CHAPTER 6
Notes 136. Quoted in Eusebius of Caesarea, Ecclesiastical History 6:19:
137.See Origen, On First Principles 2.2, 2.10. Origen's predecessor, Clement of Alexandria, had speculated that human souls were preexistent, at least by divine foreknowledge (Clement of Alexandria, Exhortation to the Greeks 1). This may have contributed to Origen's philosophical speculation on the human soul.
138. See Origen, On First Principles 3.1.13.
139. See Origen, Commentary on fohn 2.6.
140. See Origen, Commentary on Fohn 1.23.
141. See Origen, Commentary on fohn 2.4, 2.25.
142. For a more detailed account of the life of Novatian, see Papandrea, Novatian of Rome, and James L. Papandrea, The Trinitarian Theology of Novatian of Rome: A Study in Third-Century
Orthodoxy (New York: The Edwin Mellen Press, 2008).
143. Cyprian of Carthage, Epistle 51.24.
144. Cf. Irenaeus of Lyons, Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching 64.
145.Cf. Irenaeus of Lyons, Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching 69.
146. For a more detailed exposition of Novatian's theology, see Papandrea, Novatian of Rome.
CHAPTER 6
1. Eusebius of Caesarea, Ecclesiastical History 3.3.4.
Admittedly, Eusebius is not necessarily a reliable source on this subject, since he is only relating what he has heard, sometimes including contradictory traditions.
2. Eusebius of Caesarea, Ecclesiastical History 2.23.25, 3.38.1-3.
3. Eusebius of Caesarea, Ecclesiastical History 3.24.5-8.
4. Eusebius of Caesarea, Ecclesiastical History 3.3.1. This is not the place to enter into the debate over the authorship or dating of New Testament letters; however, some issues related to authorship and early Christian reception will be dealt with below.
Reading the Early Church Fathers 5. Some have speculated that the birth narratives in Luke and Matthew were appended later, after the main parts of the gospels were written. It could be that the miraculous nature of Jesus' birth encouraged a docetic understanding of Christ, which made the mainstream Church worry about the use of the birth narratives. For example, see Tertullian, Against Marcion 4.21, and On the Flesh of Christ 23. Cf. the Protevangelion of James. However, the very fact of a human birth would argue against docetism, so the Docetics (including Marcionites and Gnostics) tended not to talk about Jesus' birth. In any case, such a fear may explain why Mark, the first gospel to be written, has no birth narrative.
6. There is no early evidence for a so-called Q source.
Though the early writers, including Eusebius, knew of other written gospel sources from the fringes of the Church, there is no mention of a source that would explain the common elements in Matthew and Luke that are not also in Mark. A better explanation for those common elements is simply that Matthew copied Luke (see Mark
Goodacre and Nicholas Perrin, eds., Questioning Q: A Multidimensional Critique [Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004}).
7. Eusebius of Caesarea, Ecclesiastical History 6.25.
8. Eusebius of Caesarea, Ecclesiastical History 3.24.17. By "Johannine literature" I mean the Fourth Gospel, the three letters attributed to a John, and the Book of Revelation. I personally believe that the gospel, the first letter, and Revelation are by the apostle. Yet, the authorship is not the point as much as the fact that they are the last documents written, in the last decade of the first century (with the possibility that the second and third letters of John were written in the first decade of the second century).
9. Justin Martyr, 1 Apology 66.3.
10. Justin Martyr, 1 Apology 67. The use of the term archives for the Old Testament goes back to Ignatius of Antioch. The phrase
"memoirs of the apostles" may refer to the whole New Testament (gospels and letters), the way that the "archives" would refer to the whole Old 'Testament (law and prophets).
11. Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies 3.11.8.
12. David S. Dockery, Biblical Interpretation Then and Now:
Contemporary Hermeneutics in Light of the Early Church (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1992), 47.
Notes 13. See Clement of Alexandria, Who Is the Rich Man That Shall Be Saved?
3, Miscellanies 1.5, and Irenaeus of Lyons, Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching 91, Against Heresies 4.28.1-2,
4.32.1-2, 5.34.1. Note that in Against Heresies 2.27.1-2, Irenaeus refers to the gospels as sacred scripture. See also the Didascalia
Apostolorum 21.
14. Origen, Commentary on fobn 1.5.
15. E. Earle Ellis, "Pseudonymity and Canonicity of New Testament Documents," in Worship, Theology and Ministry in the Early Church: Essays in Honor of Ralph P. Martin, ed. Michael J.
Wilkins and Terence Paige, Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 87 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993),
217-19. See also Eusebius of Caesarea, Ecclesiastical History 6.12, 6.25, and the Apostolic Constitutions 6.3 (6.16).
