CHAPTER 2
CHAPTER 2
The Apostolic Fathers
THE DIDACHE
The word didache means "teaching." It is actually a short form of the full Greek title, which is translated, The Teaching of the Twelve
Apostles. Although the authorship of this document is unknown, the Didache gained widespread acceptance in the early Church. It claims to be directly from the apostles, but was almost certainly not written by an apostle. Since we do not know who wrote it, we cannot be sure when it was written, although it may have been written as early as the second half of the first century; thus it is possible that some of the content does go back to apostolic teaching. It may be contemporaneous with the Gospel of Matthew and may have formed a companion volume to the gospel(s).
The Didache is a manual for the Church. It consists of two main parts, one for instructing those preparing for baptism and one for church leaders. The first part is based on a Jewish teaching called the "Two Ways" (Deut 30:15, 19). As indicated above, early
Christian catechesis was not so much concerned with teaching theology as it was with teaching morality. Since the ethical expectations of the Church were often much stricter than the expectations of the culture, a convert needed to know before initiation how to behave as a Christian. The Church could not afford to have its members hindering its evangelization efforts with embarrassing conduct, but more importantly, since it was understood that one could "undo" one's baptism through sin, it was imperative to instruct converts in proper behavior before their baptism.'
Therefore, the initiate is instructed in the "Two Ways" of life and death and encouraged to choose the way of life. The motivation
The Apostolic Fathers for, and urgency of, this teaching is explained at the end of the book. Jesus would return soon, and the believer must be ready.'
The other part of the Didache is a manual for church practice, and it is a gold mine of information about the early Church. The details of the contents will enter into our discussion about early
Church worship and practice below. One thing, however, is worth highlighting at this point: the Didache shows that from the very beginning of its existence the Church has opposed abortion and the exposure of infants.' In the Roman Empire, it was acceptable to abort a preborn child or even to "expose" a newborn, to leave her outside to die, if she was unwanted.* Consistent with its countercultural morality, the Church taught that Christians were not to engage in these practices and that abortion, no less than exposure, constituted a form of infanticide.' In fact, some Christian writers pointed out that in spite of the false accusation of incest directed at Christians, Romans ran the risk of unintentional incest when they exposed their daughters who could then be taken by slave traders and raised to be prostitutes.'
No doubt, the lack of identifiable apostolic authorship led to the Didache being given a status of "worthwhile, but not inspired" in the Church. Most early Church leaders encouraged Christians to read it, but said that it did not belong in the canon. A few did consider it scripture, but not enough to sway the majority.
CLEMENT OF ROME
Clement was probably born around 30 CE and was the bishop of Rome from 88 to 97 CE. According to tradition, he was a disciple of the apostle Peter. Paul mentions a Clement in Philippians
4:3, though there is no way to be certain whether it is the same Clement. He may have been a freed slave from the household of Domitian's cousin, Flavius Clemens. According to tradition,
Domitian had his cousin killed for his faith, and it is reasonable to believe that upon his death the will of this Clemens, or Clement, provided for the release of his slaves. If this is the case, a newly freed slave could take his master's name, and as a Christian freedman could have become a leader in the church of Rome. It is
Reading the Early Church Fathers important to note that the office of bishop as it existed then was nothing like the office of bishop today. The details of this will be discussed below, but for now it is enough to note that at the time of Clement, the bishop of Rome functioned as the chair of the council of priests in the city, and in that role he was charged with corresponding by letter with the Christians in other cities. As we will see, one of the earliest noncanonical Christian documents is one of those letters.
According to tradition, Clement was eventually banished from Rome by the emperor Trajan. He went east, where he converted many to the Christian faith; however, this led to increased visibility, which in turn led to his martyrdom. He was thrown into the Black
Sea, tied to an anchor. Legend says that in the ninth century, St. Cyril found his body and brought it back to Rome, where it is buried in the church that bears Clement's name. Visitors to the church of San
Clemente in Rome can still see remains of what may have been a house where Christians met for worship in Clement's time.
First Clement This document, called First Clement (1 Clement), is a letter written by Clement on behalf of the church in Rome to the Christians in the Greek city of Corinth, the same city to which the apostle Paul wrote the Corinthian letters in the New Testament, but now forty years later. First Clement was probably written in the early 90s of the first century, shortly before the Book of Revelation.
