benefactor,” “savior and founder,”
“savior and God,” “son of God, god Augustus, overseer
of every land and sea.” In Egypt he was called “god
of gods,” “father of the gods,” “son of the sun,” “beloved
of Ptah and Isis.” The official apotheosis of Augustus
after his death only further confirmed his worship which
was already prevalent throughout the greater part of
his empire, especially in those regions where Christianity
first gained a hearing a generation later.
Conditions under Augustus' successors continued to
favor the practice of emperor-worship. The cult of
* Dittenberger, Orientis Graeci Inscriptiones Selectae (2 vols., Leipzig,
I903-5), II, 5off. (No. 458).
2I6 The Evolution of Early Christianity
Augustus attained wide vogue, not only in the East
but also in the West.” The decree of the Senate on
September 17, 14 A.D., elevating the deceased emperor
to a place among the gods of the state, under the title
Divus Augustus, met with general approval. In fact,
a man of Praetorian rank affirmed under oath, accord-
ing to Suetonius,” that he had visibly witnessed the
ascent of Augustus’ spirit from the funeral pyre to
heaven. Tiberius heartily approved of the apotheosis
of Augustus, but assumed a reserved attitude on the
subject of his own right to divine honors. In defending
his action in permitting the people of Asia to build him
a temple he cited the example of Augustus, who had given
similar permissions in his lifetime, but Tiberius declared
that it was not his intention to be generally apotheosized
throughout the provinces.” Evidently he was not abso-
lutely opposed to such honors and he clearly intimated
that he aspired to deification after death. Josephus
says that Caligula excrcised at first a similar self-
restraint, but later grew so conceited in his possession
of power that he made of himself a god.” Claudius
practiced moderation, refusing all excessive honors,'
but one of Nero's first acts was to have Claudius apotheo-
sized. When Tiridates visited Nero, first in Naples and
then in Rome, Dion Cassius" states that this Parthian
prince bowed himself before the emperor, saying, “O
* Tacitus, Annals, i. 78. * Augustus, Ioo.
3 Tacitus, Annals, iv. 37 f.
4 Ant., XVIII, 7. See further Dittenberger, Sylloge Inscriptionum
Graecarum (3 vols., Leipzig, 1898–1901), I, 567 ff. (Nos. 364 f.), and
Paton and Hicks, The Inscriptions of Cos (Oxford, 1891), p. 281 (No. 391).
Suetonius, Claud., I2. "lxiii. I-5.
The Religious Significance of Emperor-Worship 217
Lord, I . . . . am thy slave, I am come to thee, my
God, worshiping thee even as I worship Mithra.” Ves-
pasian figures in tradition as a supernatural personality
through an experience in the temple of Serapis in Alex-
andria, and also by his performance of miracles which
was a mark of the “divine majesty and authority” with
which he had been endowed as emperor." To cite again
from Suetonius,” Domitian assumed divinity for himself
first by recalling his divorced wife with the proclamation
that he called her to his pulvinar, which was the technical
name for the consecrated bed on which the images of the
gods lay. He also instructed his procurators when
issuing orders in his name to say “Our lord and god.”
thus commands.
It would be superfluous to cite further data to show
how thoroughly habituated the people of the Graeco-
Roman world had become to the custom of attaching
religious significance to the person of the ruler. Nor are
we to imagine that this was always merely empty flattery.
In some instances, it is true, political causes were the
primary agency at work, but some rulers, such for
example as Augustus, evoked a genuine appreciation
which could find its proper expression for many of their
subjects only in terms of religion. Public opinion was
not controlled by official apotheosis but by popular
sentiment. Suetonius' remark" that the people fully
believed in the divinity of Julius Caesar seems to imply
* Suetonius, Vesp., 7; cf. Tacitus, Hist., iv. 82. 2; Josephus, Ant.,
VIII, ii, 5. ~-
° Domit., 13. See also Hiller von Gaertringen, Inschriften von Priene
(Berlin, 1906), p. 147 (No. 229).
3 Julius Caesar, 88.
2I8 The Evolution of Early Christianity
that other deifications decreed by the Senate were
not always so readily accepted. In that age it was easy
to ascribe divinity, or even outright deity, to a ruler who,
like Julius Caesar or Augustus, called forth popular
enthusiasm and admiration. Such persons were wor-
shiped with genuine religious feeling, while the cult of a
less popular ruler would be observed in a more per-
functory manner. |
The cult of both the living and the deceased emperor
was well established in the life and thinking of vast
numbers of people, particularly in the eastern provinces
where gentile Christianity passed through the early
stages of its development. Indeed, the Christians of
Palestine must have been quite generally familiar with
this pervasive religious phenomenon of their day, since
it had called forth Jewish protests on various occa-
sions. Christians as well as Jews doubtless opposed
the imperial cult, but in so far as it had shaped the
channels for religious thinking, and put into circula-
tion a coinage for estimating religious values, it would
inevitably exert some influence upon the trend of Chris-
tianity’s development. Converts to the new religion
had learned ways of thinking in connection with
emperor-worship which they doubtless found useful in
their effort to define the character of the new kingdom
and to formulate a fitting religious interpretation of the
person of its ruler.
What were some of the more prominent phases of
imperial religion which lent themselves most readily
to the service of Christians in their gentile missionary
propaganda. ? One of these items was the general desire
for deliverance from present evils by seeking the aid of
The Religious Significance of Emperor-Worship 219
a heaven-sent helper." This longing for a savior had
come to be associated with emperor-worship at an early
date. The conception itself was ancient, but it blos-
somed with peculiar vigor in the thinking of the gentile
world in the Graeco-Roman period.
Its antecedents are to be seen even in ancient Egypt.
Perhaps as early as 2000 B.C. the Egyptian prophet,
Ipuwer, laments the deplorable conditions into which
Egypt has been plunged by bad government. Blood is
everywhere, commerce and industry are ruined, justice
no longer reigns, and the people are like wandering sheep
without a shepherd. Then the prophet describes the
ideal ruler for whom he longs, a savior-king “who brings
cooling to the flame. It is said he is the shepherd of
men; there is no evil in his heart. . . . . Where is he
today? Is he sleeping? Behold, his might is not seen.”
On the other hand, in seasons of prosperity the Egyptian
monarch is lauded for saving the people from distress
and mediating to them the divine help. In the royal
inscriptions Rameses II is thus addressed: “We come
to thee, Lord of heaven, Lord of earth, Re, life of the
whole earth . . . . giver of breath unto the nostrils
of all, making all the gods live, pillar of heaven, sup-
port of earth . . . . Our king, Our lord, Our Sun,
by the words of whose mouth Atum lives .
Pharaoh, who makes all men live when he has shone
* See Lietzmann, Der Weltheiland, and Zimmern, Zum Streit um die
Christusmythe.
* See H. O. Lange, “Prophezeiungen eines āgyptischen Weisen, usw.,”
Sitzungsberichte der Königlich-Preussischen Akademie der Wissen-
schaften (1903), I, 6or-Io; A. H. Gardiner, The Admonitions of an
Egyptian Sage (Leipzig, 1909); Breasted, “The Earliest Social Prophet,”
American Journal of Theology, XIV (1910), II4–16.
22O The Evolution of Early Christianity
upon them.” Again Merneptah is praised as the di-
vinely sent protector of Egypt’s peace: “Great joy has
come in Egypt, rejoicing comes forth from the towns
of Tomeri [Egypt]. They converse of the victories
which Merneptah has achieved among the Tehenu:
‘How amiable is he, the victorious ruler, how magnified
is the king among the gods, how fortunate is he, the
Commanding lord; sit happily down and talk or walk,
or walk far out upon the way, for there is no fear in the
heart of the people. One comes and goes with singing
and there is no lamentation of mourning people. The
towns are settled again anew; as for the one that
ploweth his harvest, he shall eat it. Re has turned
himself to Egypt. He was born destined to be her
p1ULectur, the king Merneptah.’”
Similar conceptions are found in Babylonia and Assy-
ria. The Babylonian notion of the period of distress,
followed by an age of divine relief, is portrayed in the
mythology, especially in the story of Creation. Tiamat
and her associates represent the terrors of the evil age
over whom the divine king, Marduk, triumphs, ushering
in the new age of salvation. But in actual life men found
themselves still subject to unfavorable circumstances,
consequently they ascribed periods of distress to an
evil régime, while rulers who established more favorable
conditions were hailed as divine deliverers. Thus they
describe conditions under the wicked king: “War and
strife will not cease from his kingdom. Under his rule
men will devour one another, people will sell their chil-
dren for money, the lands will fall together in disorder,
* Breasted, Ancient Records of Egypt (Chicago, Igoó), III, IoS.
* Op. cit., p. 263.
The Religious Significance of Emperor-Worship 221
the husband will leave his wife and the wife will leave
her husband, the mother will bar the door against her
daughter, the possession of Babylon will come to Sub-
artu [Mesopotamia] and Assyria, the king of Babylon will
bring out the property of his palace . . . . to the prince
of Assyria.” Standing in sharp contrast with this
prophecy against the wicked king of Babylon is a letter
to the Assyrian king, Asurbanipal, from one of his
courtiers: “Shamash and Adad have through their
infallible oracle destined my lord the king for his royal
rule over the lands: “favorable reign, days of justice,
years of righteousness, copious rainfall, mighty freshets,
favorable market prices.’ The gods are well disposed,
fear of God is abundant, the sanctuaries are overloaded.
The great gods of heaven and earth have announced
regarding my lord, the king: “Old men will leap for joy,
children will sing, women and maidens will, joyfully
devote themselves to the duty of wife, they will give life
to sons and daughters.’ Animal life multiplies. My
lord the king has bestowed life upon him whose sins had
destined him for death; they who were many years in
prison, thou hast set free. They who were sick many
days have been restored to health; the hungry became
satisfied, the impoverished became fat; the naked
became clothed with garments.” Asurnasirpal’s prayer
to Ishtar shows the same consciousness of a divine Sav-
ing mission on the part of the ruler: “But thou, O
Ishtar, mighty princess of the gods, in the lifting up of
* Ungnad, in Gressmann's Altorientalische Texte und Bilder zum Alten
Testamente, I, 75 f.
* Harper, Assyrian and Babylonian Letters (Chicago, 1892), Part I,
No. 2, pp. 2 f.
222 The Evolution of Early Christianity
thine eyes didst thou teach me, and didst desire my rule.
Thou didst take from out of the mountains and didst
call me to the threshold of the peoples, thou didst pre-
serve for me the scepter of the temples until the becoming
old of mankind. And thou, O Ishtar, didst make great
my name, and thou hast granted unto the faithful sal-
vation, mercy.”
The resemblance of these ideas to certain features
of the so-called messianic hope of the Hebrews is appar-
ent.” The prophets lament the evils which befall
the people under the rule of a wicked monarch, and
they paint an ideal picture of that age when the righteous
king shall reign. The political history of the Hebrews
was such that their hope was destined to remain almost
entirely an affair of the future, but it was none the less
vividly described. Under these circumstances the ſigure
of the Savior-prince necessarily remained vague, but
the righteous character and divine potency of the king-
dom to be established were prominent ideas. The land
would be miraculously fruitful, the wild beasts and
domestic animals would live together in peace, the knowl-
edge of Yahweh would fill the earth, all wars would cease,
and God's chosen king would rule forever in righteous-
ness.” These ideas, so familiar in Hebrew prophecy,
continued to thrive in later Judaism, but they need no
further elaboration in this connection. They are dis-
* Brünnow, “Assyrian Hymns,” Zeitschrift für Assyriologie, V (1890),
7o, lines 25–30.
* On the genetic kinships of Israel’s hope see Gressmann, Der Ur-
sprung der israelitischen Eschatologie (Göttingen, 1905); Oesterley, The
Evolution of the Messianic Idea: A Study in Comparative Religion (LOn-
don, 1908).
3 Cf. Isa. 9: I f.; II: I f.
The Religious Significance of Emperor-Worship 223
tinct from the similar hopes of surrounding peoples just
in proportion to the distinctiveness of the Israelites’
history. But the elemental longing for relief from dis-
tress and the custom of looking to the Deity, or his
representative, for this desired salvation are not by any
means a peculiarly Jewish or Christian product.
The really important rôle which this ancient and
general hope of deliverance, to be attained by the aid of a
heaven-sent or divinely endowed prince, played among
Gentiles just before the rise of Christianity, is best seen
by turning to Rome. Among the Romans in the first
Century B.C. there was a growing longing for the appear-
ance of a national deliverer who would bring wars to an
end and usher in the golden age of peace. Tibullus
wrote: “How happily men lived when Saturn reigned
before the earth was laid open by long roads. . . . .
There were no armies, no enmity, no wars, nor had the
Cruel Smith forged the sword with ruthless art. Now
under the rule of Jove slaughter and swords are incessant,
now Sea and land offer a thousandways of sudden death.”
Virgil recognizes the same situation but sounds a note of
hope in his oft-quoted fourth Eclogue: “The last age
prophesied by the Sibyl is come and the great series of
ages begins anew. Justice now returns, Saturn reigns
Once more, and a new progeny is sent down from high
heaven. O chaste Lucina, be thou propitious to the
infant boy under whom first the iron age shall cease and
the golden age over all the world arise. Now thine
Own Apollo reigns. While thou too, Pollio, while thou
art consul, this glory of our age shall dawn and the great
months begin to roll. Under thy rule all vestiges of
*i. 3; cf. i. II.
224 The Evolution of Early Christianity
Our guilt shall disappear, releasing the earth from fear
forever. He [the new-born child] shall partake of the
life of the gods, he shall see heroes mingling with gods,
and be seen by them, and he shall bring peace to the
world, ruling it with his father's might. On thee, O
child, the earth, as her first offerings, shall pour forth
everywhere without culture creeping ivy with lady’s
glove, and Egyptian beans with smiling acanthus inter-
mixed. The goats of themselves shall convey homeward
their udders distended with milk, nor shall the herds
dread monstrous lions. Thy very cradle shall blossom
with attractive flowers. The serpent shall perish and
the Secret-poison plant shall disappear; the Assyrian
balm shall grow in every field. But as soon as thou shalt
be able to reau the praises of heroes and the achieve-
ments of thy sire, and to know what virtue is, the field
shall by degrees grow yellow with ripening corn, blush-
ing grapes shall hang on the rude brambles, and hard
Oaks shall drip with dewy honey. . . . . Dear offspring
of the gods, mighty seed of Jove, enter thy great heritage,
for the time is now at hand. See how the world’s mas-
sive dome bows before thee—earth and oceans and the
vault of heaven. See how all things rejoice at the
approach of this age. Oh, that my last stage of life may
continue so long and so much breath be given me as
shall suffice to sing thy deeds!”
Virgil expects the dawn of this new age soon, for
it is to appear while yet his friend Pollio, to whom he
addresses his poem, holds the consul’s office. We are
left to surmise the parentage of this child who is to be
* For the pervasiveness of these ideas in the Augustan age see refer-
ences in Wendland, Die hellenistisch-römische Kultur, p. 143.
The Religious Significance of Emperor-Worship 225
the savior. But when Virgil composed the Aeneid he
seemed to feel that his prediction was finding its fulfil-
ment in the career of Augustus. In the sixth book
of the Aeneid" Anchises reveals to Aeneas the future
generations of Rome in their pre-earthly state: “This
way now bend both your eyes, view this lineage and your
Own Romans. This is Caesar and these are the whole
race of Iulus who shall one day rise to the spacious axle
of the sky. This, this is the man whom you have often
heard promised to you, Augustus Caesar, offspring of a
god, who shall establish again the golden age in Latium,
through those lands where Saturn reigned of old.” And
then follows a prophecy of Augustus' success, which is
to be more remarkable than that of Hercules or Bacchus.
Horace also in a similar vein sings the praises of Augustus
Caesar,
than whom no boon of nobler worth
Fate or kind gods ere gave, or ere shall give
Ev’n though the golden age upon the earth
Once more may live again. r
And further,
Who Parthia would fear, or Scythia cold,
Or the huge swarms that German forests breed,
While Caesar lives to save us P
He is a “winged god who deigns to don a manly frame”
who along with Jupiter is to be confessed as a “present
god” come to establish Roman sway over all the earth.”
This cosmic feature of Augustus’ saving work is none
the less appreciated in the East. Evidences of this
fact are relatively abundant. In addition to data cited
* Lines 788 f.
* Odes, i. 2.41 ff.; iii. 5. I f.; iv. 2. 37 ff.; iv. 5. 25 ft.
226 The Evolution of Early Christianity
above,” a portion of the Halicarnassus inscription will be
sufficient illustration: “Now the eternal and immortal
power of all nature bestowed benefactions in super-
abundance upon men granting to our own life's good
fortune Caesar Augustus, father of his own native land,
Rome divine; also patrimonial Zeus and savior of the
common race of mankind, all of whose prayers Provi-
dence has not only fulfilled but even surpassed. For
earth and sea have peace, cities flourish, well governed,
harmonious, and prosperous, the course of all good
things has reached a climax, and all mankind has been
filled with good hopes for the future and good cheer for
the present.”
Thus it is cvident that Christians were not the first
persons to introduce the notion of salvation into the
religious thinking of the gentile world. They preached,
to be sure, that there was no salvation in any other name
except that of Jesus, but their contemporaries believed
they themselves had been deriving saving benefits of a
distinctly valuable sort from other individuals, and on
the basis of this experience they had accorded these
persons divine honors, worshiping them as gods while
yet upon earth, or when exalted to heaven after death.
We have already observed a few of the instances in
which significant persons were hailed as “savior” in
Hellenistic times, but the list could be much enlarged.3
Although the salvation thus obtained belonged to this
* See especially the birthday decree cited above p. 215.
* Collection of Ancient Greek Inscriptions in the British Museum, Part
IV, section I (Oxford, 1893), p. 63, No. 894.
3 See Wendland, “2007 ºp: Eine religionsgeschichtliche Unter-
suchung,” Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft, V (1904),
335-53.
The Religious Significance of Emperor-Worship 227
world, while that preached by the Christians pertained
in the main to the next, the Gentiles' point of view was
none the less religious in character, according to the
thinking of that age. In fact, the earthly national type
of religious faith was the more primitive one. Moreover,
the blessings which the new religion offered were per-
haps more realistic than moderns, who have grown
accustomed to estimate so-called “spiritual” values in
terms of vague and intangible entities, are wont to Sup-
pose. At any rate, the mere fact that Gentiles thought
they were already realizing their kingdom of God on
earth did not of itself make their conception any less
religious than that of the Christians who looked for
an other-worldly kingdom to be set up in a miraculously
renovated earth.
Christians found in this particular phase of their
gentile religious surroundings much that helped them in
their own propaganda. They preached at the outset a
Jewish type of messianic hope, centering it about the
person of the risen Jesus. But the fact that the Gentiles
also cherished a messianic hope of their own, centering it
about the deified or semi-deific person of the ruler,
greatly aided Christians in making the transition from
Jewish to gentile surroundings. Perhaps the most
fundamental items in the transition were, from the side
of the Gentiles, the transformation of their hope from a
this-worldly to an other-worldly character, and, on the
part of Christians, the transformation of the national
Jewish Messiah into a cosmic Savior-prince. This led
Christians to place more emphasis—or at least a some-
what different emphasis—upon the person of the indi-
vidual who performed saving functions than they would
228 The Evolution of Early Christianity
have done had they remained in a strictly Jewish environ-
ment. With the Jews stress fell chiefly upon God; it
was his kingdom that was to be established, and the
Messiah was significant because he was God’s agent. He
might be divine, even sent forth from heaven, but his
mission was a delegated one and his personality was
quite subsidiary in comparison with the more primary
items of God and the kingdom. This way of thinking
was in line with the main trend of oriental ideas regard-
ing the ruler who was a god-man king. On the other
hand, the Greek notion of the man-god king placed stress
upon the ruler's personal qualifications for divine honors.
The purely Jewish Messiah was not to be an object of
worship; but Gentiles would have had the greatest
difficulty in accepting anybody as their Messiah who
did not prove himself worthy of their worship.
Christians met this situation, whether acting con-
sciously or unconsciously, by SO defining Jesus' per-
sonality as to make it evident that he transcended all
other claimants to divine honors. That they were
able to do this meant much for the success of their cause
among Gentiles and led them to stress a number of
features which otherwise might not have become promi-
nent in the New Testament. Among other things,
remarkable accomplishments for the sake of humanity
frequently became a basis for believing in a Greek hero's
exaltation to heaven after death. We have already
seen that the first believers arrived at their faith in the
risen Jesus in a somewhat different way, but it is ques-
tionable whether they would have so diligently ex-
pounded the wonderful earthly career of Jesus had
not the situation in the gentile missionary field stimu-
The Religious Significance of Emperor-Worship 229
lated interest in the story of his beneficent work upon
earth. Recounting the life of an individual with the
Special purpose of creating admiration for him, if not
indeed divine reverence, was a characteristic of the
Hellenistic age. Hercules, Dionysus, Orpheus, and many
other heroes had attained a heavenly reward and estab-
lished their right to divine honors by means of their
Services for mankind. Plutarch applied this idea,
which had been in existence a long time before he lived,
to the career of the Egyptian divinities, Isis and Osiris,
who, he says, “having been translated from the rank
of good divinities [6aiuoves] up to that of gods by means
of their virtue, as later happened to Hercules and
Dionysus, received not inappropriately the united honors
of gods and divinities everywhere, both in the regions
above earth and in those underground, possessing the
supreme power.”
That actual, historical personages traveled by this
road to heaven was a common doctrine, fostered espe-
cially in connection with the cult of the emperor. One
of the speakers in Cicero’s work on the nature of the
gods” remarks that it had been a general custom to
exalt to heaven by fame and general consent those men
who have rendered the public important service. Also
in Scipio’s dream the same idea is given a prominent
place. Service for one's country assures one a special
place in heaven and the enjoyment of endless happiness,
for “there is nothing which takes place on earth more
acceptable to the supreme Deity who governs all this
world than those councils and assemblies of men bound
* Isis and Osiris, xxvii; cf. Phil. 2:9 f.
*ii. 24.
23O The Evolution of Early Christianity
together by law which are termed states. The governors
and preservers of these go from hence [i.e., heaven]
and hither do they return.” Further Scipio is exhorted
“to cultivate justice and piety, which while it should be
great toward your parents and relatives should be
greatest toward your country. Such a life is the path
to heaven.” Virgil also, in revealing the state of the
blessed, points out a favored band of “those who sus-
tained wounds in fighting for their country, priests who
preserved themselves pure and holy while life remained,
pious poets who sung in strains worthy of Apollo, those
who improved life by the invention of arts and who by
their worthy deeds made others remember them, all
these have their heads encircled with a snow-white
fillet.” This reverential attitude,” which goes back to
the days of Greek hero-worship, received a mighty
stimulus from the career of Alexander the Great and
became well-nigh universal in the Augustan age. While
educated persons like Cicero, Virgil, and Horace applied
it mainly in the realm of statecraft, among the populace
the notion was extended to cover the whole range of
any heroic individual’s activity. The gospel story about
Jesus’ virtuous life and wonderful deeds, which reached
a climax in his resurrection and exaltation, on the basis
of which Christians were advocating his claims to
imperial honors, naturally expanded and functioned anew
when the propaganda moved from a Jewish to a gentile
environment. -
* Aeneid, vi. 660 ff.
* The prevalence of this feeling in Graeco-Roman times can hardly
be overemphasized. See Wendland, Die hellenistisch-römische Kultur,
pp. II7 f.; I43 f.
The Religious Significance of Emperor-Worship 231
In those circles where special religious significance
was attached to the life of the ruler, there was naturally
a disposition to find in unique displays of divine activity
evidence of a Connection between his person and the
powers of heaven. Oracles, portents, and supernatural
displays of various sorts answered this demand. From
Alexander the Great down to the Roman emperors of
the first century A.D., and in fact for a much longer
period, these things play an important part in attesting
the divine connections of the ruler. Although these
phenomena were especially abundant in the imperial
period, Christians could easily compete with this phase
of gentile faith. To begin with, they were able to point
to Jesus’ resurrection as a mark of divine approval at the
close of Jesus' earthly activity and they were further
able in the course of time to show how God had not only
foreshadowed in prophecy the career of Jesus, but had
specifically indicated by a voice from heaven on different
Occasions that Jesus was a divinely commissioned per-
son. At this point Christians were advantaged by hav-
ing, as a part of their oriental inheritance, the notion that
the sovereign was divinely delegated and equipped for
his task. When they moved to gentile surroundings it
was very easy to supplement the notion of divine
approval with the idea of a divine display of Jesus’
own unique individuality, thus answering to the current
trend in Greek thinking. As an illustration in point,
we may notice the different ways of referring to Jesus’
miracles and resurrection. The tradition embodied in
the second chapter of Acts speaks of Jesus upon earth as
a man approved of God by mighty works, and wonders
and signs, which God did by him. It was also God
232 The Evolution of Early Christianity
who raised him from the dead and made him both Lord
and Christ." In Mark these matters are presented from
a more distinctly Greek point of view, or rather from a
Christian point of view which has developed in the
direction of Greek hero-worship, Jesus works miracles
in virtue of his own inherent authority,” and his ap-
proaching resurrection is not to be so much an act
of God as a display of Jesus' own power—it is not God
who raises him, but Jesus simply rises.”
In the case of a ruler whose uniqueness was a part of
his own personality rather than a merely delegated
endowment, it was easy to suppose, as an adequate
means of accounting for his personality, that his birth
had come about in some unusual manner. The most
familiar explanation offered was that of divine parentage.
In the Orient the king who represented the deity was
frequently termed Son of God, a phrase which might
be taken either figuratively or literally according to the
setting in which it was used. We have only to recall
how generally this form of expression occurs among
Egyptians, Babylonians and Assyrians, and Hebrews to
realize its importance for that ancient world. The
notion that the king was a literal child of the deity was
frequently made to do service in explaining how gods
had procured for themselves a real representative upon
earth. In Graeco-Roman times the term “Son of God”
* Acts 2: 22, 24, 32, 36; see also 3: I5; 4: Io; Io:40; 13:30 ft.; 17:31;
Rom. I : 4; 4:24; 6:4; 8: II; Io:9; I Cor. 6: I4; 15:3, I2 ff.; II Cor.
4: I4; Eph. I : 20; Phil. 2: 9; Col. 2: I2; I Thess. I : Io.
* I : 27; 2: Io, 28, etc.
3 E.g., 8:31; 9:9 f., 31; Io:34. Matthew, on the other hand, always
uses the passive, e.g., I6:21; 17:9, 23; 20:19; 27:63 f.; Luke 9: 22
says “raised,” but “rise” in 18:33; 24; 7.
The Religious Significance of Emperor-Worship 233
applied to the hero-prince was of very common occur-
rence and served admirably to explain whence this in-
dividual derived these exceptional qualities which he had
proved himself capable of displaying. Even so cautious
a biographer as Arrian, when discussing the question of
Alexander’s parentage, hesitatingly concludes that Alex-
ander’s wonderful accomplishments set him above the
category of the purely human. “It seems to me that a
hero totally unlike any other human being could not
have been born without the agency of the deity.”
Other distinguished persons beside rulers were also
assigned a divine origin as a means of explaining their
uniqueness. In the Augustan age Arellius Fuscus said
of the astrologer, “he to whom the gods themselves
reveal the future, who imposes their will even on kings
and peoples, cannot be fashioned by the same womb
which bore us ignorant men. His is a Superhuman
rank. Confidant of the gods, he is himself divine.”
Likewise the remarkable wisdom of Jesus’ contemporary,
Apollonius of Tyana, was explained in popular tradition
by making Proteus, the god of Egypt, the father of
Apollonius. An appropriate display of miracles accom-
panied the birth of the child. Swans sported about the
mother in the meadow, and a thunderbolt descending
from heaven arose aloft again, thus presaging the won-
derful accomplishments by which Apollonius was to be
distinguished.”
* Anabasis, vii. 30.
*Cited by Cumont, Astrology and Religion among Greeks and Romans
(New York, 1912), p. 148. Cf. the important function which Jesus’
heavenly wisdom serves in the Fourth Gospel.
3 Philostratus, Life of Apollonius, i. 5 f.
234 The Evolution of Early Christianity
The list of persons who had been assigned divine
origin before the rise of Christianity is extensive." But
it is the religious significance of the notion in the Augus-
tan age and the period immediately following which has
greatest importance for the history of early Christianity.
Augustus not only bore the title Divi filius, which of itself
might be only a complimentary epithet, but his divine
descent was, at least for eastern peoples, a substantial
part of the belief in his saving mission. Suetonius is
probably reporting even popular Roman tradition, if
not of Augustus' own day, certainly of a period soon
after his official apotheosis, when he explains the cir-
cumstances by which Apollo brought about the super-
natural generation of the child and tells of the many
wonders preceding and following his birth.” This type
of tradition was widely circulated, but nothing shows
the unique religious significance attached to the emper-
or’s birth more clearly than the Priene inscription, a
portion of which has already been cited.” In an earlier
part we read, “The birthday of the divine Caesar, which
we might justly rate equal to the beginning of all crea-
tion . . . . gave another aspect to the whole world,
which would truly have perished utterly had not Caesar,
the common good fortune of all men, been born.”
Christians embraced the opportunity thus opened
to them to estimate Jesus in cosmic terms along lines
already familiar to Gentiles, at the same time making
his religious significance transcend that of any gentile
emperor. The credentials brought forward to attest
* Cf. Petersen, Die wunderbare Geburt des Heilandes (Tübingen, 1909),
pp. 32 ft., where other literature is cited (p. 2).
* Augustus, 94. & * See above, p. 215.
The Religious Significance of Emperor-Worship 235
his divine parentage and remarkable advent into the
world were more impressive than those given Augustus
or any of his successors. Christians affirmed also that
the birth of Jesus marked the beginning of a new era in
the history of humanity, hence this day was easily made
to surpass in importance the birthday of any other
alleged savior. When Roman rulers like Caligula fol-
lowed the example set by Seleucid kings centuries earlier
and claimed that they were epiphanies of the deity,
gods manifest in the flesh, they were assuming no dignity
which Christians could not attach to Jesus. Not only
was he “God with us,” but this title could be supported
by the authority of antiquity through the prophetic
“Immanuel.” The notion that Jesus’ earthly career was
a manifestation of his pre-existent heavenly glory also
in time came to full appreciation among Christians,
especially as the gospel moved farther away from its
Jewish antecedents. Paul, although mentioning the
pre-existence of Jesus, does not depict Jesus' earthly
Career as a glorious epiphany of deity but as a humble
display of servitude. The true “epiphany” is to come
when Jesus returns at the Parousia. Thus Paul esti-
mates Jesus chiefly in the language of authority. He
appears upon earth as a servant and is elevated to lord-
ship at his resurrection. But in the Fourth Gospel the
epiphany actually takes place in Jesus’ lifetime when he
manifests the glory which he had with the Father before
the foundation of the world. It is not primarily author-
ity as with Paul, but divine nature, which John has in
mind. In so far as the emperor claimed to be the actual
incarnation of deity Christians now had in the Johannine
metaphysical interpretation of Jesus a new weapon for
236 The Evolution of Early Christianity
defending his supremacy. But perhaps they found this
less serviceable in opposing emperor-worship than in
combating certain forms of philosophical religion with
which they ultimately came in contact.
In presenting Jesus to the heathen as the sovereign
of the new heavenly kingdom Christian missionaries
advocated a new imperial cult designed to supplant all
rivals. Over against the divine Caesar, whether apotheo-
sized at death or appearing as a deity upon earth, stood
Jesus raised from the dead, exalted to lordship in heaven,
having previously displayed miraculous powers upon
earth, having been miraculously born or appearing as a
pre-existent divine being manifest in the flesh. Jesus’
authority was not less great or less divine in character
than that of the most distinguished Roman emperor.
Jesus was lord and his subjects were servants, which was
not only the typical relation between monarch and people
from ancient times in the Orient, but had become a
familiar notion to the Graeco-Roman world in the Hellen-
istic age. Although Gentiles spoke of the emperor's
visit as a Parousia for which a community made special
preparation," Christians could announce a Parousia of
their Lord Jesus Christ which called for more strenuous
preparation and which would be accompanied by a dis-
play of supernatural power and splendor such as the
world had never before witnessed. It meant much for
the success of Christianity that its advocates could make
the transition from the national messianism of their
Jewish environment to the cosmic messianism of the
Graeco-Roman world. Jesus now could be seen to
* See data given by Deissmann, Licht vom Osten, pp. 268–73, English
tr., Light from the Ancient East, pp. 372–78.
The Religious Significance of Emperor-Worship 237
surpass any imperial world-savior who merely delivered
mankind from the terrors of political chaos, even though
this deliverance was thought to be in reality a concern of
the gods. Great superiority could be claimed for the
new kingdom, since it was wholly an affair of the new age
when all previous dominions would forever cease. Thus
the early Christian missionaries, by appropriating cer-
tain features of imperial messianism, made their original
Jewish Conception of the national kingdom adaptable to
Gentiles, and at the same time no doubt increased its
significance for themselves. The transition from the
Jewish emphasis on the kingdom to the gentile emphasis
on the figure of the savior also pointed the direction in
which Christian thinking was destined to move in suc-
ceeding generations.
It is not surprising that emperor-worship gave way
before the new religion which not only conserved so
many values of the old but heightened the significance
of the imperial idea. Yet this triumph was by no
means immediate, nor was it accomplished without effort.
That common attitude of life which reaches out toward
a Superior power for assistance found a really popular ex-
pression in the worship of the monarch who was thought
to embody the divine potency for whose help man-
kind yearned. One who was able or willing to satisfy
the pressing needs of helpless multitudes by restoring
peace and prosperity to the world demanded and received
worshipful obedience. His cult did not need, at least
for many persons, to be established by formal mandate,
since they naturally turned with reverential feelings
toward him, pleading for further benefactions or making
grateful acknowledgments of blessings already received.
238 The Evolution of Early Christianity
This feeling has always been, particularly among the
populace, a fundamental religious impulse. Christianity,
On the other hand, promised well for the future, but was
meager in realistic blessings in the present.
But as time passed, a union of religion with politics
proved to be an increasingly unstable foundation for the
religious hopes of the Graeco-Roman world. It issued
as unsatisfactorily in their experience as it had in the
case of the Egyptians, the Babylonians and Assyrians, or
the Hebrews. Although the Caesars continued to be
adorned with complimentary epithets, their subjects
realized that the Golden Age was still a long way off.
There was, indeed, from time to time a general stability
of affairs which made life more bearable than it had been
in the days of constant internal warfare, but social con-
ditions were far from ideal. The common man still
felt that he had many enemies from which he had not
been delivered, and he must have been convinced that
emperor-worship offered but little promise of procuring
the help he needed. Even among the higher classes
there must also have been much dissatisfaction. While
people stood in favor with the emperor their lot was a
fairly comfortable one, but who knew what day the
vicissitudes of politics might bring an order for his
banishment, or his death, and the confiscation of his
goods? It is not difficult to understand how another
type of religion which contemplated the salvation of the
individual rather than that of the nation and based its
assurance upon a more exclusively divine Savior, the
Lord Jesus Christ, ultimately made a far stronger appeal
to many people in the Graeco-Roman world.
