Meet The Players Within Early Christianity

Image via Wikipedia

Early Christianity was a very eclectic and diverse group. Some believe that (if possible) it’s diversity exceeded today’s Christianity, including our growing number of denominations and branches. There were at least five main umbrella groupings that vied for ‘Christian’ status: Gnostics, Ebionites, Manicheans, Montanists, and what eventually became known as ‘Orthodox’ (the winning view). Early church leadership was kept plenty busy trying to sort out the doctrinal views of each and were perplexed on how to keep ‘the flock’ from being duped by a variety of religious deceptions and heretical beliefs.

‘Christian’ of a Different Kind: Enter Gnosticism

If deciding which Jewish laws to pass along to converting Gentiles seemed a big hurdle for the Jerusalem church to tackle, the next generation of Christians were about to meet their Goliath: Gnosticism.

The Gnostics (Greek, gnosis, meaning “knowledge”) believed that out of a supreme God arose a large number of inferior gods — some good and some evil. This accounted for the good and evil which was seen in the world. Gnostics believed that all humans were divine souls trapped in a material world, created by an imperfect god, known as “demiurge” (believed to be the Abrahamic god of the Jews).

Gnostics believed that through special knowledge humanity could be reminded of their true origins within the superior Godhead, and thus would be able to escape being trapped inside this material world (a form of “salvation” if you will). Gnostics considered themselves Christians and therefore their popularity caused quite a stir in the early church.

There were 217 forms of Gnosticism (by one count) — so variations abounded. The early church fathers were immensely afraid that Gnosticism would take over Christianity — indeed end Christianity.

Ebionites

The Ebionites were Jewish Christians who insisted on the necessity of keeping the Jewish law. They refused to acknowledge the writings of Paul because his writings recognized Gentile Christians. After Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 AD, Ebionites found little sympathy among the Gentile Christians they had opposed for so long and they eventually died out by the second century.

Manicheans

The Manichees or Manicheans were of Persian origin and believed that the universe was divided into two kingdoms: good and evil. Each was struggling for mastery within nature. They believed in a “celestial Christ” — but rejected Jesus. They believed that through renouncing worldly pleasures (including marriage) one could attain a higher spiritual state. They were persecuted by both heathen and Christian emperors.

Montanists

The Montanists were considered a heretical sect by early Christians — but many of their views might not seem so outlandish to Christians of today. They desired to return to the simplicity of the primitive Christians. They believed in the priesthood of all believers (not in hierarchal “orders” of the ministry), adhered to strict discipline, and believed the prophetic gifts had not died away. Tertullian embraced their views during the latter half of his life and strongly wrote in their defense.
___________________________

Next up: The Persecuted Church — AD 100-313
If new to this blog, begin here to read subject sequentially.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Linus, When?

Image via Wikipedia

While the majority agree that Linus was second in line, what they can’t seem to agree on is when he actually reigned.

The Liberian Catalogue and Liber Pontificalis both date his Episopate to AD 56-67, Jerome dates it at 67-78, Eusebuis dates the end of his Episcopate at AD 80, while the Catholic Encyclopedia lists his dates as 67-76.

But such details from those who should know is like asking, “well, was the light red or green?” Who cares, right?

Dates aside, there are some who dispute line of succession altogether. Tertullian claims that Linus and Cletus were never a part of the pope’s official lineage. Rather Peter was directly succeeded by Clement I.

“For in this way Apostolic Churches declare their origin : as, for instance, the Church of the Smyrnaeans records that Polycarp was placed there by John; and the Roman Church that Clement was ordained thereto by Peter. And exactly in the same way the rest of the Churches can produce persons who, ordained to the episcopate by Apostles, became transmitters of the Apostolic seed.” (1)

— Tertullian, On the “Prescriptions” of Heretics

Yet another differing opinion is offered by the Apostolic Constitution, (2) which says that Linus (first bishop of Rome, ordained by Paul) was succeeded by Clement (second bishop of Rome, ordained by Peter).

Oh my head hurts. So which is it?