In the letter, Domitian does not seem to have begun persecution yet, since Clement advocates praying for government leaders, implying that they are appointed by God.'
The letter is written in the form of an ancient epistle of negotiation. Just as the church in Corinth experienced division in Paul's time, so now there is still division, and Clement writes in an attempt to reconcile the factions. Therefore, the letter is much more practical in tone than its apocalyptic cousin, the Book of Revelation. Apparently, there was conflict in Corinth over the authority of some priests.' We can't be sure what the real issue was, though it may have been a dispute over the election of a bishop (or council chair).' If a bishop's election was being challenged, this
The Apostolic Fathers might be evidence of a transition in the office of bishop from one who represents the priests (but is essentially an equal) to one who has real authority over the other priests. The factions seem to be along generational lines, with tension between older and younger members of the church.'® This would be consistent with an evolution in the office of bishop, since older members might want to reject any new authority that was being given to the bishop. In any case, Clement does not give the details of the dispute because he says he is sending negotiators to do the real work of reconciliation, and the letter is simply to set the stage.'' Clement writes with urgency, though, because the threat of schism is causing some to doubt the faith,'? and it is an embarrassment to the cause of evangelization."
Historically, the most important thing about 1 Clement is the tone of authority with which Clement writes. He assumes that the Christians in Corinth, who have their own leaders, should listen to the bishop of Rome and accept his advice. The reason that this is so is based on the belief that the church of Rome was founded by the apostle Peter, and that his authority as Jesus' right-hand man and leader of the apostles (Matt 16:18-19, John 21:15-17) is transferred to his successors in the city.'* This concept of the transfer of authority from apostles to bishops is known as apostolic succession.
The assumption is that the first bishops of the Church were consecrated by the apostles, who handed down the mantle of authority, and conferred the anointing of the Holy Spirit, in an unbroken line going back to Jesus himself. Subsequent generations of bishops would in turn be ordained and consecrated by their predecessors in the succession, keeping the line of authority intact. In addition, whatever a bishop teaches is assumed to have been learned from his predecessor in the same city. Therefore, any bishop should be able to trace his line of succession—both the content and the authority of the teaching office—like a pedigree, back to the founder of the church in the city where he is bishop. If one wants to rest assured that a bishop's teaching will not lead the faithful astray, simply ask whether that bishop's teaching (and hence his authority) can be traced back to an apostle. If so, one can be confident that the bishop in question is on the same page, so to speak, with the other bishops, the apostles, and, ultimately, Jesus himself."
Reading the Early Church Fathers What happens, however, when two bishops disagree? The bishop with the higher authority (both theologically and ecclesiastically) will be the one who can trace his succession back to one of the original apostles. If both of them can, then the one with the greater authority will be the one who can trace his succession back to one of the inner circle of Jesus' closest disciples: Peter, James, and John. Ultimately, though, since Peter was made the leader of the disciples, Peter trumps all others; even Paul. Therefore, since the church of Rome claimed an unbroken chain of succession going back to Jesus through Peter, it eventually just became easier to ask whether any church was in agreement with Rome. The important point to note is that even before the office of bishop in general evolved into the authoritative role that it would eventually become, the church of Rome was already coming to be seen as the church with which anyone had to agree if they wanted to be considered part of the universal Church.
One has to understand that the worldview of the early Church was not like today. We live in such a technology-driven culture that we are conditioned to believe that whatever is newer is automatically better. This was not the belief of people in the ancient world.
'To them, whatever is older is better, because it's established and has stood the test of time.'? If something new comes along to challenge what already exists, the new thing is suspect. So in Clement's world, the tradition is always more trustworthy than the innovation.
Therefore, since the oldest teaching is always the most reliable, and since the authority of the church of Rome was seen as going back to the original leader of the apostles, the church of Rome, and whoever is in leadership there, assumes an authority, even over the bishops of other cities.
Of course, this doesn't mean that everyone accepted this unconditionally. But it is remarkable that we can see that as early as the late first century a bishop of Rome is writing to other churches with a tone of authority as though he speaks for Peter. In fact,
Clement believed the Corinthian Christians should listen to him as though he were Peter, even implying that this letter might be taken as inspired." Therefore, 1 Clement is our earliest witness to the claim of apostolic succession."
So why wasn't this letter included in the New Testament?