CHAPTER VIII
THE RELIGIOUS SIGNIFICANCE OF PHILOSOPHICAL
SPECULATION
Philosophy was a distinctive product of the Greek
genius. Before either the Macedonians or the Romans
were known to the ancient world Greek thinkers had
attacked life’s problems from the standpoint of reflec-
tion, formulating ideas and methods of thinking that
were destined to endure long after the kingdom of
Alexander and the empire of Augustus had fallen. The
temporary ascendancy of the monarchical principle in
Graeco-Roman times did indeed make a marked impres-
sion upon religion, yet philosophy continued to exert an
influence which steadily increased as national religions
gradually disappeared.
There are wide and fundamental differences between
that interpretation of religion which can be adequately
expressed by the monarchical ideal on the one hand, and
the philosopher’s conception on the other. National
faiths are concerned primarily with the good of the com-
munity and only secondarily with the welfare of the
individual. He shares the common good, but only as he
remains a member of the social organism which supplies
him his sole “means of grace.” Thus only can he avail
himself of the conventicles, the stated forms of worship,
and the official instruction necessary for the genesis and
maintenance of religious life. The keynote of such reli-
gions is the idea of authority. The deity is pictured
as a mighty Sovereign dominating all Creation, the
239
24O The Evolution of Early Christianity
validity of ritual and dogma is established by tradition,
and conduct is regulated in so far as it is thought to
have any religious significance by definitely prescribed
Il OTſſlS.
The position of the philosopher is radically different.
He approaches religious problems from the standpoint
of the individual rather than the community. Instead
of defining God in the language of authority he describes
him in rational or metaphysical terms, at the same time
subjecting rites and dogmas to severe scrutiny or even
to open criticism. Conduct also is provided with new
sanctions which emanate from personal conviction
instead of being prescribed by external authorities.
The philosopher may eventually strive to make his con-
clusions normative for others, but individual freedom is
the presupposition upon which his own creative work is
done.
Before attempting a more detailed estimate of the
philosopher's significance for the history of religion within
the Graeco-Roman world, it may be well to observe
briefly the outstanding characteristics of the general
religious situation upon which he reacted.
**~s. For centuries the Homeric mythology had been the
orthodox theology of the Greeks, and a thinker who
found himself out of harmony with traditional views
might be subjected to criticism, banished, or even put
to death for heresy. The experiences of Anaxagoras,
Protagoras, and Socrates illustrate these possibilities.
While the Greeks never had what could be called one
orthodox national faith—for in religion as in politics the
city was autonomous—yet in literature, art, and my-
thology the Olympians had become Supreme during the
Religious Significance of Philosophical Speculation 241
classical period. It is not surprising that those students
of antiquity who have derived their information of Greek
life chiefly from its more formal literary and artistic re-
mains should have mistakenly supposed that worship of
the Homeric gods constituted the sum total of early
Greek religion, or formed, in fact, the chief content of all
Graeco-Roman religion before the rise of Christianity.
On the contrary, long before the Christian era many
Criticisms had been leveled against these ancient gods,
and other media for estimating religious values had
been employed in their stead. The idea of portraying
deity in human form was criticized as early as the sixth
Century B.C. by Xenophanes, who remarked that if oxen,
horses, and lions had hands with which to make images
they would picture the gods as oxen, horses, and lions.
In Xenophanes' own opinion there is one god, greatest
among gods and men. He cannot be represented in
anthropomorphic form, for he is “all sight, all mind,
all ear, and without effort rules everything by thought.”
Dissatisfaction with popular anthropomorphism mani-
fested itself increasingly in both the classical and the
Hellenistic periods. Many persons were too intelligent
to take seriously this realistic feature of contemporary
polytheism.
Cultured people raised even more serious objections
to the Homeric mythology. Many of the Olympians’
deeds were felt to be absurd, Scandalous, and some-
times grossly immoral. Self-respecting men would
never act so disgracefully, much less would real gods
thus deport themselves.” But if there could be no such
* Diels, Fragmente der Vorsokratiker (Berlin, 19123), I, I5, 23–25.
* Cf. Cicero, De deor. nat., i. 16; Lucretius, De rer. nat., i. 83 ff.
242 The Evolution of Early Christianity
gods, how did mythology arise? Warious rationalistic
explanations had been advanced in the early days of
Greek thinking. Democritus traced belief in gods to
the fear which the more terrible phenomena of nature
—thunder, lightning, earthquakes, eclipses—awakened
in men. Others said the stories about the gods were
at the outset simply legends of heroic men distorted in
order to exalt them above mortals. In Hellenistic times
it was discovered that other nations besides the Greeks
also had similar myths, and this gave rise to what might
be termed a science of mythology which sought to
equate the names and functions of various deities among
the different peoples. In certain circles the effect of this
whole line of development was to lessen greatly the
former prestige of the Olympians.
But denying the anthropomorphic gods of Olympus
did not alter the real experiences of mankind. The
world was still hostile and friendly by turns; life still
had its disappointments, its uncertainties, its calamities;
and nature was just as fickle with its frowns and smiles as
the Olympian Zeus had been. Who was now responsible
for this continued uncertainty of affairs? By some
persons the responsibility was placed upon Fortune
(Tüxm). Demetrius of Phalerum, in the fourth century
B.C., assigns recent happenings in the political world to
the violence of Fortune: “If some god had warned the
Persians or their king, or the Macedonians or their
king that in fifty years the very name of the Persians,
who once were masters of the world, would be lost,
* Polybius, xxix. 21. See, further, Cumont, “L’Éternité des empe-
reurs romains,” Revue d’histoire et de littérature religieuses, I (1898),
435-52. t
{
i
Religious Significance of Philosophical Speculation 243
and that the Macedonians, whose name was before
Scarcely known, would become masters of it all, do you
think they would have believed it? Nevertheless it is
true that Fortune, whose influence on our life is incal-
culable, who displays her power by surprises, is even
now, I think, showing all mankind by her elevation of
the Macedonians into the high prosperity once enjoyed
by the Persians, that she has merely lent them these
advantages until she may otherwise dispose of them.”
Other persons placed more stress upon an orderly
procedure called Fate (äväykm) or Destiny (eiuappévm).
Events did not happen by mere chance, but conformed
to a law of necessity which controlled all things. It was
said to be unworthy of an intelligent man to attribute
all phenomena to Chance rather than to an intelligent
cause. The life of an individual might seem to contain
much uncertainty but the perpetual motion of the
heavens, the regularity of the stars in their courses, and
the harmony of the entire universe transcended the
powers of human comprehension and must be divine.
Being fully complete and perfect in all its parts from
all eternity, the universe itself is deity.” The Augustan
poet Manilius in his Astronomica? contrasts the insta-
bility of historical events with the permanence of nature:
“Thrones have disappeared, peoples have passed from
The older Pliny in his Natural History, ii. 22, remarks that every-
body everywhere throughout the world invokes Fortune only. Chance
even takes precedence over God. See Wendland, Die hellenistisch-
römische Kultur, p. IO4, notes 2 and 3, for references on Túxm; also
Gruppe, Griechische Mythologie, pp. I498 f.
* Cf. Cicero, De deor. nat., ii. 13, 28.
3 i. 495 f.; Cumont, Astrology and Religion among the Greeks and
Romans, pp. IOG-38.
244 The Evolution of Early Christianity
dominion to slavery or from captivity to empire, but the
same months of the year have always brought up on the
horizon the same stars. . . . . Each century transforms
the features of nations, but heaven remains invariable
and preserves all its parts. The flight of time adds
nothing to them nor does age detract therefrom. Heaven
will remain perpetually the same because it has forever
been the same. As it appeared to the eyes of our fore-
fathers so will our descendants behold it. It is God, for
it is unchangeable throughout the ages.”
This notion of nature's stability was an inheritance
from Oriental astrology, which had become thoroughly
acclimated in the Mediterranean world before the rise
of Christianity." According to Suetonius, even the
Roman emperor Tiberius abandoned the old forms of
religion and adopted astrology, being fully persuaded
that all things are governed by Fate.” The result of
this admiration for the heavens was a disposition to
deify not only all the heavenly bodies but also the ele-
ments—fire, air, water, and earth—as well as the phe-
nomena of time—seasons, months, weeks, days, hours.
These deified “elements of the world” were a part of the
fatalistic natural order which bound mankind under
the laws of an inexorable necessity. While the edu-
cated man tried to find comfort in the thought of deified
nature's stable rule, to people in general it furnished no
* Important works on ancient astrology are Cumont, op. cit., also
Oriental Religions, pp. I62–95; Bouché-Leclercq, L’Astrologie grecque
(Paris, 1899); Boll, Sphaera (Leipzig, Igo3); Boll, “Die Erforschung der
antiken Astrologie,” Neue Jahrbücher für das klassische Alterium, XXI
(1908), Io.3–26; Toutain, Les cultés paiens, I., ii, 179-226; Fries, Die
griechischen Götter und Heroen vom astral mythologischen Standpunkte
aus betrachtet (Berlin, IgEI).
* Tib., 69.
Religious Significance of Philosophical Speculation 245
great religious satisfactions. Inflexible destiny, differ-
entiated into the personalized forces of nature, left
the common man in bondage to powers which his experi-
ence found hostile rather than friendly. Enslaved by
“elements of the world,” he felt himself a mere play-
thing of the gods whom he worshiped, not with loving
adoration, but in the agony of perpetual fear. These
deities frequently became mere evil demons constantly
intent upon harming mortals.
Consequently the populace often plunged into gross
“superstition,” as it was termed by the more intelligent,”
who defined superstition as an unnecessary fear of
deity, while true religion was a pious admiration of the
gods.” He who did not care to worship them might
ignore their existence, or at least deny their power, but
even this skepticism was far less culpable than base super-
stition, in the eyes of many persons who themselves
claimed to be truly religious. Plutarch in his treatise on
Superstition gathers up clearly the views on this subject
current among a large class of the more intelligent yet
professedly religious persons. As his description tallies
closely with the statements of Lucretius+ and Ciceros a
* a touxeta toû köopov, Gal. 4:3, 9; Col. 2:8, 20. For the influence
of this notion in Judaism before New Testament times see Bousset,
Die Religion des Judentums, pp. 35o f.; or Bertholet, Die füdische Re-
ligion, pp. 360, 38o f. On the subject in general see Diels, Elementum:
Zur Geschichte des Begriffes Elementum bei Griechen und Römern (Leipzig,
I899).
* For data regarding superstition in antiquity see Riess, “Aber-
glaube,” in Pauly–Wissowa, Realencyclopädie, I (Stuttgart, 1904); Kroll,
Antiker Aberglaube (Hamburg, 1897); Dill, Roman Society from Nero to
Marcus Aurelius, pp. 443-83.
3 Cf. Cicero, De deor. nat., i. 42; ii. 28.
4 E.g., De rer. nat., v. II92 ft.
5 E.g., De deor. nat., i. 20.
246 The Evolution of Early Christianity
century and a half before, it undoubtedly represents a
situation very common in the gentile world when Chris-
tianity arose. He defines atheism as a state of insensi-
bility regarding things divine, brought on by an extreme
rationalistic reaction against the irrational conduct of
the Superstitious persons. Superstition, on the contrary,
proceeds from the notion that the gods are spiteful and
malignant beings—“atheism is reason deceived, super-
stition a passion arising out of false reasoning.” But the
latter malady is really much the worse, for it is prior to,
and in some degree justifies, doubt about the gods.
Moreover, the superstitious man, since he doubts things
which are noblest and best about the deities, would, if
consistent, also be atheistic. He does not become such
simply because he is “far too weak-minded to think
about the gods what he wishes to think.” The atheist,
on the other hand, is so intent upon fleeing superstition
that he is carried to the opposite extreme, and misses
true religion which occupies a middle position.
The baneful character of superstition is vividly
depicted by Plutarch. While the truly religious man
finds pleasure in festivals and banquets, ceremonies of
initiation, bacchic rites, vows, and adoration of images,
the superstitious man is filled with fear and anxiety.
He is most unhappy when approaching the shrines or
chapels of the gods, for these places are to him “the
dens of bears, the holes of dragons, the lurking-places
of the monsters of the deep.” His whole life is full of
terror, for in everything—“the sea, the air, the sky,
darkness, light, speech, silence”—he finds something
to fear. Even in his sleep his painful notions about the
deity fill his dreams with “terrific phantoms, monstrous
Religious Significance of Philosophical Speculation 247
apparitions, and tortures of all kinds.” Should trouble
befall him he finds no consolation in his religion, for he
views these things as “plagues from God.” Instead of
seeking by natural means to remedy his ills, he refuses
help lest he should seem to be fighting against the
chastening of the gods. He rejects the ministry of a
physician or comforter, saying, “Let me alone, my
good fellow, to suffer my punishment—impious, accursed
as I am, hateful to gods and demons.” So he wears
sackcloth or filthy rags, wallows naked in the mire,
loudly confessing his sins, or performing other ridiculous
actions. Nor does death release him from terror, since
his imagination conjures up horrible, never-ending woes
in the next world: “Deep below, the gates of hell are
opened, rivers of fire and the fountains of Styx are
at once disclosed. A fantastic darkness envelops all,
where certain spectral forms flit about, offering frightful
sight to the eye, piteous sounds to the ear. There are
also judges seated and executioners in waiting, yawning
gulfs and deep places crammed with all manner of
evil things. Thus unhappy superstition had obtained
through death an end of suffering, but has through its
folly created for itself an expectation of future misery.”
Those who despised “superstition” were not, however,
above entertaining certain notions which moderns would
undoubtedly class under that name. Since necessity
ruled all things, it was possible, for one who possessed
sufficiently keen powers of observation, to read the
future from the signs of the present. All events
* A summary of gentile ideas regarding punishment after death may
be found in Dieterich, Nekyia: Beiträge zur Erklärung der neuentdeckten
Petrusapokalypse (Leipzig, 1893).
248 The Evolution of Early Christianity
proceeded in a fixed order, consequently a given series
of antecedents would always indicate the same series of
consequences. Even if Fate did dominate all creation
it was some comfort to be able to know what was to
happen, or even to undertake the paradoxical task of
avoiding the anticipated decrees of destiny. Thus
divination became popular again, even though the
ancient Oracles and many of the older forms of divination
which had been so common among the Romans in former
times had fallen into disuse." Astrology gave new life
to this whole field of activity, since it seemed quite
respectable and fitting to turn to the stars for wisdom.
Things came to such a pass, that “people would no
longer take a bath, go to the barber, change their clothes,
or manicure their finger nails without first awaiting the
propitious moment.”
Magic was very closely akin to divination. The
notion of nature’s uniformity, particularly as exhibited
in the heavens, was the fundamental postulate from
which both the diviner and the magician worked. The
* Won Arneth, Das classische Heidentum und die christliche Religion, I,
273–318, gives a Concise account of the Sibyls and Oracles in ancient
religion. See, further, Halliday, Greek Divination (London, 1913).
Strabo (xvii. I. 43) remarks that the honor in which divination and
oracles had been held in former times was giving way in his day (early
in the first century A.D.). Romans were satisfied with “the oracles
of the Sibyl and with Tyrrhenian divination by the entrails of animals,
the flight of birds, and portentous appearances.” Certainly this type .
of thinking retained its grip very firmly upon many persons. Suetonius
in his lives of the Caesars revels in the narration of portentous happen-
ings, and the Jew, Josephus (e.g., War, VI, V, 3), expects his gentile
readers to feel the force of this sort of reasoning. The notion of portents,
signs, etc., as anticipating future events was unquestionably firmly
rooted in the Graeco-Roman world in the first century of our era.
* Cumont, Oriental Religions, p. 165.
Religious Significance of Philosophical Speculation 249
latter, however, gave more attention to matters of
practical efficiency, proposing not merely to reveal the
workings of Fate but to provide means for averting or
controlling its action. Through his acquaintance with
the stars, and his knowledge of other deific powers with
which men came into more immediate contact, he claimed
to possess a secret wisdom which enabled him to play
off one supernatural agency against another. He had
learned the magic name or formula necessary to control
the activity of all the powers, he could give accurate
instruction about the course of action one should pursue
in various contingencies, and he could furnish infallible
prescriptions for averting every form of danger. These
instructions were written and sold to patrons in increas-
ingly large quantities. These books, which circulated
first in the Orient and in Egypt, increased rapidly both
in quantity and popularity over the whole Mediter-
ranean world in pre-Christian times. This is probably
the type of literature that Augustus collected and burned
—over 2,000 volumes of it, says Suetonius.* The pres–
ence of such books in Ephesus in Paul’s day is not at
all surprising. Nor is it strange that the apostle's
hearers, on becoming convinced that evil spirits could
be driven off and life’s ills in general could be cured
through the efficacy of Jesus' name, should have been
ready to destroy their magical books and adopt Paul's
simpler method of averting evils.”
Amid this diversity of elements contributing to the
complicated religious syncretism of the Graeco-Roman
* Aug., 31.
* Acts 19: II ff. For literature on magic, see Cumont, Oriental
Religions, pp. 277 ff., notes 58, 64 f., and 72. See also above, pp. I47 ff.
25o The Evolution of Early Christianity
world, the ancient gods of Greece lost their former
prestige. Yet they were by no means completely for-
gotten. Their name and fame were perpetuated in the
cultus, as well as by art and literature. Their cults
not only survived in Greece, but spread to various parts
of the Roman empire. They were transformed into the
gods of the Roman pantheon, and their names were
Sometimes appropriated by cults which had been origi-
nally connected with far less distinguished divinities.
In this way the Olympians were often given the attri-
butes or functions of other gods, and occasionally their
names were combined with those of the foreign deities.
For CXamplc, Zeus became “Zeus Oromasdes” in a
Persian atmosphere; under Jewish influences in Syria he
became “Zeus Hypsistos”; and the people of Com-
magene combined him with one of their local gods as
“Zeus Dolichaeus.”
Art and literature also perpetuated the Olympians’
memory. Their form had been preserved in bronze and
marble, in ivory and precious mctals, by the genius of a
Phidias, a Polyclitus, or a Praxiteles. Poetic fancy also
continued to draw freely for its imagery upon the rich
mines of Homeric mythology. But anthropomorphic
mythology was no longer capable of ministering to the
deepest religious needs of the more cultured classes.
They prized its aesthetic values and tolerated it as a con-
cession to the ignorant, but for themselves it had lost all
vital religious power. The name of Zeus, or Some other
of the Olympians, was retained, but it merely served as
an image for depicting a quite new world of feeling,
* For this extensive fusion of gods’ names and characteristics, see
Gruppe, Griechische Mythologie, pp. IoS8 f.
Religious Significance of Philosophical Speculation 251
belief, and aspiration. The shibboleths remained in the
god’s name and image, but the vital content of religion
had greatly changed.
This change did not mean the utter abandonment of
religion by educated people. Satirists like Juvenal and
Lucian did not depict the real facts, for it did not suit
their purpose to portray—if indeed they appreciated—
the deeper currents of spiritual life which had for cen-
turies been moving within that ancient world. Since
Xenophanes' day dissatisfaction with traditional forms
had been increasing, and more thoughtful persons had
been striving to transcend the things of sense in an effort
to obtain an adequate means of estimating the deepest
religious experiences of the human spirit. This atti-
tude is well illustrated by a paragraph from Maximus
of Tyre in his defense of image-worship. Though he
wrote in the second century A.D., the views he expressed
are representative of a disposition which had shown itself
among the educated and thoughtful centuries before.
Maximus says: “God himself, the father and fashioner
of all that is, older than the sun or the sky, greater than
time and eternity and all the flow of being, is unnamable
by any lawgiver, unutterable by any voice, not to be seen
by any eye. But we, being unable to apprehend his es-
sence, use the help of sounds and names and pictures, of
beaten gold and ivory and silver, of plants and rivers,
mountain peaks and torrents, yearning for the knowledge
of him, and in our weakness naming all that is beautiful
in this world after his nature—just as happens to earthly
lovers. To them the most beautiful sight will be the
actual lineaments of the beloved, but for remembrance’
sake they will be happy in the sight of a lyre, a little
252 The Evolution of Early Christianity
spear, a chair, perhaps, or a running-ground, or anything
in the world that wakens the memory of the beloved.
Why should I further examine and pass judgment about
images P Let men know what is divine; let them know,
that is all. If a Greek is stirred to the remembrance of
God by the art of Phidias, an Egyptian by paying wor-
ship to animals, another man by a river, another by a
fire, I have no quarrel with their divergences. Only let
them know, let them love, let them remember.”
How did the philosopher, who by profession addressed
himself to the more serious side of life,” meet this com—
plicated religious situation P. His task always involves
religious problems because he deals with three questions
to which most religions purport to give infallible answers.
The first of these is: What is reality ? What is the
ultimate ground of all things in the universe? For
individual thinkers, particularly in Greece, the prob-
lem of being—“ontology” as we call it—was solved by
scrutinizing the universe in order to discover the ultimate
factors which account for its origin and disclose the
secret of its continuance. This was the “physics” of
the ancients, but it included both our natural science and
theology.
The philosopher’s second question is: Can man
acquire a knowledge of ultimate reality P Are our
natural senses reliable witness, or do they give us only
faulty impressions of true being, a knowledge of which
*Cited by Murray, Four Stages of Greek Religion, p. 98.
* “Never can philosophy be praised in a sufficiently worthy manner,
since he who obeys philosophy is able to pass every period of life without
irksomeness” (Cicero, De Senectute, I). Further, “All the precepts of
philosophy have reference to the conduct of life” (De deor. nat., i. 3).
Religious Significance of Philosophical Speculation 253
can be obtained only through sifting and testing the
data supplied by sense-perception ? The unthinking
man assumes that things are in reality just what they
seem to him to be, but if this were so, how could there
be so many differences of opinion among individuals
who all exercise the same natural faculties of sense-
perception ? This difference, says the philosopher, shows
that our senses give us merely opinions about reality,
and variant opinions at that, but not a true knowledge
of ultimate being. Such knowledge then cannot be
acquired by the physical senses, but only by the exercise
of Some higher faculty, as, for example, reason, which
interprets the materials furnished by the senses. We call
this the problem of “epistemology,” which was for the
ancient a part of “logic.”
The third question relates to the philosophy of con-
duct. What is the thing most to be desired in life,
and what are the proper means of procuring this desidera-
tum ? For the ordinary man tradition furnishes rules
for the regulation of conduct and these rules are authori-
tatively enforced by the community. But philosophy
tends to remove the hand of authority, even in the realm
of ethics, thus leaving the individual free to decide for
himself why one type of action is preferable to another.
When external compulsions are displaced by personal
convictions, ethical standards and incentives inevitably
vary according to what are believed to be the ultimate
realities of existence with which human life is connected.
Ontology, epistemology, ethics, these are the regions
where religion and philosophy most overlap in ancient
as in modern times. In the Graeco-Roman world of the
first century A.D. these questions had all been vigorously
254 The Evolution of Early Christianity
debated. Discussion had crystallized into strong convic-
tion, and different schools had been established for the
advocacy of various opinions." Religion had answered
the ontological problem by means of its myths about
the gods, the explanation being phrased in the language
of anthropomorphism. Of physics and metaphysics in
the philosopher's sense it knew nothing, and his schema
often left scant room for the preservation of its traditions.
Religion had generally remained unconscious of the
epistemological problem since it drew upon its imagina-
tion for its picture of the unseen, accepting without
hesitation both the data of sense-perception and belief
in the reality of the supernatural. It knew nothing of
the philosopher’s doubts about the reliability of sensa-
tion and felt no sympathy with his attempt to examine
* While acquaintance with the history of Greek philosophy in pre-
Hellenistic times, when Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle did their work,
is necessary to an understanding of the later history, a few references
to the literature of the subject must here suffice. The essential facts
may be found in any one of the following works: Benn, The Philosophy
of Greece (London, 1898); Ueberweg, Grundriss der Geschichte der Phi-
losophie des Allerlums (ro. Aufl. von Prächter, Berlin, 1909 ft.), English tr.,
A History of Philosophy (New York, 1872–74); Windelband, Geschichte
der antiken Philosophie (3. Aufl. von Bonhöffer, München, 1912), Eng-
lish tr., History of Ancient Philosophy (New York, 1899); Gomperz,
Griechische Denker (3 vols., Leipzig, 1896–99), English tr., Greek Thinkers
(4 vols., New York, 1905–12); Zeller, Die Philosophie der Griechen in
ihrer geschichtlichen Entwicklung (3 vols., Tübingen, 1844–45, of which
there are several later editions), also Grundriss der Geschichte der griechi-
schen Philosophie (Leipzig, 1883, Io. Aufl. von Lortzing, 1911). Zeller's
works, which are most complete in the citation of original Sources, have
been translated into English under various titles, e.g., A History of Greek
Philosophy to Socrates (2 vols., London, 1881), Socrates and the Socratic
Schools (London, 1885), Plato and the Older Academy (London, 1888),
Aristotle and the Earlier Peripatetics (London, 1897), The Stoics, Epicure-
ans and Skeptics (London, 1892), History of Eclecticism in Greek Philoso-
phy (London, 1883).
Religious Significance of Philosophical Speculation 255
critically all alleged witnesses to truth. Religion had
also settled the ethical problem in its own way. Its
devotees were provided with prescriptions for the
regulation of conduct, especially with reference to the
gods. But the training of conscience, the cultivation
of personal character, and the inculcation of duty
toward one’s fellows occupied a secondary place as
compared with obedience to more formal traditional
demands and ritualistic observances. The philosopher,
on the other hand, starting with the personal emphasis,
sometimes found himself seriously at variance with
the religionist on the problem of conduct.
For first-hand knowledge of the philosophical situa-
tion in the middle of the first century B.C.—a situation
which prevails in the main throughout the first century
A.D.—we may go to Cicero. Although he was a Roman
he took his philosophy bodily from the Greeks, devoting
himself to the task of acquainting his countrymen with
Greek learning. Consequently he attempted no creative
work, but was mainly a summarist of other men's
opinions. He strove to know the doctrines of every
sect, expounding and disputing their tenets rather than
affirming his own views. This also was the position of
the Academy to which he professed allegiance."
In opening his treatise on the gods he enumerates four
schools of philosophy,” which are chiefly esteemed in his
day. These are (1) the Epicureans, of whom the senator
C. Velleius was reputed to be the ablest representative
among the Romans at that time; (2) the Stoics, whose
cause was championed by Q. Lucilius Balbus; (3) the
Academics, represented by Cotta who also speaks for
* De deor. nai., i. 5. * Ibid., i. 6 f.
256 The Evolution of Early Christianity
Cicero, though the latter inclines to the Stoic position in
this argument; and (4) the Peripatetics, who have no
representative in the dialogue because they are assumed
at this time to hold opinions almost identical with those
of the Stoics.
These several schools are not all of equal importance
for religion. The Peripatetics, who trace their origin to
the Lyceum—the school of Aristotle—were not particu-
larly influential in this period. They confined their work
mostly to commentaries upon Aristotle, yet they were no
longer pure Aristotelians. They had imbibed numerous
elements from other sources, particularly from the Stoics,
who in turn had borrowcô somewhat from Aristotle. The
Peripatetics perpetuated their existence as a sect until
finally absorbed into neo-Platonism, but they gained no
widespread popularity and seem to have made no impor-
tant contribution to religious life in the early empire.
The representatives of the Academy—the school of
Plato—also exerted only a minor influence upon the
religion of the period. They had become vigorous
champions of skepticism, not only doubting the relia-
bility of sense-perception, but refusing to offer a substi-
tute. They were not even sure that ultimate knowledge
could be attained, and so they would venture no farther
than to talk about probabilities. They also hesitated
to dogmatize regarding duty, making custom, or at
best practical utility, their chief norm for action.”
* iii. 4o.
* For the early history of philosophical skepticism, which is not to be
confounded with the denial of the existence of gods, see Zeller, Die
Philosophie der Griechens, III, i, 478–527, English tr., Stoics, Epicureans
and Sceptics, pp. 514-66, and Goedeckmeyer, Geschichte des griechischen
Skeptizismus (Leipzig, 1905).
Religious Significance of Philosophical Speculation 257
Although they traced their origin to Plato, they were
really the exponents of eclecticism, embodying the
skeptical principles which had been enunciated by
Pyrrho of Elis (360–270 B.C.) and later by Carneades,
who especially opposed the Stoics. The Academy in
Cicero's day—and this was its main emphasis for the
next two centuries—stood for a suspension of judgmentin
every debate. Its ideal was “never to interpose one’s
opinion, to approve only what seems most probable, to
Compare together different views, to see what may be
advanced on either side, and to leave one’s listeners
free to judge without pretending to dogmatize.” This
school had, however, lost much of its former vigor
even in Cicero's day, and he feels obliged to apologize
for his professed though sometimes only half-hearted
championship of its cause.”
While the skeptic had advocated no theories on reli-
gious questions, contenting himself with refuting the
views of others, his own attitude toward traditional
religion was a placidly tolerant one. His lack of genuine
conviction made it impossible for him to exert any stimu-
lating influence upon the religious life of his age. He
often seems to be personally inclined to deny the ex-
istence of the gods, but he refuses to assert his opinions
lest he may incur persecution. The skeptic Cotta, in
Cicero’s dialogue, is indeed a priest who scrupulously
observes the religious rites he received from his ancestors
and formally affirms his belief in the gods. He rests this
belief on the authority of tradition, yet he allows that
when one begins to think on the problem there are many
things which cast doubt upon the gods’ existence. But
* Cf. De deor. nat., i. 3, 5.
258 The Evolution of Early Christianity
since it is agreeable, convenient, and safe for him as a
priest to believe in them, he will hold to this tenet on the
basis of tradition, although his reason might lead him to
the opposite conclusion. He says, “I must believe in
the religion of our ancestors without any proof.” This
blind attachment to tradition on the one hand, and lack
of sincere conviction on the other, rendered the skeptic
quite unfit to cope vigorously with vital religious
questions.
It is to Epicureanism and Stoicism that we must look
for the more serious attempts to meet contemporary
religious problems. In contrast with the skeptical
Academics, the Epicureans” were rigid dogmatists who
advocated a definite Creed and loyally defended it
against every opponent. They affirmed the substantial
reliability of the physical senses as a medium for acquir-
ing true knowledge, and held that matter was the ulti-
mate reality in the universe. Epicurus, who established
his school at Athens in 307 B.C., was praised by his fol-
lowers for penetrating into the secrets of nature and
bringing forth therefrom the true wisdom for which the
ages had been waiting. Especially was he lauded for
liberating mankind from the despotism of traditional
religious superstition. Lucretius says, “He [Epicurus]
* iii. 2; cf. i. 22; iii. 4.
* The tenth book of Diogenes Laertius, and Lucretius, De rerum
natura, are the best extant expositions of this doctrine by the ancients.
Usener, Epicurea (Leipzig, 1887), is the standard modern collection of
Epicurus' teachings. A Serviceable exposition of Epicureanism may be
found in Zeller, Die Philosophie der Griechen 3, III, i, 363–477, English tr.,
Stoics, Epicureans and Sceptics, pp. 404-513, or Hicks, Stoic and Epi-
curean (New York, 1910), pp. 153-31I. See also Wallace, Epicurean-
ism (London, 1880); Trezza, Epicuro e l'Epicureismo (Milano, 1885);
Renault, Epicure (Paris, Igo3).
Religious Significance of Philosophical Speculation 259
passed on far beyond the flaming walls of the world and
traversed throughout in mind and spirit the immeasur-
able universe whence he returns a conqueror to tell us
what can and what cannot come into being; in short,
on what principle each thing has its powers defined,
its deepest boundary mark. Therefore religion [as
popularly understood] is put under foot and trampled
upon in turn; his victory brings us level with heaven.”
In positing the finality of the physical universe as per-
ceived by the organs of sense, truth was made to consist
in what one could feel, hear, see. To know how matter
acted was to enter fully into the kingdom of truth.
Thus Epicurus' popularity rested upon two items, a
positive and a negative. First, he answered the thinking
man’s craving after a knowledge of nature’s secrets, and,
secondly, he flatly denied the validity of popular supersti-
tion. He solved the riddle of natural phenomena by the
So-called atomic theory. This type of philosophy, which
had its beginnings with Democritus in the latter part of
the fifth century B.C., is most elaborately preserved for
us in Lucretius’ well-known poem. According to Epi-
curean doctrine, the universe consists of two component
parts: material bodies and empty space, which provides
matter with an arena for action. Matter acts of itself,
since there is no power from without determining its
variations. This mass of corporeal substance is ulti-
mately a vast concourse of minute particles, so small that
they cannot be perceived by the senses and so compact
as to be themselves indivisible. These are the atoms.
* Op. cit., i. 6off. Because Epicurus delivered men from the terrors
of Superstition, his followers were almost ready to rank him among the
gods. Cf. Cicero, Tuscl., i. 21; De deor. nat., i. 16.
26o The Evolution of Early Christianity
They have always existed, they will never cease to exist,
and apart from them nothing else exists except empty
space. The weight of the atoms, which are of various
sizes and forms, sets them in motion. They hit each
other, the lighter ones rebound, the heavier press together
making solids, while others form water, fire, air, ether.
As space is infinite and atoms are innumerable, the
number of worlds in existence may also be infinite.
The total phenomena of all existence are thus purely
mechanical products of chance.
Is there any room for religion in such a philosophy P
Certainly the gods of popular belief could find no place
in this scheme. This was the second point which made
Epicureanism attractive to many minds. The super-
stition of the multitudes, their fears, their absurd actions
in the name of religion, their crass beliefs about the gods,
these things made intelligent people appreciate the need
of a religious reform. With a single stroke Epicurus
wiped all this out of existence for those who adopted his
philosophy. He affirmed that neither gods nor demons
had anything to do with creating the world, they had no
hand in its maintenance, and no power either to harm
or to help human beings. Yet Epicurus did not deny the
existence of gods; he merely contended, as he thought,
for a purer, nobler conception of their character. He
would not allow that they were in any sense mixed up
with this little world of ours, hence one could not learn
of their existence by observing their activities either for
good or for evil in human life. Belief in their existence
was therefore based solely upon the fact that mankind
commonly held this conviction. It was an impression
which nature herself produced, and so must be true.
Religious Significance of Philosophical Speculation 261
Epicurus’ admirers affirmed that their master was the
first to use this argument, basing a conclusion upon the
mind’s antecedent conception—prolepsis (Tpó\mpus), as
it was called—of deity’s existence. While they praised
him for discovering so substantial an argument," his
enemies declared that he ought logically to have denied
outright the gods’ existence, and they accused him
of fearing to do this lest he should incur persecution.
The justice of the charge is not wholly consistent, how-
ever, with the note of sincerity dominant in this school.