16. See Eusebius of Caesarea, Ecclesiastical History 6.12. Note that Eusebius knew that the Gospel of Peter had been rejected because it was the product of a docetic community.
17. Eusebius of Caesarea, Ecclesiastical History 6.20, 6.25.
According to Eusebius, the Roman church claimed that Hebrews was written by Clement of Rome.
18. On the other hand, the reader must keep in mind that normally Paul would have dictated his letters to a scribe. Changing the scribe could theoretically change the style of the letter, especially if Paul dictated in Aramaic and the scribe had to translate
Paul's words into Greek.
19. Eusebius of Caesarea, Ecclesiastical History 6.13, 6.25.
20. Eusebius of Caesarea, Ecclesiastical History 6.25.
21. Eusebius of Caesarea, Ecclesiastical History 6.14.
22. For an example of the assumption that Ephesians is apostolic, see Novatian, On the Trinity 17.9.
23. By far most early Christians believed that the Book of Revelation was written by John, the disciple of Jesus (see Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies 4.21.11, 4.30.4, and Eusebius of Caesarea, Ecclesiastical History 6.25). Papias, who claimed to have known John the Elder, is an exception, attributing it to that disciple of the apostle. But the only serious challenge to the Johannine authorship in the early Church came from Dionysius of Alexandria, who was motivated to have the text excluded from the canon
Reading the Early Church Fathers because of what he perceived as the danger of literal interpretation by an Egyptian bishop named Nepos. Dionysius of Alexandria argued that Revelation should not be included in the canon because it was not easily interpreted by the average person and thus lent itself to misinterpretation (see Eusebius of Caesarea, Ecclesiastical
History 7.24-25). Philip of Side (fifth century) had said that those who say John the Elder wrote Revelation are mistaken, and that Papias and Irenaeus's dispensationalist/millennialist interpretation is also mistaken. George the Sinner (ninth century) also relates what he knew as the traditionally accepted belief, that Revelation was written by John the apostle in the time of Domitian, that the next emperor Nerva had released him, and that he had written his gospel afterward, before being martyred.
See Clement of Alexandria, Who Is the Rich Man That Shall Be Saved? 42, where Clement says that John was in fact released after Domitian's death and returned to Ephesus. Irenaeus says that John lived into the reign of Trajan, thus at least until 98 CE, and also wrote the Fourth
Gospel. (Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies 2.22.5, 3.3.4, 3.11.1, 5.18.2). If it seems unlikely that John could have lived to the turn of the second century, note that the Roman dole assumed recipients up to eighty years old, which would have been John's age at about that time (see Eusebius of Caesarea, Ecclesiastical History 7.21).
24. For the precedent, see 1 Clement 45, 63.
25. Eusebius of Caesarea, Ecclesiastical History 6.25. Eusebius says that 1 Peter is genuine but admits that there was a dispute over the authorship of 2 Peter, 2 John, and 3 John. Jerome wrote that John the Elder wrote 2 John and 3 John (see Jerome, [//ustrious Men
18). Philip of Side (fifth century) said that the earliest Christians accepted only | John as from the apostle, and that the other two
Johannine epistles were probably from John the Elder, a disciple of the apostle. That there was also debate over Jude and the other
Catholic Epistles, see Eusebius of Caesarea, Ecclesiastical History 6.13. Note that Eusebius also mentions Barnabas.
26. Admittedly, it could be argued that the more time went by, the easier it would be to ascribe genuine authorship to a pseudonymous document. However, this is where the second and third criteria would make up for any lingering uncertainty in the first.
27. See note 23 above.
Notes 28. Jerome said that it was John the Elder who was responsible for the interpretation of Revelation that we first see in Papias
(see Jerome, J/ustrious Men 18). Note that Jerome calls the literal interpretation of an earthly millennium the "Jewish tradition of the millennium," and he notes that not only Irenaeus (and Tertullian), but also Victorinus of Pettau, Lactantius, and Apollinarius also followed this interpretation.
Eusebius criticized Papias's and Irenaeus's interpretation of Revelation, saying that it was a misunderstanding of the apostolic document, which should be understood as symbolic (Eusebius of Caesarea, Ecclesiastical History
3.36-39). Photius of Constantinople (ninth century) said that Papias and Irenaeus did not represent the accepted traditional interpretation of Revelation. Finally, Justin Martyr, who himself interpreted the millennium as a literal one-thousand-year reign of Christ in a rebuilt earthly Jerusalem, admitted that many orthodox
Christians disagreed with this interpretation (Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 80).