The Apostolic Fathers Clement, as a possible disciple of Peter, could have been seen as a secondary apostle, much like Mark or Luke. In fact, some did treat this letter as scripture and advocated including it in the Christian canon. But in the end it did not stand the test of time. The letter is quite long compared to the New Testament letters and has little theological content. Indeed, when Clement wanted to talk about the resurrection, instead of mentioning the empty tomb, he compared Jesus to a phoenix, the mythical bird that rises from its own funeral ashes every five hundred years." Finally, the fact that Clement sees the Roman government as ordained by God must have worked against acceptance of his letter in times of persecution."" While it is true that the Letter of Philemon is also a personal letter without a lot of theology and yet was included in the New
Testament, Clement is not Paul, and he was just not close enough to Jesus to merit this letter being included in spite of its difficulties.
SECOND CLEMENT
The document known as Second Clement (2 Clement) was almost certainly not written by Clement of Rome. In fact, we have no idea who wrote it (or when it was written), but since it was found in manuscript collections with 1 Clement, tradition associated them.
Second Clement is not really a letter, but more of a homily. The primary concern is to warn the reader against false teachers, specifically those who deny the reality of Christ's humanity (cf. 1 John
4:1-3). These false teachers are said to be leading Christians astray, putting their salvation at risk.' It also warns about the persecution and serves as a reminder to resist apostasy." The author states that to deny Christ is to "undo" one's baptism." It is clear from this and other similar writings that the early Christians were aware of the possibility of the loss of salvation after baptism, which could happen because of continuing in sin, following a heresy, or, in times of persecution, by denial of the faith."
The author of 2 Clement knew Matthew's Gospel and probably Luke's. He quotes Matthew 9:13 and calls it scripture.'> He also quotes a few sayings of Jesus that are not found in the New
Testament gospels. For example, Jesus is quoted as saying, "Even if
Reading the Early Church Fathers you were gathered together with me in my very bosom, yet if you did not keep my commandments, I would cast you off, and say to you, 'Depart from me! I don't know where you come from, you who do evil.'""
After quoting Matthew 10:16, in which Jesus says, "You shall be as lambs in the midst of wolves...," 2 Clement continues, "And Peter answered and said to Him, 'But what if the wolves should tear the lambs to pieces?' Jesus said to Peter, 'After they are dead, the lambs need not fear the wolves; and in the same way, do not fear those who kill you, but can do nothing more to you; but fear the one who, after you are dead, has power over both soul and body to cast them into hell.'"" Thus the author connects these sayings of Jesus to the context of persecution. However, we do not know where these additional quotations come from.
There are also some supposed words of Jesus that seem to come from sources on the fringe of the Church, ironically possibly even sources connected to the very false teachers this author is writing against."* It was probably for this reason, and due to the unknown authorship, that this document was not considered for inclusion in the New Testament. In addition, depending on how one dates this document, it could come from later in the Church's history, too late to be considered apostolic or be included in the canon.
IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH
Ignatius, bishop of Antioch in Syria, was born around 50 CE.
According to tradition, he was a disciple of the apostle John. Since John is said to have lived to the end of the first century, this is certainly possible. Ignatius had been arrested for spreading the faith, at about the same time that Pliny was corresponding with Trajan.
However, the governor of Syria was sending him to Rome for trial and execution. On his way to Rome, his guards allowed him to meet with other Christians, and he even stayed briefly in Smyrna with his friend Polycarp. Ignatius wrote seven letters during that time, mostly to the Christians in cities along the way. One of the letters mentions a bishop of Ephesus named Onesimus, who, according to tradition, is the same Onesimus mentioned in Paul's
The Apostolic Fathers Letter to Philemon (Phlm 1:10, Col 4:9). He would have been about seventy years old, so it is certainly possible. Ignatius's letters were written about 108 to 110 CE, and he was martyred shortly after writing them, in about 110. The letters of Ignatius are as follows:
Letter to the Ephesians Letter to the Magnestans Letter to the Trallians Letter to the Romans Letter to the Philadelphians Letter to the Smyrnaeans Letter to Polycarp Ignatius wrote with authority, but did not claim apostolic authority like Clement of Rome. Ignatius wrote with the charismatic authority of a confessor. In fact, on several occasions he makes a point to take a-position of humility with regard to his audience: "I am not commanding you, as though I were someone important...."*° "I do not think myself qualified... as though I were an apostle...."*' "I do not give you orders like Peter and Paul....""