What sort of beings were the Epicurean gods, and what
were their functions P Here, as usual, man made God
in his own image. The highest ideal of the human life
was held to be the attainment of pleasure—not mere
sensual enjoyment, but a freedom from pain or disturb-
ance of both body and mind. Above all only a peaceful
mind could make life complete. The ideal wise man
could smile at bodily pain when all was serene in his
soul. The Epicureans’ gods were, accordingly, perfectly
happy beings dwelling in the ethereal regions between
the innumerable worlds. They must be wholly removed
from our world, for had they been in any way concerned
with the affairs of men their serenity would surely
have been marred. Although they were made of atoms
and fashioned in human form, still they were composed
of the finest sort of atoms and they abode in perfectly
blissful surroundings. Worship of these deities was
inculcated, not because one expected to receive aught
from them, but because they were the ideal embodiment
of perfect happiness. The gods do not demand worship,
* Cicero, De deor. nat., i. 16 f. For the criticism of opponents see
i. 2, 33-44; iii. I.
262 The Evolution of Early Christianity
indeed they have no desires in the matter, but man for
his own sake needs to keep these ideals constantly before
his mind. Velleius in Cicero's dialogue says, “We have
no dread of those beings whom we have reason to think
entirely free from all troubles themselves and who do not
impose any on others. We pay our adoration, indeed,
with piety and reverence to that essence which is above all
excellence and perfection.” Admiration for divine per-
fection formed the basal element of Epicurean worship.
The extent to which Epicureanism pervaded the
Graeco-Roman world in the first century A.D. is difficult
now to determine. The school certainly maintained
itself on down to the fourth century of our era. It
doubtless had a considerable following still in the first
century, for no other sect stood so positively by its
original tenets, refusing to yield to the eclectic tendencies
prevalent in that age. It continued to be the relentless
foe of superstition, as we learn in the second century when
Lucian makes the Epicureans bitter enemies of the
charlatan Alexander.” Probably its greatest religious
significance lies in its severe protest against popular
superstition, it being in this respect the precursor of
Christianity. But the Epicurean method of removing
the malady proved quite inadequate for popular needs,
however strongly it may have appealed to certain
heroic spirits who were willing to accept the physical
world at its face value and forego the natural impulse
of mankind to demand help from the deity instead of
being content with an attitude of pure adoration.
Stoicism filled a far larger place in the religious life
of antiquity, though as a philosophy it had much in
*De deor. nat., i. 20. * Alex., 25.
Religious Significance of Philosophical Speculation 263
common with Epicureanism.” Realism and materialism
are fundamental principles in both schools. The Stoic
trusted the testimony of sense-perception in the main
and he held the ultimate reality in the universe to be a
form of matter. Thus far he agreed with his Epicurean
contemporaries. The radical difference between the
two sects lay in their respective views regarding the
elemental character of matter. Epicurus gave it merely
the power of purposeless motion, consequently chance
ruled everything; the Stoics endowed it with Reason
(\óyos, “Word”), and so maintained that all things
happen according to design. This Reason is, to be
sure, corporeal, though the lightest, most active and
powerful constituent element in all existence.
There was ample room in this scheme for an elaborate
theology. Since the primary item in the universe is
rational force which permeates all things, it may appro-
priately bear the name of deity. Unlike the Epicurean
deity, the Stoic god is inseparably linked with the world—
in him we live, move, and have our being. He may be
called by many names or conceived in various capacities,
but he is always the formless, divine, ethereal substance
giving order to the universe, supplying life to all creation,
filling the human body with an intelligent soul, and order-
ing all events according to One eternal purpose. This
conception of the deity’s relation to the world logically
nullified popular superstition just as effectively as did
* The literature on Stoicism is extensive. In addition to Zeller and
Hicks mentioned above, see Arnold, Roman Stoicism (Cambridge, 1911),
where the important books are listed. Bevan’s recent Stoics and
Sceptics (Oxford, 1913) is only a brief sketch. The source materials are
- Collected by von Arnim, Stoicorum veterum fragmenta (3 vols., Leipzig,
I903-5).
264 The Evolution of Early Christianity
Epicureanism, since it made impossible the existence of
any deific forces not a part of the one divine substance.
When all events happen according to orderly rational
design, they must be essentially good, whether they
seem so or not, and there can be nothing evil in the
universe except the deeds of men who neglect to live
“rationally.” The fundamentals of Stoic theology can-
not be stated more compactly than has been done by
Cleanthes, the second president of this school, in his
oft-quoted hymn: “Most glorious of immortals, O Zeus
of many names, almighty and everlasting, sovereign of
nature, thee it is fitting that all mortals should address.
. . . . Thee all this universe as it rolls circling round
the earth obeys wheresoever thou dost guide and gladly
owns thy sway. In thy invincible hands thou holdest
as a minister the two-edged, fiery, everlasting thunder-
bolt under whose stroke all nature shudders. No
work upon earth is wrought apart from thee, O lord, nor
through the divine ethereal sphere, nor upon the sea;
save only whatsoever deeds wicked men do in their own
foolishness. Nay, thou knowest how to make even the
rough smooth and to bring order out of disorder; and
things not friendly are friendly in thy sight. For so
hast thou fitted all things together, the good with the
evil, that there might be one eternal law over all. . . . .
Deliver men from fell ignorance. Banish it, Father,
from their soul, and grant them to obey wisdom, whereon
relying thou rulest all things with justice.”
* As abbreviated by Hicks in the article “Stoics” in the Encyclo-
paedia Britannica. The original text is printed in von Arnim, Frag-
menta, I, I2I f. Complete translations are given in Hicks, Stoic and
Epicurean, pp. I4–16, and Arnold, Roman Stoicism, pp. 85–87.
Religious Significance of Philosophical Speculation 265
If we would appreciate the full religious significance of
Stoicism we must note more particularly the importance
it attaches to the practical side of life. Although it
was commonly called a “philosophy,” the leaders of the
movement did not aim primarily to enrich philosophical
speculation but to inculcate virtuous living. This fact
appears very clearly from the circumstances of the
School’s origin.
A new disposition toward practical matters appeared
in Greece about the middle of the fifth century B.C. with
the activity of Protagoras. In contrast with philosophi-
cal disputation, which concerned itself about truth (&Xà-
6eva) or wisdom (godia), he proposed to pursue virtue
(épeth), which he defined in terms of utility. His
object was to educate men to become good citizens
in order that they might contribute worthily to the
welfare of society. Socrates took up this notion that
virtue is the chief end of existence, but he gave virtue
a more distinctly moral content as well as a stronger
individualistic turn. Knowledge and virtue are sy-
nonymous in his system, but knowledge is to be
attained by a process of personal investigation into,
and reflection upon, one’s inner self. Intelligent self-
mastery, combined with the effort to realize the highest
attainments of which the natural self is capable in
the realm of thinking and conduct, is the climax of
the Socratic ideal. It is epitomized in a sentence of
one of Socrates' prayers: “Beloved Pan, and all ye
other gods who haunt this place, give me beauty in
the inward soul, and may the outward and the inward
man be at one.”
* Plato, Phaedr., 279C.
266 The Evolution of Early Christianity
A pupil of Socrates named Antisthenes, the founder
of Cynicism, seized upon this notion of living true to
nature. He vigorously condemned personal comforts
on the ground that the amenities of civilization placed
hindrances in reason's way and diverted the right opera-
tion of the will. Self-knowledge and self-realization,
to be attained by means of rigid self-control, were his
supreme ideal. Accordingly Antisthenes adopted a
simple mode of living and cultivated a plain style of .
teaching with the primary object of reaching the com-
mon man, whom he wished to awaken to self-realization.
He discarded the professional philosopher's garb, wear-
ing instead a plain cloak and Carrying only a staff
and a wallet. The Cynic teachers’ proletarian inter-
ests, the simplicity of their manner of life, their self-
sacrificing service for humanity, all contributed to
the school’s popularity; yet its extreme asceticism,
and its offenses against culture generally, greatly
hindered its usefulness. Although many of its more
attractive features were absorbed by Stoicism, the
Cynics were still influential—perhaps more influential
than we have ordinarily imagined—in the Graeco-
Roman world of New Testament times. But on the
side of practical living the continued influence of the
Cynics is so closely associated with Stoicism that a
separate treatment of the former is not necessary for
our purpose."
* Fragments from the Cynics are given in Mullach, Fragmenta philoso-
phorum Graecorum, II (Paris, 1867), 261-438. For expositions of Cyni-
cism see especially Zeller, Die Philosophie der Griechen", II, i, 280–336,
and III, i, 763–76, English tr., Socrates and the Socratic Schools, pp. 285–
337, and Eclecticism, pp. 288-303; Gomperz, Greek Thinkers, II, I39–69;
Geffcken, Kynika und Verwandtes (Heidelberg, 1909).
Religious Significance of Philosophical Speculation 267
\
The founder of Stoicism was Zeno, a Phoenician from
Citium in Cyprus. He came to Athens about the year
320 B.C. perhaps on Some commercial enterprise, and
attended various philosophical schools, finally establish-
ing one of his own destined to enjoy for several centuries
a popularity beyond that of any rival. At first Zeno was
most attracted by the practical ideals of the Cynics,
represented at that time by Crates. He seems to have
derived much from this source, although he soon became
dissatisfied with the Cynics’ crudities and turned to the
Megarian Stilpo who also inculcated the Socratic ideal
that virtue is knowledge, adding to it the Eleatic con-
cept of the unity of being. But it was ultimately
the Ionian materialism, as represented by Heraclitus,
which Stoics found most useful in working out their
philosophy. Notwithstanding the Stoics' numerous
debts to other systems, their primary interests were
practical rather than speculative, and it is not im-
probable that Diogenes Laertius' reports a true tra-
dition when he says that Zeno was first attracted
toward philosophical studies by reading Xenophon’s
Memorabilia of Socrates. The Socratic ideal of virtue,
the salvation of the individual by means of self-
elevation of spirit, and indifference to suffering procured
through inward peace of mind were permanent charac-
teristics of Stoic teaching.
In other respects also, Stoicism was by nature better
fitted than any contemporary school to meet the demands
of the age. It was itself a Hellenistic rather than a
Hellenic product. Many of its greatest representatives
were, like its founder, not native Greeks. Zeno's entire
* vii. 3.
268 The Evolution of Early Christianity
work was done at Athens, but instead of becoming an
Athenian citizen he chose still to be called Zeno the
philosopher of Citium." Cleanthes was from Assos,
Chrysippus was from Cilicia, Diogenes was from Seleucia,
Antipater was from Tarsus—to mention only the early
presidents of the school. In these first years of its history
its leaders and pupils were drawn from the Graeco-
Roman world as a whole, and the movement soon came
to have important centers in various leading cities such
as Tarsus, Rhodes, Alexandria, and Rome. For about
five centuries it was the most influential school in the
Mediterranean world. It counted among its leaders
and patrons many distinguished persons. In connec-
tion with Tarsus alone Strabo” mentions as Stoic
leaders, Antipater who later became head of the school
in Athens, Archedemus, and two individuals named
Athenodorus. One of these Athenodori was the teacher
of Cato the younger, and the other taught Augustus.
Cicero, who studied under Posidonius of Rhodes, though
not an outspoken champion of Stoicism, did much to
make it known among the Romans where it later had
distinguished representatives in the persons of Seneca,
Musonius Rufus, Epictetus, and the emperor Marcus
Aurelius. No other school could so naturally reflect
the realism, the cosmopolitanism, and the individualism
which characterized the life of the Graeco-Roman period.
These close connections with the varied life of the
Mediterranean world fitted Stoicism to become a unique
power in the sphere of religion. Although it cannot be
said to have maintained its pristine purity so faithfully
as did Epicureanism, the changes which it underwent in
* Diogenes Laertius, vii. I2. * xiv. 5. I4.
Religious Significance of Philosophical Speculation 269
the process of growth did not seriously affect its char-
acteristics, as these appear in the more distinctly religious
features of the school.
In the first place, the Stoic teacher viewed humanity
religiously. In his eyes all men are not only made in
the rational image of God but bear about a spark of
deity—the rational soul—within their own breasts.
Every man is a child of God in virtue of this rational
soul within him. Hence the chief end of existence is
virtuous living, which consists in conformity to the
divine will. Marcus Aurelius, repeating Stoic sentiment
familiar since Zeno, argues that since we are all rational
beings we are all under one ethical standard and one
world-law and so sharers of a common citizenship.
Thus the connection between man and God, as well as
the common bond uniting all mankind, is the Logos,
the divine Reason, or the “Word” as it is commonly
rendered at the beginning of the Fourth Gospel.” Since
God is thus the father of all, all men are brothers and all
class distinctions are only artificial barriers to be removed
by religion rather than by social revolution. Even the
slave finds his deliverance in the realm of right thinking.
This freedom is secured through the attainment of per-
Sonal virtue, which is a conquest of the will transcending
all life's disturbances. Real slaves are not made by
barter but by deficiencies in character.” But the truly
wise man who fully realizes his powers of divine ration-
ality has little concern for outward circumstances.
* Marcus Aurelius, Ad se ipsum, iv. 4; cf. von Arnim, Fragmenta, I,
262; Seneca, Dial., vii. 20. 5; Epist., 95. 52; Epictetus, Disc., i. 9.
* John 1: 1.
3 Won Arnim, Fragmenta, III. 354.
27o The Evolution of Early Christianity
Tºven though he may be the lowest menial in society,
in spirit he is truly free while his master may be in abject
bondage to habits, conventions, desires, and worries.
This subject is expounded at length in Cicero’s fifth
Paradox. Only the wise man is free, he who follows
righteousness and rejoices in fulfilling his duty, realizing
that the fortune of every man is molded by his character.
All wicked men, on the other hand, are slaves, “not in
the sense of bondmen who are the property of their
master by purchase or by any law of the state; but if
obedience to a disordered, abject mind destitute of self-
control be slavery—and such it is—who can deny that
all the dishonest, all the covetous, in short all the wicked
are slaves?” One who lives in true “harmony with
nature” thereby “companies with God” and cannot be
in bondage to any man.
The Stoic teacher also interpreted his own mission
religiously. He was neither a peddler of philosophy
nor a teacher of rhetoric aiming to perpetuate a certain
school of doctrine or to earn his own livelihood by enter-
taining the multitude. Epictetus vigorously condemns
one who seeks applause or Courts praise.” The true
teacher, whom Epictetus pictures as a Cynic,” feels him-
self to be a messenger of Zeus, whose he is and whom
he serves. One who attempts so great a task without
the aid of God is sure to incur disaster. But success
also means a career of hardship in the service of God for
the benefit of one’s fellow-men. He who is meditating
on this calling is admonished to remember: “You are
* Cf. the similar remarks of Paul in Rom. 6: I6.
* Cf. Seneca, Epist., 5o. 8; Dial., vii. I5. 5.
3 Disc., iii. 23. 4 iii. 22.
Religious Significance of Philosophical Speculation 271
going to be enrolled in a combat at the Olympic games,
man; not in a poor, slight Contest.” He must stand
before the world as a God-sent example of patient
endurance, “without house, without estate, without a
servant, lying on the ground, without kin, and having
Only earth and heaven and one poor cloak.” All his
sufferings are interpreted as heavenly discipline which
God imposes to try his mettle and prove whether he is
worthy of the great conflict.
But suffering is not simply an end in itself, nor is it
purely for the purpose of self-discipline. This task of
preaching the Stoic gospel was undertaken for the sal-
vation of others." The world’s distress and, above all,
the failure of men generally to realize daily their divine
possibilities filled the Stoic teacher with sympathetic
longing to tell them the saving truth as he had experi-
enced it in his own life. He would teach them how to
bear burdens with fortitude and composure by forsaking
their worse and rising to the true dignity of their better
selves. He made his appeal to the high and the lowly
alike, exhorting them to experience a new birth of the
inner life by coming to a realization of their own inward
power as rational beings.”
By both precept and example the Stoic preacher in-
culcated submission to the divine will as the chief end
of life. Epictetus insists on keeping two rules con-
stantly in mind: (1) good or evil is simply a matter of
choice, and (2) we are to follow rather than control the
* See references in Wendland, Die hellenistisch-römische Kultur,
pp. 82 f. -
* On the Stoic doctrine of “conversion,” see Arnold, Roman Stoicism,
p. 327.
272 The Evolution of Early Christianity
course of events decreed by God.' Socrates is fre-
quently cited as the illustrious example who taught
man the great lesson of contentment with his God-
given lot in life. One ought to be able even in prison
to say with Socrates: “My dear Crito, if it thus
pleases the gods, so let it be.” In prosperity, in ad-
versity, or even in the presence of death this attitude
remains unchanged.” The Stoic would not say that he
“obeyed.” God, but that he followed God heart and soul,
not because he must but because he chose so to do.”
The ideal relationship between individuals was inter-
preted by the Stoic in terms of brotherhood among men
who have God as their common father. Since the ruling
principle of the whole universe is the divine Logos (Rea-
son) there is one rational law governing the conduct of all
men who ought to maintain both a filial attitude toward
the deity and harmonious relations among themselves.
Zeno is reported to have said in his work on the Republics
that “love is god and is a helpmate for the safcty of the
city.” There is to be no spirit of retaliation among
brothers. “You say,” says Epictetus,” “my brother
ought not to have treated me so. Very true, but he
must see to that. However he treats me, I am to act
right with regard to him, for the one is my own concern
and the other is not; I may restrain myself but I can-
not control him.” The four cardinal virtues to be
cultivated are Wisdom (dipóvmous, prudentia), Justice
(ówkatooivn, justitia), Courage (&vöpeta, fortitudo), and
* Disc., iii. Io. * Epictetus, op. cit., i. 4. -
3 Epictetus, op. cit., i. I; Ench., 5, 2I.
4 Cf. Seneca, Epist., 96. 2.; Dial., vii. I5. 7; Epictetus, Disc., iv. I.
5 Von Arnim, Fragmenta, I, 263. * Disc., iii. Io.
Religious Significance of Philosophical Speculation 273
Soberness (owd pootivm, temperantia), though these were
often subdivided into, or supplemented by, other terms
Such as faith, simplicity, gentleness, modesty, frugality."
It was the rule of the sincere Stoic to subject himself each
day to rigorous self-examination on the way he had
discharged his duty. With true religious fervor Epic-
tetus’ enjoins upon his pupils the verses of Pythagoras:
Let sleep not come upon thy languid eyes
Before each daily action thou hast scanned,
What’s done amiss, what done, what left undone;
From first to last examine all, and then
Blame what is wrong, in what is right rejoice.
Thus it appears that the Stoic was fundamentally
religious, in the broad sense of the term, although there
was a wide difference between his position and the
popular faith. But the practical bent of Stoicism in-
clined its leaders toward the constructive task of con-
serving as far as possible the essence of the old faith, at
the same time extending to men the benefit of the new.
Consequently the Stoics sought more to purify and
revitalize than to destroy popular religion. They did,
however, oppose “superstition” quite as vigorously as
did the Epicureans, but they proposed a very different
remedy. Instead of denying the power of the gods
they redefined their character, removing the element of
terror and substituting the conception of a well-disposed
providence. Evidence of the activity of a divine provi-
dence was seen on every hand.” Nature's provisions
for our food and clothing, the beauties of earth and sky,
* See von Arnim, Fragmenta, III, 262-93 (passim).
* Disc., iii. Io.
3 The typical arguments are given in Cicero, De deor. nat., ii. 29–46.
274 The Evolution of Early Christianity
the display of intelligent purpose behind everything
in the universe compelled, according to the Stoics, a
firm belief in a ruling providence.
They likewise rejected the Homeric anthropomor-
phism, but retained the names of the ancient deities to
designate various forms of divine activity all of which
have their source in the one divine Reason. This irenic
attitude of the Stoics appears again in the readiness
with which they adopted astrological notions. They
felt no difficulty in affirming that the sun, the moon, the
firmament, the world itself, and all things useful to
mankind were deities, in the sense of being specific
manifestations of divine mind." In line with this
development divination also was highly recommended,”
for it not only accorded well with their doctrine of a
beneficent providence, but had practical values which
they wished to conserve. Yet the Stoics' attitude
toward divination was very different from that of the
populace. Epictetus teaches that man has a diviner
within himself who tells him the essence of good and
evil; and when he does consult external signs his wish
ought merely to be to learn God’s will and not to change
it—“You wretch! would you have anything but what is
best? And what is best except what pleases God?
Why do you, as far as in you lies, corrupt your judge and
seduce your adviser P” By resorting to the allegorical
method of interpretation the Stoics also discovered a
basis of truth in ancient mythology. They had some
predecessors in this field, but it remained for them to
* See Cicero, op. cit., ii. 21.
* See Cicero, De divinatione (passim).
3 Disc., ii. 7.
Religious Significance of Philosophical Speculation 275
give allegory its classic expression, thus forging a weapon
for apologetic uses which was freely employed by Jews
like Philo and Christians like Paul.
The Stoics held aloof from the popular forms of wor-
ship, yet they maintained a very reverential attitude
toward God and emphasized the desirability of true
worship. This was not to be performed in fear, because
no sane man would fear a kind god whom he ought to
love. “It is madness to fear the gods from whom we
receive our good and happiness,” says Seneca.” Wor-
ship was not restricted to any particular place nor was it
limited to any traditional forms; it was primarily an
affair of the individual’s personal relationship to the
deity who is present in every part of nature. By what-
ever names or in whatever forms the gods are recognized,
“we are bound to worship and adore them, but the best,
the chastest, the most sacred and pious worship is to
reverence them always with a pure, perfect, and unpol-
luted mind and voice,” according to the Stoic disputant
in Cicero’s dialogue on the Nature of the Gods." To
hymn their praises is apparently the supreme duty of
man. The hymn of Cleanthes is a notable expression
of this feeling. Similarly Epictetus, meditating on the
blessing of Providence, exclaims: “Ought we not both
in public and in private, incessantly to sing hymns and
speak well of the deity, and rehearse his benefits P
. . . . What else can I a lame old man do but sing hymns
to God? If I were a nightingale I would act the part
of a nightingale, if a Swan the part of a Swan; but since
I am a reasonable creature it is my duty to praise God.
* See Zeller, Stoics, etc., pp. 354-69.
* De benef., iv. Ig. 3 ii. 28.
276 The Evolution of Early Christianity
This is my business. I do it, nor will I ever desert this
position so long as it is vouchsafed to me; and I exhort
you to join in the same song.”
When the Stoic directed his gaze toward the future, he
again found himself at variance with popular tradition.
Of hell and its terrors he had no fear. These morbid
fancies were held to be impossible for the philosopher
who did not believe in any black darkness awaiting the
dead—“there is no prison house, no lake of fire or river
of forgetfulness, no judgment seat, no renewal of the
rule of tyrants.” The fate of man’s soul after death is
determined by the nature of the soul’s constitution.
Since it is a part of the ethereal substance called the
divine mind, or God, it must be immortal in the same
sense that divine substance is immortal. This funda-
mental notion left room for wide variations of opinion as
to the different stages in the soul's career. To be sure
all were agreed—in so far as they were really Stoics—
that ultimately it would be absorbed into the primal
divine substance,” but how long would it maintain an
independent CongciousncG3 and througll wiial experiences
would it pass P Cleanthes had maintained that all souls
would continue in a separate existence until the final
conflagration,” but Chrysippus reserved this privilege
for the soul of the wise alone. Pure Stoic learning seem-
* Disc., i. I6.
* Seneca, Dial., vi. Ig. 4; also Cicero. Tuscl., i. I6; De deor. nat., ii. 2.
3 The soul may exist a long while but it is not eternal (Cicero, Tuscl.,
i. 31).
4 It was generally agreed among the Stoics, Panaetius being the only
exception noted, that a general conflagration would one day reduce the
universe to its primal fire after which another cycle of evolution would
follow, re-establishing a new world (Cicero, De deor. nat., ii. 46).
Religious Significance of Philosophical Speculation 277
ingly had little to say about the future activity of the
Soul, but under the influence of Pythagoreanism and
Platonism on the one hand, and astral mysticism on the
other, a more elaborate program appears in later writers.
There is first a period of purification in which the soul
passes by degrees from the lower to the higher regions,
and at last, being fully purified from its stains through
Contact with the body, it rises to the height of heaven
there to delight itself with watching the stars go round.
This phase of speculation among the Stoics apparently
reached its climax with Posidonius (135–51 B.C.), but
it belongs genetically to a different type of philosophy, as
we shall later have occasion to observe. Seneca, Epic-
tetus, and Marcus Aurelius start Stoicism on the way
back again to its original type, which faces death cer-
tainly with no fears for the future and with but slight
thought of any rewards except the prospect of reabsorp-
tion into the primal divine essence.
The best known early Christian missionary to the Gen-
tiles, in estimating the religious significance of Graeco-
Roman thinking, remarks that “the world through its
wisdom knew not God.” But when he exhorts the
Romans” to a rational (\oyukāv) service in which they
present their bodies a living sacrifice holy and well-
pleasing unto God, not conforming to the schema of
this age but being transformed by the renovation of their
mind in order that they may learn what is the good,
well-pleasing, and perfect will of God, almost every
phrase of his exhortation is perfectly good Stoic senti-
ment. It would be a comparatively easy task to
assemble a long list of New Testament passages, which,
* I Cor. I : 21. * I 2: I f.
278 The Evolution of Early Christianity
in form or content, or both, would show striking agree-
ments with Stoicism." These passages have furnished
some interpreters convincing proof of Christianity’s
secondary character,” others have made Stoicism the
borrower,” and still others have explained away the
resemblances without finding any substantial inter-
dependence. At the outset the Christian movement
seems to have gathered its disciples from the proletariat"
and, as this condition of affairs probably continued for
a generation or two at least, philosophical speculation
within the Graeco-Roman world might naturally be
thought to have relatively minor significance for the
early history of Christianity.
We must remember, however, that philosophy was no
longer the aristocratic thing it had been in the days of
Plato. It is not at all probable that the artisan classes
* See most recently Arnold, Roman Stoicism, pp. 408–36; cf. also
Clemen, Religionsgeschichtliche Erklärung des Neuen Testaments, pp. 30–
58, English tr., Primitive Christianity, pp. 41–77; H. A. Winckler, Der
Stoicismus eine Wurzel des Christeniums (Leipzig, 1879).
* E.g., Havet, Le Christianisme et ses origines; Bruno Bauer, Christus
and die Caesaren (Berlin, 1879°); or Steck, Der Galaterbrief (Berlin, 1888).
3 I.e., the Stoicism of the first century A.D., especially as represented
by Seneca, Epictetus, and Marcus Aurelius. A spurious correspondence
between Seneca and Paul had come into existence by the fourth century
(cf. Jerome, De vir. illus., 12), and from this it was argued that Seneca
had embraced Christianity. The view is now generally discarded by his–
torical scholars. For various phases of the discussion see Lightfoot's
dissertation, “St. Paul and Seneca.” in his Commentary on Philippians,
pp. 270–333; Baumgarten, Lucius Annaeus Seneca und das Christentum
(Rostock, 1895). Zahn, Der Stoiker Epiktet (Leipzig, 1895°), and Kuiper,
Epictetus en de christelijke moraal (Amsterdam, 1906), make Epictetus a
debtor to the New Testament; but Bonhöffer, Epiktet und das Neue Tes-
tament (Giessen, 1911), finds no interrelationships.
4 I Cor. I : 26.
Religious Significance of Philosophical Speculation 279
who, in the main, constituted the membership of the
early gentile churches spent any time reading Plato or
Aristotle, but it is altogether likely that they were very
familiar with the Cynic or Stoic popular preacher who
was to be found in almost every corner of their world.
Indeed this very style of discourse—the so-called Cynic-
Stoic Diatribe—furnished the model for much effective
Christian preaching. Some of the most striking por-
tions of Paul’s letters, which probably contain language
he had become accustomed to use in his daily public
addresses, display the earmarks of the familiar Diatribe
style."
The moment Christian missionaries began to work
gentile territory and to gather converts, whether from
among Jews of the Dispersion or from among the
heathen, the social status of that ancient world imme-
diately became an influential factor in the history of
the Christian movement. Since philosophical specula-
tion had become a vital part of this milieu in the first
century A.D., it unquestionably had some significance for
the evolution of early Christianity. The general protest
against popular superstition also became a characteristic
Christian attitude, but instead of denying the reality of
demonic powers, as Epicureans and Stoics had done,
Christians preached a gospel of deliverance through
alliance with a new power, the risen and glorified Jesus.
The fears felt by the populace on account of belief in
* See especially Bultmann, Der Stil der paulinischen Predigt und die
kynisch-stoische Diatribe (Göttingen, 1910); also Norden, Agnostos Theos
(Leipzig, 1913), which contains a wealth of material bearing upon stylis-
tic matters and showing many striking agreements between the preach-
ing of Christian missionaries and that of their contemporary Stoic
propagandist.
28o The Evolution of Early Christianity
demons and dread of worse terrors in the life to come were
only emphasized the more strongly as Christian preachers
portrayed the doom awaiting those who rejected the new
gospel. e
At the same time Christianity preserved the practical
ideal of virtue, and the religious fervor with which the
Cynic-Stoic preacher followed the lead of duty. The
notion of universal brotherhood, having its basis in God’s
fatherhood; the idea that man has a God-given mission
in life to work for the salvation of his fellow-man’s soul;
emphasis upon the Supremacy of divine will to which all
men should strive to conform; the wise man’s sense
of soul-freedom and his disregard for temporal things;
the cultivation of positive social virtues and a spirit
of loving forbearance among brothers; implicit trust in
Providence; rigid self-scrutiny of one's own life; the
use of allegorical interpretation as a means of conserving
the religious ideas of the past; a willingness to read the
will of the Deity in the “signs of the times”; the
necessity of worshiping God with adoration and praise
from the heart rather than in any formal manner;
these are some of the things which the early Christian
missionaries found already inculcated by their Cynic-
Stoic predecessors and which they in turn took pains to
preserve.
Yet the philosopher, however high his ideal of practical
virtue might be, seemed to the Christian fundamentally
lacking in a true knowledge of God. This, from the
Christian point of view, was because of the philosopher’s
faulty epistemological theory; he erroneously supposed
that by searching he could find God through his natu-
ral powers of intellect. Christians, on the contrary,
Religious Significance of Philosophical Speculation 281
believed knowledge of God to be attainable only by
means of revelation. In other words, they had adopted
the epistemological theory of Oriental mysticism, and
this fact necessitated an interpretation of religion which
was fundamentally different from that of the Greek
philosopher."
The Christians, however, were not the first mediators
of a mystical philosophy” within the syncretistic life of
the Mediterranean world. Greek thinkers, by making
sense-perception or mental reflection the medium for
acquiring knowledge, were unable to satisfy a very
general human impulse. Shall we, in our conquest after
truth, employ only the faculties of seeing or thinking, and
ignore the elemental impulse of feeling P While that,
in effect, was the method of Greek philosophy, it did
not prove satisfying to the majority of persons. This
defect was recognized by certain of the philosophers
themselves, consequently we find them now and then
yielding to the demands of emotion.
When once the emotions are allowed a place in the
formation of an epistemological theory they open up a
new world for religious thinking. Metaphysics sup-
plants physics as a medium for defining the constitution
of Deity; from the beyond God comes into this world,
or sends his representatives, to minister to man’s need.
Unless the Deity chooses thus to come, or send some com-
munication, men must remain in utter ignorance of him.
The physical and intellectual powers of apprehension,
since they belong primarily to this world, are of less
importance than the emotional soul, since it is readily
* On this point see more recently Norden, Agnostos Theos, pp. 83-II5.
* On the general subject see Lehmann, Mysticism in Heathendom
and Christendom (London, T9Io).
282 The Evolution of Early Christianity
believed to be an other-worldly element abiding tem-
porarily in a physical body. The experiences of the
present life represent only a passing phase of existence,
for the essential item in personality is the soul, which
looks forward to the time of its deliverance from its
prison house, the body, that it may return to the
heavenly abodes whence it came. An effort to insure
successful deliverance from this world and safe passage
into the next becomes the chief concern of religious
speculation. Man alone is not equal to this task, hence
the necessity of formulating a program by which divine.
help can be obtainca. The choicest favors religion can
bestow are a consciousness of present union with the
Deity and the certainty of blessed immortality.
Stoicism was, of itself, quite incapable of competing
with a philosophy of life which could supply these
mystical features. There were, to be sure, already
within the Greek world certain tendencies pointing in
this general direction. These items appear in the
Bacchic, the Orphic, and the Eleusinian mysteries, the
Pythagorean movement, and certain features of Plato's
philosophy. But this type of thinking throve especially
in the East, whence it came with renewed power into the
complex life of the Mediterranean world in Hellenistic
times. Some of its elements, as we observed above, had
been taken up by the Stoic Posidonius. Plutarch over
a century later also tried to combine the heritage of
Greek philosophy with mysticism, but its full religious
power could hardly come to expression in the life of
persons strongly addicted to intellectual pursuits in the
Greek sense of the term."
* On the presence of mysticism in the Greek world since the sixth
century B.C., see Gruppe, Griechische Mythologie, pp. IoI6–4I.
Religious Significance of Philosophical Speculation 283
When Paul declared that the world by its wisdom
“knew not God,” and offered his hearers “God’s wisdom
in a mystery” heretofore unknown but now “revealed
through the Spirit,” he cast in his lot with the Mystics.
The new movement, much as it might seek to conserve
the values of Stoicism, belonged in an essentially differ-
ent religious category. Its God and man’s Soul were
other-worldly entities, the present world offered hin-
drances which could be overcome only by divine help
from without, and the summum bonum in religion was to
be attained only by carrying out a divinely arranged
program of redemption. In Stoicism man tried to save
himself to a life of peace in this world; in Christianity he
called in the aid of a God-sent deliverer who not only
gave him salvation in the present but who guaranteed
him a blessed immortality.
We must now inquire to what extent that ancient
world was already familiar with the notion of a redemp-
tive religion, in which man looked primarily to the Deity
for deliverance from this world and for the assurance
of immortal blessedness.
* I Cor. 2:6–Io.
CHAPTER IX
HELLENISTIC RELIGIONS OF REDEMPTION
The notion of Salvation is a very early and a very
general one in the history of religion. It arises as soon
as man becomes conscious of contact with hostile forces
from whose power he seeks deliverance. He may think
his enemies to be natural phenomena, such as the cold
of winter which threatens him with starvation; or they
may be human foes who constantly cndanger his life and
happiness. They may be untoward Social circumstances
which lay heavy burdens upon him in every hour of his
existence. They may be the impersonal forces of an
inexorable destiny in whose meshes he seems hopelessly
entangled, or destiny may have become personalized in
the form of demonic powers lurking in every shadow ready
to pounce upon him any moment. Or he may regard his
worst enemy to be gross materialistic existence which
chokes and tarnishes his Soul shut up in the prison house
of the body. Again, he may lament that he has yielded
to the wicked impulses of his heart and thus placed his
conscience under the burden of sin and guilt. These
hostile forces, acting singly or in Some combination,
tend to make man conscious, early in his experience, of
his need of Salvation.
