The early Christian understanding of Psalm 110|109:1 /Η πρωτοχριστιανική κατανόηση του εδ. Ψαλμός 110|109:1

*

* Crispin Fletcher-Louis,
Jesus Monotheism: Volume 1: Christological Origins: The Emerging Consensus and Beyond,
Cascade Books An Imprint of Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2015,
p. 139.

Terminology counts: Wayne Coppins on rendering “Urchristentum” as “primitive Christianity” and “Frühchristentum” as “early Christianity” /Η ορολογία μετράει: Ο Wayne Coppins για την απόδοση του “Urchristentum” ως «αρχέγονος χριστιανισμός» και του “Frühchristentum” ως «πρώιμος χριστιανισμός»

In the first post of this blog, I discussed my reasons for translating Wissenschaft/wissenschaftlich as “science/scientific” in my 2013 translation of From Jesus to the New Testament and as “scholarship/scholarly” in my forthcoming translation (with Brian Pounds) of Jesus of Nazareth: Jew from Galilee—Savior of the World, both by Jens Schröter. While it is possible that I will continue to vary my translation of this term on a case by case basis, I think that I will most likely make a general shift in the direction of “scholarship/scholarly” in future translations, i.e., toward a translation that gives greater priority to the conventional language pattern of the target language. In this post, by contrast, I will discuss a case in which my thinking has moved in the opposite direction.

From the very first time that I read German works in translation it had annoyed me to read the words “primitive Christianity”. In short, the negative connotations of “primitive” always struck me as problematic and unnecessary. Accordingly, I never seriously considered employing these words as a translation for “Urchristentum” in my translation of From Jesus to the New Testament. Instead, my initial plan was to translate this phrase as “earliest Christianity”, which would allow me to maintain a distinction between “Urchristentum” and “Frühchristentum”. Upon further consideration, however, I settled on “early Christianity” for both terms, regarding the desire to maintain a distinction between them as less important than the priority of readability. While this approach seemed quite sensible at the time, I have subsequently changed my mind for two reasons. In fact, against my earlier inclinations I have decided to translate Urchristentum as “primitive Christianity”. What changed my mind?

First, I came across John Bowden’s translator’s note at the beginning of his translation of Gerd Theissen’s work Die Religion der ersten Christen: Eine Theorie der urchristlichen Religion (2000/2009), which was published by SCM as A Theory of Primitive Christian Religion (1999) and by Fortress Press as The Religion of the Earliest Churches: Creating a Symbolic World (1999). Bowden’s note convinced me that the meaning of “Urchristentum” was not adequately conveyed with translations such as “early Christianity”, “earliest Christianity”, or “nascent Christianity”. This note reads as follows:

“One aspect of this translation calls for comment, namely the way in which I have chosen to render the words Urchristentum and urchristlich which occur so often in this book. I recognize that many New Testament scholars regard ‘primitive’ as a ‘taboo’ adjective to apply to Christianity. However, I have discussed the question at length with friends who are expert in this field, both in Britain and in Germany, and they have confirmed me in the conviction that there is no other possible translation. ‘Ur-‘ does not mean ‘early’ or ‘earliest’ or ‘nascent’ or ‘in the making’, even if such terms are commonly used. It is a far richer term. ‘Primitive may not be the ideal rendering, but I hope that readers will agree that it does the job effectively.”

(For my own memories of John Bowden’s advice for translators, see here)

Secondly, a passage from my current BMSEC translation project, namely Christoph Markschies’ book Kaiserzeitliche christliche Theologie und ihre Institutionen (Christian Theology and its Institutions in the Early Roman Empire) strengthened my conviction that it was necessary for the translator to maintain a clear distinction between “Urchristentum/primitive Christianity” and “Frühchristentum/early Christianity”. In short, through Markschies’ work I became aware of the fact that there has been extensive discussion within German scholarship about the connotations and appropriateness of the term Urchristentum, with some scholars arguing that this term should be  replaced by alternatives such as or “Frühchristentum/early Christianity” (S. Alkier) or “frühe Christentümer/early Christianities” (F. Vouga). Markschies himself contributes especially to the question of whether it is preferable to speak of “Christianity” or “Christianities” in relation to the findings of the second and third centuries (see p. 6 and pp. 337-383).

In relation to the term “Urchristentum”, Markschies (p. 5) observes that Francois Vouga (Geschichte des frühen Christentums, p. 13) has raised two objections against the use of this term: 1) it is said to imply “the equation of beginning and nature and the falling apart of truth and history” and 2) it is also said to contain “the idea of a degeneration of an original unity into groupings and heresies that are independent of one another”, which is viewed as untenable after Walter Bauer’s work. Moreover, Markschies notes that Stefan Alkier has both carefully traced the ideological implications of this term in his 1993 book Urchristentum. Zur Geschichte und Theologie einer exegetischen Disziplin (pp. 5-254!), and argued that the term “Urchristentum/primitive Christianity” should be abandoned in favor of the alternative term “Frühchristentum/early Christianity” (261-266). On the other hand, Martin Hengel and Anna Maria Schwemer have explicitly challenged the validity of Alkier’s line of argumentation (Jesus und Judentum, p. 5n. 8).

Against the background of this extensive discussion around the connotations and appropriateness of the term “Urchristentum” within the German language sphere, it now seems essential to me that translators not only translate “Urchristentum” in such a manner that it is clearly distinguished from “Frühchristentum”, but also that we render it in such a way that it reflects something of the nuance of meaning that has given rise to such debates about its appropriateness. And with this in mind, it seems to me that “primitive Christianity”, despite its shortcomings, comes closest to achieving these goals. This does not necessarily mean that Vouga’s analysis of the implications of the term is correct or normative. And it certainly does not mean that a given German author is necessarily using the word “Urchristentum” to imply what Vouga suggests the term implies, since some German authors may simply alternate between “Frühchristentum” and “Urchristentum” for reasons of style. But it does mean that unless the German author clarifies that “early Christianity” is the force that is intended throughout, the translation should reflect the word choice of the German version, so that the possibility of a difference in meaning and connotation may be considered by the English reader. This doesn’t, however, necessarily mean that it was a bad decision for Fortress Press to revise Bowden’s initial translation of the title of Theissen’s work, for one of the most important aims of a publisher is to sell books, and it makes sense to conform the wording of a book’s title to the speech conventions of the target audience if this is likely to improve sales, even if this should not always be done with the work itself.

Appendix: for the relevance of this question for translation, consider the following sentence from Kaiserzeitliche christliche Theologie und ihre Institutionen/Christian Theology and its Institutions in the Early Roman Empire (p. 76/p. ?): “Über ur- und frühchristlicher Lehrer und die Unterschiede zwischen beiden Gruppen sind ausführliche Monographien und detaillierte Aufsätze geschrieben worden”/”Comprehensive monographs and detailed articles have been written about primitive and early Christian teachers and the differences between the two groups”.