While it has been argued that this shows that Ignatius had no concept of apostolic succession, two things must be kept in mind.
Ignatius was not the bishop of Rome, and he did not need apostolic succession, since he was a confessor.
On the other hand, Ignatius was a bishop, and he was a strong advocate for the newly emerging office of bishop and its authority.
This authority was primarily meant to maintain the unity of the Church. For Ignatius, to oppose the bishop was to threaten to split the Church." In fact, he wrote that to disobey a bishop was to disobey God," and that Christians must listen to the bishop as though it were the Lord himself. Calling himself "a man set on unity," he believed that the unity of the Church required a limit of one bishop per city, since more than one bishop in a city could lead to disputes, and inevitably to division.** Of course, Ignatius is preaching what he thought was the ideal, and the very fact that he feels he has to say it with such urgency means that it is not always happening that way. [he truth is, many cities at the time may have had more than
Reading the Early Church Fathers one bishop, perhaps even with more than one catechetical school.
It is easy to see, however, that Ignatius feared such a situation would lead to schism.
Ignatius is the first person we know of to use the Christian application of the word catholic." Originally the word meant "universal." The catholic Church was the universal Church, but its unity was already threatened by teachers of alternative interpretations of the person of Christ. Therefore, the word catholic would come to take on the connotation of the t7we Church as opposed to any alternative expressions. The concept of the "universal" Church would be used to exclude those who were considered outside the Church, as the word was employed in the attempt to set the boundaries of what was correct Christian teaching. In other words, the teaching of the catholic Church would not lead one astray. The same could not be said for the teachings of those who separated themselves from the universal Church—and that included anyone who was not in unity with the bishops, the successors of the apostles."
The primary threat to unity in Ignatius's letters seems to be the same false teachers mentioned in 2 Clement. They were teaching that Jesus was not really human, but was pure spirit (cf. 1 John
4:1-3). The implications of this teaching will be discussed below; however, the problem for Ignatius was that these "false teachers" were holding their own meetings, separate from the rest of the Church, and without the sanction of the local bishops (cf. 1 John
2:19). Although in a Jewish context any ten men could form a synagogue, Ignatius was arguing against a Christian version of this system. As long as the Church was still defining itself, meetings, worship, and especially the teaching of the Church must be more controlled in order to prevent the propagation of incorrect interpretations that would lead the innocent astray. In this sense, the "false teachers" are heretics, in the truest sense of the word. Heresy comes from a Greek word meaning "to separate," so for Ignatius there is no difference between (theological) heresy and schism.
Ignatius says that no group can call itself a church without the bishop, priests, and deacons." Therefore, whoever does not meet with the authorized assembly has separated himself from the Church," so there should be no gatherings without the consent of the bishop."
The Apostolic Fathers Since the Church was defined in terms of the Eucharist, it is not surprising that Ignatius connects the Eucharist to the office of the bishop, saying that the only true Eucharist is that which is presided over by the bishop.* There can be only one Eucharist, and to divide the table is to divide the Church.*
Finally, in Ignatius's letter to the Romans, he anticipates his arrival in Rome and his own death. He begs his Roman brothers and sisters not to try to interfere with his martyrdom.* In humility, he says he is only beginning to be a disciple of Jesus, a process that will be completed in his martyrdom. There is a more practical reason why he cannot afford to be rescued, however. Though he does not say it in the letter, he knows that if he were to appear alive after his scheduled execution, many people might assume that he had denied the faith to save his life, and this would be discouraging to the faithful. There was nothing to do but see it through, believing that those who follow Christ in death will follow him in resurrection.
We know from' Polycarp's letter (below) that soon after Ignatius's death his letters were copied and circulated as a collection, much like the letters of Paul and the four gospels were. So why weren't Ignatius's letters included in the New Testament?
They have a reliable authorship (though this has been debated at times) and no objectionable content, yet for various reasons the later writers, especially the theologians, did not quote them as authoritative. In other words, they did not come to be treated as scripture, in the sense of inspired, and so they did not stand the test of time. By the time the New Testament canon was being standardized, they had gone by the wayside.