His conception of the content of Salvation naturally
varies with his notion of his foes. He longs for a land
of plenty with security from all invading and plunder-
ing armies; he pictures a utopia where life for every-
body, and for himself in particular, will be free from
284
Hellenistic Religions of Redemption 285
distressing circumstances; he seeks to anticipate fate by
providing himself with Safeguards againstall the demons;
he looks for some means to release the soul from its prison
Chamber, purge it of impurities through contact with
matter, and enable it to Soar aloft to the ethereal regions
whence it came; or, finally, he yearns for deliverance
from sin and guilt, and the restoration of a pure heart,
that he may fill his life with noble ethical attainments.
How is this desired deliverance to be obtained P
What is the process of salvation ? This question may
also be answered in different ways, but the answers
may be grouped into two main classes. To the first
division belong all those solutions which make the
attainment of Salvation primarily the result of man’s
own action. For example, he provides himself with
clothing against the frosts of winter and takes fore-
thought concerning a sufficient supply of food. He
makes himself weapons of war and builds fortresses
to ward off the attacks of his enemies. He corrects
social ills by reorganizing society and establishing new
forms of government. He protects himself from the
demons of a fatalistic world by prying into their secrets,
learning their foibles, and formulating charms or other
magical devices for thwarting their designs. The Soul
enveloped in base matter struggles through self-
cultivation of its own inherent divine character to free
itself from its prison house. The wicked impulses of
the heart are nullified through a volitional activity of
man who establishes laws for the regulation of his Con-
duct and purges all evil out of his life. In all this man
is primarily his own savior and salvation is essentially
a matter of his own attainment.
286 The Evolution of Early Christianity
The second type of answer places chief stress, not
upon human effort, but upon that help which comes
from without. Man allies himself with the vital powers
of nature and thus secures their aid in the maintenance
of his food supply. In his conflict with enemies he trusts
in the help of a tutelary god to give his arms success.
He calls upon his god to establish justice and right his
social ills. Evil demons and the forces of destiny lose
their terrors for him since he is under the special care
of a mightier Savior-deity who is capable of carrying
him safely through the vicissitudes of life. His soul is
delivered from its thraldom in matter through the help
of a divine deliverer who descends to its rescue; and his
success in the struggle against sin, guilt, and the power
of evil desire is assured through divine aid which frees
him from the bondage of the past and fills his heart
with new and holy impulses. This general type of
faith may be termed redemption-religion, in contrast
with the former type which might be called attainment-
religion. The two types, to be sure, shade into one
another. Most religions of attainment have a place
for the notion of the deity’s help as a supplement to
human effort, while most redemption-religions require
some measure of activity on man’s part. But the
general distinction is clear. In one case it is human
endeavor which stands in the foreground and conditions
attainment; in the other, human effort Counts only as
an accessory to the redeeming work of the deity.
In the syncretism of Hellenistic times redemption-
religions and attainment-religions were both current.
Stoicism was a conspicuous example of the latter.
Salvation pertained chiefly to the present and consisted
Hellenistic Religions of Redemption 287
in a freedom of soul reached through one’s own efforts
at self-control and self-exaltation of spirit. Man could
thus save himself because at the outset he was divine—
divinity tabernacled in him in virtue of the fact that he
was a man. Although Stoicism had a large following,
many persons still felt unable, even in the strength of
their own inherent divinity, to elevate themselves into
the rarefied atmosphere of Stoic serenity. The help
which came from without, embodied in the person of
the divine emperor, was too remote and uncertain to
minister to those individual needs which came into
prominence as national boundaries disappeared, leav-
ing men in so vast a world that the older feeling of
national solidarity and safety no longer remained. As
a consequence of these new experiences many persons
turned to a type of religion which emphasized salva-
tion for the individual rather than for the nation, a
salvation accomplished by the direct aid of Deity.
One of the most familiar means employed for the
expression of this type of faith is the so-called “mystery-
religions.” Before the beginning of our era numerous
mystery-cults had become widely disseminated over the
* General works on the mysteries are few. Cumont, Oriental
Religions, and Toutain, Les cultes paiens, I., ii, are devoted to the Asiatic
and Egyptian cults. Other treatments, sometimes only brief sketches
and often concerned chiefly with Christianity as related to the mysteries,
are Anrich, Das antike Mysterienwesen in seinem Einfluss auf das Chris-
tentum (Göttingen, 1894); Wobbermin, Religionsgeschichtliche Studien
zur Frage der Beeinflussung des Urchristentums durch das antike Mysterien-
wesen (Berlin, 1896); Cheetham, The Mysteries, Pagan and Christian
(London, 1897); De Jong, Das antike Mysterienwesen (Leiden, Igo9);
Reitzenstein, Die hellenistischen Mysterienreligionen; Jacoby, Die antike
Mysterienreligionen und das Christentum; Perdelwitz, Die Mysterien-
religion und das Problem des I. Petrusbriefes (Giessen, IQII); Clemen,
288 . The Evolution of Early Christianity
Graeco-Roman world. For several centuries they had
been known among the Greeks in variant forms," yet
they had certain fundamental characteristics in common.
Among these was a belief in immortality insured through
initiation into the worship of a god or goddess who had
triumphed over death and so was able to help believers
to a similar victory.
The Eleusinian mysteries are the best known of
these various cults which existed in Greece. Although
Eleusis was a small place near Athens, at an early date
these mysteries became a prominent Athenian state
cult.* The cult seemed to owe its popularity, which
it still retained in Graeco-Roman times, largely to the
assurances of a blessed immortality which it pro-
fessed to confer upon those who had observed the
rites of initiation. The so-called “Homcric” hymn to
Der Einfluss der Mysterienreligionen auf das ālteste Christentum; Ken-
nedy, St. Paul and the Mystery Religions; Bousset, “Christentum und
Mysterienreligion” and “Die Religionsgeschichte und das Neue Testa-
ment,” Theologische Rundschau, XV (1912), 41–60, 25I-77.
* Lobeck, Aglaophamus (2 vols., Königsberg, 1829), and Farnell,
Cults of the Greek States, III, 29–393; V, 85-344, give the most complete
accounts of the Greek mysteries, citing extensively from ancient writers.
See also Hatch, Influence of Greek Ideas, etc., pp. 283-3og.
* A great deal has been written about the Eleusinian mysteries.
Besides Lobeck, op. cit., pp. 1–228, and Farnell, op. cit., III, I27–98, see
Gruppe, Griechische Mythologie, pp. 48–58; Loisy, “Les mystères
d'Éleusis,” Revue d’histoire et de littérature religieuses, Nouvelle série,
IV (1913), IQ3-225; Foucart, Les mystères d'Éleusis (Paris, 1914). The
last-named work supersedes the same author’s earlier writings, contend-
ing again for his theory that the Eleusinian mysteries are of Egyptian
origin and that the chief function of the rites was to provide the soul
with magic formulas for insuring its safe transit to the abodes of the blest.
Quite apart from the doubtful validity of this theory, the volume con-
tains much valuable information. *
!
Hellenistic Religions of Redemption 289
Demeter, which narrates the myths connected with the
Cult, finally tells how Demeter the mother goddess taught
to chosen persons her holy mysteries to be perpetuated
for the benefit of men—“blessed is he among mortals who
has seen these things! But he who is uninitiated and has
no part in the sacred rites has not an equal lot in the
dark gloom below.” Pindar and Sophocles” proclaim
the blessedness of the one who has witnessed the sacred
rites. • In experience, passing below the hollow earth,
the initiate sees the goal of life as well as its Zeus-given
beginning, and at death he descends to Hades confident
that he will be eternally happy. Platoº allows that
the mysteries express enigmatically the truth that one
who goes to Hades uninitiated will lie in filth, while
one who has been cleansed through initiation will dwell
happily with the gods. In Cicero's day the Eleusinian
mysteries retained the same reputation: “Much that
is excellent and divine does Athens seem to me to have
produced and added to our life, but nothing better than
those mysteries by which we are formed and molded from
a rude and savage life into humanity; and indeed in the
mysteries we perceive the real principles of life and learn
not only to live happily but to die with a fairer hope.”
To obtain initiations the candidate applied to the
priest in charge. In the time of Herodotus" only Greeks
* See Sikes and Allen, Homeric Hymns (London, 1904) for a critical
edition, and Lang, Homeric Hymns (New York, 1899), for an English
rendering.
* Quoted by Loebeck, op. cit., p. 69.
3 Phaedo, 69C. 4 De leg., ii. I4.
5 For the details of the process see Farnell, op. cit., III, I59 ft.
° viii. 65; cf. also Isocrates, Paneg., 157.
29O The Evolution of Early Christianity
were admitted, but later this restriction was removed
and persons of any nationality were received provided
they knew the Greek language in which the instruction
was given to initiates. In Cicero's time “the most
distant nations were initiated into the sacred and
august Eleusinia.” But there were other preliminary
requirements. Apollonius of Tyana was denied admis-
sion, if his biographer Philostratus is correctly informed,”
because suspected of practicing wizardry, though Apol-
lonius' reputation is saved by his prediction that the
next priest will grant his request. When a candidate
was received he first observed certain purificatory rites,
after which he was admitted to the “Lesser Mysteries”
at Agrai in February. The “Greater Mysteries” were
celebrated in September and lasted several days. The
ceremonies began on the thirteenth when the epheboi
marched from Athens to Eleusis, returning the next
day with the sacred relics to the Eleusinion in Athens.
On the sixteenth the applicants for initiation assembled
and the priest pronounced a warning to the unworthy
to depart. None could be received except those who
were ritualistically pure. Then followed a season of
further purification in which the candidates marched
to the sea to sprinkle themselves with water, and perhaps
also with the blood of a slain pig. On the nineteenth
all returned to Eleusis for the completion of the festival.
The climactic feature of the initiation took place in
the Telesterion (TeXeathpudu), the assembly hall to which
only properly prepared persons were admitted, perhaps
the last preparatory act being a sacramental meal.
On a stage in the middle of the hall some sort of passion-
* De deor. nat., i. 42. 2 iv. I8.
Hellenistic Religions of Redemption 29I
play, or religious drama, was enacted. But those who
witnessed this performance were pledged to secrecy,
consequently the details are very obscure. Herodotus'
in describing the mysteries at Sais in Egypt depicts
the general situation both as to this part of the mysteries
and as to the necessity of secrecy. He describes the
sacred precinct of Minerva behind the chapel where
there “is the tomb of one whose name I consider it
impious to divulge,” and there is also a lake where
“they perform by night the representation of that per-
son’s adventures which they call ‘Mysteries’ ſuvo Tápua).
Though accurately acquainted with these particulars,
I must observe a discreet silence.” He is also familiar
with “the sacred rites of Demeter,” yet on these he must
remain silent. Nevertheless, the general import of the
ceremony is clear, although the details are uncertain.
The occasion was intended primarily to impress rather
than to indoctrinate the audience. The teachings of
this religion were conveyed to the mind through the
medium of emotion aroused by visual experiences.
Doctrine was inculcated by means of a scenic portrayal
of symbolic action rather than by logical argumentation.
What meaning did these displays have for initiates ?
The whole procedure ultimately issued in an elevation
of feeling, emanating from a conviction that one had
peered into the divine secrets. It was said that “there
is nothing greater than the Mother [Demeter] for those
who have true knowledge of the divine.” Aristotle
remarked that the initiated did not learn rules for con-
duct but experienced emotions and attained a certain
* ii. 170 f.; cf. ii. 3, 61, 86.
* Stobaeus, Flor., 79. I3.
292 The Evolution of Early Christianity
fitting state of mind." Plutarch used the joy of the
newly initiated to describe the feelings of the soul which
had been purified after death.” These emotions were
not, however, simply a temporary satisfaction; the
initiate must have read in them some divine meaning
as a basis for his confidence in that blessed immortality
which the Eleusinian mysteries were reputed to insure.
It is most probably to this item that we must look to
ascertain the ultimate significance of these rites.
At this point the details have to be conjectured, but
the general situation is fairly clear from the myth of
Demeter and her daughter Persephone. The daughter
is carried off to become the wife of Pluto, king of the
lower world. The mother in grief and resentment
refuses life to nature until Persephone is restored; an
arrangement is made by which the latter spends a por-
tion of the year with the mother and a portion in the
nether world; the earth accordingly is given life a part
of the year and is denied it a part; and Demeter before
ascending Olympus with her risen daughter instructs
men in her riſes in order that they may attain to a
blessed life after death. -
The rationale of the myth is evident. It portrays
the action of life in nature. Nature was dead in winter,
when the mother goddess, source of all life, was grieved
at the loss of her daughter; but she resumed her kindly
activity in the spring and maintained life in nature
until Persephone was removed again to Hades. Spring
brought another release and another triumph of life
over death. This victory over death, together with
*Cited by Synesius, De Dione, Io.
* De facie in orbe lunae, 28.
Hellenistic Religions of Redemption 293
the attainment of a happy life in the next world, was the
special privilege of the initiated. There certainly was
some close connection between the triumph of the deity
and the similar attainment of the devotee, although
the manner of interpreting the relationship is now very
obscure. The hierophant, we are told, delivered an
address at the secret meeting when the mystery-play
was staged, but what he said is largely a matter of con-
jecture. Lobeck made it clear that the rites were not,
as had often been supposed," the communication of a
body of esoteric doctrines on immortality, but an appeal
to emotion made by certain scenic exhibitions. If these
were scenes from the experiences of Demeter and Per-
sephone, as seems probable, the priest’s words most
likely dealt with the significance of these acts as a
basis for the believer’s hope. Persephone, carried to
the realms of Hades, then restored to her mother, and
the two ascending to the abodes of the gods in Olympus,
are typical of the believer’s future good fortune. Far-
nell,” at the end of a very cautious investigation, con-
cludes: “These deities, the mother and the daughter
and the dark god in the background, were the powers
that governed the world beyond the grave: those who
had won her friendship by initiation in this life would
by the simple logic of faith regard themselves as certain
to win blessing at their hands in the next. And this,
as far as we can discern, was the ground on which
flourished the Eleusinian hope.”
* E.g., De Sainte-Croix, Recherches historiques et critiques sur les
mystères du paganisme (2 vols., Paris, 1817°); Creuzer, Symbolik und
Mythologie (4 vols., Darmstadt, 1810–19; 3. Aufl., Leipzig, 1837–44).
* Op. cit., III, 197.
294 The Evolution of Early Christianity
Whether the Eleusinian ritual was not thought to
give a more realistic union with the death-conquering
deity is a much-debated problem. On this point the
author just cited takes a reserved position, while other
interpreters find more truly sacramental features in
the ritual." The password in these mysteries is said to
have been, “I fasted, I drank the barley-drink, I took
from the sacred chest; having tasted I placed them
into the basket and again from the basket into the
chest.” This seems to imply a sacramental communion
through the act of drinking and eating. Having wit–
nessed the Sacred drama, handled the holy emblems,
and partaken of the sacred potion, the initiate believed
himself now a partaker with the goddess in triumph
over death. And it would be strange indeed if he did
not regard his feeling of elation as in Some sense a mysti-
cal union with the deity.
There are also indications that the Eleusinian mys-
teries resulted in uplifting and purifying practical life,
thus supplying a present as well as a future Salvation.
Critics, to be sure, ridiculed these ceremonies because they
seemed to condition future rewards not on ethical but on
mechanical grounds. Diogenes sarcastically remarked,
when asked to be initiated, “It will be an absurd thing
if Aegesilaus and Epaminondas are to live in the mire
and some miserable wretches who have been initiated
are to be in the island of the blest.” But Andocides"
* E.g., Jevons, Introduction to the Study of Religion (London, 1896),
pp. 363 ff.; Dieterich, Eine Mithrasliturgie, p. 164.
* According to Lobeck’s (p. 25) reading of the sentence, which has
been preserved by Clement of Alexandria, Protr., ii. 21.
3 Diogenes Laertius, vi. 2. 39.
4 De myster., 31; cf. also I25.
Hellenistic Religions of Redemption 295
assumes that initiation into the sacred rites of the
goddesses makes one better qualified to serve as a
just judge who will punish the impious and deliver
the innocent. Diodorus' credits the Samothracian
mysteries with producing a similar effect, and Aristoph-
anes” says those who have been initiated into the
rites of Dionysus “lived in pious fashion as touching
our duty to strangers and private people.” In the
second century B.C. the mysteries are credited with
maintaining that “the greatest of human blessings.
is fellowship and trust.” Athens’ contribution to
|Roman civilization is accounted by Cicero to have been
“excellent and divine,” but nothing was of greater
value than the mysteries.4 The Stoic Epictetus incul-
cates reverence for the Eleusinian mysteries which were
“appointed by the ancients for the instruction and
correction of life.” The emperor Nero, when in Athens,
was afraid to attend the celebration because wicked
and impious persons were warned by the herald not to
approach the rites." In contrast with Christianity,
which took sinners to make them moral, Celsus says
other mysteries received only those clean of hand and
pure of soul who had lived well and justly." Un-
doubtedly the Eleusinian mysteries, like other similar
cults, exerted an elevating influence upon moral life.”
\
* V. 49. * Ran., 455.
3 See Farnell, op. cit., III, 347, n. 1850.
4 De leg., ii. I4. * Suetonius, Nero, 34.
5 Disc., iii. 21. 7 Origen, Cels., iii. 59 f.
* This is minimized by Rohde, Psyche: Seelenkult und Unsterblich-
keitsglaube der Griechen (Tübingen, 19105), I, 298 f.; but Wobbermin,
Religionsgeschichtliche Studien, usw., pp. 38 ft., successfully defends
the ethical importance of the mysteries.
296 The Evolution of Early Christianity
In the first century of our era the fame of the
Eleusinian mysteries had spread widely over the world
in which Christianity later appeared. Since they were
an official cult of Athens the rites could not be readily
established elsewhere, but similar rites were observed
at many places, either owing their origin directly to
the Eleusinian ceremonies or else having a common
parentage." But the fame of the Eleusinia was so
great that persons from various and remote parts of
the ancient world visited Athens seeking initiation.
Cicero is quite right in remarking that the most distant
peoples were initiated.” Herodotus testified to the
great numbers of Greeks admitted in his day,” but by
the beginning of our era many foreigners were attracted
to these mysteries. The emperor Augustus was initiated
in 21 B.C., although he was not generally disposed
to adopt foreign religions. Yet he highly respected
the Eleusinian cult and once hearing a case in court
where the sacred rites were to be introduced in the
pleading he ordered the judges and spectators to be
dismissed while he proceeded with the trial behind
closed doors.” These mysteries were so renowned that
Crinagoras, in the Augustan age, advised his friend
to visit Athens and see the sacred rites of Demeter,
even though he might not be able to travel anywhere
* On this disputed question of genetic relationship see Farnell, op. cit.,
III, 198 ff.
* De deor. nat., i. 42. 3 viii. 65.
4 Suetonius, Aug., 93. Other emperors who received initiation were
Hadrian, Verus, and Marcus Aurelius (Gruppe, Griechische Mythologie,
p. 1496, n. 1). Claudius even wished to transfer these mysteries to
Rome (Suetonius, Claud., 25).
5 Anthol. Palat., xi. 42.
Hellenistic Religions of Redemption 297
else. Seemingly the popularity of the Eleusinian mys-
teries had, in a sense, become world-wide by the first
century of our era; nor is this surprising when we recall
the demand which the social environment of that age
had created in favor of a religion that could supply a
personal assurance of salvation in the life to come.
The Eleusinian cult had several rivals, even in Greece,
to say nothing of the numerous oriental mysteries which
spread extensively over the Mediterranean world in
Hellenistic times. These rival movements appear at
a relatively early date in the history of Greek religion,
but they seem to have had a foreign origin. Demos-
thenes taunts his opponent Aeschines with having
assisted his mother who evidently was a traveling
priestess of the Phrygian Sabazius: “You read the
ritual for your mother when she conducted an initiation,
and you looked after other things. At night you donned
the fawn skin, you mixed the wine-bowl, you purified
the candidates and wiped them off with clay and bran,
then you raised them from their purification and bade
them say “I have fled an evil thing and found a better.’”
The cult of Dionysus (or Bacchus) and the Orphic
movement are especially worthy of notice. They had
the advantage of not being a strictly state cult and so
were capable of being highly developed along the lines
of personal experience.” Their fundamental principle,
* Demosthenes, De corona, 313.
* Farnell, Cults of the Greek States, V, 85-344, and Lobeck, Aglaopha-
mus, pp. 233–IIo4, are especially valuable for a study of the Dionysus
(Bacchus) cult. Cf. also Harrison, Prolegomena to the Study of Greek
Religion, chaps. viii-xii; Maass, Orpheus (München, 1895); Foucart,
Le culté de Dionysos en Attique (Paris, 1904); Gruppe, Griechische
Mythologie, pp. Io28–41; Quandt, De Baccho ab Alexandri aetate in
298 The Evolution of Early Christianity
however, was the same as that of the Eleusinian
mysteries. Their primary concern was for the devotee’s
future well-being; this was procured through connection
with a helping deity; emotion played an important
part in religious experience, and definite rites were
prescribed for the realization of religious attainments.
Dionysus, originally a crude nature-deity of the
Thracians, impersonated the power of life in all vegeta-
tion. In Greece he is more especially the god of the
vine, and so the patron of agriculture which he is
reputed to have taught to all mankind. As wine
inspired the Bacchic frenzy, so the devotee who worships
the power of life in nature experiences the divine posses-
sion which displays itself in the orgies of the sacred
festival. Herodotus," in describing the initiation of
the Scythian king, Scylas, says the god “took posses-
sion” of the king—he was “maddened” by the deity.
This experience of divine infilling was taken to be the
earnest of a blessed immortal life. He who felt himself
“full of god” (äuffeos), particularly when this specific
deity had displayed his power of triumph over death,”
readily believed this experience to be a foretaste of the
eternal bliss awaiting the worshiper in the next world.
Although these rites were subjected to criticism, as
when Plato remarked that an immortality of drunken-
ness seemed to be thought the highest reward of virtue,
yet they were generally believed to involve a real
Asia Minore culto (Dissertationes philologicae Halenses, Vol. XXI, 2,
Halle, Igrg); Loisy, “Dionysos et Orphée,” Revue d’histoire et de lit-
térature religieuses, Nouvelle Série, IV (1913), 130–54.
+ iv. 78 ft.
* See references in Farnell, op. cit., W, 285 f.
Hellenistic Religions of Redemption 299
spiritual communion with the divine. Euripides prob-
ably is expressing current opinion when he says that
one who knows the mysteries “is pure in life, and revel-
ing on the mountains hath the Bacchic communion
in his soul.” In fact a distinction was made between
those who merely participated in the rites and those
who realized the genuine Bacchic experience—“for
indeed they say concerning the mysteries ‘Many are
the bearers of the thyrsus but the bacchanals are
few.’”2
Participation in the life of the god was realistically
attained by drinking the blood and eating raw the
flesh of the sacred victim in which the god was assumed
to be incarnated. Haste had to be made in devouring
the victim lest the divinity should escape, and this gave
the feast its frenzied character. The animal was some-
times a bull, a goat, or a fawn; and in earlier times even
a human being probably was devoured. This seems
to be the imagery behind a poem, doubtfully ascribed
to Theocritus, apparently written in honor of a boy
nine years old whose right to initiation is justified by
the piety of his father: “To the children of pious fathers
belong the good things rather than to those that come
of impious men.” Besides eating the animal, wearing
its skin as an emblem of assimilation to the deity was
also common. The frenzied worshiper, having thus
acquired the strength of the god, could dispense blessings
to others by prophesying, healing diseases, or Controlling
the power of nature. In short, he who possessed the
* Bacch., 75 fſ. * Plato, Phaedo, 69C.
3 Theocritus, xxvi (Bacch.). 31; cf. Paul’s belief in the sanctity of
the children when even one parent is a Christian (I Cor. 7: I4).
3OO The Evolution of Early Christianity
divine potency which exhibited itself in ecstasy could
convert the desert into a garden “flowing with milk
and honey.” -
The Graeco-Roman world was thoroughly familiar
with the cult of Dionysus, which had already gained
such headway among the Romans by the beginning
of the Second century B.C. that a strenuous effort was
made to drive it out of Italy.” But the worship of
Dionysus was so closely akin to that of other mystery-
deities, and his form was so easily fused with that of
Attis, Adonis, or Osiris, that it is difficult to trace inde-
pendently the influence of the Dionysus mysteries.
The type of religion was widely prevalent, whether bear-
ing the name of Dionysus or that of a kindred deity.”
The Orphic cult" is only a variant form of the Diony-
sian, with a stronger emphasis upon theological specu-
lation. Dionysus, who is frequently called Zagreus,
plays a prominent part in the system. He is devoured
by the Titans who thus absorb his essence. They are
then burned up by Zeus and their ashes cast to the winds,
* Euripides, Bacch., 143; Plato, Ion, 534A. See further Farnell, op.
cit., V, 3oo, n. 73.
* See the account of Livy, xxxix. 8–20.
3 For the fusion of Dionysus with other gods, as well as the different
Dionysi, see Herodotus, ii. 48 f.; Cicero, De deor. nat., iii. 23; Tibullus,
i. 8.
4 In addition to references cited above, p. 297, n. 2, see Taylor, The
Mystical Hymns of Orpheus (London, 18963); Gruppe, Die griechischen
Culte und Mythen (Leipzig, 1887), I, 612–74; Dieterich, De hymnis
Orphicis (Marburg, 1891), reprinted in the same author’s Kleine Schriften
(Leipzig, Igri), pp. 69-IIo; Hauck, De hymnorum orphicorum aetate
(Breslau, 1911); C. H. Moore, “Greek and Roman Ascetic Tendencies,”
Harvard Essays on Classical Subjects (New York, Igl 2), pp. Io9 ff.;
Diels, Fragmente der Worsokratiker, II, 163–78.
Hellenistic Religions of Redemption 3OI
but as these ashes contain the vitality of Dionysus they
become the source of divine life in all things, and particu-
larly in the human soul. Thus the soul by its very con-
stitution is divine and the body is its carnal prison house
from which it is constantly seeking deliverance in death.
But death was of itself no sure deliverance. The soul
which had not been purified by the rites of religion was
confronted by the miry pit of Hades, whence it might
be forced to return and take up its abode for further
punishment in some animal. The purified soul, on
the other hand, inherited immortal delight. Conse-
quently the supreme effort of one’s earthly life was to
purge the Soul of bodily defilement. This was accom-
plished through mystic rites, prescribed abstinences
and assimilation to the deity by means of sacrifice,
libations, and prayers. The mystical and redemptive
character of the religion is illustrated from the Orphic
tablets." The devotee says: “I am a child of earth
and the starry heaven, but my race is of heaven (alone).
This ye know yourselves. And lo, I am parched with
thirst and I perish. Give me quickly the cold water flow-
ing from the lake of memory.” Again, “Hail thou who
hast suffered the suffering. This thou hast never suffered
before. Thou art become God from man.” And further:
“I come a suppliant to holy Persephone that of her grace
she receive me to the seats of the hallowed. Happy and
blessed one thou shalt be god instead of mortal.”
Orphism, like Pythagoreanism which it in some
respects resembled,” did not maintain itself as a distinct
* Cf. Harrison, Prolegomena to the Study of Greek Religion, pp. 660 f.;
Comparetti, Laminette orſiche (Firenze, 1910).
* Cf. Herodotus, ii. 81.
3O2 The Evolution of Early Christianity
:
.
:
movement in the Hellenistic age, yet its influence was
strongly felt in secondary forms. Orphic doctrines and
practices were variously appropriated by the popular
philosophers as well as by influential mystery-cults,
and thus their influence continued long after the dis-
appearance of formal Orphic brotherhoods.
In addition to the mysteries of Greece proper, the
eastern lands and Egypt supplied the same type of
religion in still greater abundance. To describe the
oriental mystery-cults in detail is too large a task for
the present. It will be sufficient for our immediate
needs if we note their leading characteristics and observe
the extent of their influence before the rise of Chris-
tianity.
The Phrygian cult of the mother-goddess, Cybele,
and her consort, Attis, came to occupy a prominent
place within the religious syncretism of Hellenistic
times." Cybele was a wild nature-deity worshiped on
...”
the top of the mountains, especially on Mount Ida.
The chief seats of her cult were Cyzicus, Sardis, and
Pessinus. She was known, like Demeter, as the source
of all life in nature, and her rites had a correspondingly
orgiastic character. Connected with her was a male
deity, Attis, who personified the death of nature in winter
* For detailed information on the Phrygian religion see Showerman,
The Great Mother of the Gods (Madison, Igor); Hepding, Attis, seine
Mythen und sein Kult (Giessen, 1903); Frazer, Adonis, Attis, Osiris (New
York, 1906”), pp. 219–65; Dill, Roman Society from Nero to Marcus
Aurelius, pp. 547-59; Cumont, Oriental Religions in Roman Paganism,
pp. 46–72; Toutain, Les cultes paiens, I., ii, 73-II9; Wissowa, Religion
und Kultus der Römer, pp. 317-27; Schmidt, Kultúbertragungen, pp.
1–30; Loisy, “Cybele et Attis,” Revue d’histoire et de littérature religieuses,
Nouvelle série, IV (1913), 289—3.26.
Hellenistic Religions of Redemption 3O3
and its revival in the spring. The myths about Attis
vary in details, but they all have the same general
import. Attis dies, either at the hand of an enemy or
by self-mutilation, and the goddess mourns until he is
restored to life. The deity’s triumph over death is
made the basis of the ritual by which the believer avails
himself of the god's help in effecting a similar victory
for mortals.
The Greeks became acquainted with this Phrygian
religion at least as early as the sixth century B.C. Both
Cybele and Attis were worshiped at various places in
Greece before the beginning of our era, and they were
easily fused with other gods of a similar character
already known to the Greeks.” The Phrygian goddess
enjoyed so much prestige by the year 204 B.C. that her
cult was officially introduced into Italy.” The Romans
were sore pressed by Hannibal, a plague had carried
off many of the Roman soldiers, and a shower of meteors
had fallen upon the earth. The Sybilline books when
consulted advised bringing the worship of the Phrygian
goddess to Rome. Accordingly messengers were sent
to Pessinus where they procured a sacred meteoric
stone which they conveyed to Rome and installed in
great solemnity on the Palatine in April 204 B.C. Fol-
lowing this the Romans were successful in their conflict
with Carthage, Cybele was honored with a temple, and
from that time on her position was officially established.
* Cf. Diodorus, iii. 58 f.; Ovid, Fasti, iv. 223 ff.; Pausanias, vii. 17;
Arnobius, v. 5-8.
* Cf. Farnell, Cults, etc., III, 289–393; Gruppe, Griechische Mythologie,
pp. I5I9-54.
3 Particulars are given by Livy, xxix. Io-I4.
3O4. The Evolution of Early Christianity
A glimpse into the character of her worship in Catul-
lus' day (87–47 B.C.) is given in his poem called Atys
which shows this religion to have been one of great
ecstatic frenzy in which the devotee sacrificed his man-
hood to the goddess, thus assimilating himself to her
nature. He performed certain initiatory rites, clothed
himself in a special garment, participated in the madden-
ing dance, and became a bondsman of Cybele forever.
Catullus’ description is at the same time a protest—
perhaps to some extent a caricature—but it probably
gives a truc picture of the orgiastic nature of the cult.
Not, however, until the time of Augustus and his suc-
cessors in the first century A.D. did Cybele-Attis worship
really thrive at Rome. The celebration of the yearly
festival as it was observed under official patronage
in the time of Claudius was an elaborate mystery-drama
extending from the fifteenth to the twenty-seventh of
March. The death of Attis, mourning for the dead god
and rejoicing at his resurrection, constituted the promi-
nent features of the ceremony. The worshipers per-
formed various rites to indicate union with the deity,
whose career was represented in a kind of mystery-play
depicting the triumph over death."
Thus the Cybele-Attis religion had reached out from
its native Phrygian home, gaining official recognition
* Cumont, Oriental Religions, pp. 56 f., gives a detailed description of
this spring festival. The “Taurobolium,” as well as the “Criobolium,”
is not known to have been performed before 134 A.D. Then it appears
in Italy, but it unquestionably had an Oriental origin and so must have
been practiced at a considerably earlier date. It may also have had
Mithraic connections. The description given by Prudentius (Peris-
tephanon, x. IoII f.) purports to be based on personal observation. A
perforated platform was erected over a pit in which the neophyte
Hellenistic Religions of Redemption 3OS
and support in the capital of the empire, while Chris-
tianity was still making its first appearance in the home-
land of the Cybele-Attis cult.
It is a more difficult task to define the religious influ-
ences which emanated from the regions of Cilicia and
Syria." Tradition supplies a variety of gods and god-
desses, but leaves their mutual relations and the details
of their worship obscure. Yet, in spite of the chaotic
Condition of our information, the main lines of religious
development are discoverable, and they disclose features
fundamentally similar to those of the Phrygian cult.
We find here a goddess mother occupying a central
place in the cultus, and associated with her is a male
deity whose death is lamented and his resurrection
celebrated with rejoicing. #
placed himself. The steer was killed above and the blood dripped
through upon the worshiper who eagerly received it upon his clothing,
face, and lips, even drinking it as it struck his mouth. This baptism
was believed to purify the neophyte; he died to his old life and arose
to a new, having been reborn through the bloody bath. See, further,
Cumont, “Le Taurobole et le culte de Bellone,” Revue d’histoire et de
littérature religieuses, VI (1901), 97–IIo, and Oriental Religions, pp.
66 f.; Hepding, Attis, pp. I77-205; Frazer, Adonis, Attis, Osiris, pp.
229 f.
* See Cumont, Oriental Religions, pp. Io9–34; Frazer, Adonis, etc.,
pp. 1–216; Vellay, Le culte et les fêtes d’Adónis-Thammous dans l'orient
antique (Paris, Igo4); von Baudissin, Adonis und Esmun: Eine Unter-
suchung zur Geschichte des Glaubens an Auferstehungsgötter und an
Heilgötter (Leipzig, 1911); Toutain, op. cit., pp. 35–72; Strong and
Garstang, The Syrian Goddess (London, 1913); Wissowa, Religion und
Kultus der Römer, pp. 359–68; Gruppe, Griechische Mythologie, pp.
1582–86; W. R. Smith, Religion of the Semites (London, 1894°); La-
grange, Etudes sur les religions sémitiques (Paris, 1905); Luckenbill,
“The Early Religion of Palestine,” Biblical World, XXXV (1910),
296–308 and 368–79; Paton, “The Cult of the Mother-Goddess in
Ancient Palestine,” ibid., XXXVI (1910), 26-38.