* Wayne Coppins,
“Urchristentum, Primitive Christianity, and Early Christianity,”
German for Neutestamentler, 27 January 2014.

Πέτρος Παρθένης: Οι ανάγκες για σχέσεις δικτύωσης & επικοινωνίας του πρωτοχριστιανικού κινήματος Petros Parthenis: The needs for the formation of networks amongst the early communities of Jesus’ followers

Κατά τη γνώμη μου, λοιπόν, δύο ήταν οι ανάγκες που καθιέρωσαν εξαρχής σχέσεις δικτύωσης και τακτικής επικοινωνίας μεταξύ των κατά τόπους κοινοτήτων ακολούθων του Ιησού: πρώτον, η ανάγκη για επαφή και διδασκαλία από άτομα που είχαν γνωρίσει προσωπικά τον Ιησού και, δεύτερον, η ανάγκη να τεκμηριωθεί η μεσσιανική του ταυτότητα και υπόσταση από τις εβραϊκές Γραφές. Αμφότερες οι ανάγκες αυτές μπορούσαν να καλυφθούν από περιορισμένο αριθμό ατόμων, που αναγκάζονταν έτσι να ταξιδεύουν από κοινότητα σε κοινότητα και να επικοινωνούν μαζί τους μέσω επιστολών ή αντιπροσώπων.

* Πέτρος Παρθένης / Petros Parthenis, *
H πρώιμη ανάπτυξη του Κινήματος των ακολούθων του Ιησού
[The early development of Jesus's followers' movement],
Post Augustum, τόμ./vol. 2 (2018), σσ./pp. 49-60. [PDF]

* Επίσης,
Εμπρηστές ή Χριστιανοί; Ο Διωγμός του Νέρωνα και η Ποινικοποίηση του «Ονόματος».,
Post Augustum, τόμ./vol. 1 (2017), σσ./pp. 10-32. [PDF]

A. Harnack on the high price paid by Church until the beginning of the 3rd cent. /Ο Α. Χάρνακ περί του υψηλού τιμήματος που πλήρωσε η Εκκλησία ως τις αρχές του 3ου αι.

The “high price”—in Harnack’s opinion—that was paid for waging battle against Gnosticism, and for winning a victory over it, is actually seen in four crucial changes wrought in the church: (1) the sacrifice of evangelical freedom to a church bound by dogma and law; (2) the intellectualism of a Dogmatic Christianity, or the penetration of the church by Greek philosophy; (3) the church’s becoming an “institution”; and (4) the decline of evangelization.

Το “υψηλό τίμημα”—κατά τον Χάρνακ—που πληρώθηκε για να διεξαχθεί η μάχη κατά του Γνωστικισμού και για να θριαμβεύσει επ' αυτού, γίνεται πράγματι φανερό σε τέσσερις αλλαγές κρίσιμης σπουδαιότητας που επήλθαν στην εκκλησία: (1) η θυσία της ευαγγελικής ελευθερίας για μια εκκλησία δέσμια των δόγματων και των κανόνων, (2) η διανόηση του  Δογματικού Χριστιανισμού ή η διείσδυση την ελληνικής φιλοσοφίας στην εκκλησία, (3) η μετατροπή της εκκλησίας σε “ίδρυμα”, και (4) η υποβάθμιση του ευαγγελισμού.

—Wendy E. Helleman (ed.),
Hellenization Revisited: Shaping a Christian Response within the Greco-Roman World,
University Press of America, 1994,
p. 85.

 Adolf Harnack,

What is Christianity?,
G. P. Putnam's Sons 1901,
pp. 210-217.

Eric Osborn: On the three kinds of divine agents who shared in God's rule in Judaism of the 1st century CE /Περί των τριών ειδών θεϊκών φορέων που μετέχουν της θεϊκής εξουσίαςστον Ιουδαϊσμό του 1ου αιώνα ΚΧ

* Eric Osborn,
The Emergence of Christian Theology,
Cambridge University Press,
pp./σσ. 23-25.

Pre-Constantinian Christian eschatology / Προκωνσταντίνεια χριστιανική εσχατολογία

Eschatology, broadly understood as a study or doctrine of last things, refers to the entire range of beliefs and notions concerning the end of history and final transformation of the world. The life in this present age, imperfect and impermanent, will be brought to an end in which the sovereign God will judge the righteous and the wicked and make all things new. Ancient Jews in the exile and under the Greek and Roman occupations looked forward to the end where God’s reign would be established, and early Christians inherited, transformed, and appropriated for their own purpose the Jewish eschatological expectations of the prophetic and apocalyptic traditions of the Second Temple period. With a conviction in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, early Christians, both Jews and Gentiles, believed that the eschaton invaded the present age and that they were indeed living in the last days where God’s kingdom would be ushered in; with a belief in the imminent return of Christ (παρουσία), they looked forward to the final judgment where God (through Christ) would vindicate the righteous and punish the sinners. In the pre-Constantine era, eschatological concerns were still alive within various Christian communities in varying degrees. Regardless of different nuances and understandings of the eschaton, for early Christians, the end (which is the beginning of the new era) was not only the restoration of the pristine past and the telos of history, but also the fulfillment of future hope in a perfect, just world ruled by God. The eschatological vision for the perfect world to come might take a messianic figure, millennial kingdom, cataclysmic events, or apocalyptic transformations veiled in mysterious symbols, images, and code words. Regardless of the varieties of the eschatological vision, it created an alternative reality by which the present world should be perceived and understood, and projected the hope for the ultimate judgment into this world.

Eschatology in the pre-Constantine period then carried a significant social and moral function in the corporate lives of early Christian communities that shared that vision. It provided social and moral critique and judgment on the present society and status quo on the one hand and put forth an alternative vision and reality of the other world. It not only created a Christian identity distinct from the dominant world but also connected this unique sense of group identity and solidarity to the particular behaviors within the community and vis-à-vis the outsiders.


Η εσχατολογία, ευρύτερα νοούμενη ως μελέτη ή δόγμα των εσχάτων, αναφέρεται σε όλο το εύρος δοξασιών και αντιλήψεων σχετικά με το τέλος της ιστορίας και την τελική μεταμόρφωση του κόσμου. Η ζωή σε αυτή την παρούσα εποχή, ατελής και προσωρινή, θα οδηγηθεί στο τέλος της κατά το οποίο ο υπέρτατος Θεός θα κρίνει τους δίκαιους και τους πονηρούς και θα τα κάνει όλα νέα. Οι αρχαίοι Εβραίοι κατά την εξορία και υπό την ελληνική και τη ρωμαϊκή κατοχή απέβλεπαν στο τέλος οπότε η κυριαρχία του Θεού θα εγκαθιδρυόταν και οι πρώτοι χριστιανοί κληρονόμησαν, μεταμόρφωσαν και προσάρμοσαν για δικούς τους σκοπούς τις ιουδαϊκές εσχατολογικές προσδοκίες των προφητικών και αποκαλυπτικών παραδόσεων της περιόδου του Δεύτερου Ναού. Πεπεισμένοι για τον θάνατο και την ανάσταση του Ιησού Χριστού, οι πρώτοι χριστιανοί, αμφότεροι Ιουδαίοι και Εθνικοί, πίστευαν ότι το έσχατον εισέβαλε στην παρούσα εποχή και ότι πράγματι ζούσαν στις τελευταίες ημέρες οπότε θα ξεκινούσε η βασιλεία του Θεού· με πίστη στην επικείμενη επιστροφή του Χριστού (παρουσία), απέβλεπαν στην τελική κρίση οπότε ο Θεός (μέσω του Χριστού) θα δικαίωνε τους δίκαιους και θα τιμωρούσε τους αμαρτωλούς. Στην προκωνσταντίνεια εποχή, οι εσχατολογικές ανησυχίες ακόμη υφίσταντο μεταξύ διαφόρων χριστιανικών κοινοτήτων σε διάφορους βαθμούς. [...]