Irenaeus, Jerome, Eusebius, John Chrysostom, the Liberian Catalogue, and the Liber Pontificalis all claim:

1. St. Peter
2. St. Linus
3. St. Anacletus (aka Anacletus, Anencletus, or Cletus)
4. St. Clement I (Clement of Rome)

Tertullian claims:

1. St. Peter
2. Clement of Rome

The Apostalic Constitutions (purportedly the work of the Twelve Apostles and “complied” by Clement) claims:

1. St. Peter
2. Linus (ordained by Paul)
3. Clement of Rome (ordained by Peter)

Our real problem appears to stem from Clement’s claim to second chair in Rome, for he seems to be at variance with a large body of other witnesses, namely, those already mentioned (save Tertullian).

Today it is commonly believed (and officially recognized by the Roman Catholic Church) that Clement was the fourth bishop in succession in Rome. And the only real witness we have to the contrary is Tertullian and the Apostolic Constitution, which Clement is said to have “compiled.”

Add to this the evolving terminology of bishop to pope, and we arrive at the darkest of all possible secrets: that Clement simply made the whole thing up.
___________________________

Next up: Clement of Rome
If new to this blog, begin here to read subject sequentially.

.
.

___________________________________________________________
Footnote References:

(1) Tertullian, On the “Prescriptions” of Heretics, Chapter 32

(2) The Apostolic Constitution is a collection of eight books (from the late fourth century) of independent, though closely related writings on Early Christian discipline, worship and doctrine. Purported as the work of the Twelve Apostles, and said to have been gathered and compiled by Clement of Rome, it was intended to serve as a manual of guidance for the clergy and to some extent the laity. It now is comprised as a part of the ANF (Ante-Nicene Fathers) collection and has ranged in estimation from such extremes as ‘the sacred Christian laws or constitutions delivered from Christ Himself to the eleven apostles” — to “canonical” — to “documents that contained heretical interpolations.” For more information visit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostolic_Constitutions

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Who Qualifies as Final Authority?

Image via Wikipedia

The Christian church needed a leader. A single someone who could serve as final authority on interpretation. That’s where the Pope eventually stepped in — but before the Pope was an “official” figure, a hierarchal structure began to develop within the Christian community. It’s purpose: to solve doctrinal disputes and maintain doctrinal unity.

You’ve heard the saying, “Anything with more than one head is a monster?” Well, the early church fathers might as well have come up with that saying — it was certainly their philosophy. What everyone seemed to be forgetting was that Christianity already had a head: Christ. But an invisible head is — well, invisible. Humans like to have power and authority that can be seen.

With the death of the last of the original Apostles, a people arose (that history has come to call the “Apostolic Fathers”) to guide the developing early church. These leaders included a number of teachers and bishops, including among the most famous: Clement of Alexandria, Irenaeus, Origen, Polycarp, Tertullian.

A hierarchal organizational structure soon emerged called the “monarchial episcopate” — eventually developing into individual congregational leaders who were recognized as authority figures in matters of doctrine and faith.

Elders, Bishops and CEOs — Oh My!

Enter your typical CEO structure — heresy mongers would no longer rule — as the church was fast moving towards an “ordered” organization. This structure did not assemble overnight, but in steps of progression moving from a two-tier and finally three-tier system. I think it’s important to see that this “system” developed — it wasn’t something that was initially “in place” when the original Apostles were alive.

“In the Acts and later epistles elders (presbyters) and bishops are named as though the two titles were applied inter-changeably to the same persons. But by the close of the first century the tendency was growing to elevate one as bishop above his fellow-elders, leading later to an ecclesiastical system.”(1)

In early Christianity, “elders” and “bishops” were synonymous terms (2), however the church structure slowly evolved from a “presbyterian” type (led by elders — Greek: presbeteros) into a more developed hierarchical “episcopal” type (elders having higher “overseers” — Greek: episkopos or bishop) in the second century.

This became known as the “monarchial episcopate.”

___________________________

Next up: Monarchial Episcopate — Three is a Very Good Number
If new to this blog, begin here to read subject sequentially.

.
.

___________________________________________________________
Footnote References:
1  The Story of the Christian Church, Jesse Lyman Hurlbut, pg 36, emphasis mine.
2  Acts 20:17,28 uses both titles interchangeably; Early church father Clement (roughly 96 AD) in several writings uses the terms interchangeably (I Clement 44:4-5; I Clement 42:4; 54:2)

.
.
.
.
.
.
.