306 The Evolution of Early Christianity
These ideas in and about Syria seem to have their
natural antecedents in Babylonia where Ishtar is the
deified embodiment of mother-life. She is the Ash-
toreth of the biblical writers, the Ashtart of Phoenicia,
the Astarte and Aphrodite of the Greeks. Ishtar is an
ancient figure in Babylonia and her position is a fairly
stable one throughout all the changes affecting Assyrian
and Babylonian religion. Her influence continued to
be felt long after many once greater divinities had
been forgotten. She is the mother-goddess of prosperity
and fertility who teaches men the arts of civilization and
has a constant care for their welfare. Associated with
her is the male deity Tammuz, a youthful god who is
slain, remains for a period in the lower world, and is
later revived. As Ishtar personifies the source of life,
Tammuz represents life in its natural manifestation—
the constantly rotating cycle of birth and death. Hence
the prominence of lamentation in his cult, a practice
which in the time of Ezekiel had been adopted by Jews
and was being carried on by the women, at the north
gate of the temple." es
The Babylonian Ishtar became Ashtart in Phoenicia,
with apparently an important cult. As early as the
third century B.C. she is the patron goddess of the kings
of Sidon.” Both King Tabnith and his father were her
priests. The coffin inscription of his son Eshmunazar
tells us not only that Tabnith's wife was a priestess of
* Ezek. 8: I4. For laments for Tammuz see Gressmann’s Altori-
entalische Texte und Bilder, I, 93–96; or Prince, “A Hymn to Tammuz.”
in the Journal of the American Oriental Society, XXX (1909–Io), 94–Ioo,
and “A Tammuz Fragment,” ibid., XXXIII (1913), 345–48.
* For data see G. A. Cooke, A Text Book of North Semitic Inscriptions
(Oxford, 1903), passim.
Hellenistic Religions of Redemption 307
Ashtart, but that a male deity, Eshmun, was associated
with her in Sidon. Eshmunazar boasts of his line that
it “built the houses of the gods, the house of Ashtart
in Sidon, the land of the sea, and we caused Ashtart to
dwell there, making her glorious; and we are they who
built a house for Eshmun in the holy field, the well
of Yidlal in the mountain, and we caused him to dwell
there, making him glorious.”
It is probable that this male deity associated with
Ashtart plays a rôle similar to that of Tammuz, but a
better known name of the god who figures in this capacity
is Adonis. The equivalence of Adonis and Tammuz
is now generally admitted, as well as the fact that
Aphrodite was a counterpart of Ashtart, or Astarte as
the Greeks called her. In remarking upon the different
Venuses of mythology Cicero says, “the fourth was a
Syrian . . . . who is called Astarte and is said to have
been married to Adonis.” And the Greek poetess
Sappho mentions the weeping for Adonis—an item which
shows not only connections with Tammuz, but also
the particular character of the cult. The myths about
Adonis and Aphrodite as told by various Greek and
Latin writers have the same import. The slain—or,
in some myths, stolen—god descends to the lower world;
Aphrodite agonizes in grief at his disappearance; finally
he is restored in the springtime and continues with the
revolution of the seasons to die and rise again each year.
The cult of Aphrodite and Adonis fosters the same
type of belief and practices as that which meets us in
the other mystery-religions. The goddess is the per-
Sonification of maternal life and the male deity is the
* De deor. nat., iii. 23.
308 The Evolution of Early Christianity
\
embodiment of the redemptive idea—life in action.
The Adonis festival held at the court of Ptolemy II
early in the third century B.C., as described by Theoc-
ritus," has a striking general resemblance to the Attis
festival of Claudius' day. A mystic drama depicted
the death of Adonis, lamentation followed his decease,
and his resurrection was greeted with outbursts of joy.
Among the sacred things displayed were representations
of Aphrodite and Adonis joined in wedlock, the death
of the god, the mourning of the goddess, and Adonis’
restoration to life. In the words of Theocritus, the
musician at the sacred festival sings:
The bridal bed for Adonis spread of my own making is;
Cypris hath this for her wrapping, Adonis that for his.
Of eighteen years, of nineteen, is turned the rose-limbed groom;
His pretty lip is Smooth to sip, for it bears but flaxen bloom.
And now she's in her husband’s arms, and so we’ll say good night;
But tomorrow we’ll come with the dew, the dew, and take hands
and bear him away
Where plashing wave the shore doth lave, and there with locks
undight
And bosoms bare all shining fair will raise this shrilling lay:
O sweet Adonis, none but thee of the children of gods and men
"Twixt overworld and underworld doth pass and pass again;
That cannot Agamemnon, nor the Lord o' the Woeful Spleen.”
Nor the first3 of the twice ten children that came of the Troyan
Queen,
Nor Patroclus brave, nor Pyrrhus bold that home from the war
did win, -
Nor none of the kith o' the old Lapith nor of them of Deucalion's
kin—
E’en Pelops’ line lacks fate so fine, and Pelasgian Argos' pride.
* Text and English tr. by J. M. Edmonds, The Greek Bucolic Poels
(New York, 1912), pp. 175 ft.
* Ajax. 3 Hector.
Hellenistic Religions of Redemption 3O9
Adonis sweet, Adonis dear,
Be gracious for another year;
Thou’rt welcome to thine own alway,
And welcome we’ll both cry today
And next Adonis-tide.
The cult of these deities spread in Hellenistic times
from two chief centers, Byblos in Syria and Paphos
in Cyprus. When Paul in Syria and Cyprus centuries
later preached his message about the crucified and risen
Lord of Christian faith, the Adonis religion was still
thriving in these regions. Many members of the
Christian missionary’s gentile congregation would un-
doubtedly be perfectly familiar with the mystic drama
depicting the death of the god, they would have par-
ticipated in the rites of the cult, and would have enjoyed
the religious satisfactions which that faith gave its
votaries.
Another female deity of Syria, whose genealogical
Connections are obscure, bore the name Atargatis. Her
Consort was Hadad, who appears in the Zenjirli inscrip-
tion which Bar-rekub erected in honor of his father
Panammu (745-727 B.C.). Here Hadad’s name is con-
nected with belief in the immortality of the soul—an
idea especially fostered by all the mystery-religions.
The lines referring to Hadad read: “Whosoever of my
Sons shall hold the scepter and sit upon my seat and
grow strong and sacrifice to Hadad . . . . and make
mention of the name of Hadad, or shall say, May the
Soul of Panammu eat with thee and may the soul of
Panammu drink with thee . . . . may Hadad look
favorably upon him!” Furthermore, a passage in
* Cooke, op. cit., pp. 180 ft.
3IO The Evolution of Early Christianity
Zech. I2: II which speaks of mourning for Hadadrimmon
seems to indicate, as Gunkel thinks," that Hadad was,
like Tammuz and Adonis, a dying god in whose ritual
lamentation was a characteristic item.
But in Hellenistic times it is Atargatis herself about
whom we hear most. Greek writers often refer to her
simply as 2.upta 6eá (“Syrian goddess”), whence the
Roman dea. Syria, popularly Corrupted into Iasura.
Her cult seems to have been widely disseminated over
the Graeco-Roman world among the lower classes,
especially among the slaves.” The great uprising among
the slaves of Sicily in 134 B.C. was led by a devotee of
the Syrian goddess who affirmed that he was acting under
divine guidance and inspired by divine mania. Her
worship apparently was of an ecstatic, mystic type
like that of Cybele-Attis.
Persia furnished, in Mithraism,” one of the strongest
redemption-religions that appeared in the Graeco-Roman
world. Mithra was an ancient Iranian deity who was
* Zum religionsgeschichtlichen Verständnis des Neuen Testaments,
p. 78, n. 5.
* Yet for a time she was highly esteemed, even by the Roman emperor
Nero, who “held in contempt all religious rites except those of the Syrian
goddess.” But this respect was short lived (Suetonius, Nero, 56).
3 Some representative literature on Mithraism is Lajard, Recherches
sur le culte public et les mystères de Mithra en Orient et en Occident (Paris,
1867); Cumont, Textes et monuments figurés relatifs aua, mystères de
Mithra (2 vols., Bruxelles, 1896–99), Les mystères de Mithra (ibid.,
Igoo), English tr., The Mysteries of Mithra (Chicago, IQIo°), and Oriental
Religions, pp. 135-61; Dieterich, Eine Mithrasliturgie; Dill, Roman
Society from Nero to Marcus Aurelius, pp. 585–626; Gruppe, Griechische
Mythologie, pp. I591–1602; Wissowa, Religion und Kultus der Römer,
pp. 368–73; Böhlig, Die Geisteskultur von Tarsos, pp. 89–Io'7; Toutain,
Les cultes paiens, I., ii, I2I-77; Loisy, “Mithra,” Revue d’histoire et de
littérature religieuses, Nouvelle Série, IV (1913), 497–539.
Hellenistic Religions of Redemption 3II
subordinated to Ahura Mazda in the classical period
of Zoroastrianism but regained his popularity with new
strength in later times. Already in the Avesta, Ahura
Mazda declares: “Verily, when I created Mithra, the
lord of wide pastures, O Spitama! I created him as
worthy of sacrifice, as worthy of prayer, as myself
Ahura Mazda.” Invoked “in his own name and with
the proper words” he brings the worshiper sure help.
He is mediator between the great God, Ahura Mazda,
and man. As the ever-watchful guardian of justice
and truth, he is especially hostile toward evil demons.
He is the enemy of all wickedness and the one who
delivers righteous men from all troubles. Both here
and hereafter he is the hope of those who pray: “Mayest
thou keep us in both worlds, O Mithra, lord of wide
pastures! both in this material world and in the world
of the spirit, from the fiend of Death, from the fiend
of Aëshma, from the fiendish hordes that lift up the
Spear of havoc, and from the onsets of Aëshma.”
The Avesta also contains a Yasht” in honor of a god-
dess Ardvi Sūra Anāhita (or Anaitis), who is “the life-
increasing and holy, the herd-increasing and holy, the
fold-increasing and holy, the wealth-increasing and holy,
the Country-increasing and holy; who makes the seed
of all males pure, who makes the womb of all females
pure for bringing forth.” She is the great river that
waters all the earth, making it fruitful to support life.
To her the creator, Ahura Mazda, himself sacrificed
in proper fashion, begging her to aid him in training
up Zarathushtra to found the new religion. As a goddess
* The entire Mihir Yasht (X) is given up to the praise of Mithra.
* The Åbān Yasht (V).
3I2 The Evolution of Early Christianity
of fertility she strongly resembles Ishtar, and some
interpreters have therefore concluded that she came
into Persia from the Semitic world." However this
may be, her position was at one time firmly established,
although later her functions were largely appropriated
by Mithra. -
In the fourth century B.C. both Mithra and Anāhita
occupied a prominent place in popular faith, notwith-
standing their subordinate position in the Zoroastrian
system. Artaxerxes II is said to have erected the image
of Anāhita in Babylon, Susa, and Ecbatana, a custom
which was not only followed in Persia, but extended
to Damascus and Sardis.” From this time on Mithra
and Anāhita take their place beside Ahura Mazda, until
finally the popular movement completely eclipses
Zoroastrianism as the religion of the Persians. In the
course of this development Mithra alone becomes the
chief deity of the cult, assimilating to himself the princi-
pal characteristics of Anāhita.” But this was not the
only source from which Mithraism borrowed. From
Greece it learned to chisel the god's image in human
form, from Babylonia it learned astrology, from Phrygia
it absorbed many features of the Cybele cult; in fact,
its capacity for adjustment to environment is strikingly
exhibited at several points in its career. Yet Mithraism
had its own distinctive character as a religious move-
* So most recently J. H. Moulton, Early Zoroastrianism, pp. 238 f.
On the other hand, G. F. Moore, History of Religions, I, 374, thinks
there is “no sufficient ground for the opinion that the goddess herself
was borrowed from the Semites.”
*Cited by Clement of Alexandria (Prot., V, 65) from Berosus'
Chaldaics. +
3 Herodotus, i. 131, mistakenly assumes that Mithra was a goddess.
Hellenistic Religions of Redemption 3I3
\
ment. The initiated passed through seven grades,
assuming respectively at each stage the names Raven,
Occult, Soldier, Lion, Persian, Runner of the Sun, and
Father. These are survivals from a primitive age when
the devotee sought union with the deity by identifica-
tion with some animal sacred to the god. But when
astrological influence made itself felt the seven stages
of initiation came to prefigure the passage of the Soul
after death through the seven heavens to the final
abode of the blessed. Each grade was reached by
observing prescribed rites of a sacramental character
Consisting of ablutions, Sacred meals, and other appro-
priate observances.
The religious satisfactions held out to the votaries
were numerous. Hope of a blessed immortality and a
final righteous judgment were very prominent. Mithra
was a mighty hero, mediating between the god of heaven
and mortals, and leading the forces of good against the
powers of evil. In the mythological age he had per-
formed heroic deeds for the benefit of mankind, thus
becoming the special champion of humanity. After
a last Supper celebrating the success of his redemptive
labors he ascended to heaven, whence he now ministered
help to the faithful in their conflict with Satan and his
hosts. After death the sinful soul was dragged down
to the lower regions to be tortured, but a soul with
enough good deeds to its credit to balance the bad
soared aloft, ridding itself of all impurities and fleshly
passions as it passed through the celestial regions. The
entrance to each of the seven heavens could be passed
only by those who had been initiated and had thereby
learned the proper passwords. Mithra was the helper
3I4 The Evolution of Early Christianity
of the soul in its course, he received it in glory at last,
and was to preside over a final judgment when he would
return to earth, raise the dead, and bring the forces of
evil to an end.
The date at which Mithraism made its appearance in
the Graeco-Roman world, and the stage of development
which it had reached at that time, are as yet obscure
questions. In the second and third centuries A.D. it
was Christianity’s most powerful rival throughout the
whole Roman empire. But until the last quarter of the
first century apparently it had not gained a foothold
outside Asia Minor, although it had been flourishing for
centuries in the regions of Armenia, Pontus, Cappadocia,
and Lydia, and had been the religion of the Cilician
pirates who unsuccessfully contended with the Romans
under Pompey in 67 B.C. for the control of the eastern
Mediterranean. The cult of Mithra had become so
firmly established in Cilicia that Tarsus continued to
worship him down to the end of the imperial period.”
As early as the time of Nero the Mithraic religion was
so highly esteemed that the emperor received initiation
at the hands of the Magi who accompanied Tiridates
On his visit to Rome.”
Nevertheless Mithraism seems to have made only
a very slight impression upon the coast lands of the
eastern Mediterranean. Though the Persian religion
is familiar to Greek and Roman writers,” it apparently
* Plutarch, Pomp., 24. * Cumont, Textes, etc., I, 190.
3 Pliny, Nat. Hist., xxx. 6; Cumont, Textes, etc., I, 239.
4 E.g., Herodotus, i. I31-40; Strabo, xv. 3. I3-20; Plutarch, Da
Iside et Osiride, 46 f.; Diogenes Laertius, Proem, vi, where older author.
ities are cited.
Hellenistic Religions of Redemption 3I5
was not among the religious phenomena with which
they came into daily contact. Furthermore, the
absence of Mithraeums in the archaeological remains
of the eastern Mediterranean is usually taken as evi-
dence that Persian religion was not influential in this
territory. But this lack of positive data may easily
be overemphasized. It is still possible that Mithraic
forces may have been felt more widely than the present
data would seem to indicate. A new mystery-religion
might not establish a distinctive existence in territory
already pre-empted by several similar types of faith, and
yet it might be present, coalescing with them and con-
tributing in turn some items in their development. It
doubtless was a characteristic of Mithraism in earlier
times—as we know it was later—to associate itself with
other faiths, at the same time contributing to their life
not a little of its own leaven. This process certainly
had been going on in the lands about the northeastern
Mediterranean long before Christianity arose, although
we may not at present be able to define the exact limits
of Mithraic activity within the religious life of that
region. -
On the other hand, the wide dissemination of Egyp-
tian mystery-religion over the Graeco-Roman world
in pre-Christian times is amply attested." Isis and
* Besides the general works on Egyptian religion (see above, p. 76),
special treatments of the present subject may be found in Lafaye,
Histoire du culte des divinités d’Alexandrie Sérapis, Isis, Harpocrate et
Anubis hors de l'Égypte (Paris, 1883); De Jong, De Apuleio isiacorum
mysteriorum (Leiden, 1900); Schäfer, Die Mysterien des Osiris in Abydos
wnter König Sesostris III (Leipzig, 1904); Dennis, The Burden of Isis,
Being the Laments of Isis and Nephtys Translated from the Egyptian
(London, IQIo); Burel, Isis et Isiaques sous l'empire romain (Paris,
316 The Evolution of Early Christianity
Osiris, and later Serapis, are the chief deities who figure
in the Egyptian mysteries. Isis and Osiris were very
ancient deities with whom the attainment of immortal
blessedness had been associated from an early date.
Herodotus' noted that these divinities occupied a unique
position, in that all the Egyptians worshiped them in
the same way, while the worship of other gods varied.
Herodotus is impressed with the substantially uniform
position which Isis and Osiris hold in the popular faith.
Serapis appears prominently first in the Ptolemaic
period, when his worship became an official cult. The
ancestry of Serapis is very obscure,” but he is practically
1911); Moret, Rois et dieux d'Égypte, and Mystères égyptiens (Paris, 1911);
Weber, Drei Untersuchungen zur àgyptisch-griechischen Religion (Heidel-
berg, Igri); Boulage, Les mystères d’Isis et d’Osiris (Paris, Tor 2);
Reisner, The Egyptian Conception of Immortality (London, 1912);
Frazer, Adonis, Attis, Osiris, pp. 267-400; Cumont, Oriental Religions,
pp. 73–Io2; Dill, Roman Society from Nero to Marcus Aurelius, pp. 560–
84; Toutain, Les cultes paiens, I., ii, 5-34; Gruppe, Griechische Mytho-
logie, pp. 1562–82; Wissowa, Religion und Kultus der Römer, pp. 351–59;
Schmidt, Kultúbertragungen, pp. 47–81; Lévy, “Sarapis,” Revue de l’his—
toire des religions, LX (1909), 285-98; LXI (1910), I62–96; LXIII
(1911), 125–47; Sethe, “Sarapis und die Sogenannten Károxol des
Sarapis: Zwei Probleme der griechisch-aegyptischen Religionsge-
schichte,” Abhandlungen der Königlichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften
zu Göttingen (Philologisch-historisch Klasse, Neue Folge XIV, Nr. 5,
Berlin, 1913); Loisy, “Isis et Osiris,” Revue d’histoire et de littérature
religieuses, Nouvelle série, IV (1913), 385-421. -
* ii. 42. #
* Cf. Cumont. Oriental Religions, pp. 74 f., 229, notes I and 4.
According to Plutarch (De Iside et Osiride, 28), Ptolemy I was instructed
in a dream to transfer the colossus of Pluto at Sinope to Alexandria
where it was named Serapis, the name being derived in popular tradi-
tion from Osiris-Apis. This derivation has recently been defended by
Sethe (op. cit.), who maintains that the Greeks mistook the O in Osiris
for the article and made “Serapis” from the rest of the compound
word. But no explanation yet offered can be treated as final.
Hellenistic Religions of Redemption 3I'7
/
identical with Osiris, the two names being perpetuated
side by side.
The story of Osiris’ death and resurrection has many
variations, but the Central elements of the myth agree.
Osiris upon earth had been a king of Egypt, bestowing
the gifts of civilization upon mankind." He suffered
a violent death and Isis in fierce grief sought him
until she recovered the body, which was carefully
embalmed.” Another tradition told of the dismember-
ment of the body, the parts being recovered by Isis
and the whole restored to life.8 Osiris then became
king of the nether world. Under astral influence his
dominion was transferred to the Plains of Aalu in the
west where the Sun sank out of sight, absorbed in the
death of night.
Thus Osiris was the prototype of the virtuous man
who Sought from religion the assurance of admission
into the abode of the blest after death. The road to be
traversed by the departed soul was a difficult and danger-
ous One, Consequently formulas were provided for use
in warding off demons and procuring divine help. The
so-called Book of the Dead owes its origin to this demand,
already in full force during the period from the Eight-
eenth to the Twentieth dynasties. If the traveler, on
reaching the judgment hall of Osiris, received a favorable
verdict, he was permitted to enter the Plain of Aalu
where he might lead forever a life of eternal happi-
ness. The believer identified his own career so closely
with that of Osiris that the Soul of a dead man
was actually called “Osiris,” and those who gained
* Plutarch, op. cit., 13.
* Herodotus, ii. 86. 3 Plutarch, op. cit., I8.
318 The Evolution of Early Christianity
admission to the Plain of Aalu could even become gods
if they so desired."
Naturally the deities were highly praised for provid-
ing mankind with a cultus capable of conferring on
humanity these immortal blessings. The feelings of
appreciation and reverence aroused by contemplating
the experiences of Isis and Osiris in their struggle against
their enemy Typhon, who had brought about Osiris’
death, is tersely expressed in the words of Plutarch:
“But the avenger of Osiris, his sister and wife, Isis, who
extinguished and put a stop to the madness and fury of
Typhon, did not forget the contests and struggles she
had gone through, nor yet her own wanderings, nor did
she suffer oblivion and silence to envelop her many deeds
of wisdom, many feats of courage, but by intermingling
with the most Sacred ceremonies, images, hints, and
representations of her sufferings of yore, she consecrated
at one and the same time both lessons of piety and
consolation in suffering for men and women when over-
taken by misfortune. And she, together with Osiris,
having been translated from the rank of good divinities
up to that of gods, by means of their virtue (as later
was done with Hercules and Bacchus) receive not
inappropriately the united honors of gods and of divini-
ties everywhere, both in the regions above the earth, and
in those under ground, possessing the Supreme power.”
In the time of Herodotus' the second most important
Egyptian festival was in honor of Isis. Her largest
* See in general, on this subject, Wiedemann, The Realms of the
Egyptian Dead (London, 1901).
* Plutarch, op. cit., 27. Cf. the similar language of Paul in explain-
ing Jesus' exaltation to heavenly honors (Phil. 2: 5-Io).
3 vii. 59-61.
Hellenistic Religions of Redemption 3I9
temple was in the city of Busiris in the middle of the
Delta. In connection with the festival held at this
place “all the men and women to the number of many
myriads beat themselves after the sacrifice” in memory
of the goddess’ lamentation for the dead Osiris. Herodo-
tus doubtless could have informed us accurately about
the details of the ritual had he not been so reverential
toward their secrets, nevertheless he does disclose their
general character.” The death of Osiris was widely
lamented; and the adventures of the dying and rising
god were depicted before the eyes of the neophytes in
the form of a mystery-play. These ceremonies will, of
Course, have been accompanied by fitting ritualistic
observances and an appropriate interpretation of their
significance.
The Egyptian mysteries spread extensively over the
Mediterranean world from the beginning of the third
century B.C. on. During the rule of Ptolemy I the
worship of Isis and Serapis was established at Athens,
the latter having a temple at the foot of the Acropolis.
In fact, the worship of these Egyptian deities had been a
familiar phenomenon in almost the entire territory about
the Levant for three centuries before the rise of Chris-
tianity. The same deities had also traveled to Rome
before the beginning of our era. The cult of Serapis
was established in Pozzuoli by the year IoS B.C., when a
Serapeum is mentioned in a city ordinance. Tibullus’
fiancée, Delia, had been initiated into the mysteries
of Isis at Rome, and he appeals to Delia to intercede
* See above, p. 291.
* See especially ii. 170 f. Plutarch’s De Iside et Osiride and Apuleius'
Metamorphoses are important additional sources of information.
32O The Evolution of Early Christianity
with the goddess for him as he now lies sick in Corcyra."
At this early date the Egyptian mysteries had pushed
their way into Italy despite the opposition—due in
some measure perhaps to Rome's jealousy of Alex-
andria—which was raised against them. They antici-
pated Christianity in incurring persecution, records
of which are preserved for the years 59, 53, 50, 48 B.C.
and 19 A.D.; yet, like Christianity a century or more
later, they seemed only to thrive the better for oppo-
sition.
The significance of these mysteries for the people of
the Graeco-Roman world seems to have been in funda-
mental respects much the same as that of the correspond-
ing Greek, Phrygian, or Syrian cults. Here again we
find a mother-goddess personifying the source of life
and civilization, and associated with her is a consort
who impersonates the hope of triumph in the ever-
present human struggle of life over death. Diodorus
in his History” gives a description of Isis said to have been
derived from a tomb inscription at Nysa in Arabia.
Apart from the question of the tradition’s historicity,
the sentiments expressed, which are repeated in fuller
form in an inscription of Ios,” probably represent the
popular conception of Isis’ functions as conceived by
hosts of persons in the first century B.C. The goddess
proclaims herself to be the queen of every land, equipped
with divine knowledge to ordain binding decrees. She
has designed the arts of civilization; she taught men mys-
teries, thus founding religion; government and social
* Tibullus, i. 3. 2 i. 27.
3 Text and translation in Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East,
pp. I36 f.
Hellenistic Religions of Redemption 32I
order are her gifts; she is the patroness of life both
in nature and in mankind; to Egypt which nourished
her she is a perpetual honor.
Plutarch, a Greek interpreter of the Isis-Osiris religion,
writing at approximately the same period when the
author of the Fourth Gospel interpreted Christianity
to the Greeks, follows a more philosophical vein, though
he does not deviate materially from the popular faith.
He admits that the mourning for Osiris and the rejoicing
at his resurrection are symbols of the death and revival
of nature, but he also sees back of these outward phenom-
ena something else—shall we say something Cosmic
and “spiritual” P He calls Isis “the female principle
of nature and that which is capable of receiving all
generation in virtue of which she is styled by Plato
“nurse’ and ‘all-receiving,’ but by people in general
she is called the ‘one of numberless names’ because she
is converted by the Logos [that is, Osiris, who is identi-
fied with the Togos, the Word] into, and receives, all
appearances and forms.” Osiris in his Logos-function,
according to Plutarch, brought the rational world
into being."
Perhaps Plutarch was the first to expound the signifi-
cance of Isis and Osiris in these particular terms,
though that is by no means certain. But for genera-
tions devotees of these gods had been observing the
sacred ceremonies of the cult, nourishing piety upon,
and deriving consolation from, the memory of these
deities’ sufferings, and worshiping them with hearts
more or less full of appreciation and reverence according
to the capacity of the worshiper. An interpretation of
* See Plutarch, op. cit., 39, 53 f., and 61.
322 The Evolution of Early Christianity
this religion by a truly mystic spirit has been preserved
in Apuleius’ Metamorphoses. Though the document is
from the latter half of the second century A.D., it has
the same basal conception of the goddess that appears
in Diodorus two hundred years before and in Plutarch
midway between these limits. Isis addresses Lucius,
who is seeking her favor, in the usual way: “Behold me
Lucius, moved by thy prayers I appear to thee, I, who
am nature, the parent of all things, the mistress of all
the elements, the primordial offspring of time, the
supreme among divinities, the queen of departed spirits,
the first of the celestials, and the uniform manifestations
of gods and goddesses.”
The response of the devout soul to this much-revered
goddess—a response which may have been made by many
a worshiper in his heart long before Apuleius put it into
the mouth of Lucius—was naturally one of great appre-
ciativeness and strong religious fervor. After the god-
dess had received him into full fellowship through the
rites of initiation, Lucius uttered a prayer, worthy to
stand beside Cleanthes’ great hymn to Zeus. In the
latter the philosopher speaks forth his reverence for the
activities of a divine Providence which man beholds
with satisfaction; in the prayer to Isis the mystic soul
appreciates none the less the god's activities, but it
finds the great reality of religion in the inward certainty
of union with the deity. Lucius prays: “Thou, O holy
and perpetual preserver of the human race, always
munificent in cherishing mortals, dost bestow the sweet
affection of a mother on the misfortunes of the wretched.
Nor is there any day or night, nor so much as the
minutest particle of time, which passes unattended by
Hellenistic Religions of Redemption 323
thy bounties. Thou dost protect men both by sea and
land, and, dispersing the storms of life, dost extend thy
health-giving right hand, by which thou dost unravel the
inextricably entangled threads of the Fates, and dost
assuage the tempests of fortune and restrain the
malignant influences of the stars. The gods of heaven
adore thee, thou dost roll the sphere of the universe
round the steady poles, thou dost illuminate the sun,
thou dost govern the universe, thou dost tread the realms
of Tartarus. The stars move responsive to thy com-
mand, the gods rejoice in thy divinity, the Seasons
return by thy appointment, and the elements are thy
servants. At thy nod the breezes blow, the clouds are
nurtured, the seeds germinate, and the blossoms increase.
The birds as they hover through the air, the wild beasts
as they roam on the mountains, the serpents that hide
in the earth, and the monsters that swim in the Sea are
terrified at the majesty of thy presence. But I so weak
in capacity for celebrating thy praises, and possessing
Such slender means for offering sacrifices, have far from
eloquence sufficient to express all that I conceive of
thy majesty. Not a thousand mouths, and tongues
as many, not an eternal flow of unwearied speech would
be equal to the task. I will, therefore, use my utmost
endeavors to do what, poor as I am, still one truly reli-
gious may do—I will figure to myself thy divine counte-
nance and will ever preserve this most holy divinity
locked up in the deepest recesses of my breast.”
The mysteries in general perpetuate a very ancient
type of religious activity. In the first instance they
represent primitive man’s effort to avail himself of the
* Apuleius, Metamorphoses, xi. 25.
324 The Evolution of Early Christianity
help of nature's forces. His main interest is to persuade
these powers to act favorably in his behalf. It would
be fatal for his welfare if vegetation should fail to revive
in the springtime, if the fields should refuse to yield
their increase, or if he were denied descendants to
defend and perpetuate the existence of the tribe. So
he institutes rites designed to bring about the return
of spring, the fertility of the soil, and the propagation
of the race. His one fear is that life may fail, and his
one desire is to insure himself against such disaster.
In this lies the explanation of those crude features
of nature-worship, the prevalence of phallic images,
and the like, which were present in almost all the
mysteries.
At an early stage of development man attained con-
fidence in the power of nature to survive the shock of
winter’s death. He did not base his assurance on the
uniformity of nature’s law, as we do, but such uniformity
was practically as substantial a thing for his faith as
that dogma is for our science. This faith was personi-
fied in the form of a dying and reviving god, which was
the ancient way of talking about what we term the
succession of the seasons. The young deity died and
the mother-goddess, source of all life, lamenting his
decease, refused to sustain life until he was restored.
Thus summer followed winter, and winter, summer.
In Hellenistic times this type of religion still made a
strong appeal, although it had taken a new turn. Not
crops and herds and Social groups, but the welfare of
the individual Soul was now uppermost. Men looked
to the deity which formerly guaranteed the perpetuity
of nature's life to give the individual a similar assurance.
Hellenistic Religions of Redemption 325
Thus a god which existed first as a redeemer of vegeta-
tion became a redeemer of souls.
As in earlier times man sought to ally himself with
the forces of nature in order to obtain their aid, so now
his aim was to unite himself to this savior-deity. To
accomplish this end various means were employed,
including pictorial representations of the redeemer-
deity's Career, rites of purification by which one became
worthy of approaching the god, or other ceremonies
designed to effect union between the divinity and the
worshiper. Some of these rites were crude survivals
from the earlier stage of nature-worship, while others
breathed a noble spirit of purity and devotion. In any
case, the religious impulses were fundamentally the same,
although the methods employed for attaining the com-
mon goal naturally varied with the education and per-
Sonality of the worshiper.
One of the most influential factors in the evolution
of the mystery-religions was the introduction of astral
ideas. Originally the gods of these cults seem, for the
most part at least, to have been chthonian deities,
and the abode of the blest was also located beneath
the earth. When the gods were transferred to the
heavens and when the Soul of man was given astral
Connections, these religions had a new and much
more effective instrument for use in their special task
of insuring man the help of the deity in the attain-
ment of a blessed immortality. This process of de-
velopment must have begun at a comparatively early
date, for it was already in full bloom before the
opening of our era."
* See above, p. 244.
326 The Evolution of Early Christianity
The realistic features of the mystery-religions were
still preserved, notwithstanding this transition of thought
from earth to heaven. With the advancement of civili-
zation the crude rites which had formerly been employed
to symbolize or to effect union with the god were con-
siderably modified, but this union was not conceived
to be any less real. The devotee and the deity were
still realistically united, although the consciousness
of the divine presence might now be expressed in terms
of intellectual rather than physical emotions. This
intellectualizing tendency, which had been prompted
by astrology and which was stimulated by the develop-
ment of a world-culture in Hellenistic times, led to a
greater emphasis than formerly upon speculative items
resulting in a more elaborate mystery-religion theology.
The tendency toward mystical speculation has already
been observed, even among Greek philosophers," but it
came to fullest expression in connection with the oriental
religions. The movement did not at first produce an
extensive formal literature, and Such as was produced
has not been preserved from earlier times. Its real
spirit is at present best reflected in the writings of the
Gnostics, in the Hermetic literature, and in the magical
papyri.
The actual ancestry of Gnosticism is now understood
to be pre-Christian oriental mysticism, though it is
difficult to determine with which oriental religions its
genetic kinship is closest.” In fact, the movement itself
* Cf. above, p. 281 ff.
* Its oriental origin has gradually gained in recognition since the
appearance of Anz's Zur Frage nach dem Ursprung des Gnosticismus
(Texte und Untersuchungen, XV, 4, Leipzig, 1897), who traces its ances-
Hellenistic Religions of Redemption 327
is a syncretism embodying elements from various
sources. But its fundamental interest is the same as
that of all the mystery-religions, namely, to procure
Salvation for the individual soul through the help of
divinity. On this practical religious basis it rears its
speculative Superstructure. The world of matter and
the world of spirit are two distinct entities. The soul
of man is a spark of heavenly fire belonging to the divine
sphere, but has become so entangled in matter that
release is impossible without divine aid. This aid is
mediated in the form of revealed knowledge, gnosis
(Yvágus), which is a mysterious wisdom attained only
by those who have been initiated.* Through this
divine enlightenment the soul now attains liberation,
try to Babylonia. Bousset, Hauptprobleme der Gnosis (Göttingen,
I907), on the other hand, derives the main constituent elements from
Persia. An Egyptian origin is affirmed by Amélineau, Essai sur le
gnosticisme égyptien (Paris, 1887), and the same view has been advocated
more recently by Reitzenstein, Poimandres (Leipzig, 1904) and Die
hellenistischen Mysterienreligionen (Leipzig, 1910). The latest writer,
De Faye, Gnostiques et gnosticisme (Paris, Igrg), does not believe it
possible to construct the genealogical tree of Gnosticism so far as to
discover any one primitive type (p. 447). Other works on Gnosticism
are F. C. Baur, Das manichäische Religionssystem (Tübingen, 1831) and
Die christliche Gnosis (Tübingen, 1835); Lipsius, Der Gnosticismus
(Leipzig, 1860); Mansel, The Gnostic Heresies of the First and Second
Centuries (London, 1875); Hilgenfeld, Ketzergeschichte des Urchristen-
tums (Leipzig, 1884); King, The Gnostics and Their Remains (London,
1887°); M. Friedländer, Der vorchristliche jūdische Gnosticismus (Göt-
tingen, 1898); G. R. S. Mead, Fragments of a Faith Forgotten (London,
I900); De Faye, Introduction d l'étude du gnosticisme (Paris, 1903);
Buonaiuti, Lo Gnosticismo (Rome, 1907); Schultz, Dokumente der
Gnosis (Jena, 1910); Pfleiderer, Das Urchristentum (Berlin, 1902°), II,
I–I'79, English tr., Primitive Christianity (New York, 1910), III, II3–27I;
Wendland, Die hellenistisch-römische Kultur, pp. 163–87; Bousset,
Kyrios Christos, pp. 222–63. s
* Cf. Liechtenhan, Die Offenbarung in Gnosticismus (Göttingen, 1901).