* Johan Leemans, Brian J. Matz & Johan Verstraeten (eds),
Reading Patristic Texts on Social Ethics Issues and Challenges for Twenty-First-Century Christian Social Thought
[Η Ανάγνωση των Πατερικών Κειμένων επί της Κοινωνικής Ηθικής και οι Προκλήσεις για την Χριστιανική Κοινωνική Σκέψη του Εικοστού Πρώτου Αιώνα],
Catholic University of America Press, 2011,
pp./σσ. 65, 66.

Ο B. Lohse περί της πρωτοχριστιανικής αντίληψης περί Θεού & Χριστού /B. Lohse on the early Christian notion of God & Christ

Ειδικά αναφορικά με τις απαρχές του δόγματος της Τριάδας εξακολουθεί να υφίσταται μεγάλη αβεβαιότητα. Σε αυτό το ζήτημα δεν έχει επιτευχθεί οριστική διασαφήνιση.

Όσον αφορά την Καινή Διαθήκη, δεν μπορεί να βρει κανείς σε αυτήν ένα πραγματικό δόγμα περί Τριάδας.

Ο Ιουδαϊσμός, ο οποίος αποτέλεσε το περιβάλλον μέσα στο οποίο οι πρώτοι χριστιανοί έζησαν και από το οποίο προήλθαν οι ίδιοι, ήταν πάντοτε μια αυστηρά μονοθεϊστική θρησκεία. Από αυτόν κληρονόμησε ο χριστιανισμός τον μονοθεϊσμό.

Ευθύς εξαρχής, φυσικά, οι χριστιανοί όχι μόνο πίστευαν στον Θεό με την έννοια που πίστευαν οι Ιουδαίοι, αλλά πίστευαν επίσης και στον Χριστό. Το Άγιο Πνεύμα, επίσης, αναφερόταν πιο συχνά από αυτούς και με τρόπο διαφορετικό.

[Ο Ιησούς Χριστός θεωρούνταν από τους χριστιανούς] ότι βρισκόταν σε ασύγκριτα στενή και αδιάλυτη ενότητα με τον Πατέρα.

* Bernhard Lohse,
A short history of Christian doctrine
[Σύντομη ιστορία του χριστιανικού δόγματος],
Fortress Press, 1966,
p./σ. 38.

The blasphemia creatoris & the question of how Gnostic were the Gnostics of the first century /Η blasphemia creatoris ("περί Δημιουργού βλασφημία") & το ζήτημα τούσε ποιο βαθμό ήταν Γνωστικοί οι Γνωστικοί του πρώτου αιώνα

I have several times spoken about the early heretics as representing Gnostic tendencies. This is rather customary in recent NT research, and the evidence which points in this direction seems so unambiguous that this terminology can hardly be avoided. It is easy to observe how heretical positions reconstructed from polemic in first-century documents can be directly confirmed in Gnostic documents from the second century onwards, and also in the reports on Gnostic doctrines by the anti-Gnostic Church Fathers. This of course makes one inclined to say that the Gnostic systems known from the second century should be thought to have already existed 100 years earlier. Some scholars have drawn that inference, and have regarded for example Paul’s opponents in 1 Corinthians as fully fledged Gnostics. But others have warned against this reading-back of second-century evidence, and rightly so. Robert McLachlan Wilson has found a wide hearing for his suggestion that in the first century we should not speak of Gnosticism, but of Gnosis, meaning by the latter term ways of thinking which point the way to second-century Gnosticism, but which are not yet integrated into a Gnostic system. But even if we accept Wilson’s terminology, we are left with the question once asked by him: ‘How Gnostic were the Corinthians?’ - or: How Gnostic were the Gnostics of the first century?

I submit a simple observation which may have some bearing on the issue. In the anti-Gnostic polemic from Justin onwards, the main point of attack is always the blasphemia creatoris, the claim that the God of the OT, the God of the Jews, who created the material universe, is a quite inferior deity, wicked or stupid or both. There can be no doubt that the horror exhibited by the Church Fathers when confronted with this doctrine was quite sincere, and that their violent protests came from the bottom of their hearts.

In writings prior to Justin I have found no similar direct attack on the blasphemia creatoris. I think that this silence is significant and allows for some conclusions. Had Paul met with opponents who claimed that the God of the OT was a wicked or stupid demiurge, I am sure he would have responded with an anathema sharper than the one in Galatians 1:8f. Nothing of the kind is found in Paul, nor in other writings from the apostolic or post-apostolic period. What we do find is polemic against something I should like to call blasphemia creationis. That there existed a way of thinking which could properly be characterized by this term is confirmed when we turn to the reports of the Church Fathers concerning the earliest forms of Gnostic heresy. In early Simonian Gnosis, it seems as if the God of the OT is still identified with the highest God, the Father. But he is not directly responsible for the creation of the material universe: it is made by lower angels (Iren., Adv. Haer., 1:23:2). The same point of view recurs in Menander, who is also reported to have said that baptism conferred the resurrection and that the baptized should not die - a saying often quoted a propos of 2 Timothy 2:18 (Adv. Haer., 1:23:5). Let me suggest that we may here have one of the criteria by which a more precise distinction between first-century Gnosis and second-century Gnosticism might be drawn.

* Oskar Skarsaune,
“Heresy and the Pastoral Epistles”
[«Αίρεση και Ποιμαντικές Επιστολές»],
Themelios 20.1 (October 1994),
p./σ. 12 [9-14].
[English/Αγγλικά, PDF]

Οι πρώτοι Χριστιανοί & ο κόσμος / Early Christians & the world

“The Christians were strangers and pilgrims in the world around them; their citizenship was in heaven; the kingdom to which they looked was not of this world. The consequent want of interest in public affairs came thus from the outset to be a noticeable feature in Christianity.”


«Οι Χριστιανοί ήταν ξένοι και πάροικοι στον κόσμο που τους περιέβαλλε· το πολίτευμά τους ήταν στον ουρανό· η βασιλεία στην οποία απέβλεπαν δεν ήταν από αυτόν τον κόσμο. Η επακόλουθη έλλειψη ενδιαφέροντος για τις δημόσιες υποθέσεις αποτέλεσε έτσι από την αρχή ένα αξιοσημείωτο χαρακτηριστικό της Χριστιανοσύνης».