POLYCARP OF SMYRNA
According to tradition, Polycarp was also a disciple of the apostle John, along with Ignatius. Not much is known about his early life, but as bishop of Smyrna he was the mentor and teacher of Irenaeus of Lyons. Polycarp seems to be the last bishop to have known any of the apostles personally, and he represents that generation called "elders" who are the link between the apostles and suceu
Reading the Early Church Fathers cessive generations of leaders (cf. 2 John 1, 3 John 1)." Polycarp had traveled to Rome to meet with the bishop there to discuss the proper way to calculate the date for the celebration of Easter. They agreed to disagree, but parted amicably.* Shortly after that,
Polycarp was martyred, in about 156 CE.
Letter to the Philippians This is the only writing we have from Polycarp, written shortly after Ignatius died, in about 110 CE. Polycarp assumed that Ignatius had been martyred, but wondered if the Christians in Philippi had heard any of the details of his death. Following his friend Ignatius, Polycarp warns of the heretics who are denying the reality of Christ's humanity. He quotes 1 John 4:2-3, that those who deny that Christ came with real flesh are "antichrists." These also denied the resurrection, claiming that spiritually they were already living the resurrection life (a concept known as realized eschatology, cf. 2 Tim 2:17-18).
The letter includes a message of hope in the midst of persecution, much like we find in the Book of Revelation, though without the apocalyptic symbolism. The point is that those who follow
Jesus in death will follow him in resurrection." This is the promise that should give Christians the strength to resist the temptation to deny the faith to save their lives. Finally, Polycarp encourages his audience to pray for those who persecute them." He would soon have the opportunity to practice what he preached.
THE MARTYRDOM OF POLYCARP
This is the oldest of the martyr documents that we have. It is actually a letter from the church of Smyrna telling the story of Polycarp's martyrdom. It is probably also the most historical of all the martyr documents, possibly based on the actual proceedings, and having been embellished with fewer legendary elements than the later stories. Still, this embellishment meant that the martyr documents in general would not be seriously considered for inclusion in the New Testament.
The Apostolic Fathers According to the story, Polycarp had a vision or a dream in which he saw his pillow on fire. By this he knew he was to be burned at the stake. At first he tried to avoid arrest, but when the soldiers came for him, he did not resist, he only asked to be allowed to pray. At his interrogation, he was of course given the chance to deny his faith to save his life. To go free, he would have had to curse
Christ and swear an oath to the emperor, saying, "Caesar is lord."
When he refused, the Roman official tried to provoke him, yelling at him to denounce his Christian community by saying, "Away with the atheists." Polycarp turned to the crowd of pagan accusers that had gathered, pointed to them and said, "Away with the atheists!"
And so his fate was sealed. After his death, his bones were kept as relics.
PAPIAS OF HIERAPOLIS
Papias was a contemporary and a colleague of Polycarp. It was said that he knew the daughters of the apostle Philip.*' Some later writers said he knew John the apostle, though he does not seem to have claimed this himself. Probably he knew John the Elder, the author of the New Testament letters 2 John and 3 John.
He is also said to have personally known some people whom Jesus had healed, who were still alive when he was young. These stories of secondhand connections to Jesus must, of course, be taken with a grain of salt, since they may have been invented by people who were devoted to Polycarp in order to increase the credibility of his teachings.
Exposition on the Sayings of the Lord This is the only document we have from Papias, and it does not exist in its entirety. In it, Papias interprets the so-called millennium of the Book of Revelation as a literal one-thousand-year reign of Christ on the earth. Using 2 Peter 3:8 ("with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like one day," cf.
Ps 90:4) as his interpretive key, he reasoned that the seven days of creation in Genesis are a metaphor for the whole of human hisuy
Reading the Early Church Fathers tory." He taught that there would be four thousand years from the time of creation until the coming of Christ, then another two thousand years between the advent of Christ and his return. This makes six thousand years, with the seventh thousand years as a millennial
"sabbath." As it was, the majority of the Church did not accept this interpretation, and thus this document was not accepted as authoritative by the early Church. A similar view was shared, however, by a fringe group known as the Montanists (see below), and Papias's interpretation influenced the theologians Irenaeus and Tertullian.** Not only was Papias's writing rejected by the majority of the Church, but his interpretation almost got the Book of Revelation itself excluded from the canon.