328 The Evolution of Early Christianity
at the same time learning the secret of a successful
journey to the abode of the blest after death. This
abode is in the highest heavens, whither the soul journeys
equipped with all necessary armor, both offensive and
defensive, for triumphing over its foes. This victory
is made possible in the first instance through the work
of a savior who, instead of being a concrete historical
or mythical individual, is now an abstraction in the
form of “light,” “truth,” “wisdom,” “primal man,”
and the like. The whole scheme of the universe
becomes a mighty drama of redemption. This in
general was the character of Gnosticism before it
was fused with Christianity in the second and third
centuries A.D.
The Hermetic literature, though not pre-Christian
in its present form, represents Egyptian Gnosticism,
elements of which are undoubtedly pre-Christian in
origin." These pertain to the welfare of the soul in its
struggle to attain Salvation through alliance with the
deity who reveals true wisdom to the initiate. Thus
the believer is reborn to a new life, the god dwelling in
him and conferring upon him the gift of immortality.
The conversation between Hermes and his son Thotº
regarding regeneration reveals the characteristics of
* For literature see above, p. 193, n. I. Jacoby, Die antiken Mys-
terienreligionen und das Christentum, pp. 30 ft., translates Some of the
more interesting passages. Reitzenstein, Poimandres, pp. 328ff. prints a
portion of the original text, the latest edition of which is Parthey,
Hermetis Trismegisti Poemander (Berlin, 1854). Mead, Thrice Greatest
Hermes, contains a translation, introduction, and commentary on the
entire Hermetic corpus.
* Or “Tat”; cf. Reitzenstein, op. cit., p. 117, n. 2.
Hellenistic Religions of Redemption 329
the religion. The father has received the divine enlight-
enment, and as he talks with the son the latter, too,
experiences the change when he learns the secrets of
wisdom from his father. Man's great misfortune is
ignorance of God, but one who comes to a knowledge
of the truth has the power and presence of deity within
his breast. Essentially the same atmosphere pervades
numerous magical papyri. To cite a single illustration
from the prayer of a suppliant in the so-called “Mithra-
liturgy”:* “If indeed it seems good to you permit me,
now held down by my lower nature, to be reborn to
immortality . . . . that I may become mentally reborn,
that I may become initiated, that the Holy Spirit may
breathe in me.”3
Such, in broad outlines, were the redemption-religions
of the Graeco-Roman world. In details they exhibit
varying characteristics, but they all alike seek to meet
the widespread demand for an individual salvation to
be procured primarily by the aid of the deity. The
demand for this type of religion was particularly strong
in Hellenistic times, when national ideals were disap-
pearing and the individual was thrown more specifically
upon his own resources in a vast and varied world. The
human spirit, conscious of its frailty and helpless at the
* See text in Reitzenstein’s Poèmandres, pp. 339 f.
* There is much doubt about this document’s being a Mithraic
liturgy (see Dieterich, Mithrasliturgie, pp. 225–28, for a summary of
the discussion) but it represents a type of religion widely prevalent in
the ancient world. Although these documents are of post-Christian
origin, many of the religious items in them are directly descended from
the Oriental mystery-religions.
3 Dieterich, Mithrasliturgie, p. 4.
33O The Evolution of Early Christianity
loss of older Sanctions, eagerly turned toward those
cults which offered a personal salvation based upon a
divine redemptive transaction. Among the oriental
religions of redemption which attempted to meet this
situation, Christianity was the last to arise, but it ulti-
mately triumphed over all its rivals. We have, finally,
to sketch briefly the beginnings of this triumph.
CHAPTER X
THE TRIUMPH OF CHRISTIANITY
Christians in the first century passed through widely
varying experiences, due in large measure to a rapidly
changing environment. Jesus' death left his more imme-
diate followers disappointed and bewildered. They had
hoped that he would lead them in triumph against the
foreign oppressor, but instead he had been crushed by
the might of Rome. The favor of God which they
thought he enjoyed had been removed; it seemed to
them now that he had been abandoned to die on the
cross like a common thief.
The disciples escaped being seriously involved in the
trouble which cost Jesus his life. He apparently was
condemned as a possible messianic agitator, his removal
being mainly a precautionary measure, since he had not
actively instigated any revolutionary political movement.
Indeed, his followers were so few that the authorities
took little notice of them after their leader had been
removed. It was some time before they were sufficiently
numerous or influential to attract attention, but even
then hostility against them was prompted by entirely
new causes. The persecution of the early Christian
community in Jerusalem was not any mere continuation
of the enmity which had brought about Jesus’ death.
Although the disciples had abandoned Jesus on the
cross, their lives were still dominated by memories of
personal association with him. He, like John the
Baptist and many an older prophet, had proclaimed
331
332 The Evolution of Early Christianity
God’s displeasure with contemporary religious condi-
tions among the Jews. But unlike John, he sought to
communicate with men in the daily walks of life instead
of calling them to hear the ascetic preacher of the desert.
While in sympathy with John, Jesus was not fully satis-
fied with the latter's message. The call to repentance
he doubtless approved, as well as the idea of impend-
ing judgment, but the constructive side of John's
teaching did not adequately represent the experi-
ence of Jesus who thought of God not only as a
future righteous judge but also as a heavenly father
to be found here and now by all who seek him in a
truly worshipful spirit.
Jesus’ unique capacity for spiritual communion with
the Father suggests the measure of that peculiarly strong
attachment by which his closest associates were bound
to him. They had been disposed to identify him with
the long-expected one who should arise to deliver Israel
from the yoke of the foreigner. Probably Jesus had not
encouraged them in this specific belief, for he seems to
have discountenanced current inclinations toward revo-
lution. At any rate, early Christian tradition generally
affirms that previous to his death the disciples, in so far
as they associated any idea of messiahship with him,
entertained an entirely different conception from that
which they came to hold subsequently. While his death
shattered their political aspirations, it still left them
their vivid recollections of his personality on the basis
of which they reared a new messianic faith. They no
longer looked for an earthly leader, but for a heaven-
sent deliverer in the person of the crucified Jesus. Out
of the “Jesus of history” enthroned in their memory
The Triumph of Christianity 333
they proceeded to construct the “Christ of faith” who
became central in their hope.
-There were various forces at work in their life tending
to bring about the transformation of their faith. In the
first place they cherished a great longing for a traditional
redemption. This hope, stimulated by the Jews' long
period of bitter experience under subjection to foreign
rulers, became a central item in the national religion.
All were agreed that ultimately God was to be the
deliverer of his people, but there were differences of
opinion about the program he would follow. The oldest
view was to the effect that a natural descendant of David
would be elevated to the kingship, but in the interim
between the Old and the New Testament another
interpretation had arisen. According to this view God
would send a deliverer out of heaven, miraculously bring-
ing all earthly rule to an end and establishing an eternal
kingdom of righteousness. Although Jesus’ death com-
pelled the disciples to abandon their belief in him as
the man-Messiah, they still could resort to the concep-
tion of a heaven-Messiah.
The transition became complete the moment belief
in Jesus’ resurrection and exaltation to heaven was
established. It is a common opinion nowadays that
Jesus had attached to himself the notion of a heavenly
Messiah and had cautiously endeavored to induct the
disciples into his way of thinking. If he did make this
attempt he was wholly unsuccessful in accomplishing his
purpose, according to the uniform testimony of synoptic
tradition. Even Peter, when at last he confessed belief
in Jesus' messiahship, immediately betrayed utter igno-
rance of the type of messiahship which believers later
334 The Evolution of Early Christianity
attached to Jesus. They admitted that prior to his
death they had not comprehended his meaning which
had now become clear to them in the light of further
developments. Had Jesus himself anticipated the future
course of events? Naturally they believed he had, and
so they recalled words of his which were thought to point
in this direction. But to what extent their interpreta-
tion was influenced by their subsequent faith is now very
difficult to determine. One thing, however, is clear:
the disciples did not carry away from Calvary any
ready-made expectation of seeing Jesus alive again.
Although they later believed that he had tried to pre-
pare them for what was to happen, they freely confessed
to a former dulness which had made comprehension
impossible." The most important preparatory items
in the attainment of the disciples’ resurrection faith were
their memory of Jesus’ personality, and the apocalyptic
form of the national hope to which they now naturally
turned. Then of a sudden certain members of their
company had a revolutionary experience; they believed
Jesus had appeared to them in angelic form, thus prov-
ing that he had broken through the gates of Hades
and ascended to heaven. He was now in a position to
discharge the functions of the apocalyptic Messiah. .
May we suppose that the early believers were influ-
enced in the attainment of their resurrection faith by
the notion of a dying and rising god as current in the
contemporary mystery-religions P. This is not an a priori
impossibility. That such influence may have been felt
even within Jewish circles is suggested by Ezek. 8:14,
* See Mark 8:30–32; 9:9 f., 30–32; Io:32-34; Matt. I6: 20 f.
I7:9, 22 f.; 20:17–19; Luke 9:21 f., 36; 9:43-45; 18:31-34.
The Triumph of Christianity 335
and its possibility for the Christians is all the stronger
when we remember that they had probably belonged
originally to the populace. It is not unlikely that popu-
lar religion, even among the Jews of Palestine, had
absorbed features from the popular faiths of their neigh-
bors, notwithstanding the hostility which official Judaism
may have felt toward these exotic features.
On the other hand, the fundamental motive behind
the disciples’ faith is so genuinely Jewish that the idea
of gentile connections in the first instance seems very
questionable. The earliest Christians were not, like the
devotees of the mystery-religions, paying reverence to a
deity because he, by his triumph over death, was thought
capable of assuring them a similar victory. Jesus’
resurrection was only indirectly beneficial to them; its
immediate worth was for Jesus in that it elevated him to
the position of Messiah. The members of the early com-
munity were not expecting to die but to live to see Jesus
come in glory upon the clouds. His resurrection received
its primary significance from the fact that it made this
action possible.
Paul, so far as we know, was the first to affirm that
Jesus is the first-fruits and that those who are united to
him by faith triumph over death because of his victory.
Thus Paul took advantage of a notion with which the
Corinthians were already familiar. Similar influences
probably had been at work in the development of tra-
dition as we now find it in the elaborated accounts of
Jesus’ resurrection given in the Gospels. Since these
narratives in the present literary form have probably all
done service in the propagation of the new religion on
gentile soil, the evangelists may have designed them to
336 The Evolution of Early Christianity
show that Jesus guaranteed immortal life as truly as did
the dying and rising Attis, Adonis, or Osiris."
The specific conditions under which the first disciples
found themselves after they came to believe in Jesus’
resurrection and exaltation determined the main lines
of their future activity. The early community seems to
have been composed, at the outset, of Palestinian Jews
only who had no thought of breaking with their ancestral
religion. The distinctive thing about them was their
conviction that they had at last obtained the correct
answer to that age-long question of the Jewish nation,
namely, when will Yahweh effect the salvation of his
chosen people? Their answer was a very simple one.
It was based upon the conviction that Jesus had been
raised from the dead and exalted to heaven whence he
would come suddenly and soon to bring an end to the
present order of things, miraculously establishing a new
age where Israel would be supreme. There would be
no more oppression from the Romans, no more desecra-
tion of the holy city by the foreign soldiers, no more
tribute money paid to the heathen overlords, no more
suffering for the people of God, and no longer would any
evil thing be found in all the earth.
The notions of later times to the effect that this ideal
was to be realized in a place called heaven whither each
soul went at death, while the order of things on this
planet moved on in normal fashion, was no part of the
earliest Christians' thinking. They were not going to
heaven; heaven was coming to them. They looked for
a new Jerusalem to be let down out of heaven upon a
* Cf. Pfleiderer, Early Christian Conception of Christ, pp. 84 ff., and
Brückner, Der sterbende und auferstehende Gottheiland, pp. 34 ft.
The Triumph of Christianity 337
renovated earth, and they expected to live to see that
event come to pass. Even when the Gospel of Mark was
written, presumably about the year 70 A.D., it was be-
lieved that certain persons who had been present with
Jesus upon the earth would live to see the new kingdom
established." Thus redemption for God’s chosen people
was on the verge of realization.
How was this impending redemption to be accom-
plished P. The first disciples seem to have answered this
question simply by referring to the future advent of
Jesus and demanding belief in his messiahship. There is
really no justification for suspecting that they at the
start had any suspicion of a break with Judaism or that
they felt Jesus’ death had accomplished anything other
than his own transition from the status of a possible
man-Messiah to the position of the actual heavenly
Messiah. The Pauline argument about deliverance
from the bondage of the law—a phase of thought which
the apostle worked out so strongly in his practical con-
flict with the legalists—had not yet arisen to mar the
disciples’ sense of unity with Jewish coreligionists. In
fact, they did not regard the law as a burden from which
men needed redemption. It was for them rather a favor
which Yahweh had bestowed upon his people, something
on which they probably delighted to meditate day and
night. - z
The great redemptive transaction was still to be
accomplished through Jesus’ return, but its consumma-
tion was thought to await the assembling of a proper
body of inhabitants for the new kingdom. These were
to be gathered from the chosen people of God, who were
* Mark 9: I.
338 The Evolution of Early Christianity
to enter into this new privilege by repenting of their
sins and especially of their apathy or hostility toward
those who were proclaiming that God had chosen Jesus
to usher in the new messianic age. Apart from this
requirement the Jews were to continue as before in the
strict observance of the laws of Moses as a part of their
general purpose to please God and so to induce his
interference on their behalf.
In so far as further requirements were imposed on
believers, these seem to have consisted in an enlarge-
ment of the current stock of ethical and religious teaching
by adding items from the teaching of Jesus. His dis-
ciples defended this innovation by identifying him with
the prophet whose coming Moses had foretold: “A
prophet shall the Lord God raise up unto you from among
your brethren, like unto me; to him shall ye hearken
in all things whatsoever he shall speak unto you.”
Jesus while upon earth was simply the servant of God
sent to bless the people in turning them away from their
sins. The disciples preached a similar message of
repentance in order to persuade God to send Jesus who
had been made Messiah through his resurrection and
exaltation.
According to this program the distinctively redeem-
ing activity of Jesus still awaits fulfilment. His career
upon earth was a preliminary period of teaching designed
to prepare the people for the final deliverance when
Jesus would appear as Messiah Coming upon the clouds.
Not till then would the powers of darkness be set at
naught and the people of God enter into the heritage
of the redeemed. Although Jesus would be the national
* Acts 3:22.
The Triumph of Christianity 339
deliverer of Israel, the national group was narrowed to
include only those who were willing to believe that he
had been raised from the dead, exalted to the right hand
of God, and inducted into the messianic office. Those
who held this faith would receive the blessings of redemp-
tion when Jesus came upon the clouds to discharge his
messianic functions in accomplishing the Salvation of
Israel.
Thus Christianity at the outset was a nationalistic
religion of redemption, distinctively Jewish in type.
The figure of the redeemer, the notion of his special
functions, and the definition of man’s part in the pro-
gram were all emphatically Jewish in character. The
original items contributed by the disciples were their
identification of the heavenly savior with a well-known
historical individual, and their accompanying belief in
Jesus’ resurrection. This was the gospel with which the
early preachers hoped to win the Jews for the coming
kingdom.
Under the inspiration of belief in Jesus' exaltation to a
position of lordship in the realm of angelic beings, and
having realized in their own lives an ecstatic experience
which they interpreted as a special outpouring of the
Holy Spirit, the first disciples began enthusiastically to
preach their new faith. But they were far less success-
ful in winning the Jews than they doubtless had expected
to be, with the result that they were ultimately forced
to form a separate organization and to advocate a religion
which they, to be sure, called the true Judaism but
which their enemies regarded as a heresy to be vigorously
persecuted. If some among their number had not con-
ceived the idea of evangelizing the Gentiles, and had not
34O The Evolution of Early Christianity
stated the new religion in such form as to make it intelli-
gible and acceptable to foreigners, it is doubtful whether
the new movement would have been able to perpetuate
its existence beyond the second or third generation.
The story of Christianity’s early triumph is closely
bound up with these rapidly changing experiences
through which the early believers passed. They began
to develop distinctive traits as soon as they undertook
the work of evangelization. From the start, apparently,
they employed baptism as a purificatory rite in much
the same way that John the Baptist had done. Although
they were following Jewish precedent, for baptism was
already practiced by Jews, they gave it a somewhat
new meaning by connecting it directly with faith in
Jesus as the coming Messiah. Although they observed
the stated forms of religious worship customary among
the Jews, their own peculiar interest naturally drew them
together in a group apart where their own distinctive
experiences were given free expression. There they
prayed in the full vigor of their new enthusiasm, they
ate together in loving fellowship, recalling their life of
association with Jesus. They remembered especially
the last meal they had eaten with him and made of it
a memorial feast which also prefigured the new messianic
banquet to be celebrated when the kingdom came. The
antecedents of the Christian meal may have been to
some extent Jewish,” but it was destined to have its own
* See Brandt, Die jüdische Baptismen, oder das religiöse Waschen und
Baden im Judentum mit Einschluss des Judenchristentum (Giessen, 1910);
Oesterley and Box, Religion and Worship of the Synagogue (New York,
1907), pp. 255–64; Schürer, Geschächte, usw., III, I81–85.
* Cf. Bertholet, Die füdische Religion, pp. 317 f.; Bousset, Die Reli-
gion des Judentums, pp. 53of.; Schürer, Geschichte, usW., II, 663 f., and
III, I42 ff.; Josephus, Ant., XIV, x, 8.
The Triumph of Christianity 34I
peculiar development in connection with the new religion.
The first Christians' faith in the exalted Jesus, their
consciousness of spiritual endowment, and the activities
it prompted, the rites of baptism and the Lord's Supper,
were some of the earliest distinctive features developed
in connection with the new propaganda.
These things not only furnished Christians a means of
differentiating themselves from other Jews, but also
supplied items which proved particularly serviceable
when the missionaries attempted to make their faith
minister to the religious needs of the Gentiles. Jesus
was presented as the onc imperial authority who could
satisfy the craving of men for a national redemption,
because his kingdom was other-worldly and so eternal.
Those Gentiles who were seeking an individual salvation
through union with a deity who could confer upon them
assurance of blessed immortality were offered the possi-
bility of union with the risen Jesus who alone had
brought life and immortality to light. The attempt
to know God through emotional experience, already so
widespread among gentile faiths, could be met by Chris-
tians through their belief in spiritual endowment.
Sacramental religious values were easily conserved by
adding to or reinterpreting the rites of baptism and
the Lord’s Supper. The Gentiles' superstitious fears
could be quieted by emphasizing the superior power of
the risen Jesus over all inferior spirit-beings. In all of
these respects Christians advocated a redemptive religion
which gradually lost its original national character
in favor of individual, mystical forms.
The process of expansion by which Christianity made
conquest of the gentile world begins to appear clearly in
342 The Evolution of Early Christianity
the work of Paul. While he was one with earlier Jewish
Christians in advocating the nationalistic apocalyptic
Conception of Jesus' messiahship, there were certain
respects in which he went his own way. One of the most
Conspicuous features of his independence is seen in his
attitude toward ceremonial observances. Since he had
persecuted the Christians before espousing their cause,
it was impossible for him to be as oblivious as the first
believers had been to the necessity of a separation
between Christianity and Judaism. He, accordingly,
was not able to unite with them in advocating the keep-
ing of the law of Moses as the condition of Gentiles'
admission into the coming kingdom. He agreed with
his predecessors in believing that Jesus would come soon
and perfect the work of salvation, yet he devised a
relatively new program for the regulation of life in the
meantime.
In the first place he said, contrary to the views of
the Palestinian Christians, that the age of legalism had
passed away. He would no longer know either a Moses
or a Jesus according to the flesh. We can hardly infer
that he no longer admired the ethical standards of Moses
or of Jesus, or that he did not recognize the authority of
their words as teachers, for he cites them both as a final
court of appeal in certain matters. The thing of which
he is confident is that the secret of preparing proper
inhabitants for the new kingdom lies not in the keeping
of ordinances but in establishing a population of spirit-
filled individuals. Before Paul, spiritual demonstration
seems to have been viewed more as a luxury than a
necessity among believers. He made the indwelling
Spirit basal for Christian life, and in doing this he
The Triumph of Christianity 343
equipped himself with a very important instrument for
the propagation of the new movement among Gentiles
who had become accustomed, in certain circles, to phrase
religion in the language of an emotional experience of
the indwelling divine power.
The centrality of the Spirit is one of the clearest items
in the religion of Paul. He uses a number of expressions
emphasizing this idea. To be a Christian is simply to be
a spiritual person, and to have the Spirit is just another
way of saying that Christ dwells in one. A Christian
without some measure of the Spirit is a contradiction in
terms. As the ancients often said that a person pos-
sessed by an evil spirit was “in the demon,” an expres–
sion which corresponds to our notion that the demon was
in the person, so Paul in speaking of the believer’s union
with Christ says the believer is “in Christ,” or “in the
Lord.” For Paul such terms meant the fusion of the
divine with the human in realistic fashion. In this
general sphere of divine activity there is no essential
difference between Spirit of God, Spirit of Christ, Christ,
or the Lord tabernacling in the believer.
It is not easy for moderns to comprehend Paul on this
point. Our notion of the impenetrability of matter
makes it almost impossible to think of Spirit in as
realistic a way as the ancients did. Perhaps we can
better understand their view by comparison with con-
temporary Stoic teaching. According to the Stoics man
was a living being because he had Spirit (Tveijua) in him;
when Spirit withdrew man became an inert corpse.
This thing called Spirit was itself corporeal, pervading
and animating the body in much the same fashion that
the blood was diffused through the system. But this
344 The Evolution of Early Christianity
Spirit was also divinity, being a part of the great primal
force, the divine essence, or God, out of which the world
came and by which it was constantly sustained. Thus
man from the day of his natural birth was divine, accord-
ing to Stoicism.
Returning to Paul’s conception, wc find a similar
realism. But Paul is no Stoic in holding that the divine
part dwells in man from birth, and that he can attain to
salvation simply by realizing his inherent divine powers.
Paul does not preach the doctrine of redemption by
means of the natural man’s living true to his best self.
On the contrary, he affirmed the doctrine of a new divine
insert. There was no hope of obtaining salvation until
the natural man had been reinforced with the Spirit,
until he had been recreated by the insertion of a new
constituent element. The Christian was a new creature,
to use Paul’s language. He was a compound of the
natural man and the divine Spirit—a Spirit-man, a
Christ-man, a God-man; and this new element in his
constitution was no mere vague impulse toward right-
eousness, no mere intangible creation of thought, but
a specific quantitative reality. This conception was
perfectly natural since it was just as difficult for most men
in Paul’s day to conceive of incorporeal spirit as it is
difficult for men in our time to think of spirit as corporeal.
If we dismiss, in imagination, our doctrine of the impene-
trability of matter, perhaps we shall be able to appre-
ciate better Paul’s point of view. Union with Christ, the
indwelling Spirit, meant the presence of a new constituent
element in personality.
Only those who were thus Spirit-filled could be
partakers in the blessings of redemption. They were
f
The Triumph of Christianity 345
already united with Christ and thus anticipated these
blessings even before the final act of redemption had
been accomplished through the destruction of all evil
powers on the day of judgment. The thing of first con-
sequence in the meantime, therefore, was to cultivate
the life of the Spirit and enlarge as much as possible the
membership of the spiritual community. This was a
very plain matter, and had Paul’s previous religious
training been in Stoicism or in the mystery-religions he
could have carried out this program much more simply
than he did. But he was too loyal to his Jewish religious
heritage to be able to dismiss without further ado the
faith of his fathers. Moreover, controversy with oppo-
nents and the adjustment of his own experience forced .
him to interpret history.
One of his problems was how to handle that earlier
divine revelation, the Mosaic law, upon which Judaism
was founded. In solving this difficulty his thinking pro-
ceeded from two premises: first, the natural man can-
not meet the full requirements of this law, and, secondly,
the spiritual man belongs to a new order of things, is a
new creation, and so is no longer under the régime of law.
Hence Paul could not affirm that the law was still binding
and that the Spirit was given for the purpose of helping
man to keep the law. On the contrary, the legal régime
had come to an end. Yet it had in the first place been a
divine enactment, and as such it must have served an
essential function and must have terminated in a fitting
climax. Its function had been to teach man, by giving
him this unattainable standard of conduct, how wide
and ever-widening the gap was between his weak, sinful
self and the righteous Deity. How was this chasm to be
346 The Evolution of Early Christianity
bridged P. That it had been bridged and that Paul now
as a Christian had the presence of the Deity in his own
life was the second main premise of his thinking as well as
the incontestable fact of his experience. He met this
problem by affirming that Jesus’ death had satisfied
the demands of the law, redeeming man from its curse
and opening up a new highway of communication
between humanity and Deity. Had Paul not been so
thoroughly Jewish before his conversion we may safely
surmise that he never would have taken such elaborate
pains to work out this phase of his doctrine. Even as it
was, he did not live by his theory of the atonement; he
lived by the Spirit, by his union with Christ, and on this
rested his hope of redemption.
One of the most important items to which Paul gave
his attention must therefore have been the question of
how to establish and maintain union with Christ, the
redeemer. How did one become united with Christ?
Paul says it has pleased God to save the world through
the foolishness of preaching. Furthermore, Paul’spreach-
ing was concerned with a subject which seemed to
Jews quite unintelligible, while to the philosophers of
Greece, it was foolishness. Now this subject which
Paul expounded, to use his own language, was “Jesus
the Messiah and him crucified,” and in expounding this
theme the preacher spoke God’s wisdom in a mystery.
This wisdom, like the kernel of all mystery-religion
teaching of the times, could be expounded only by one
who had been initiated into the mystery, and so had
received the Spirit which searcheth out the deep things
of God. The natural man receiveth not the things
of the Spirit of God, for these no one knoweth save the
The Triumph of Christianity 347
Spirit of God. In other words, to understand the
redemptive significance of Jesus' death one must be
“perfect” (TéNews), a word which was applied to a
person who had been initiated into the mysteries.
Thus Paul tersely remarks, closing the discussion about
his qualifications for expounding the wisdom of God,
“we have the mind of Christ.”
Why did Paul thus depict and expound the crucifixion
drama P Why did he “placard” Jesus crucified before
the eyes of his hearers, as he says he had done to the
Galatians? Of course his object was to induce his
audience to perform such action as would bring them
into union with Christ and so make them sharers in the
Christian redemption. The primary action demanded
was the exercise of faith, which meant the acceptance
of Jesus as the Savior-Deity, the belief that God raised
him from the dead, and the consequent confession of his
lordship: “If thou shalt confess with thy mouth Jesus
as Lord and shalt believe in thine heart that God raised
him from the dead thou shalt be saved.” Such a pro-
cedure issued either directly or indirectly in the establish-
ment of union with Christ through infilling by the Spirit.
Paul assumes that everybody will concede it to have been
through the hearing of faith that Christians had received,
or had made possible the reception of, the Spirit in the
first instance.
While “faith” is the primary act in bringing about
union with Christ, just how far it carried one along the
way to the ultimate goal is not clear. Certainly the
rite of baptism by which one “put on Christ” had a
place in the process by which one became a full-fledged
“spiritual” person. Paul’s remark to the Corinthians
348 The Evolution of Early Christianity
about not being sent to baptize but to preach, when
isolated from its context, may seem to be a depreciation
of the rite. But if it is read in the light of the context the
exact reverse is true. Paul is glad that he had himself
not baptized many of the Corinthians, just because
baptism was so very significant. To have been bap-
tized into the name of an individual made one belong
to that individual, hence had Paul baptized any large
number of the Corinthians they might the more plausi-
bly have claimed to be “of Paul” and so might really
have had some justification for forming a distinctly
Pauline party. But since all had been baptized in the
name of Christ, there was no ground for schism. “Is
Christ divided ? Was Paul crucified for you? or were
ye baptized in the name of Paul ?” Of course not!
It was only Christ who had been crucified for them, it
was into Christ's name only that they had all been bap-
tized, and so they were all one in Christ. For Paul
baptism was universally observed by Christians, and was
primarily significant because it effected or consummated
the believer's union with Christ: “For in one Spirit
were we all baptized into one body, whether Jews or
Greeks, whether bond or free; and were all made to
drink of one Spirit.” Believers took Christ into them
as realistically as though they had drunk down the
baptismal waters.
The Lord's Supper was another rite having a similar
import, since it was a means of maintaining and strength-
ening this union. It is, to be sure, commemorative of
Jesus' suffering and so serves to refresh the believer's
memory on the great mystery-drama which in the first
instance had called forth his faith, but it also served
The Triumph of Christianity 349
to strengthen his vital union with Christ. Paul is one
with his contemporaries in believing that whoever ate
at any deity’s communion table thereby partook of the
deity's substance, hence he warns Christians against
taking part in any non-Christian meal. Since the other
gods are all evil demons, a Christian who partakes at
their table subjects himself to grave dangers. On the
other hand, the Lord’s Supper should be observed with
great Solemnity and perfect sobriety, otherwise the
participant may fail to discern the sacred body of which
he is partaking and so incur the divine condemnation.
The Supper, as a memorial of Jesus’ martyr-death, is a
means of bringing freshly to mind the mystery-drama
which Paul originally preached, but it also serves to
strengthen substantially the realistic union which
exists between the believer and Christ.
In giving baptism and the Lord’s Supper this. Sacra-
mental turn, Paul was pursuing a tendency already
prevalent in the religious world of his day. In more
primitive times rites of ablution" and eating” were given
a crass magical significance, as when the worshipers of
Dionysus devoured the sacred victim raw, believing that
they were thereby actually eating the god. In the
Graeco-Roman world of the first century A.D. these
cruder notions had given place to ideas more refined
but none the less sacramentally realistic. When sym-
bolic food took the place of the divine animal, and the
form of the deity was accordingly “spiritualized,” the
* See Kroll, “Alte Taufgebräuche,” Archiv für Religionswissenschaft,
VIII, Beiheft (1905), 27–53; Gruppe, Griechische Mythologie, pp. 888 f.;
Gunkel, Zum religionsgeschichtlichen Verständnis, usw., pp. 83 ff.
* Gruppe, op. cit., pp. 731 ff.; Goguel, L’Eucharistie dés origines d
Justin Martyr (Paris, 1910), pp. 293–317.
\
35O The Evolution of Early Christianity
union which the ordinance effected between the believer
and his god was no less realistic—so far as the absorption
of actually divine essence was concerned—than had been
the case in earlier times. So with Paul the Spirit-
Christ entity, the possession of which constitutes one a
Christian, is made available for everyone on the funda-
mental condition of faith, is realized in experiential
fulness on the occasion of baptism when the convert
formally “puts on Christ,” and is constantly renewed
or strengthened through regular participation in the
memorial celebration called the Lord's Supper."
* Notc the following typical passages in Paul: on baptism, Gal. 3:27;
I Cor. I : I3 ff.; 6: II; Io: I f.; I2:13; 15:29; Rom. 6:3 ff.; Col.
2:11 ff.; and on the Lord's Supper, I Cor. Io: 14–22; 11:20-32. Among
writers who find sacramental conceptions of one form or another in Paul
the more recent are Heitmüller, Im Namen Jesu, Taufe und Abendmahl
bei Paulus, and Taufe und Abendmahl im Urchristentum; Windisch,
Taufe und Sünde im diliesten Christentum bis auf Origines (Tübingen,
1908); Goguel, op. cit., pp. 135–84; H. J. Holtzmann, Weutestamentliche
Theologie (Tübingen, 1911%), II, 191-209, and “Sakramentliches im
Neuen Testament,” Archiv für Religionswissenschaft, VII (1904), 58–69;
Gardner, The Religious Experience of St. Paul (New York, 1911), pp.
Io2–26; Lake, The Earlier Epistles of St. Paul, pp. 210–15, 383-91; see
also along similar lines, Hatch, The Influence of Greek Ideas, etc., pp. 292–
309; Anrich, Das antike Mysterienwesen in seinem Einfluss auf das
Christentum, pp. 25 fſ., 106 f., 199 f.; Pfleiderer, Early Christian Con-
ception of Christ, pp. 124–33; Reitzenstein, Poimandres, pp. 219 ft.,
and Die hellenistischen Mysterienreligionen, pp. 77 ff.; Dieterich, Eine
Mithrasliturgie, pp. Ioč f., 176–79; Cumont, Mysteries of Mithra, pp.
150–74; Loisy, “L’Initiation chrétienne,” Revue d’histoire et de littérature
religieuses, Nouvelle série, V (1914), IQ3-226. On the other hand, the
sacramental element is in the main denied by Clemen, Religionsgeschicht-
liche Erklärung, usw., pp. I65–207 (English tr., Primitive Christianity,
pp. 212–66), and Der Einfluss der Mysterienreligionen, usw., pp. 30–59;
Kennedy, St. Paul and the Mystery Religions, pp. 227–79; Teichmann,
“Die Taufe bei Paulus,” Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche, VI (1896),
357–72; von Dobschütz, “Sakrament und Symbol im Urchristentum,”
Studien und Kritiken, LXXVIII (1905), I-40.
The Triumph of Christianity 35I
Having attained to union with Christ, what were the
consequences for the believer ? In the first place he
anticipated the blessing of ultimate salvation by being
permitted to live upon earth the same type of life which
he was to share in much greater fulness when the work
of redemption reached its climax in the day of judgment.
The Christian, filled with the divine Spirit, in a meas-
ure lived the divine life even while on earth and to
that extent salvation was a present reality. One was
redeemed from the power of sinful desire and fleshly
impulses by receiving into one's self the new divine
increment, the Spirit, the presence of Christ, which
strengthened and directed man in his struggle against
evil. The manifestations of this redemption as realized
in the present were twofold, one might say: outward and
inward. One who is Spirit-filled thereby becomes a
divinely dynamic person, and so heals the sick, works
miracles, prophesies, discerns spirits, speaks with
tongues, and interprets tongues. In fact, the believer's
whole life is an outward manifestation of this new divine
power which has become resident in him through his
union with Christ.
The ethical content of life is also determined by this
same standard of the indwelling Spirit. Since the
Christian is a Christ-filled man, he must set up just as
high an ethical criterion for himself as he does for the
Deity. The fact that a Christian has the divine Spirit
makes it necessary for him in the ethical realm to repro-
duce a God-like type of life. This requirement is fre-
quently emphasized by Paul, in his demands that the
body be kept pure as a proper dwelling-place for the
Spirit, and that the fruits of the Spirit be manifest
352 The Evolution of Early Christianity
constantly. Paul, further, always insisted that man him-
self must bear the ultimate responsibility for his conduct.