—Ernest G. Hardy,
Christianity and the Roman Government: A study in imperial administration,
[Η Χριστιανοσύνη και η Ρωμαϊκή Κυβέρνηση: Μελέτη στην αυτοκρατορική διοίκηση],
G. Allen & Unwin, 1925,
p./σ. 39
[Longmans, Green, and Co. 1894,
p./σ. 51].

[English/Αγγλικά, PDF]

“ΔΙΟΣ ΙΑΙΟ ΥΨΩ”:A Christian inscription? /Χριστιανική επιγραφή;

ΔΙΟΣ ΙΑΙΟ [ΙΑΩ?] ΥΨΩ

“I divine Jehovah raise up”,
“O Divine/God Jehovah, raise up”
or “I exalt [you] O divine Jehovah”

“Εγώ, ο θεϊκός Ιεχωβά, εξ-/υψώνω/εγείρω”,
“Ω Θεϊκέ/Θεέ Ιεχωβά, εξ-/ύψωσε/έγειρε”,
ή “Σε εξυψώνω, ω θεϊκέ Ιεχωβά”

* Real.gr,
«Αντιδράσεις από αρχαιολογική ανακάλυψη στην Ιερουσαλήμ»,
29 Φεβρουαρίου 2012.

* Daily Mail,
"'Divine Jehovah, raise up': Does discovery of coffin lid prove the resting place of Jesus is under Jerusalem tower block?",
28th February 2012.

* PhysOrg.com,
"Tomb exploration reveals first archaeological evidence of Christianity from the time of Jesus",
February 28, 2012.

The following excerpt is taken from a larger article published by Dr. James D. Tabor, who was the licensed Israel Antiquities scholar
investigating the Talpiot Tomb B by remote camera
(http://bibleinterp.com/articles/tab368028.shtml).
It is used by permission with thanks to Dr. Tabor.

"5. Ossuary 5:3=Kloner 5:2. This ossuary is has a highly ornamented front façade with twin rosettes and an elaborate frieze border. In the narrow curved blank space between the rosettes there is a four line Greek inscription written in uncial letters (Fig. 19). The final two letters of line 4 are uncertain, both in their formation and due to the limitations of remote autopsy by camera. The following variations appear possible:

ΔΙΟΣΙΑΙΟΥΨΩΑΓΒ
ΔΙΟΣΙΑΙΟΥΨΩΑΓΙΩ
ΔΙΟΣ ΙΑΙΟΥΨΩΑΠΟ
ΔΙΟΣΙΑΙΟΥΨΩΑΠΒ

We are convinced that each line of the inscription is a separate and discrete word, yielding the following word divisions. I include here the variables of line 4:

 

1. ΔΙΟΣ
2. ΙΑΙΟ
3. ΥΨΩ
4. ΑΓΒ ΑΓΙΩ ΑΠΟ or ΑΠΒ

All the letters of lines 1, 2, and 3 are quite clear although we did consider the possibility that l.1 might be a zeta rather than an iota but ΖΑΙΟ seems to make no sense either in isolation as part of another combination of words from lines 1-3. There is an obscure word in Pliny’s Natural History—ΖΑΙΟΣ, that refers to some kind of fish—apparently of the sea urchin variety, which interested us greatly considering the iconography on ossuary 6, described below. However, there is no sigma in l. 2 or beginning of l.3. Taking these words one by one, based on our line-by-line breakdown, we have the following:

ΔΙΟΣ is an adjective (masc. nom/voc. sing.) likely modifying what we take to be the proper noun in line 2. It can be variously translated as “heavenly,” “divine” “wondrous”–but here in this context it seems to clearly refer to God.

ΙΑΙΟ we take as a Greek representation or transliteration of the Tetragrammaton: י ה ו ה ‎ (Yod, Heh, Vav, Heh)—that is Yahweh. It is unusual in that it has four letters rather than the common three-letter form ΙΑΩ. Josephus says the divine name is represented by four “vowels.” It is possible that this writer intended it as a precise transliteration—since the Hebrew name of God also has four letters.

Accordingly, the inscription, though written in Greek letters, is purposely bilingual first a Greek representation of God—the “Divine one,” followed by a Hebrew presentation—Yahweh—but represented in Greek letters.

ΥΨΩ is the present indic. act. 1st person singular of the contract verb ΥΨΟΩ, to “raise,” “lift up” or “exalt.” As literally written it could then be translated “I divine Jehovah raise up” or “I exalt [you] O divine Jehovah” (taking ΔΙΟΣ as a vocative). This verb is most interesting in the context of early Christianity and late 2nd Temple Judaism. Paul uses the intensified verb ὑπερυψόω in Philippians 2:9, speaking of Jesus’ exaltation or “super-lifting up” to heaven. He then applies a text from Isaiah 45:23 about “every knee bowing” to Yahweh, equating it to Jesus in his new heavenly status. Most scholars agree that Paul here is drawing upon a very early Christological hymn. John 12:32 uses the verb ὑψόω to refer to both Jesus’ resurrection from the dead and his exaltation or “lifting up” to heaven: “And I, when I am lifted up out of the earth (ὑψωθῶ ἐκ τῆς γῆς), will draw all people to myself.” The thought here is identical to that of Paul in the Philippians hymn, as an echo of Isaiah 45:23. Jesus is taken up from the earth to heaven and in his new status draws all of humankind in homage as Yahweh’s representative and one who bears Yahweh’s name. John repeats this theme often using the same verb, referring to both Jesus being lifted up on the cross—and thus exalted to heaven (Jn. 3:14; 8:28; 12:32, 34). Acts 5:31 echoes a very similar thought, using again the verb ὑψόω: God lifted up this one at his right hand ( ὕψωσεν τῇ δεξιᾷ αὐτοῦ) as Leader and Savior, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins.” This “lifting up” of Jesus “embraces resurrection, reception, ascent, enthronement, and royal dominion.” In the New Testament there are many passages in which Jesus knows, bears, and reveals God by his “Name” Yahweh—that is the four-letter Tetragrammaton. Accordingly, depending on the wider context of this tomb, if it does indeed relate to early Jesus followers, they might be appropriating the divine name Yahweh in referring to Jesus, as Paul does numerous times in his authentic letters.

In the LXX the verb is also used for one being “lifting up” from the gates of death: Psalm 9:14 (13 English) ὁ ὑψῶν με ἐκ τῶν πυλῶν τοῦ θανάτου. This should be compared to Psalm 29:2 (Psa 30:2 Hebrew/ 30:1 English) Ὑψώσω σε, κύριε, ὅτι ὑπέλαβές με. The writer, in context, is celebrating deliverance from Sheol: “O Yahweh, you have brought up my soul from Sheol; You have kept me alive, that I should not go down to the pit.” These kinds of strong parallels with some of our earliest Christian materials about the exaltation of Jesus, involving heavenly ascent and enthronement at the right hand of God, provide a very convincing background to the use of the verb ὑψόω among Jesus’ earliest followers.