29. Ralph P. Martin, Worship in the Early Church (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964), 87-88.
30. In the early Church, there is no distinction between exegesis and hermeneutics. See Dockery, Biblical Interpretation Then and Now, 16.
31. See 1 Clement 45, 63, and Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies 2.28.2, 2.30.6, 3.2.1. Irenaeus said that "the Scriptures are indeed perfect, since they were spoken by the Word of God and his
Spirit." See also Novatian, On the Trinity 18.2, Cyprian of Carthage, Epistle 51.6, 19-20, 27, and Augustine of Hippo, On the Trinity 15.19.31, Against the Donatists 2.4, and On the Morals of the Catholic Church 29. Augustine argues that to say Christ's words in scripture are not his is blasphemy.
32. Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies 3.21.2.
33. Clement of Alexandria, Exhortation to the Greeks 1.
Clement says that divine revelation was originally through prophecy (in the Old Testament), but now (in the New Testament) it is revealed plainly. Cyprian implied that the reason revelation is progressive is that the return of Christ is drawing ever nearer (see
Cyprian of Carthage, Epistle 62.18).
34. Dionysius of Alexandria, Epistle to Philemon.
Reading the Early Church Fathers 35. Tertullian, Against Praxeas 2.
36. On the concept of tradition as an authority alongside scripture, and helping to interpret it, see Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies 3.2.2, 4.33.8.
37. Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies 4.26.1. Irenaeus maintains that Christ is the hidden treasure in the Old Testament, which means that texts which refer to him could not be properly interpreted before he came.
38. Cyprian of Carthage anced this in his Epistle 51.6, 19-20, 27.
39. Dockery, Biblical Interpretation Then and Now, 69.
40. Ibid., 56, 65. The Didascalia maintains that there is a primary law in the Old Testament (the Ten Commandments) which is still in effect, but a secondary law (such as the dietary rules) which is no longer in effect since the ministry of Jesus (Didascalia
Apostolorum 26).
41. Hippolytus, Against Noetus 4.
42. Dockery, Biblical Interpretation Then and Now, 24-25.
43. Ibid., 94. See Cyprian of Carthage, Epistle 51.27.
44. Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 65.2. See also Cyprian of Carthage, On the Lapsed 20, where Cyprian says that the gospel cannot be sound in one part and waver in another.
45. Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies 4.26.1.
46. Eusebius of Caesarea, Ecclesiastical History 7.2425. This is not entirely true, of course, since there were Jewish exegetes who interpreted the Old Testament nonliterally; however, it nevertheless seems to be a generally held stereotype of the early Christians.
47. Dockery, Biblical Interpretation Then and Now, 24, 36, 39.
48. Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies 3.22.4, 5.19.1, 5.21.2.
Irenaeus also points out that Adam was tempted by food (but failed the test) and Jesus was also tempted by food (but resisted the temptation).
49. Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies 4.5.4. See also Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 138, and Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor 1.5.
50. Dockery, Biblical Interpretation Then and Now, 77.
51. Clement of Alexandria, Who Is the Rich Man That Shall Be Saved? 5. Clement wrote, "The Savior teaches nothing in a
Notes merely human way, but teaches all things to his own with divine and mystic wisdom. We must not listen to his utterances carnally, but with due investigation and intelligence must search out and learn the meaning hidden in them." Although Clement is talking here about the New 'Testament, the quotation demonstrates the point well. Note that Clement interprets "Blessed are the poor in spirit" (Matt 5:3) to mean "the poor are blessed in spirit" (Clement of Alexandria, Who Is the Rich Man That Shall Be Saved? 17).
52. Dockery, Biblical Interpretation Then and Now, 78.
53. For example, Clement of Alexandria interpreted the cleansing of the Temple (connecting it to 1 Cor 6:19) as a call to self-control (Clement of Alexandria, Exhortation to the Greeks 11).
54. Dockery, Biblical Interpretation Then and Now, 87.
55. The best example of this is Novatian's On fewish Foods.
See also Barnabas 10-12, Theophilus of Antioch, To Autolycus 2.16, and Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies Books 4 and 5.
56. In addition to Novatian, On Fewish Foods, see Theophilus of Antioch, To Autolycus 2.16, where he says that the prohibited animals ("monsters of the deep, and wild beasts, and birds of prey") represent people ("robbers, and murderers, and godless people") because they prey on those weaker than themselves. See also
Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor 3.11.
57. Novatian, On Fewish Foods 3.10. Alternatively, the double hoof could represent accepting both the Father and the Son, according to the orthodox interpretation of the Trinity (see
Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies 5.8.4).