He could not hope for success unless he called in the
divine helper, the Spirit, to support his effort; yet it
was he, and not the Spirit, who took the initiative and
with whom the ultimate responsibility rested. If the
apostle had not imbibed from his Hebrew heritage so
emphatic a notion of personal responsibility and so
purely ethical a conception of God, he might have been
less insistent in his ethical demands as a Christian.
But since his God was the ethical deity of Judaism, the
life of the God-filled individual must measure up to the
highest ethical standards.
The final consequence of union with Christ was par-
ticipation in his triumph over death, with the accompa-
nying heavenly reward. Those who should live until the
end came would in the twinkling of an eye be freed from
this body of flesh and equipped with a proper spirit body;
and those believers who had already died would be
raised from the abode of the dead to receive their new
spiritual body. Because Christ himself had triumphed
over death they that were Christ’s would share a simi-
lar triumph. The union which had been established
between Christ and the believer was not for this life
only; the divine part which had entered the Christian
would remain with him even in death, thus assuring him
a place in the kingdom of the redeemed.
But there would be different grades in that new
kingdom. Some would enter with high honors while
others would barely come through the testing fire. Was
this variation due to the Spirit’s failure to do its redeem-
ing work as well for one person as it did for another?
The Triumph of Christianity 353
Not at all! The future reward was conditioned upon
man’s own effort in availing himself of the help of
the Spirit to produce the fruit of righteousness. The
fact that the believer had received the Spirit might
insure entrance into the kingdom of the redeemed, but
the position he was to occupy under the new régime
depended upon how well his works stood the fiery testing
of the last great day. Paul had fought for the notion
that Salvation is by faith, resulting in union with Christ,
but he still believed that rewards were conditioned by
works.
This was the religion to which Paul endeavored to
win the gentile world. It preserved a large number of
Jewish characteristics, but it also contained many new
features serving to meet certain religious demands dis-
tinctive of the Graeco-Roman world in Paul’s day. He
kept the Jewish figure of the Messiah, but he presented
him in a form which transcended that of the Roman
emperor who was being worshiped as Savior, Lord, Son
of God, and God. Christianity was the new imperial
religion which held out to believers not merely temporary
civic blessings but membership in an eternal divine
kingdom. The Cynic-Stoic preacher might exhort his
hearers to cultivate peace of mind and self-realization of
spirit to be exhibited in a life of noble ethical attainment.
Christianity, however, not only insisted upon the realiza-
tion of these values but supplied a new power for making
their attainment possible. In this latter respect Paul
was more closely akin to the ideal of the contemporary
mystery-religions. In his pictorial presentation of the
crucified Messiah he was able to stage a more vivid and
effective mystery-drama, he believed, than that which one
354 The Evolution of Early Christianity
witnessed in the rites of any other cult. His religion—
like the other mysteries, but more effectively in the belief
of Christians—supplied to initiates the privilege of union
with the dying and rising Savior who ultimately would
confer upon his followers a life of immortal blessedness.
Are we to think of Paul as creating his Christianity
by a process of deliberate selection, in which he first
takes a number of things from Judaism, then further
items from the primitive Christians, and lastly a
quantity of materials from contemporary heathen
faiths P Certainly not! Paul’s religion was not an
artificial creation but an affair of real life, the result
of many forces intermingling in the making of his
experience. Because his lot was cast in a time when,
and in regions where, the religious life of humanity was
being molded by a particular environment, because the
human spirit in that day was working out its religious
destiny along these lines, because the more serious
spirits of the time were finding and serving God in this
way, Paul’s religion also took this form. He was not
merely stooping to accommodate himself to the needs
of his age; rather he was imbibing its atmosphere,
growing strong in faith and mighty in spiritual stature
as he worshiped and served his crucified and risen Re-
deemer in the language and under the inspirations
furnished by the world of his own immediate experience.
He vigorously presented to others this new religion of
redemption which satisfied the yearnings of his own
spirit, and they with similar needs also found here
new religious satisfactions. Thus Christianity began its
conquest of the gentile world in those regions where
Paul labored as a pioneer.
The Triumph of Christianity 355
We may ask in the next place how those Christians
who preserved Synoptic Gospel traditions sought to
make their faith a winning religion. Speaking generally,
the first three Gospels endeavor to exhibit the superior
attractiveness of the new religion by emphasizing two
main items: (1) the Jesus of history with his personal
ideals of character and conduct, and (2) the Christ of
faith whom believers revere almost if not quite to the
point of worshiping him.
In the thinking of early Christians the historical
Jesus apparently had, apart from mere identity of
personality, little in common with the heavenly Messiah
yet to be revealed in glory. Attention was fixed mainly
on the future. Memory of the earthly Jesus, visions of
him risen and glorified, and the disciples’ own ecstatic
life undoubtedly seemed to them adequate proof of
Jesus’ present lordship in the realm of heavenly spirits
where he was awaiting the proper time for his appearing
as Messiah. The manner of his earthly life contrasted
sharply with the brilliant exhibition of messianic splendor
he was about to make. The later custom of viewing
his earthly career as a unique display of messianic
functions tended not only to dim the early believers'
vivid sense of the kingdom’s future manifestation but also
to obscure those elements of simplicity and naturalness
which belong to their thought of the historical Jesus. We
must not forget that there were once Christians who be-
lieved Jesus had been made both Lord and Christ through
the resurrection, that this was the moment when he had
been designated Son of God with power, and that his life
upon earth had been in the form of a lowly servant."
* Cf. Rom. I : 4; Phil. 2:7 f.; Acts 2:36; 3:13, 26.
356 The Evolution of Early Christianity
The early disciples, on the strength of this faith, were
devoutly praying “Maranatha,” but in spite of their
fervent prayer the Lord delayed his coming. In this
delay they saw an indication of duty; they must prepare
the world for the Messiah’s advent by gathering a band
of believers to be citizens of the new kingdom. Hence
in their active propaganda they directed attention
chiefly toward the heavenly Christ. When preaching
to Jewish audiences it was necessary to demonstrate
that the risen Jesus was to be Israel’s long-expected
deliverer, and among Gentiles it was desirable to
show that the coming Jesus was not only the savior
promised to the Jews but that he was also the divinely
appointed redeemer of the whole world. This inter-
pretation gave the new religion the sanctity of antiquity
and proved at the same time the folly of Jewish unbelief.
In whatever land they preached the early Christian
missionaries proclaimed a gospel of redemption centering
about the person of the coming Messiah.
Notwithstanding this interest in the Christ of faith
there were several forces at work tending to preserve the
story of Jesus’ life and teaching as a means of insuring
the success of the new movement. Memory of Jesus’
earthly career formed, as we have already observed, the
cornerstone of the new faith for the first disciples. In
the light of later experiences they found a new meaning
in his words and deeds as meditation brought to mind
more vividly the events of the past. Jewish Christians
had previously been accustomed to draw inspiration
from teachers of repute in earlier times, so they turned
all the more readily to Jesus for instruction. The Jews’
sensitiveness to ethical demands was also inherited by
The Triumph of Christianity 357
the early Christians, consequently they were predisposed
to preserve this type of tradition from Jesus. Since
his personality had impressed them so forcibly it is alto-
gether probable that many of his words and ideals had
become indelibly stamped upon their minds. The heri-
tage of religio-ethical teaching which they had received
from him not only was a great power in their own lives
but became a very significant item in the success of
their cause. Y-
The necessity of organizing an independent move-
ment to stand over against Judaism also strengthened
interest in preserving Jesus' teaching. As Moses had
been the founder of the old religion, so Jesus now became
a second Moses, figuring as the teacher upon whose
authority the new movement rested. His word was set
above that of the ancients, although in the main he sup-
plemented rather than denied what “they of old time”
had said. Ultimately believers were able to assemble
a body of instruction from him covering not only matters
of personal living but also more formal features connected
with the organic life of the community. He was believed
to have set the example for practicing the rite of bap-
tism, his last meal with the disciples was made the
church’s model for the Eucharist, and he was said to
have authenticated the entire missionary enterprise.
For many persons it added much to the strength of the
new movement when the authority of a traditional
founder could be cited in support of its varied life.
There doubtless was many a “Theophilus” in the first
century who was anxious to be assured, through some
account of Jesus’ words and deeds, of the gospel’s Cer-
tainty. The ability of Christian teachers to supply this
358 The Evolution of Early Christianity
demand doubtless formed an important item in the
strength of the new religion.
Jesus’ authority as a teacher was employed also in
defining Christianity’s relations to rival movements.
John the Baptist and his followers were given a high rat-
ing, but still they were assigned a subordinate position.
Jesus’ estimate of Contemporary Judaism was much more
unfavorable. The disciples cited him to justify their
hostile attitude toward the whole ceremonial system.
He had taught freedom toward the Sabbath, fasting
lie liad permitted but only in a modified form, he had
declared all meats clean, he had criticized the temple
cultus, and he had pronounced bitter woes upon the
Pharisees, frequently consigning them to eternal per-
dition. The Christians had, to be sure, reached their
full Sense of Separateness from Judaism only gradually,
but once compelled to break their Jewish connections
they found much satisfaction in being able to recall
Jesus' teaching in their favor. Thus they were able
to strengthen their own convictions and buttress the
Christians’ cause when asked why the Jews had re-
jected a movement originally so closely associated with
Judaism.
In picturing Jesus as an ideal teacher of ethics and
religion, Christians were also equipping themselves to
meet the needs of the Gentiles. Ever since the time of
Socrates a new ethical impulse had been at work in the
Graeco-Roman world. In New Testament times this
phase of life was being diligently cultivated by the wide-
spread and persistent activity of Cynic-Stoic preachers.
Socrates and other similar teachers were presented
as models of wisdom and virtue for later genera-
The Triumph of Christianity 35Q
tions.” The admirers of a teacher would also write ac-
counts of his life and work, lauding his superior piety or
knowledge, and often impressing readers with the fact
that the hero was no ordinary person.” The Gospels, all
written in Greek and manifestly intended in their present
form to be read by Gentiles, present Jesus as the founder
of a new teaching which not only transcends Judaism but
inculcates all those ethical ideals to the attainment of
which the noblest Stoic teachers were exhorting their
hearers. By example as well as by precept Jesus became
an ideal character for these circles of gentile thinking.
They were accustomed to admire the self-sacrifice and
devotion of a teacher to his cause, but the simplicity
and sincerity of Jesus’ life, and his insistent demand that
the disciples follow his example, all constituted elements
of attractiveness for the Gentiles among whom this faith
was preached.
The Gospels show still another interestin recording the
life of Jesus. The evangelists all seek to advance the
authority of the new religion by making the Jesus of
history an appropriate person to become the Christ of
faith. This is a very prominent item in the New Testa-
ment biographies and it is this feature which chiefly
distinguishes the Gospels from all contemporary bio-
graphical literature. However much Christian preachers
* For example, Epictetus’ references to Socrates, Disc., i. 4. 4; 9. 1, 5;
17. I; 25.4; 26. 3; 29. Io; ii. 2. I; 6. 2; 12. 2; 18.4; 26. 2; iii. 1. 4;
I2. 4; I4. 4; 23. I; 24.4; iv. I. I8; 5. I; 8. 5; II. 3.
* A few examples of this biographical literature are Xenophon’s
Memorabilia of Socrates, Arrian's Discourses of Epictetus and Anabasis
of Alexander, Plutarch's Lives, Suetonius' Lives of the Caesars, Diogenes
Laertius' Lives and Teachings of the Philosophers, Philostratus' Life of
Apollonius.
360 The Evolution of Early Christianity
aimed to strengthen their cause by appealing to the life
and teaching of the earthly Jesus, they believed never-
theless that faith in the heavenly Christ was the main
bulwark of the new religion. They not only strove to
emulate Jesus’ example as a religious person, but that
example seemed to them So extraordinary as to demand
a supernatural interpretation of his significance. The
only instrument at hand which appeared to them as at
all adequate for this purpose was the Jewish apocalyptic
hope.
In earlier stages of thinking Jesus' words and deeds
were recorded with a view to demonstrating that he was
worthy of faith as the future Messiah, but ultimately he
came to be regarded as already discharging messianic
functions while on earth. The non-Markan sections of
the Synoptic Gospels common to Matthew and Luke
depict Jesus mainly as a teacher. He is assumed to be
a supernaturally endowed individual, but he refuses at
the outset to make his career One of miraculous display.
He finds the acme of his ambition realized in preaching
the gospel to the poor, and is content to await God’s
own good time for the revelation of his messianic glory.
This disposition to Set Jesus’ teaching in the foreground,
deriving evidence of his uniqueness mainly from the
power with which he spoke his message, was a most
appropriate way of approaching Jews who reverenced
above all others those historical personages whom God
had chosen to utter his message.
With Mark, on the other hand, another interest
becomes prominent. Instead of recording Jesus’ refusal
to make any miraculous displays, Mark’s account of
the Temptation emphasizes the miracle-element—the
The Triumph of Christianity 36I
wild beasts are docile in Jesus’ presence and he is
attended by ministering angels. Furthermore, miracles
characterized his ministry from the start and demon-
strated his power over the demons who recognized in
him the Messiah. People in general might not have
eyes to see that this earthly individual actually pos-
sessed the authority of the apocalyptic Son of Man, but
had they been endowed with the supernatural vision
enjoyed by demons they would have perceived not only
that Jesus was to be the future Messiah but that his
present career was a preliminary exhibition of messianic
functions. In stressing this side of Jesus’ work Mark
made the new religion capable of ministering to a very
pressing demand, particularly among his gentile audi-
ences. We have earlier noted the degree to which the
common people of the Graeco-Roman world were
bound by the fetters of gross superstition, fearing evil
demons of all sorts. To such persons the new gospel
came as a message of deliverance and protection. They
did not need to wait until the end of the world to enjoy
the blessings of the new kingdom. Jesus already having
been Messiah while upon earth, it was now possible for
believers to realize the kingdom’s privileges. Victory
Over demons in the power of Jesus' name was one of its
most significant blessings, made possible through Jesus’
messianic triumph over Satan.
In the course of time many other reasons were urged
in favor of the growing belief that the messianic kingdom
had already been really established. Evidence of this
was seen in the belief that Jesus had been miraculously
begotten, and had been pronounced Son of God, both
at baptism and in connection with the transfiguration.
362 The Evolution of Early Christianity
Many of his words and deeds seemed to be a fulfilment
of messianic prophecy, and he had finally indicated the
messianic significance of his career by his triumphal entry
into Jerusalem. Although these items were originally
Jewish in character, they were now viewed as part of
God’s scheme for accomplishing the salvation of all
men. The more strongly believers stressed faith in
Jesus as actually discharging messianic functions in his
earthly career, the more readily could they claim to
possess at present a full salvation. Thus a once vivid
future hope, growing dim with age, was supplanted by the
conception of salvation as a present realization. Jesus
had, in the main at least, completed his redeeming work
in the past, he had finished his task with the end of his
earthly life and his ascent to heaven.
This type of faith finds more complete expression in
the Fourth Gospel. Here Jesus is quite exclusively the
Christ of faith—not the apocalyptic Messiah, but the
pre-existent heavenly Logos. The Pauline and the
synoptic eschatological imagery has almost completely
vanished. Jesus is still the Son of Man," but not in the
Danielic sense as so often with the other evangelists.”
While John is apparently familiar with this earlier usage,”
it no longer has any real meaning for him and his circle.
When asked, “Who is the Son of Man P” Jesus replies,
“Yet a little while is the light among you. Walk while
* I :51; 3:13 f.; 6:27, 53, 62; 8:28; 9:35(?); I2:23, 34; IS:3I.
* In the first three Gospels he is portrayed either in humility and
weakness corresponding to the “Son of Man” of Ezekiel and Psalms; or,
in line with Daniel 7: 13 and later apocalyptic imagery, he is a heavenly
being to come in glory upon the clouds. The much-debated question
regarding his own use of this term does not concern us at present.
35:27.
The Triumph of Christianity 363
ye have the light that darkness overtake you not. He
that walketh in the darkness knoweth not whither he
goeth. While ye have the light believe on the light that
ye may become sons of light.” This is the key to all
the fourth evangelist’s language about Jesus as the Son
of Man. He is the light-bringer, the life-giver, the
truth-revealer, the mediator of eternal wisdom. He is a
pre-existent heavenly being, come forth from God to com-
municate divine knowledge to men, to give them the meat
and drink of eternal life, to provide them a divine enlight-
enment, and to bring them into communion with God.
His coming is synchronous with the incarnation, and his
glorification is complete when he is lifted up on the cross
—like the serpent, the symbol of wisdom and healing—
in order that he may become conspicuous in the eyes of
the people who will find eternal life by believing on him.
His redeeming work now having been accomplished, he
ascends to heaven “where he was before.”
One might trace other terms or ideas through the
Gospel of John and find the same general attitude con-
stantly in evidence. According to this evangelist the
Christian redemption was fully completed so far as the
divine side was concerned through the revelation Jesus
made while on earth. He had then exhibited his cre-
dentials perfectly, being plainly attested by John the
Baptist, fulfilling Old Testament Scripture, performing
a series of miracles to support faith, and asserting from
the start that he was the heavenly redeemer com-
missioned to save the world. Hence salvation was to be
procured simply by recognizing in Jesus the heaven-Sent
son of God. It was life eternal to know the only true
God, seeing him in Jesus Christ who had been sent to
364 The Evolution of Early Christianity
convey to men the saving light of divine knowledge.”
The transition from death—the status of every unbe-
liever—to eternal life, was a present experience, and
judgment was passed at once upon all those who refused
to believe in Jesus. Men brought this judgment upon
themselves in the present by the very act of unbelief.
The program of the earlier Christians, who pictured a
great assize at the end of the age when the Messiah would
come to conduct final judgment, making a complete
manifestation of his messianic power, gives place to an
interpretation of Jesus in which his earthly career con-
tained the full display of his heavenly glory. The eternal
destiny of men is decided by their present choices and
the faithful at death individually were to be taken to the
mansions above to dwell with Jesus forever. Attain-
ment of immortal blessedness was still the supreme end
of life, but it was to be reached by way of faith in Jesus
as a past rather than a future Savior.
Thus Christianity is still a religion of redemption,
although it has lost many of its primitive Jewish features.
This transformation was undoubtedly a very fortunate
one for the new religion’s success among Gentiles. Paul
had preached the new gospel in the form of a mystery,
verbally depicting the crucifixion of Jesus before the eyes
of his hearers who were moved to accept the new faith
and received an experience of the Spirit's power. John
presented the new religion in the form of a “gnosis,” a
heavenly knowledge, a divine revelation. One who
received this revelation experienced an enlightenment
which constituted a new birth. Paul appealed to per-
sons who had been accustomed to seek satisfaction for
religious needs in mystery-Cults, with their pictorial
* E.g., I: 18; 3: I6; I 7:3.
The Triumph of Christianity 365
displays of a redemptive transaction and their accom-
panying rites. Such persons seem to have belonged
mainly to the proletariat, who were fond of realism and
Often measured religion in terms of physical emotion.
This for the most part was the type of person attracted
to Christianity when preached by Paul in Corinth,
judging from the conditions revealed in the Corinthian
Correspondence. We have already observed within the
Graeco-Roman world another religious need, partially
Satisfied by the mysteries but tending to measure reli-
gious values more definitely in terms of “intellectual”
emotion and theological speculation. It was this class
of individual that John seemingly aimed to reach with
his doctrine of the Logos Christ.
While he presents Christianity in language that
would naturally appeal to the “intellectual” mystic,
there is still in John a touch of realism which at first
sight seems to harmonize closely with a very primitive
Sort of Sacramentalism. He allows Jesus to say to
Nicodemus that salvation can be obtained only by being
born of water and spirit, while on another occasion
Jesus affirms that eternal life is obtained only by eating
the flesh and drinking the blood of the Son of Man."
In this John also shows his attachment to the Christian
ordinances of baptism and the Lord’s Supper, but it is
perfectly clear from the context that the rites had been
“spiritualized” although, as in Paul’s case, the absorp-
tion of the spiritual substance may be realistically
connected with the ritualistic observance.” While it is
* 3:3-14; 6:26 ft.
* On the sacramentalism of John see Reitzenstein’s various writings
(passim), and the counter-view of Krebs, Der Logos als Heiland im
ersten Jahrhundert (Freiburg, 1910).
366 The Evolution of Early Christianity
affirmed very explicitly that one must eat the flesh and
drink the blood of the Son of Man, the context immedi-
ately adds, “it is the Spirit that quickeneth, the flesh
profiteth nothing.” But the Spirit is not that indwelling,
ecstatic power described by Paul; it is rather the inner
light of a new knowledge—“the words I have spoken unto
you are spirit and life.” Likewise, the new birth is a
birth into divine knowledge which the Son of Man has
brought down from above. Now all this is a very
realistic matter, the ordinances of baptism and the
Lord's Supper being important factors in the mediation
of these experiential facts. The rites are sacramental in
the sense of being instrumental—perhaps indeed indis-
pensable—in procuring for the believer a realistic
quantity of divine knowledge, but that this knowledge
was resident in the emblems of which the communicant
partook is probably no part of John’s thought. It was
what came down from heaven that must be eaten, that
is, the divine wisdom, of which the Son of Man was the
revelation.
Thus the fourth evangelist made a significant con-
tribution toward the expansion of Christianity in the
Graeco-Roman world. Paul and his associates had been
most successful among the lower classes to whom Chris-
tianity’s new moral earnestness and vivid assurances of
future blessedness made a strong appeal when preached
in the form of a new mystery-religion, but those Gentiles
who were disposed to “intellectualize” the mysteries
responded less readily to Paul’s preaching. Further-
more, we must recognize that the apostle, notwith-
standing the remarkable manner in which he advocated
salvation for the Gentiles, was still Jewish in much of
The Triumph of Christianity 367
his thinking and did not really succeed in formulating a
philosophy of Christianity to include important items of
religious speculation current in the gentile world. Paul
never wholly abandoned the effort to divert the streams
of Graeco-Roman thinking into Jewish channels, just
as he never gave up hope that the Jewish nation would
become the crowning fruit of the gospel tree. This
hope had been surrendered when the Fourth Gospel was
written. Instead of attempting to turn gentile thinking
toward Palestine, it was now discovered that the stream
of oriental religious speculation which had entered on its
course through the Gracco-Roman world might be made
to bear along upon its tide Christianity’s new faith and
life. Accordingly the supremacy of Jesus the redeemer
was newly affirmed in the form of a divine deliverer
mediating the knowledge of God to benighted humanity.
Formerly this divine help was conceived in various forms,
such as the “Son of Man” in the old Egyptian messianic
texts, the Adapa of Babylonian legend, the “Primal
Man” of Persian speculation," and hypostases like
“Light,” “Life,” “Knowledge,” “Truth,” which played
a rôle in early gnostic speculation. The author of the
Fourth Gospel has taken this vague conception of divine
deliverance and raised it to the nth power in the figure
of Jesus, the pre-existent Son of Man who was one with
the Father before the foundation of the world. Thus
Christianity was freed from all nationalistic limitations;
it was a divinely guaranteed revelation to be obtained
through the aid of a truly universal Savior of mankind.
* See “Der Urmensch” in Bousset, Hauptprobleme der Gnosis, pp.
160–223, and Kristensen, “Die term ‘Zoon des Menschen’ toegelicht
uit de anthropologie der ouden,” Theologisch Tijdschrift, XLV (191 I),
I-38; Reitzenstein, Poimandres, pp. 59-II6. See also above, pp. 326 ft.
368 The Evolution of Early Christianity
The course of Christians’ religious development in
relation to their environment during the first century
has been traced with sufficient fulness to disclose the
general trend in the process of the new religion’s expan-
sion. It became a many-sided movement, laying hold
upon a wide range of vital interests within the Graeco-
Roman world. It came to include, usually in a height-
ened degree, many religious values which its competitors
had been seeking to cultivate before the Christian
preachers appeared upon the scene. Being itself of
oriental origin it readily assumed many of the features
which had made oriental mystery-cults and speculations
attractive to many persons in the Roman empire. It
was pre-eminently a religion of redemption with a
Savior whose figure was more real and whose credentials
appeared stronger than those of any mythical dying
and rising divinity.
When occasion required, the Christian Savior was
readily made the center of a type of speculation capable
of appealing to the most vigorous religious thinking of
the time. While this new religion was emphatically a
faith for the individual soul, it also satisfied the group-
consciousness by assembling a new Community to Con-
stitute the kingdom of God on earth. Its early
adherents and missionaries belonged to the masses,
consequently it was a vital movement from the start and
spread widely with the shifting currents of syncretistic
life. To the individual who felt himself drifting hope-
lessly on this boundless sea, Christianity offered very
definite religious guidance. It gave an assurance of
salvation for the immortal Soul, it appealed to the
imagination and emotions, in its Sacred rites it answered
The Triumph of Christianity 369
the current longing for realism, it satisfied intellectual
demands as they arose, it awakened conscience by
its insistence on rewards and punishments, it sounded
a strong ethical note, and in its doctrine of the one true
God it gave men a sufficiently large conception of Deity
to meet the needs of an enlarging world and an imperial-
istic age.
But in the last analysis it owed its triumph to the
activity of loyal individuals who not only answered the
call of God as they heard it in their own lives or dis-
cerned it on the pages of history, but who learned, con-
sciously or unconsciously, to read the divine will as
revealed in the “signs of the times.” They were sensitive
to the religious forces within their environment, and so
drew inspiration from its life and responded to its needs
by conserving, heightening, and supplementing current
religious values. Under the guidance of these indi-
viduals the genius of the new religion is disclosed in
their expanding life. If Christians today would be true
successors of those ancient worthies they too must
make religion an affair of life and growth commensurate
with the needs of the present generation.
INDEXES
SUBJECTS AND AUTHORS
Abelson, 88.
Academics, 255 fſ.
Achelis, 42.
Adapa, 367.
Adonis, 74, 300, 307 ff., 336.
Aegesilaus, 294.
Aelian, 57.
Aeschines, 297.
Aeschylus, 53.
Ahura Mazda, 3II.
Alexander the Great, 48 f., 51 ff.,
53 ff., 56, 58, 195, 205 ft., 230 f.,
359.
Alexander the Prophet, 262.
Allard, 191.
Allegory, 274 f.
Allen, 289.
Allo, 189.
Amélineau, 327.
‘Am-ha'arets, 93.
Anāhita (Anaitis), 3II f.
Ananus, 126.
Anaxagoras, 240.
Andocides, 294.
Anrich, 287, 35o.
Antigonids, 59.
Antipater the Stoic, 268.
Antisthenes, 266.
Antony, 212 f.
Anz, 326.
Aphrodite, 74, 2Io, 306.
Apocalypticism, 360 ft.
Apollonius of Tyana, 233, 290,
359.
Apollos, 35.
Appian, 54. -
Apuleius, 319, 322 f.
Archedemus, 268.
Arellius Fuscus, 233.
Aristobulus, 54.
Aristophanes, 295.
Aristotle, 53, 62, 204 f., 256, 279,
29I.
Arneth, von, 191, 248.
Arnim, von, 263 f., 269, 272 f.
Arnobius, 303.
Arnold, 263 f., 271, 278.
Arrian, 54, 56, 206 f., 233, 359.
Artachaees, 203.
Ashtart, 74, 306 f.
Ashtoreth, 306 f.
Astarte, 306.
Astrology,
325 f.
Atargatis, 74, 309 f.
Athenagoras, 184.
Athenodorus, 268.
Attis, 74, 185, 3oo, 302 ft., 336.
Augustine, 184 f.
Augustus, 64, 75, 296, 3o4.
Babelon, 6o.
Bacchic mysteries, 282.
Bacchus, 225, 297 ff., 318.
Bacon, II6. -
Badham, I25.
Bäck, 91.
Baldensperger, IoA.
Baptism, I85; early practice of,
34o; in Fourth Gospel, 365 f.;
Jewish, 340; in Pauline usage,
II3; 347 f.
Barnabas, Io2.
Bar-rekub, 309.
Baudissin, von, 305.
Bauer, A., 66, 198.
Bauer, B., 278.
Baumgarten, F., 66.
Baumgarten, M., 278.
Baur, F. C., 13, 18, 94, 98 f., 327.
Baur, F. F., 98.
Behm, I53.
Beloch, 53, 69, 198.
Benn, 254.
Bennett, 90.
Benzinger, I34.
Bergmann, 91.
Berosus, 312.
243 ff., 248, 312 f.,
37I
372
The Evolution of Early Christianity
Bertholet, 79, Ioa, I70, 176, 245.
34O.
Beurlier, 197.
Bevan, 6o, 263.
Bischoff, 9o.
Böhlig, IoS, 3Io.
Böklen, 194.
Boissier, 197.
Boll, 244.
Bonhöffer, 44, 188, 278.
Bosc, I86.
Bouché-Leclercq, 54, 6o f., 244.
Boulage, 316.
Bousset, 79, 88, IO4, Io& ff., III,
II.3, II5, II9, I25, I28, 192,
245, 288, 327, 340, 367.
Box, 79, 34o.
Brandt, 34o.
Brasidas, 203.
Breasted, 76, 219 f.
Brückner, Ioa, 192,336.
Brünnow, 222.
Brun, I42.
Buckland, 69.
Büchler, 92 f.
Bultmann, 279.
Bunbury, 49.
Buonaiuti, 327.
Burel, 315.
Calderini, 69.
Caligula, 75.
Carneades, 257.
Carter, 77.
Carus, I86.
Catholicism, 3 f., 7 ff., 13.
Catullus, 3o4.
Champollion-Figeac, 61.
Chantepie de la Saussaye, 76.
Charismata, I29.
Charles, Ioa f.
Cheetham, 287.
Christ, von, 68.
Christianity, Babylonian influ-
ence upon, 193; breach with
Judaism, I23 ff.; Buddhistic
influence upon, 194; Catholic
idea of, 3 f.; changes within,
I f.; contact with Gentiles,
178 f.; development of, 2 ft.,
34, 36, 333 f.; distinctiveness of,
96; divisions of, 98 ft.; early ex-
tent of, 5o f.; Egyptian influence
upon, 193; “essence” of, Ig ff.,
90 ft.; expansion of, Io2 f.,
I68, 181 ff.; of Fourth Gospel,
362 f.; genuineness of, 23 f.;
Jewish opposition to, 96 f.;
“liberal,” I6 f.; Modernist
view of, 20 f.; nationalism in,
339; nature of, I f.; newness
of, 35 f.; origin of, 28, 41; ori-
ginality of, 188 ff.; of Paul,
341 ff.; persecution of, I24 f.;
Persian influence upon, 194;
Protestant idea of, 4 f.; as a
redemption religion, 364 f.; re-
lation to emperor-worship, 197
ff.; 218 ft.; relation to environ-
ment, 19, 26 f.; relation to
Judaism, 32, 78ff., 84 ft., Toé;
relation to politics, 196 f.;
relation to Stoicism, 277 ff.;
religious setting of, 3off.; of
Synoptic Gospels, 355 ft.
Christology, 333 ff., 355 ft.
Chrysippus, 268.
Church, 5, 18.
Chwolson, 92.
Cicero, 229 f., 241, 243, 245, 252,
255 ft., 289 f., 295 f., 3oo, 307.
Cleanthes, 264, 268, 322.
Clemen, 44, 188, 278, 287, 35o.
Clement of Alexandria, I25 f.,
184 f., 294, 312.
Cleomenes, 206.
Colani, IoA.
Colin, 54.
Comparetti, 301.
Conybeare, Ig2.
Cooke, G. A., 306, 309.
Corssen, 69.
Crates, 267.
Creuzer, 293.
Crinagoras, 296.
Criobolium, 3o4.
Croiset, 68.
Cumont, 77, 185, 192, 233, 242 f.,
248 f., 287, 302, 304 f., 3Io,
3I4, 316, 35o.
Cybele, 74, 302 ft., 3Io.
Cynicism, 266.
Cynics, 74.
Cyrnus, 203.
Indexes -
373
Dalman, II6 f.
Darius, 56 f.
De Boor, I25.
De Faye, 327.
Deification, 229; of Antigonids,
208 f.; of Bacchus, 318; of
Hercules, 318; of heroes, 203
ff.; of Isis, 318; of Osiris, 318;
of Ptolemies, 209 f.; of Roman
emperors, 2II fi.; of Seleucids,
2Io f.
Deism, Io, I87.
Deissmann, 29, 66, 198, 236, 320.
De Jong, 287, 315.
De le Roi, 91.
Demeter, 74, 289, 291 ff., 296, 302.
Demetrius of Phalerum, 242.
Democritus, 242, 259.
Demon possession, 152 ft.
Demons, I55 fſ.
Demosthenes, 297.
Dennis, 315.
De Quincey, 94.
De Sainte-Croix, 293.
Destiny (eluappévm), 243.
Dhorme, 76.
Diadochi, 51.
Diaspora, 30 f., 8o, 82, Ioč.
Diatribe, 279.
Dibelius, I55.
Didache, II6.
Diels, 24I, 245, 3oo.
Dieterich, I92, 247, 294, 300, 3Io,
329, 35C.
Dill, 66, 245, 302, 3Io, 316.
Dillmann, IO4.
Diodorus, 54 ff., 207 f., 295, 303,
32O, 322.
Diogenes the Cynic, 294.
T)iogenes Laertius, 258,
294, 3I4, 359.
Diogenes the Stoic, 268.
Dion Cassius, 212, 2I6.
Dion of Syracuse, 207.
Dionysus, 74, 2Io, 230, 295, 297
ff., 3Oof., 349.
Dittenberger, 215 f.
Divination, 248, 274.
Divine descent, of Apollonius of
Tyana, 233; of astrologers, 233;
of Augustus, 234; of Jesus, 234 f.
DobSchütz, von, 35o.
267 f.,
Droysen, 54.
Drucker, 92.
Duchesne, 191.
Dupuis, I86.
Duris, 207.
Duschak, 89.
Ebionites, 94.
Ecstasy, I28 ft., 29I f.,
3O4, 3IO.
Edmonds, 308.
Edmunds, 194.
Eichhorn, IQ2.
Elements (a touxeta), 244 f.
Eleusinian mysteries, 282, 288 f.,
296 f.
Eleusinion, 290.
Eleusis, 74.
Elijah, I46 f.
Elisha, I46 f.
Emerton, 192.
Empedocles, 204.
Emperor-worship, 73, Ig5 ff.
Ennatum, 200.
Entemena, 200.
Epaminondas, 294.
Epictetus, 268 f., 272 ft., 277 f.,
295, 359.
Epicureans, 74, 255, 258 ft.
Epicurus, 258 f.
Epigoni, 52.
Epiphanius, I26.
Epiphany, 235.
Erman, 76.
Eschatology (see Immortality),
I63 f., 247, 276 f.
Eschelbacher, 91.
Eshmun, 74, 307.
Eshmunazar, 306 f.
Essenes, 83, 93, 95, 97.
Ethics, of mysteries, 294 f.; of
Paul, 351 ff.
Eumenes, 208.
Euripides, 53, 3oo.
Eusebius, I25 f., 187.