We are inclined to argue that in this inscription, even though the three-letter verb ΥΨΩ can be read as a 1st person singular present indicative active, when crammed into this small space, it is most likely suspended or abbreviated. When first working on the inscription we considered that it might be a shortened form of the dative superlative ΥΨΙΣΤΩ, which is so commonly found in dedicatory inscriptions “to the most High God.” However, the ending in omega strongly argues against this possibility. Even though one finds suspended forms of ΥΨΙΣΤΩ they never drop the third letter iota and substitute it for an omega. Also ΔΙΟΣ is clearly either nominative or vocative, not dative, as would be required in such a case.

We propose that what we have here is ΥΨΩ[ΣΕΝ] (aorist indic. Act. 3ms “he has raised up”), ΥΨΩ[ΣΕΙ] (future indic. Act. 3ms “he will raise up”) or more likely, as I will explain below, ΥΨΩ[ΣΟΝ] (aorist Imperative, 2ps “Raise up!”). Given the cramped space the omega ending would be enough to carry the meaning in this context. If so this inscription would be a plea to “God/Yahweh,”called upon in bilingual fashion, to raise someone up: “O Divine/God Jehovah, raise up!—or alternatively a call to Jesus as Yahweh’s representative.

Much depends on the transcription of the last line with its three letters since the final two are difficult to read. If we take the final line as ΑΠΟ, that is, the preposition “from,” it is possible that it might be an abbreviated plea for resurrection “from [the dead].” If we read it as ΑΠΒ it makes no sense as a word but it could perhaps be either initials or some kind of apotropaic cipher.

In looking at both the photos and the previous three words we are inclined to argue that we have here either ΑΓΙΩ or more likely ΑΓΒ. If line 4 reads ΑΓΙΩ (taking the last letter as a ligature) in the dative case, it could mean “to the holy,” perhaps referring to God/Yahweh to raising up to the “holy place” or the “holy one” (i.e., throne of God)—or being raised up to the holy place. This notion of ascent to heaven or heavenly exaltation we know from many Jewish and early Christian texts of this period. For example, Clement of Rome writes of Paul who “thus departed from the world and went to the holy place” (1 Clement 5:7).

If it reads ΑΓΒ, which seems quite likely, there are several possibilities. It might be a Greek representation of the rare Hebrew name Hagab (Ezra 2:46; Neh 7:48), which in Greek appears as Agabas (Ἅγαβος). We do in fact know of an early Christian prophet from Jerusalem mentioned in Acts 11:28 and 21:10 by this name. In which case the inscription would read either “I Hagab exalt [you] O Divine Jehovah,” or “I Divine Jehovah raise up Hagab.” Although this reading is possible we do not find it compelling in this context. In the first reading it seems more natural to take ΔΙΟΣ ΙΑΙΟ as asimple nominative—as the subject of the declaration—and thus there is no need to supply the personal pronoun object “you.” But beyond the grammar we have no examples on ossuaries of personal statements of praise to God, or alternatively 1st person utterances by God. This inscription isunprecedented and it likely is intended to affirm much more than the utterance of an unknown Hagabor God’s utterance about him. It is true that names are the most common phenomenon on ossuaries, as “tags” representing the name of the deceased, but this intriguing inscription seems to represent something quite beyond recording the name of the deceased. In this case context is everything and we have to remember we are talking about an inscription in a tomb written by a Jewish family bold enough to write the letters of the name of God in a tomb while declaring a message about “lifting up” or resurrection.

Another possibility is that ΑΓΒ might be read backwards as an Aramaic word written in Greek (bagah) a phenomenon we find on other inscriptions, and thus would be referring to God Yahweh raising up “from it [the tomb].”

We are inclined to take ΑΓΒ as a transliteration of the Hebrew Hiphil imperative hagbah (hbgh) from the verb hbg, to “lift up.” In which case we would have a double imperative—Raise up! Raise up!—once in Greek (line 3), repeated in Hebrew with Greek letters (line 4). This seems to parallel lines 1 and 2 in that we also there have first Greek, for God, followed by the Hebrew Yahweh represented in Greek letters. If such is the case we would have a cleverly balanced bilingual inscription with a plea for God/Jehovah to raise someone up, or alternatively, depending on how the Greek verb ΥΨΩ is understood, a declaration or celebration of God having so acted. There is a remarkable parallel to this idea in Ezekiel 21:31 [v. 26 English]: “Thus says the Lord Yahweh: Remove the mitre, and take off the crown; this shall be no more the same; exalt that which is low, and abase that which is high.” Here the Hebrew phrase is הַשְׁפִּֽיל וְהַגָּבֹ֖הַ הַגְבֵּ֔הַ הַשָּׁפָ֣לָה , using the verb hbg and the LXX parallels this with forms of ὑψόω—thus “ἐταπείνωσας τὸ ὑψηλὸν καὶ τὸ ταπεινὸν ὕψωσας.” The context of this passage in Ezekiel is quite remarkable as it has to due with abasing one branch of the messianic Davidic lineage and exalting another. There is also a fragment of the Dead Sea Scrolls from cave 4 that uses the same verb for heavenly exaltation, most likely of the leader of the community: “to [the eternal height and to the cl]ouds of the heavens and He shall exalt him in stature. With the heavenly beings in the congregation of [the Yahad] 4) לרום עולם ועד ש]ח֯קים יגביה בקומה. ועם אלים בעדת Q431 f2:8 ).

I will discuss the further implications of this preferred reading of the inscription in my concluding analysis below but prior to that I want to describe what we discovered inscribed on the next ossuary. We believe it provides further context to the tomb as a whole, and thus how the inscriptionmight best be read."

* James D. Tabor,
"A Preliminary Report of a Robotic Camera Exploration of a Sealed 1st Century Tomb in East Talpiot, Jerusalem",
[«Προκαταρκτική Έκθεση της Εξερεύνησης μέσω Ρομποτικής Κάμερας ενός Σφραγισμένου Τάφου του 1ου Αιώνα στο Ανατολικό Ταλπιότ της Ιερουσαλήμ»]
pp./σσ. 14-20.
at The Bible and Interpretation, February 2012.
[English/Aγγλικά, PDF]

Early Christians' grieving & mourning for the deceased in the light of the resurrection /Η θλίψη & το πένθος των πρώτων χριστιανών για τους νεκρούς υπό το φως της ανάστασης