58. Some possible examples include Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor 2.1, where he says that taking the coin out of the mouth of the fish in Matthew 17:17 represents taking greed out of our lives. Clement also says that Paul's words "when I was a child" in 1 Corinthians 13 should be taken to mean "when I was a Jew"
(Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor 1.6). Origen even speculated that God might intentionally put historical inaccuracies into the text of the Old Testament, as a red flag to the spiritual interpreter to stop looking at the surface and look for a deeper meaning.
59. Dockery, Biblical Interpretation Then and Now, 81.
60. Novatian, On the Trinity 6.1, 5. Novatian interprets anthropomorphic elements as attributes of God, thus the feet (and
Reading the Early Church Fathers wings) of God represent omnipresence (cf. Ps 139), and the eyes and ears of God represent omniscience.
61. Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies 4.3.1. Sometimes the Gnostics did use allegory for the Old Testament when it suited them (see Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies 1.3, 3.2.1). Thus
Irenaeus's critique is that the Gnostics interpreted the anthropomorphisms of God literally (rejecting the God of the Old
Testament), but in other cases they allegorized the text to make it say whatever they wanted it to.
62. There was some disagreement over the proper method of interpretation for the Book of Revelation. It seems that both
Irenaeus and Tertullian followed Papias in a literal interpretation of the millennium and a dispensationalist interpretation of the Book of Revelation as it related to history. However, this does not seem to have been the way the majority of Christians read Revelation
(see Eusebius of Caesarea, Ecclesiastical History 7.24—-25). Interpreting the millennium literally was considered by the mainstream to be a "Jewish" (that is, too literal) way of reading the text.
Dionysius of Alexandria wrote against the literal interpretation in a document called On Promises, which was apparently a response to another document called Refutation of the Allegorists by an Egyptian bishop named Nepos. Dionysius of Alexandria did not claim to understand Revelation but knew that it could not be interpreted literally. He seems to have been motivated to have Revelation excluded from the New Testament canon, and to that end he tried to convince other bishops that Revelation was not written by John the apostle, though he did believe that the apostle had written the Fourth Gospel and the letter of 1 John.
63. Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies 3.12.11.
64. Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies 3.21.2.
65. Dockery, Biblical Interpretation Then and Now, 92. See Origen, Against Celsus 4.49.
66. Thus the problems with reconciling a literal interpretation of the creation accounts in Genesis with science (even as Origen knew it) were overcome by claiming that God intentionally put historical inaccuracies into the text as a red flag to alert the spiritually mature reader to stop looking at the literal level and look for the deeper meaning.
Notes 67. Dockery, Biblical Interpretation Then and Now, 83, 92-93.
See Origen, Against Celsus 4.71. Note that Origen took this to the extreme, eventually saying that the spiritual meaning was only for a spiritual or intellectual elite. The literal meaning, on the other hand, was there to keep the common people occupied. In this way he comes close to the spiritual caste system of some Gnostics who proposed that the three levels of the human person (body, soul, spirit) applied to three types of people (physical people, "soulish" people, and spiritual people). For these Gnostics, full salvation was available only to the spirituals.
68. Theophilus had attempted to redeem a literal interpretation of the creation accounts in Genesis by saying that God had made the plants before the sun to show that it was not by natural causes that creation happened, but by the will of God (Theophilus of Antioch, Yo Autolycus 2.15). See also Dockery, Biblical Interpretation Then and Now, 97, 106, and Aloys Grillmeier, Christ in Christian Tradition, Volume 1: From the Apostolic
Age to Chalcedon (451) (New York: Oxford University Press, 2004), 167-80.
69. Dockery, Biblical Interpretation Then and Now, 115.
(OPES TT 78
AUATId S72:
72,Abid...107, 73. Ibid., 103-5, 119. There is also the possibility that Jewish influence in Antioch contributed to the Eastern desire to emphasize the literal interpretation. This was certainly the case with Jerome.
The characterization of literal interpretation as a Jewish methodology is something of a caricature, however, since Jewish interpreters did use allegory and often saw multiple meanings in a text (see
Dockery, Biblical Interpretation Then and Now, 27, 32, 76).
74. Dockery, Biblical Interpretation Then and Now, 28.
75. Ibid., 71-72.
76. Ibid., 139. See Augustine of Hippo, City of God 17.3.
77. Augustine must have realized the danger of using allegory with such a hermeneutical presupposition. It is a short slope from "whatever does not promote love" to "whatever I don't agree with."
78. Dockery, Biblical Interpretation Then and Now, 133-34.
79. Ibid., 145, 158-59.