THE EPISTLE OF BARNABAS
If this document was written by someone named Barnabas, it was not the Barnabas of the New Testament. The authorship is unknown, but we can date the writing to shortly after the last rebellion in Judea, about 135 CE.°* The "epistle" is really an ethical treatise, possibly for catechesis, and somewhat like the ethical section of the Didache. It has a heavy emphasis on good works as evidence of devotion to God. The questionable authorship was probably enough to disqualify this document from the New Testament, though there is some questionable theology in it as well.*
THE SHEPHERD OF HERMAS
The actual title of this document is simply The Shepherd, but it is traditionally attributed to Hermas, the brother of Bishop Pius
I of Rome (bishop from 140 to 155 CE). The premise of the writing is that Hermas was given a vision, much like the vision of the Book of Revelation. The "shepherd" is not Jesus but a guardian angel who brings the message of the vision to Hermas.°'
The majority of the book is an allegory of a tower, which represents the Church. The tower is still being built, and as stones are added to the structure, Hermas realizes that the stones are people.
The Apostolic Fathers Some are ready to be built into the tower, but others are not ready, and are set aside. This is not a problem, as long as these stones become ready before the tower is finished, because after that time it will be too late to be added to the tower.* The end of the age of the Church will come when the tower is finished. Then Jesus will return. Jesus does stop by a few times in the vision, though, to see how the building is coming along. He is described as a man who is taller than the tower." It is all very vague, however, and Jesus is never actually identified by name. Jesus is called the "angel of justification," while the shepherd is referred to as the "angel of repentance."" There is also a confusing cast of characters reminiscent of some of Jesus' parables, such as the parable of the ten bridesmaids (Matt 25:1—13).
Hermas seems to be using the allegorical vision to critique what he perceives as hypocritical behavior in the Church. The problems include doubt (or not practicing what one preaches, in some translations called "double-mindedness")," anger,® and wealth, which leads one to postpone one's baptism for worldly reasons." Also criticized is fear, which leads to apostasy in times of persecution." Hermas warns that while those who denied their faith in a previous persecution might be forgiven," presumably because they did not understand the implications, those who deny the faith in any future persecution could not be forgiven." Clearly,
Hermas was concerned that the reconciliation of some who had denied the faith to save their lives would lead others to take the same path in the future.
According to Hermas, the remedy for these problems is faith," self-control," and charity. He believes it is God's will for the rich and the poor to live in a kind of symbiotic relationship, whereby the rich help the poor by giving them resources, and the poor help the rich by giving them a ministry (that is, almsgiving)."
He probably saw it as a Christian version of the patron-client relationship that existed in Roman society. By that system, wealthy patrons offered favors to their clients, who in turn could be asked to do anything from providing an entourage to voting for whomever the patron supported. In this way, someone of a lower economic status who might not otherwise have friends in high places could, if he got into trouble, hope to rely on the influence of
Reading the Early Church Fathers an aristocratic patron. In return, the patron had someone to do his dirty work for him. Hermas apparently saw a divinely appointed patron-client system at work between the rich and poor. If you are wealthy, Hermas says, God made you rich specifically to help the oor."!
; There are many reasons why this document is not included in our New Testament. In general, there seems to be a consensus that by now we are just too far from the apostolic period to ascribe any kind of inspiration to a text. In spite of that, several of the early theologians, including Irenaeus, did quote from The Shepherd. Even if they didn't see it as inspired, it remained popular devotional reading for centuries. But on the whole, it is simply too long and too obscure to have stood the test of time, let alone gain a tradition of reading in liturgy. In addition, it never mentions Jesus by name, so it was probably seen as insufficiently christocentric. In fact, the theology of The Shepherd may tend toward another early heresy, the opposite of the one we have already seen. While 2 Clement,
Ignatius of Antioch, and Polycarp all seem to be opposing a heresy that denied the real humanity of Jesus, The Shepherd seems to lean in the other direction, denying or diminishing the divinity of Christ, as if he were only an angel (that is, a created being). Jesus is never called Lord, nor is he presented as a savior per se, and it seems to be possible to earn salvation by good works alone." In fact, for Hermas good works are everything, and salvation comes through self-control. He basically says that if you enjoy something, it must be a sin."
The Shepherd enjoyed a resurgence of popularity in the fourth century, though this was because it emerged in an edited version that was corrected to make it more acceptable. Specifically, the term Logos, referring to Christ, was inserted where the original had used the word spirit. a2