What is especially noteworthy is not (or not just) the rigor of Paul’s feeling rule on grief but its rationale. Whereas the appeal of the philosophers was to the attainment of happiness in this life (however short or long) through the practice of reason in accordance with nature, with the control of the passions as a necessary corollary, Paul’s appeal is based on the practice of reason and emotion transformed by eschatological revelation issuing in hope. Drawing on eschatological motifs from the streams of his native Jewish tradition—especially the apocalyptic stream—but now significantly recast and historicized in relation to the recent epochal event of the death and resurrection of Jesus, Paul engages in a conversion of the emotions of the Thessalonian bereaved. It is as if the conversion of life that had begun with their transfer of allegiance to the service of “the living and true God”(1:9) had to be taken further: to the conversion of their emotions, not least emotions associated with life in the face of death. To bring this about, what Paul does is to reconstruct the event that gave rise to the emotion. Those who have died are only “asleep” (4:13, 14, 15)! What is more, those who have died are reincorporated with the living in a great eschatological drama inaugurated by the death and resurrection of Christ in time past, soon to reach its climax with his parousia in time future. In sum, if the feeling rule of severe constraint on grief appears to put Paul in the company of Stoic philosophy, the rationale he offers puts him in different company altogether: that of those whose life in the face of death is governed by resurrection hope along with its affective manifestation as joy (χαρά). To grieve and practice rites of mourning in the time-honored conventional ways would be to mix unacceptably the new with the old, thereby compromising their identity as God’s elect (cf. 1:4) and their vocation to holiness (cf. 4:1–8). Put another way, in the light of the resurrection, to grieve “like the rest” would be to behave out of time, or in a manner untimely. Thus, it would be a misrepresentation of the true, eschatological state of affairs.

* Stephen C. Barton,
"Eschatology and the Emotions in Early Christianity"
«Εσχατολογία και Συναισθήματα στην Πρώιμη Χριστιανοσύνη»,
Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol./Τόμ. 130, No/Αρ. 3, Fall/Φθινόπωρο 2011,
pp./σσ. 588 (571-591).

The Sermon on the Mount & the Christians in the 2nd cent. /Η Επί του Όρους Ομιλία & οι Χριστιανοί του 2ου αι.

What, then, did Christianity seek to achieve vis-a-vis Greco-Roman society? Today, we may feel a sense of disappointment that, with heretical exceptions, the church sanctified the status quo in both eastern and western parts of the empire, though maintaining different theories concerning the relations between church and state. Just occasionally, as with Justin's and Clement of Alexandria's pleas against the state raising money from taxes on prostitution, one discerns a glimmer of practical idealism, but such examples are not common. The causes lie partly in the Christian aim of individual salvation, the attainment of which involved avoidance of sin rather than furthering social reform, and partly in attitudes prevalent in the Judaism of the Second Commonwealth era, whence the Christians drew much of the model for their own morality. This involved precise duties, such as seeing to the welfare of widows and orphans, regular giving of alms, and securing a proper burial for the dead. These traditions the Christians continued faithfully, to the admiration of their critics, including the Emperor Julian, but they never added up to a program of social reform, a determination to end extortionate taxation, exploitation of man by man, and corruption in justice. Celsus had been right. Christians in the second century tended to be more Judaistic than they or their successors cared to admit. Tobit rather than Luke proved to be the handbook of early Christian ethics. The Sermon on the Mount was read but in practice ignored. Reform of society, even as a sign of preparation for the Coming proved to be beyond the imagination of the time. To Augustine, the powers that be were "the most authorized" (ordinatissimae) by God, and to desire a change in the status quo was the hallmark of the heretic. For him, to think that his Lord had shown that the Kingdom would be established by destroying many of the moulds accepted by society would have seemed altogether fanciful.

* W. H. C. Frend,
"Early Christianity and Society: A Jewish Legacy in the Pre-Constantinian Era"
["Πρωτοχριστιανισμός και Κοινωνία: Μια Ιουδαϊκή Κληρονομιά στην Προκωνσταντίνεια Εποχή"],
The Harvard Theological Review, Vol./Τόμ. 76, No./Αρ. 1 (Jan./Ιαν., 1983),
p./σ. 71.

Robert Nash:The Christian church & the original truth and purity /Η Χριστιανική εκκλησία & η αυθεντική αλήθεια και καθαρότητα

«Informed Christians acknowledge the church's continuing need for reformation, for a return to the truth and purity of the early faith as it is reflected in the New Testament.»

«Οι πληροφορημένοι Χριστιανοί αναγνωρίζουν την συνεχιζόμενη ανάγκη της εκκλησίας για αναμόρφωση, για επιστροφή στην αλήθεια και την καθαρότητα της πρώιμης πίστης όπως αντανακλάται στην Καινή Διαθήκη».

* Ronald H. Nash,
The Gospel and the Greeks: Did the New Testament Borrow from Pagan Thought?
[Το Ευαγγέλιο και οι Έλληνες: Δανείστηκε η Καινή Διαθήκη από την Παγανιστική Σκέψη;],
(The Student Library), 2nd edition, 2003,
p./σ. 120.

Κουρτ Άλαντ: Η πρώιμη εκκλησία και η "συντέλεια του αιώνος" /Kurt Aland: The early church and "the end of the time of the world"

«In order to understand these reasons, it is necessary to visualize the condition of the church around the year 150. The early or primitive period was definitely over. Paul and the Twelve had blended, so far as most were concerned, into a unified group, and the tensions between them were forgotten. Christians were resigned to the fact that the Lord had not yet returned. First generation Christians had been firmly convinced that they would see the Last Day and they expected the end of the world at any moment. Even the fact that Christians were dying before the end came could not shake this expectation. The second generation continued in this conviction. Ignatius of Antioch declared, "The last times have come." Gradually, however, around the year 100, the change began to come. To be sure, the Epistle of Barnabas said: "Close at hand is the day." But 2 Clement said: "Thus we do not want to despair, but want to endure in hope . . . since we do not know the day of the appearance of God."

The Shepherd of Hermas suggested a solution to the problem of the Lord's failure to come: God had delayed the return of Christ in order to give Christians the opportunity for a second repentance through which they could wash away the sins committed since their conversion. Of course, this time of penitence was seen as having a limit; but once the theory that the time of the Last Judgment had been delayed was proposed, it soon took hold and found acceptance. Gradually the idea of a limited, final opportunity for repentance faded more and more into the background, until finally the conviction gained ground that Christ's return and the day of judgment would indeed take place, but in an indefinite future.

People no longer lived as if each day might be the last but began quite unconsciously to make themselves at home in this world. Hand in hand with that went a change in the standards applied to their own actions as well as those of others. The moral demands still remained quite rigorous, but they were no longer as absolute as they had been in the first decades. Also, the structure of the congregations underwent change».