Everling, I55.
Exorcism, I52 ft.
298 ff.,
Faber, 194.
Fairweather, 79.
Farnell, 77, 288 f., 293, 295, 297 f.,
3OO, 3O3.
374
The Evolution of Early Christianity
Fate (dvāykm), 243.
Felten, 79.
Flamininus, 2II.
Forbiger, 49.
Fortune (rùxm), 242 f.
Foucart, 288, 297.
Fourth Gospel, Christianity of,
362 f.; Sacramentalism in, 365 fſ.
Fowler, 66, 77.
Frazer, 192, 302, 305, 316.
Frey, 136.
Friedländer, L., 66.
Friedländer, M., 93 f., 175, 327.
Friedlander, G., 87, 89.
Fries, 244.
Frölich, 6o.
Garlſe, 104.
Gardiner, 219.
Gardner, 6o, 35o.
Garstang, 305.
Geffoken, 66, 175, 266.
Gercke, 54.
Gfrörer, 186.
Glover, 77.
Gnosticism, 76, 326 ft.
God-fearers, I74 f., 178.
Goedeckmeyer, 256.
Götz, 5o.
Goguel, 92, 349 f.
Gomperz, 254, 266.
Grätz, 79, 89.
Gressmann, IO4, 199, 221 f., 306.
Grünbaum, 89. -
Gruppe, 77, Ig8, 243, 250, 282,
288, 297, 3Oo, 303, 305, 3Io,
316, 349.
Güdemann, 91.
Gunkel, IoS, I28, I55, Ig3, 3Io,
349.
Hadad, 309 f.
Hagnon, 204.
Hahn, 54.
Hall, A. C. A., 5.
Hall, T. C., 66.
Halliday, 248.
Hammurabi, 199 ft.
Harnack, I8 f., 51, 8o, 91, I:27, 191.
Harper, R. F., 20I, 22I.
Harrison, 77, 297, 30I.
Hart, 88. •
Hase, von, 194.
Hatch, 66, 191, 288, 35o.
Hauck, 3oo.
Hausrath, 66. -
Havet, 186, 278. }
Hebrews, Gospel according to,
I29, I33.
Hegel, Ioff.
Hegesippus, 126.
Heinen, 198, 212 f.
Heinrici, 189.
Heitmüller, Io&, II9, 159, 192, 35o.
Hellenicism, 53.
Hellenism, 53.
Hennell, 186.
Hepding, 302, 305.
Hephaestion, 296, 208,
Heraclitus, 183, 267.
Hercules, 230, 318.
Herder, 15.
Herford, 88, go.
Hermes, 328.
IIermeticist11, 328 f.
Herodotus, 53, 63, 74, 203 f., 291,
296, 3oof., 312, 3I4, 316 ft.
Hertzberg, 54.
Hicks, E., 187.
IHicks, E. L., 216.
Hicks, R. D., 258, 263 f.
Hilgenfeld, IoA, 327.
Hiller von Gaertringen, 217.
Hirsch, 92.
Hirschfeld, 197.
Hoennicke, Ioo.
Hogarth, 49, 57.
Holm, 53.
Holsten, IoI.
Holtzmann, H. J., 79, Io4, 35o.
Holtzmann, O., 79.
Homer, 204.
Hopkins, Ig4.
Horace, 65, 69, 225, 230.
Horodezky, 88.
Horos, 209 f.
Hort, Ioo.
Idealism, Io, I4.
Immortality, Egyptian doctrine
of, 317 f.; Mithraic doctrine of,
313; taught in mysteries, 287
ff., 298; procured by initiation,
292 f.; Stoic doctrine of, 276 f.
Indexes
375
India, 57.
Initiation, 289 ft., 313.
Ipuwer, 219.
Ishtar, 74, 221, 306, 312.
Isis, 74, 209, 229, 315 ft.
Isocrates, 63, 289.
Jackson, 76, 194.
Jacoby, IQ2, 287, 328.
James, brother of Jesus, 35, I25 f.
James, brother of John, I25.
Jastrow, 76.
Jensen, IQ3.
Jeremias, I87, 193.
Jerome, I29, 278.
Jesus, 2, 4, 6, 16, 18 f., 21, 27 f.,
29, 34, 37 f., 4off.; attitude to
Judaism,358; conflict with Jews,
85, 89 f.; death of, 92 f., 140,
331; deification of, 230 ft.;
exaltation of, 160; imperial
functions of, 236 f.; influence of,
33I f.; lordship of, Io9 ff., II6;
messiahship of, I40; miracles
of, 360 f.; originality of, 89;
religion of, 23; resurrection of,
231 f., 335 f.; significance of,
89 f.; as teacher, 360; tempta-
tion of, 360 f.
Jevons, 294.
John the Baptist, 94, T20, 138,
I47, 331 f., 340, 358, 363.
Josephus, 56, 80, 83, II6, I26, 134,
I36, 152 f., 174, 20I, 2I4, 216 f.,
248, 34o.
Judaism, 31, 79 f.; apologetic of,
I75 f.; dispersion of, 173 ff.;
institutions of, 81 f.; mission-
ary activity of, 17of., I74;
parties within, 82 f.; relation
to Christianity, 78ff.; spirit-
uality of, 88.
Julius Caesar, 212 f.
Jung, 5o.
Juster, 79 f., 92.
Justin Martyr, I83, 185.
Juvenal, 251.
Kaerst, 54, 198.
Kautsky, 69, I86.
Reim, 79, 191.
Kennedy, 44, 189, 288, 35o.
Kiepert, 5o.
Ring, C. W., 327.
King, L. W., 76.
Kingship, religious character of,
I99 f. .*.
Klein, 92.
Koine, 29.
Kornemann, 198, 206, 2Io.
Frascheninnkoff, 198.
Krebs, 365.
Kristensen, 367.
Kroll, 245, 349.
Krüger, I75.
Kugler, 193.
Kuiper, 278.
Lactantius, 184.
Lafaye, 315.
Lagrange, IoA, 305.
Lajard, 3Io. *
Lake, I74, 35o.
Lang, 289.
Lange, 219.
Language of New Testament, 28ff.
Lehmann, I94, 281.
Letronne, 61.
Lévy, 316.
Lewis, I88.
Liechtenhan, 327.
Lietzmann, 200, 219.
Lightfoot, J., 89.
Lightfoot, J. B., 278.
Lipsius, 327. r
Livy, 54, 56, 3oo, 303.
Lobeck, 288 f., 293 f., 297.
Logos, I83, I85, 263, 269, 272,
32I, 362.
Loisy, 20 f., 288, 298, 302, 3Io,
316, 35o.
Lord (Kºptos), Io9 ff., II2 f.
Lord’s Supper, 185; early ob-
servance of, 34o f.; in Fourth
Gospel, 365 f.; Pauline notion
of, II.4, 348 f.
Lucian, 262.
Lucius, 322.
Luckenbill, 305.
Lucretius, 24I, 245, 258 f.
Lysander, 207.
Maass, 297.
Maccabean revolt, 29.
376
The Evolution of Early Christianity
McGiffert, 42.
Magic, 248 f.
Magical books, 249.
Mahaffy, 54, 61, 2Io.
Manilius, 243.
Mansel, 327.
Maranatha, II6 f., 356.
Marcus Aurelius, 268 f., 277 f.
Marquardt, 54.
Mathews, 79, Io4.
Maurenbrecher, I86.
Maximus of Tyre, 25I.
Mead, IQ3, 327 f.
Messianic hope, Babylonian and
Assyrian, 220 ft.; Christian,
Io5 ff., 226 ft., 333 ff.; Egyp-
tian, 219 f.; Jewish, Io.3, IoS f.,
222 f., 333; Roman, 223 ff.
Meuschen, 89.
Meyer, E., 69, 198, 200.
Meyer, P. M., 61.
Mezger, 20.
Mills, 187, 194.
Miltiades, 203.
Minim, 93.
Miracles, 145 ft., 217, 232 f., 360 f.
Mishnah, 88.
Missions, Christian, 166 f.; Jew-
ish, I70, 174.
Mithra, 74, 217, 3Ioff.
Modernism, 20 f.
Moffat, I25, 194.
Mommsen, 54, II9.
Montefiore, 88, 9off.
Moore, C. H., 3oo.
Moore, G. F., 76, 312.
Moret, 199, 3I6.
Moses, 86, 144ff., 160, 173, 184 f.,
357.
Moulton, J. H., 29, 77, 312.
Müller, 55.
Mullach, 266.
Murray, 77, 252.
Musonius Rufus, 268.
Mysteries, 74, 287 ff.; Babylonian,
306; Bacchic, 297 ff.; Cilician
and Syrian, 305 f.; Dionysian,
295, 297 ff.; Egyptian, 315 ft.;
Eleusinian, 288 f.; oriental, 302
ff.; Orphic, 3ooff.; Persian, 3Io
ff.; Phrygian, 302 f.; Sabazian,
297; ethics of, 294 f.; influ-
ence upon Christianity, 334 f.;
theology of, 326 ft.
Mysticism, 281 ff., 326 ft.
Naramsin, 199.
Neo-Platonism, 74, 256.
Nero, 295.
Newman, 7 ff.
New Testament language, 28 ft.
Nicodemus, 365.
Niese, 54, 66.
Nöldeke, II?.
Nösgcn, I89.
Norden, 54, 279, 281.
Nork, 89.
Oesterley, 79, 222, 34o.
Orient, 64 f., 72 f.
Origen, 86, 184, 186, 295.
Orpheus, 230.
Orphic mysteries, 282, 3ooff.
Orphic tablets, 301.
Orphism, 76, 297, 3ooff.
Orr, 6.
Osiris, 74, 209, 2 T3, 229, 300,
316 f., 336.
Otto, 77.
Ovid, 303.
Panaetius, 276.
Panammu, 309.
Parousia, III, 197, 235 f.
Passover, 136.
Pathey, 328.
Paton, L. B., 305.
Paton, W. R., 216.
Patrick, 94.
Paul, 18, 27, 35 f., 38, 51, 97 f.,
Ioo f.; Christ-mysticism of,
346 ff.; Christianity of, 341 ff.;
conversion of, 132; debt to
gentile religions, 354; doctrine
of Spirit, 132, 341 ff.; escha-
tology of, IIo f.; estimate of
Judaism, I'79, 345 ft.; estimate
of paganism, 179; ethics of,
351 ff.; gentile environment of,
I78; gospel of, IoI, I72 f.;
independence of, Iog; miracles
of, I47 ff.; missionary activity
of, Io2; persecuted by Jews,
85; relation to predecessors,
Indexes
377
Ioé f., 118 ff.; relation to Seneca,
278; use of Baptism, 347 f.;
use of Lord’s Supper, 348 ft.
Pausanias, 303.
Pentecost, I31, 134 f.
Perdelwitz, 287.
Perdiccas, 58.
Peripatetics, 256 f.
Persephone, 292 f., 3or.
Peter, Io2, 125.
Petersen, 234.
Petrie, 193.
Pfleiderer, IoI, IQ2, 327, 336, 35o.
Pharisees, 30, 82, 87 f., 93.
Philip Arrhidaeus, 58.
Philip V, 2II.
Philip of Macedon, 52, 62 f., 207.
Philippson, L., 92.
Philippus, 203 f.
Philo, 83, 134, 159.
Philosophy, 239 f., 252 ft.
Philostratus, 233,290, 359.
Pindar, 289.
Plato, 28, 53, 185, 204, 256 f., 265,
278 f., 289, 298 ft., 321.
Platonism, 73 f.
Pliny the Elder, 243, 3I4.
Pliny the Younger, II6.
Plutarch, 55 f., 207, 229, 245 f.,
282, 292, 3I4, 316 ft., 321 f.,
359.
Pluto, 292.
Pöhlmann, von, 70.
Poland, 66, 76.
Polybius, 54, 242.
Polytheism, 241 ff.
Pompey, 2I2.
Porter, 174.
Posidonius, 268, 277, 282.
Preaching, of Cynic-Stoics, 270 ft.,
358 f.; of early Christians,
I37 f.
Pressensé, 187.
Priestley, 188.
“Primal Man,” 367.
Prince, 306.
Promus, I86.
Prophet, I 38.
Proselytes, I 74.
Protagoras, 204, 240, 265.
Protestantism, 3 f., 7 ff.
Prudentius, 3o4.
Ptolemaic rulers, 61.
Ptolemy Lagus, 54, 207.
Pyrrho of Elis, 257.
Pythagoras, 273.
Pythagoreanism, 76, 301.
Quandt, 297.
Radau, 187.
Radermacher, 29.
Ramsay, 49.
Rationalism, Io.
Rebirth, 305, 328 f.
Redemption, 286 ft.
Reinach, S., 186.
Reinach, T., 8o, I73.
Reisner, 3.16.
Reitzenstein, 77, Io&, 192 f., 287,
327 ff., 35o, 365: 367.
Religionsgeschichtliche School, Io8,
IQI.
Renan, IQI.
Renault, 258.
Resurrection, of Adonis, 307 ff.;
of Attis, 303; of Jesus, 333 ff.;
of Osiris, 317; of Tammuz, 306,
Richter, I86.
Riess, 245.
Ritschl, I6 f.
Robinson, 9o.
Rodrigues, 89.
Rohde, 295.
Roma, 2II, 213 f.
Roman emperors, 62.
Ropes, 42.
Rosetta Stone, 209.
Sabazius, 297.
Sacraments, in Christianity, 341;
in Fourth Gospel, 365 ft.; in
Mithraism, 313; in the mys-
teries, 294, 299 f.; in Paul’s
letters, 349 f.
Sadducees, 30, 82, I63.
Salvation, 284 f.
Sanhedrin, 92.
Sappho, 307.
Sargon I, IQ9.
Satirists, 251.
Schäfer, 315.
Schanz, 68.
Schechter, 88.
378
The Evolution of Early Christianity
Schleiermacher, 15 ff.
Schmidt, 77, 302, 316.
Schneider, 69.
Schöttgen, 89.
Schrader, 193.
Schreiber, 89.
Schürer, 79 f., 88, 93, IO4 f., 170,
I73 ff., 34o.
Schultz, 327.
Schwartz, 125. &
Schweitzer, IoA, IIo f., 186.
Scott, IoA, 176.
Scylas, 298.
Seleucid kingdom, 59 f.
Seleucid rulers, 60.
Seneca, 184, 268 f., 272, 275 ft.,
278.
Serapis, 74, II.5, 316 ft.
Sethe, 316.
Seydel, 194.
Showerman, 302.
Siegfried, 9o.
Sikes, 289.
Smith, G. A., 49.
Smith, William, 49.
Smith, W. R., 305.
Socrates, 53, 183, 240, 265, 272,
358 f.
Soltau, 188.
Son of God, 232.
Son of Man, IoS, Io9, 361 ff.,
365 f., 367.
Sophocles, 53, 289.
Sorley, Ioo.
Spiess, 187.
Spirit, endowing Messiah, 128 ft.;
how obtained, 131 ff.; Christian
idea of, I29 f., 351; Paul’s idea
of, 341 ff.; Stoic idea of, 343 f.
Spitta, I67.
Ståhelin, 173.
Staerk, 66, 17o.
Stave, 194.
Steck, 278.
Steindorff, 76.
Steiner, 61.
Steinmann, 69.
Stephen, 35, 85.
Stilpo, 267.
Stobaeus, 29I.
Stocks, 29.
Stoicism, 76, 262 f., 267 ff., 286 f.
Stoics, 74, 183, 255 ft., 343 f.
Storrs, 4.
Strabo, 49, 56, 80, 173 f., 205, 248,
268, 3I4.
Strack, 61.
Strong, 305.
Suetonius, 75, II6, 212, 2I4, 216 f.,
234, 244, 249, 295, 3Io, 359.
Suidas, 208. -
Superstition, 245 ft.
Susemihl, 68.
Synesius, 292.
Syrian goddess, 3 To.
Tabnith, 306.
Tacitus, 7o, II6, 216.
Talmud, 87.
Tammuz, 74, 306 f.
Tarn, 59.
Tarsus, 268.
aurobolium 304 f.
Taylor, 3oo.
Teichmann, 35o.
Telesterion, 290.
Tertullian, I84 f.
Testament of Judah,
Levi, I29.
Teuffel, 68.
Thackeray, 79.
Theocritus, 299, 308.
Therapeutae, 93, 97.
Thieling, 54.
Thot (Tat), 328.
Thucydidcs, 53, 203.
Thumb, 29.
Thureau-Dangin, 199.
Tiberius, 244.
Tibullus, 223, 300, 319 f.
Tiele, 77.
Tindal, 187.
Tiridates, 216.
Titans, 3oo.
Toland, 94.
Torah, 81 f., 134. -
Toutain, 77, 198, 244, 287, 302,
305, 3Io, 316.
Toy, 76, 79, 193.
Trajan, 49.
Trench, 187.
Trezza, 258.
Troeltsch, 13 f., 70.
Tucker, 66.
I29; of
Indexes
379
Tübingen School, 13, 17, 94, Io.3,
Io'7 f., IIo.
Typhon, 318.
Ueberweg, 254.
Uhlhorn, IQI.
Ungnad, 199, 221.
Usener, IQ2, 258.
Van den Bergh van Eysinga, 194.
Vellay, 305.
Vernes, IoA.
Virgil, 223 f., 230.
Vollers, I86.
Volney, 186.
Volz, Io4, I28, I45.
Wagner, 66.
Wallace, 258.
Wallon, 69.
Weber, 88, 316.
Wecker, IgA.
Weinel, I28, 196.
Weinreich, 153.
Weiss, IoA, Io& f., II6, 120, 136,
I76.
Weizsäcker, 42. -
Wendland, 66, 198, 224, 226, 23o,
243, 27I, 327.
Wernle, 9o f., II.3, 176.
SCRIPTURE REFERENCES
Exodus
8: I-12:51. . . . . . . . . . . . . I46
14:21 ff. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I46
I5:23 ff. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I46
20:18 f... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I35
24: II-I6, 18. . . . . . . . . . . . I35
Numbers
9 : 9T II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I36
II : 29 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I37
I6:29-35. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I46
I7:5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I4.
Deuteronomy
5:4f. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I35
18:9 f... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I44
Wettstein (Wetstenius), go.
Whittaker, 186.
Wiedemann, 76, 318.
Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, 66.
Winckler, 278.
Windelband, 254.
Windisch, 35o.
Wissowa, 77, 198, 302, 305, 3Io,
6
3IO.
Witkowski, 29.
Wobbermin, 287, 295.
Wood, 128.
Wrede, IoI.
Wünsch, IQ2.
Wünsche, 9o.
Xenophanes, 24I, 25I.
Xenophon, 28, 53, 63, 267, 359.
Yahweh, 32, 80 f., II8, 128 f.,
I37 f.; I46 f., 20I, 222, 336 f.
Zadokite Sectaries, 83, 130.
Zagreus, 3oo.
Zahn, II 7, 278.
Zealots, 30, 82, 97, 20I.
Zeller, 254, 256, 258, 263, 266, 275.
Zeno, 267 f.
Zielinski, IQ3.
Zimmern, IQ3.
Deuteronomy
18:15. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I6o
33:2 f. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I35
I Samuel
Io:5ff. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I37
Io:6ff. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I46
IO: IO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I33
I9 : 2OT24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I33
19:23 f. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I46
I Kings
13:4 f., 28. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I46
I7: I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I46
II Kings
2 :9-I5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I46
I3: I4TI9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I46
38o
The Evolution of Early Christianity
Psalms
68:8. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I35
Isaiah
9:1 ff. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222
9: 7. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2OI
II: 1 ff. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2OI, 222
II: 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I 2
42 : I. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I29
61: If... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
61: 1 ff. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I29
Ezekiel
I: I, 28. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I33
2:1 ff. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I33
2:2 f... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I33
3: I.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I33
3 : I.2-24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I33
3: 24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I33
8:3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I33
8:3 ff. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I33
8:14. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 306, 334
II : I. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I33
II : 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I33
II: 24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I33
20:26-28, 31, 39. . . . . . . . . I59
Daniel
2:47 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II8
5: 23 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II8
7 : I3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 362
Hosea
9: 7. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I38
Joel
2:28 ft. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I29
Zechariah
I2 : IO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I29
I2 : II. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3IO
Malachi
4:5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I47
II Esdras
I4:46. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
Tobit
6:8. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I52
8:2 f... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I52
Enoch
49: IT4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I29
62:2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I29
I7:42 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I29
18:8. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I29
Matthew
I : 22. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177
2 : I5, I7, 23. . . . . . . . . . . . 177
3: 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I47
3: II, 10. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I31
3:16 f... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I3o
4: I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I3O
4 : T4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I77
5 : I7-I9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I2O
5 : I7-2O. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I77
5: 24. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II 7
7:6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I67
7:22. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I59
8: II f... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I67
8:17. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I77
Io:5 f., 23. . . . . . . . . . . . I67, I'77
IO: 22. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I67
II:5 f... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I42
II: I4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I47
II: 25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II8
I2 : I Z. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I77
I2:25 ft. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I3o
I2 - 27 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I6o
I3: I4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177
13:26 f... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I68
I3: 35 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I77
I3 : 37-43, 47-5C . . . . . . . . . I67
I5: 24. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I67, 177
I5:26. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Io'7
I6:20 f... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 334
I6:21. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232
I7:9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232, 334
I7: 9TI3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I47
17:22 f... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 334
I7: 23 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232
I9 : I4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
19:28. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I67, I'77
2O: I7-I9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ‘. 334
2O: T9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232
2.I . 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I77
2I : 33-44 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I67
22 : I.TI4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I67
23:34, 23b . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I77
24; I4, 34, 45 fi . . . . . . . . . . I67
Indexes
38I
Matthew
24: 2O. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177
25: 21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I69
26: I3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I67
26:65 f... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I62
27:9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I77
27:63 f... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232
28; 19. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I67
Mark
I:6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I47
I:8, To. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I31
I: Io f., 12, 18, 20. . . . . . . I3O
I: Ioff. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I33
I : II. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I29
I:22, 32 f... . . . . . . . . . . . . I54
1:25 f., 31, 41. . . . . . . . . . I53
I : 27 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I54, 232
2: Io, 28. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232
2 : II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I53
3 : 5, 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I53
3: I7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I77
3:23 ff., 29. . . . . . . . . . . . . I3O
3:29 f... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I54
4:39 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I53
5 : I3, 23, 25 . . . . . . . . . . . . I53
5:41 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I53, I 77
6:5 f., 41, 5o, 56. . . . . . . . I53
6:13. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I54
7:2-4, II, I9, 34. . . . . . . . I77
7:9-13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
7 : 29, 32 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I53
8:0, 22. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I53
8:30-32. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 334
8:3+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232
8:37. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IO5
9 : I. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I68, 337
9:9 f... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232, 334
9 : IITI3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I47
9:25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I53
9 : 29 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I54
9 : 3OT32 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 334
9:3T . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232
9:38. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I59
IO; I4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
IO: 21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II6
IO: 22. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I53
IO: 32-34 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 334
IO: 34 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232
Io:46. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I77
I2:18, 42. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I77
I2 : 32 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I3o
Mark
I3 : 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177
I3: IO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I68
13:24 f. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IO5
I4: 2, 32 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I77
14:03 f. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I62
I5:34, 42 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I77
Luke
I : IT3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I27
I;3f. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I27
I: I5, 35, 41, 67. . . . . . . . . I3O
I : I7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I47
I:80. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I29 f.
2:25 f... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I3O
2:31 f... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178
3:6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I78
3:16, 22. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I31
3:21 f. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I3O
4: I, I4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I3O
4; 16 ft. . . . . . . . . . . . . . I38, I42
4:24-27 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I78
7:22 f... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I42
9:21 f., 36, 43-45. . . . . . . 334
9:22 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232
Io:9, I7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I54.
IO: 21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II8
II; 17 ff. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I3O
I2 : IO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I3O
I6:2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II6
18:16. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
18:22. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II 7
18:31-34. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 334
18:33. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232
22:09. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I62
24; 7. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232
24: 47 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I78
John
I : T. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269
I: 18. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 364
I: 20 f., 25. . . . . . . . . . . . . . I47
I : 33 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I29
I : 330 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I3o f.
I:33b . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I31
I:46. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II 7
I : 5T . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 362
3 : 3TI4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 365
3:13 f. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 362
3:16. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 364
3: 34 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I3O
4:16. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II.7
382 The Evolution of Early Christianity
John Acts
4; 22. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I2 I 7:54–58. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I44
5: 27 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 362 8:I. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I44
6:14. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I47 8:14ff. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I2O
6:26 ft. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 365 8; I4-17. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I32
6:27, 53, 62. . . . . . . . . . . . 362 8:15 f., 39. . . . . . . . . . . . . I31
7:41 f... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I47 8:29. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I31, I.33
8:28. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 362 8:39 f... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I33
9:35. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 362 9:3 ff. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I33
II : 43 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II 7 9 : I.7. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I31 f.
I2 : 2O, 32 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178 9:22 fi... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I44
I2:23, 34 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 362 9:23. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I25
I3 : 31 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 362 9:26-30. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I2O
17:3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 364 9 : 29 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I25
2O: 22. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I31 f. 9 : 31 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I25, I31
IO: 2, 22, 35 . . . . . . . . . . . . . I74
Acts Io:38. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I29 f.
I : I. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I27 IO: 4O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232
I : 2, 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I31 IO:44-47. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I31
I:8. . . . . . . . . I31, I44, I67, I78 Io:44–48. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I32
I:8 f... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I2O IO: 47 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I67
I : 23 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I44. II: I5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I32
2:1 ff. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I2O, I31 II: I5-17, 24, 28. . . . . . . . . I31
2: 22 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I48, 232 II: 16. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I31
2: 24, 32 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232 II: I7. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I67
2:36. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232, 355 12: Iff. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I25
2:38. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I32 I2 : I.7. . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . I26
2:41: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I42 I3:2, 4, 9, 52. . . . . . . . . . . . I31
2 : 43 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I45 I3: I6, 43, 5o. •e e º e º e º º I74
3: Iff. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I42 13:24 f., 26. . . . . . . . . . . . . . I47
3:6, 12-16. . . . . . . . . . . . . I44. I3: 27 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I4I
3: I3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 355 13:30 ft. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232
3: I5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232 I3:46. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I44
3: I7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I4I I5:8, 28. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I31
3:20 f. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IO5 I5: I.3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I26
3:22. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 338 I6:6 f... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I31
3:22-26. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I60 I6; I4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I74
3:26. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 355 I7:4, I? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I74
4 : IT3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I44. I7: 3T . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232
4; 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I31 18:2, 24 f... . . . . . . . . . . . . . IO2
4:7 ff. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I44. 18:6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I44
4:8. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I31 18; 7. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I74
4:8-12. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I6o I9 : I. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IO2
4 : IO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232 19:2, 6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I31
4; 33. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I44. 19:2 f... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I32
5 : 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I31 19: II f... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249
5:15 f. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I45 I9 : I.3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I59
5: I6–18, 28 ft., 4o. . . . . . . I44. 20:23, 28. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I31
5 : 32 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I31 2I : 4) II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I31
6: I-7:53. . . . . . . . . . . . . . I44. 21:18. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I26
6:3, 5, Io. . . . . . . . . . . . . . I31 22:6ff. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I33
7:51, 55 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I31 22 : I9-2I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I44.
Indexes - 383
Acts I Corinthians
26: I2 ft. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I33 I : IITT3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II3
26: I9-2I. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I44. I: 13 ff. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35o
28:25. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I31 I : T8-25. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I79
28:25-28. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I44. I : 21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277
I:26. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 278
Romans I:28. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I57
I : 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . IóI, 232,355 2 : 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I32
I:8-15. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IO2 2:4f. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I48
I: 13-16. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I77 2:6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I55, I57
I: 10. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148 2:6-8. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I4O
I: T8-32. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I79 2:6-ro. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283
2:8-16. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177 2:8. . . . . . . . . . . . . I55, I57, I79
2:14f. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I79 f. 2: To-I6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I31.
3 : 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I77 3: T3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III
3: 9T2C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I79 3:16, 21 ff. . . . . . . . . . . . . . I57
3:29 f. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I77, I'79 3: 23 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II3
4; 24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II8, 232 4 : 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IO5, III
6: I-II. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II.4. 4 : T 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I49
6:3 ff. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35o 5:3 f... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I58
6:4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232 5 : 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I56
6:16. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27o 6:3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I57
8:I-17. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I31 6:9. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I79
8: II. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232 6:9-II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I77
8:14-17. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I57 6: II. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35o
8:17. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II2, I69 6: II-I5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II.4.
8:38 f... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I57 6:14. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II8, 232
9:1 ff. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II9 6:15 ft. . . . . . . . . . . . . . I55, 157
9:3-5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I64 7:5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I55
9 : 22–31 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177 7:8-31. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I72
9 : 3C-IO : 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . I4I 7 : To . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II8, I5o
9 : 3T II. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I79 7: II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I49
Io:8 f. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I6I 7 : T2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I5O
IO:9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . IO7, I'7I, 232 7 : T4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 299
IO: 9-I4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I58 7:25 . . . . . . . . . . . . II8, 15o, I82
II: If... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II9 7:40. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I82
II: II f... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I77 8: Iff. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I77
II: 25-32 . . . . . . . . . . . . . I4I, I'7C 8:4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I79
12: If... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277 8:4ff. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I56
I3: T2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III 8:5 f. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II6, I58
I4: IO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III 9 : T . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I73
I5: 7~1.3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I77 9:4-6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IO2
I5:18 f. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I48 9:5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II8, I5I
I5: 18–28. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I68 9 : T4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II8, I5o
I5: IQ, 26–28. . . . . . . . . . . . I2O 9 : 23-27 . . . . . . . . . . . . . II2, I69
I5:24, 28. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5I Io: Iff., 14–22. . . . . . . . . . . 35C
IO: IT4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II
I Corinthians tº................ ;
I : 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I57 To: 16. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II5
I:7. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I7I To: 19 f. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I55
1:7f. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III IO: 2O. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I79
I:8 f... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IO5 IO: 21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I57
384
The Evolution of Early Christianity
I Corinthians
II: 2, 16. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I5O
II: 2OT32 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35O
II : 23 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II8, I5o
II: 26 f... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II.8
II:29ff. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I56
II : 29-32 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I56
I2; ITIO. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I5I
I2; 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I79
12:8 f... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I47
12:9 f... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I48
r2:ro. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I38
12:12 f... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I L4
I2 : 13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I32, 35C
I2:28. . . . . . . . . . I38, I47 f., I52
I2:28-3o. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I5I
I4; 1 ff. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I31, I38
I4; 33. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I5o
I5:3, 12 fix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232
I5 : 5 ft. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I28
I5 : 5-II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I6I
I5:8. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I73
15:8 f... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IO3
I5:9. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
15:14ff. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I71
15:23 ff. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III
I5: 24-27 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I57
15:25 f... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I56
I5:25-28. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I58
I5 : 29 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35O
I5 : 31 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II2, I69
16:22. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III, II6
II Corinthians
2: II. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I55
2:14ff. . . . . . . . . . . . . . II2, I69
3:17 f... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I31
4:3 f... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I79
4:4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I55
4 : T4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232
4; I4-17. . . . . . . . . . . . . II2, I69
5: Io. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III
6:15. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I55
II : I4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I55
II : 22. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II9
II:24, 32 f... . . . . . . . . . . . . . I25
I2; 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I55
12:7 ff. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I56
I2 : IITI3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I5I
I2 : I.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I48
I2 : I.3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I49
Galatians
I : I. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I61, 173
I : 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . I55, I57, I79
I : 13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
1:15 f... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I32
I: 16. . . . . . . . . . . . . . I72 f., 177
I : IQ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II8 f., 126
I : 22. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II9, I5o
2:1 ff. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I5o
2:2 f... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177
2:8. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IO3, I?2
2 : 9. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I26
2:14ff. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IO3
2 : 2O. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I32
3: I-5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132
3:2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I32
3: 2-5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I31
3:3, 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I49
3:3-5. . . . . . . . . . . ISI, I54, I'72
3:8 ft. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177
3: IQ-29 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .- . 179
3:26-28. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II3
3:27. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35O
4:3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245
4:8 f... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I79
4:9. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245
4:29 f... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I34
5 : O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I72
6:15. . . . . . . . . . . . . © s e e e = I72
Ephesians
I : 2O. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232
2:2 f., 12. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I79
2 : II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177
3: I, 6, 8. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I77
4: I'7. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I77
4:17 f... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I79
5:8, 16. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I79
6; I2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I79
Philippians
I:6, Io. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III
I:23 f. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I56
2 : 5-IO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 318
2 : 5-II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I58
2:6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I69
2:7f. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 355
2 : 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232
2:9 f. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229
2:9 f. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II5
2:16. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II 2
In
deaces - 385
Philippians
3:5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II9
3:6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
4: 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III
Colossians
I : 21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I79
I : 27 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177
2:8. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245
2:II f... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II.4.
2: II f... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35o
2 : T2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232
2: 13, 18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I79
2 : 2O. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245
I Thessalonians
I
: 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I48
:6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II8, I32
:9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177
:9 f. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I7I
: IO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III, 232
:7, 16. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I77
I Thessalonians
3:6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I58
3: I3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III
3:16. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I77
4:3-7. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I77
4:5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I79
4: I5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II8, I5o
4:15-18. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III
5:2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III
5 : 23 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III, I56
II. Thessalonians
I: 7. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I79
2:8 ft. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I57"
2 :9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I48
II Timothy
I II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177
4; 17. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I77
Hebrews
2 : 2-4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I34
I2:18-24. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I34
James
5:14-18. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I55
Revelation
22: 2O. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II6
§:
5：
|
015
UNIVERSITY |
|
OF
MICHIGAN
|
|
?
- **
:*::=
D0 NOT REMOVE
0R
MUTILATE CARD
*&:。、、.

„ … （ ſ ） {; ; ;-） ！!.*… * * * * * & * ;£ € --mº：··∞§ë.8{，}§§
¿####*** * ·，≤ ∞∞∞∞·§§
{{:}}};}{ſ}-•• ！
;{{{8}{!- -ae·
#:;
###
�
########
##
×ſ，
{{}}
•';• wº${};
#########
§§§:;};§§:#;$$$$|-
!\#####ķ#########
######################
##########×:
ţ&####
###{#::
•* •
#######
####
！
#
#
× Tº sº：
·Y，
:iſ:№ſ
######• • • •
##########← •
!?!$$$$į;:
#:::
{{};
NÇ，
};};
##
########
¿?
###############
{};$±!:#:;§§&# !！!!！!
:：:：:::::：::：:::：::::：:：：： **，*!!！!!
*:\ſ*）*（;|:§§ſſſ
¿¿.****ſae;tº!:?:\ſ）（\{\{ſ}ſae，
&#533, №8#ffſț¢&#:§º.“
:2łcae
#
X}{}
#
§§
####
#######
aeſ，
{}}: ;
#
**** **
#.
#######
}：}：}{7.3*****
###
！�•••