[«Για να καταλάβουμε αυτούς τους λόγους, είναι αναγκαίο να οραματιστούμε την κατάσταση της εκκλησίας γύρω στο έτος 150. Η πρώιμη ή αρχαϊκή περίοδος είχε περάσει οριστικά. Ο Παύλος και οι Δώδεκα είχαν συγχωνευθεί, όσον αφορούσε τους περισσότερους, σε μια ενοποιημένη ομάδα, και οι εντάσεις μεταξύ τους είχαν ξεχαστεί. Οι Χριστιανοί είχαν αποδεχθεί το γεγονός ότι ο Κύριος δεν είχε επιστρέψει. Η πρώτη γενιά Χριστιανών ήταν σταθερά πεπεισμένη ότι θα έβλεπαν την Ημέρα της Κρίσης και πρόσμεναν το τέλος του κόσμου ανά πάσα στιγμή. Ακόμη και το γεγονός ότι κάποιοι Χριστιανοί πέθαναν πριν έρθει το τέλος δεν ήταν δυνατόν να διαταράξει αυτή την προσμονή. Η δεύτερη γενιά συνέχισε να έχει αυτή την πεποίθηση. Ο Ιγνάτιος Αντιοχείας δήλωσε: "Οι τελευταίες μέρες έφτασαν". Σταδιακά, όμως, γύρω στο έτος 100, άρχισε να συμβαίνει η αλλαγή. Πράγματι, η Επιστολή του Βαρνάβα λέει: "Πολύ κοντά είναι η μέρα". Αλλά η 2 Κλήμεντος λέει: "Συνεπώς δεν θέλουμε να απελπιζόμαστε, αλλά θέλουμε να υπομένουμε με ελπίδα ... καθώς δεν γνωρίζουμε την ημέρα της επιφάνειας [δηλ. φανέρωσης] του Θεού".

Ο Ποιμένας του Ερμά πρότεινε μια λύση στο πρόβλημα της διάψευσης του ερχομού του Κυρίου: Ο Θεός καθυστέρησε τον ερχομό του Χριστού ώστε να δώσει στους Χριστιανούς την ευκαιρία για μια δεύτερη μετάνοια μέσω της οποίας θα μπορούσαν να αποκαθάρουν τις αμαρτίες που διέπραξαν μετά τη μεταστροφή τους. Φυσικά, αυτή η περίοδος μετάνοιας θεωρείτο ότι είχε ένα όριο· αλλά από τότε που προτάθηκε η θεωρία ότι ο χρόνος της Ημέρας της Κρίσης είχε καθυστερήσει, σύντομα υιοθετήθηκε και έτυχε αποδοχής. Σταδιακά η ιδέα μιας περιορισμένης, τελικής ευκαιρίας για μετάνοια άρχισε να υποχωρεί όλο και περισσότερο, μέχρι που τελικά κέρδισε έδαφος η πεποίθηση ότι η επιστροφή του Χριστού και η μέρα της κρίσης θα λάβουν πράγματι χώρα, αλλά σε κάποια απροσδιόριστη στιγμή στο μέλλον.

Οι άνθρωποι δεν ζούσαν πια σαν να επρόκειτο η κάθε μέρα να είναι και η τελευταία αλλά άρχισαν κάπως ασυναίσθητα να εξοικειώνονται με αυτό τον κόσμο. Στενά συνδεδεμένο με αυτό ήταν η αλλαγή στα πρότυπα που είχαν σε σχέση με τις δικές τους πράξεις αλλά και των άλλων. Οι ηθικές επιταγές εξακολούθησαν να είναι αυστηρές, αλλά δεν ήταν πλέον τόσο απόλυτες όσο ήταν τις πρώτες δεκαετίες. Επίσης, η δομή των εκκλησιών υπέστη αλλαγές».]

* Kurt Aland,
Saints and Sinners: Men and Ideas in the Early Church
[Άγιοι και Αμαρτωλοί: Άνθρωποι και Ιδέες στην Πρώιμη Εκκλησία]
Translated by/Μετάφραση του Wilhelm C. Linss,
Fortress Press, pp./σσ. 62, 63.

Η αύξηση του αριθμού των Χριστιανών κατά τους 3 πρώτους αιώνες / Christianity growth during the first 3 centuries

A speculative graph showing the growth of Christianity
at a constant growth rate from c.e. 40-350 (3.35% per annum) (semi-log scale).

Θεωρητικό γράφημα στο οποίο παρουσιάζεται η αύξηση του Χριστιανισμού
με σταθερό ρυθμό αύξησης από το 40-350 κ.χ. (3,35% ετησίως) (ημiλογ. κλίμακα).

* Keith Hopkins,
"Christian Number and its Implications"
["Ο Αριθμός των Χριστιανών και η Σημασία του"],
Journal of Early Christian Studies, The Johns Hopkins University Press, 6.2 (1998) p./σ. 191.

Τι συνέβη στον πρωτοχριστιανικό Χιλιασμό; / What happened to the early Christian Chiliasm?

CHILIASM

From the earliest times no doubt the Christian conception of salvation centred round two main ideas, one of which was the more intellectual or spiritual, and the other the more practical and material. The one was based on the conviction that in the person of the Christ there was given a full revelation of God—he was the Truth—and so salvation consisted essentially in the knowledge of God, as contrasted with the errors of heathendom and the defective conceptions of even the chosen people; a knowledge which included the gift of eternal life and all the privileges and joys of the highest spiritual illumination. This is obviously an idea which requires for its full appreciation more cultivation of the mind and the spiritual faculties than the masses of men possess. More widely attractive was the other idea which saw in salvation membership of the glorious kingdom which Christ was about to establish on earth on his return, when a new order of things would be inaugurated, and for a thousand years his disciples would share the blessedness of human life under the happiest conditions. In this connexion the highest importance was attached to the doctrine of the resurrection of the body. This conception of the reign upon earth of the Christ differed little from the common Jewish expectation, only the kingdom would be composed of Christians instead of the nation of Israel  and the Christian hopes in regard to it were largely derived from the Jewish apocalyptic writings, as were their conceptions of the fate of the enemies of their Lord and all who rejected his claims. The imagination pictured, and hopes were fixed on, a fairyland of ease and pleasure and delight. This was 'the great inheritance which the Gentile Christian communities received from Judaism, along with the monotheism assured by revelation and belief in providence', and though it was destined to be gradually dissipated—partly through the antijudaistic spirit of the Greek and Roman communities, and partly through the growth of higher moral and spiritual conceptions—it was for a long time enjoyed and tenaciously held in wide and influential circles of Christian life. The second coming, in glory, involving the resurrection of the dead, judgement of living and dead, was probably deemed imminent by the great mass of early Christians, and the hope of it was their stay in persecution, and must have greatly aided them to bear their suiferings, whether associated with the further belief in the thousand years' reign upon earth or not. (It was equally foretold as the first coming in dishonour and suffering; cf. Justin Apol. i 52, and Iren. i 10, who distinguishes it as παρουσία from the first έλευσις.) This belief (so far as it was Christian rather than Jewish in origin) was based on sayings of Christ such as those in which he speaks of drinking with his disciples in his Father's kingdom (Matt. 26:29), and promises that those who now hunger and thirst shall hereafter be satisfied (Matt. 5:6), and that faithful service shall be rewarded by rule over many cities (Luke 19:17, 19),—sayings which received a literal material interpretation. And the definite assignment of a thousand years as the extent of the duration of the kingdom was made by the author of the Apocalypse (20:1-10). For a thousand years the devil would be imprisoned, and martyrs and all who had not worshipped the beast and were free from his mark would come to life again and reign with Christ. This was 'the first resurrection', and only these—it appears—would have a share in the millennial kingdom, of which apparently Jerusalem 'the beloved city' was to be the centre. Among earlier writers the belief was held by the authors of the Epistle of Barnabas, the Shepherd, the second Epistle of Clement, by Papias, Justin, and by some of the Ebionites, and Cerinthus, according to the accounts of the Roman presbyter Caius in his treatise against the Montanists, quoted by Eusebius (H.E. iii 28). Of these Papias is one of the chief landmarks. Because of his belief in the millennium, Eusebius passed a disparaging criticism on his sense : "I suppose he got those ideas through a misunderstanding of the apostolic accounts, not perceiving that the things said by them were spoken mystically in figures. For he appears to have been of a very limited understanding, as one can see from his discourses." The materialistic character of their expectations is illustrated by the famous parable which he gives: "The days will come when vines shall grow, each having ten thousand branches, and in each branch ten thousand twigs, and in each twig ten thousand shoots, and in every one of the shoots ten thousand grapes, and every grape when pressed will give five-and-twenty measures of wine."

Justin shews the belief in exacter form. The Lord, Jesus Christ, was to return to Jerusalem, which was to be rebuilt, and there to eat and drink with his disciples, and the Christian people were to be gathered together there and live in happiness with him and with the patriarchs and prophets. This belief is not regarded by Justin as an essential part of the Christian faith (he acknowledges that many genuine Christians do not hold it), but he suggests that many who reject it reject also the resurrection of the dead (i.e. of the body), which is essential. For a thousand years the kingdom at Jerusalem would last for all believers in Christ, and then would take place the universal and eternal resurrection of all together and the judgement. In support of the belief he cites the prophet Isaiah and the apostle John, and applies the imagery of the prophet Micah to describe the happiness of the time when heaven and earth will be renewed, but it will still be the same earth, and all who have faith set on Christ and know the truth expressed in his and his prophets' words will inherit in it eternal
and imperishable blessings.

These hopes were fully shared by Irenaeus (who derived them from Papias direct perhaps), Melito, Hippolytus, Tertullian, and Lactantius.

The Gnostics were the first to reject such conceptions (Marcion referred them to the prompting of the God of the Jews—the only resurrection possible was spiritual, partial here in this world, and in perfection hereafter). The Gnostics were followed by 'Caius' and by Origen, who condemns the views as most absurd; but the most formidable assault upon Chiliastic teaching was made by Dionysius of Alexandria in his treatise On the Promises, rejecting the apostolic origin of the Apocalypse, which was the strongest support of all Chiliastic ideas. To this work he was roused by one Nepos, a bishop in the district of Arsinoe, who in the Chiliastic interest had written against the allegorical interpretation of the Apocalypse, insisting that it must be taken literally. The opposition of Dionysius seems to have been widely influential and effective in banishing all such materialistic expectations from the common faith of the Church. The Alexandrian theology made them impossible. By the middle of the fourth century they had come to be considered heretical, and a final blow was struck by Augustine, who taught that the millennium was the present reign of Christ, beginning with the Resurrection, and destined to last a thousand years.

* James Franklin Bethune-Baker,
An introduction to the early history of Christian doctrine,
[Εισαγωγή στην πρώιμη ιστορία του Χριστιανικού δόγματος],
1920, pp./σσ. 68-71. [English/Αγγλικά, PDF]

Η γλώσσα της πρωτοχριστιανικής κοινότητας της Ιερουσαλήμ

«Στην κοινότητα των Ιεροσολύμων, μετά την ένταξη του μεγάλου αριθμού των μελών, υπήρχαν δύο ομάδες πιστών στους οποίους δίνονται τα ονόματα Ελληνιστές Ιουδαίοι και Ιουδαίοι της Παλαιστίνης. Μία βασική διαφορά τους αφορούσε τη γλώσσα: Οι πρώτοι είχαν τα ελληνικά ως κύριο γλωσσικό τους όργανο ενώ οι δεύτεροι χρησιμοποιούσαν την αραμαϊκή, που ήταν το μέσο επικοινωνίας των κατοίκων της Παλαιστίνης. Αυτό σήμαινε όμως και διαφορετική προέλευση των δύο ομάδων: Οι Ελληνιστές λοιπόν προερχόταν από την ιουδαϊκή διασπορά και από τους προσήλυτους στον ιουδαϊσμό, ενώ οι δεύτεροι ήταν γηγενείς κάτοικοι των Ιεροσολύμων και των άλλων περιοχών της Παλαιστίνης.

Οι Ελληνιστές Ιουδαίοι φαίνεται πως ήταν περισσότερο ανοιχτοί στα νέα ρεύματα και τις νέες τάσεις, μιας και είχαν ζήσει μέσα στο ρωμαϊκό κοσμοπολιτισμό. Χωρίς αυτό να είναι λάθος, κατά βάση δε σημαίνει ότι αφορούσε όλα τα μέλη της ομάδας των Ελληνιστών. Όπως είναι γνωστό και από τις περιοδείες του Παύλου, φανατικοί πιστοί του Ιουδαϊσμού υπήρχαν σε όλη τη ρωμαϊκή οικουμένη, και ήταν αντίθετοι σε οποιαδήποτε αλλαγή ενώ υπεράσπιζαν τις ιδέες τους με πάθος και αποφασιστικότητα. Η επαφή των ελληνιστών χριστιανών της Ιερουσαλήμ με τέτοιες ομάδες, πρέπει να θεωρείται δεδομένη, μιας και αυτοί προερχόταν από τις ίδιες περιοχές της αυτοκρατορίας. Άλλωστε και η εγκατάστασή τους στην ιερή πόλη, φανέρωνε το μεγάλο ενδιαφέρον τους για τις θρησκευτικές παραδόσεις και για την ηθικοποίηση της ζωής τους.

Οι εβραιόφωνοι, όπως συνηθίζεται να ονομάζονται οι γηγενείς Παλαιστίνιοι της πρώτης ομάδας των πιστών του Ιησού, προερχόταν από την Ιερουσαλήμ, από τις γύρω κωμοπόλεις και τα χωριά καθώς και από τις υπόλοιπες περιοχές της Παλαιστίνης. Είναι προφανές ότι σε αυτή την ομάδα ανήκαν και τα ηγετικά στελέχη της κοινότητας, οι Απόστολοι και τα μέλη της οικογένειας του Ιησού».

* Απόσπασμα από το ενδιαφέρον άρθρο του Νίκου Α. Παύλου (δημοσιευμένο στον προσωπικό του ιστότοπο),
«Η πρώτη χριστιανική κοινότητα των Ιεροσολύμων: Συμβολή στην ιστορία του πρώιμου χριστιανισμού».