Was Melito de Sardis an Apostate?

by Gill 12 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Gill

  The character of Melito of Sardis, who was Bishop of Sardis during the second century CE is discussed in the April 15th 2006, Watchtower. He, on the one hand is praised for agreeing with the date for the celebration of Jesus' death as Nisan 14. He is also praised for trying to protect the christians from persecution by writing to Marcus Aurelius for protection. The last paragraph on page 18 says:

  Melito personally traveled to Bible lands to research the exact number of books of the Hebrew Scriptures. In this regard he wrote" 'Accordingly, when I went East and preached and practiced, and after I had learned the books of the Old Testament accurately and had set down the facts, I sent them to you." This list does NOY mention the books of Nehemiah and Esther, yet it is the oldest catalog of the canonical books of the Hebrew Scriptures in writings by professed Christians.'

  However, it appears that in the 'Eyes if the WTBTS' in my opinion, Melito de Sardis was also an apostate when it suited them. This made me wonder what exactly about him they had omitted in this article.

  The final two paragraphs of the article say:

  The Victim of Apostasy?

  After the death of the apostles, a foretold apostasy made its way into true Christianity. (Acts 20:29, 30) Clearly, this affected Melito. The elaborate style of his writings seems to reflect the writings of Greek philosophy and the Roman world. Maybe that is why Melito called Christianity 'our philosophy.' He also considered the integration of so-called Christianity with the Roman empire " the greatest proof....for good."

  Melito certainly did not take to heart the apostle Paul's counsel: 'Look out: perhaps there may be someone who will carry you off as his prey through the philosophy and empty deception according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary things of the world and not according to Christ." Therefore, while Melito defended Bible truths to a limited extent, in many respects he abandoned them.

  So, in Melito de Sardis work, his Canon of the Hebrew Scriptures did NOT agree with the present Canon. He also so no reason why christianity should not join with Rome.

  In the eyes of the WTBTS he had become an apostate.

  So the point of the article was......what?

  This is the second article that the WTBTS has done on supporting the Bible Canon. The first was on the Muratorian Fragment. From what I have gleaned from both articles, it appears that Bible Canon, cannot really be confirmed and was affected by too many outside factors. They simply prove that the Canon cannot be confirmed beyond doubt. They also confirm that in the case of Melito de Sardis, the WTBTS is giving credence to someone who they view as an apostate. And in the case of the Muratorian Fragment, they simply show that the Catholic Church decided on the Canon for the New Testament.

  Do the WTBTS realise that?
• 

  greendawn

  This is all part of the WTS gross misrepresentation of the early Christian Church history in their attempt to justify their late appearence on the world scene.
  
  They speak very vaguely, they don't tell us what precisely Melito believed that was so aweful. Was Greek philosophy all bad and incompatible with Christianity? No it wasn't so how do we know that early Christians didn't utilise parts of it that were compatible with Christianity to also draw the pagans?
  
  Paul himself was influenced by the all pervading platonic influence of the time, his concept of the clean spirit and the dirty enslaving flesh, (from which he longed to be freed), and its dark passions were straight from Plato.
  
  As for the JWs themselves they committed numerous doctrinal errors, that they supposedly admitted, despite having all the knowledge of the 20th century.
• 

  Leolaia

  Gill....I have to say, that was an excellent post. It also is another example of how incoherent and contradictory the Society can be when citing examples of the "great apostasy" and who it regards as defenders of the faith in the second century. I supply many more (sometimes amusing) examples in the following post:

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/107004/1858789/post.ashx#1858789

  As for Melito of Sardis, it should be noted that he like most second-century apologists believed in the Deity of Christ and his dual nature in his incarnation:

  "For indeed the Law has become word and the old new . . . and the lamb a Son, and the sheep a Man, and the Man God (ho anthropos theos)" (Peri Pascha, 7).

  "He rose from the dead as God (anesté ek nekrón hós theos), being by nature God and Man (phusei theos ón kai anthropos). For he is all things: inasmuch as he judges, Law; inasmuch as he teaches, Word; inasmuch as he saves, Grace; inasmuch as he begets, Father; inasmuch as he is begotten, Son; inasmuch as he suffers, Sheep; inasmuch as he is buried, Man; inasmuch as he is raised, God (kath' ho anistatai theos). This is Jesus Christ, to whom be glory forever and ever. Amen" (Peri Pascha, 8-10).

  "The Sovereign has been insulted, God has been murdered (ho theos pephoneutai), the King of Israel has been put to death by an Israelite right hand." (Peri Pascha, 96)

  "For what was done by Christ after the baptism, and especially the signs, showed and proved to the world his Deity hidden in the flesh (kekrummenén en sarki theotéta). For the same one being at once God and perfect Man (theos ón homou te kai anthrópos teleios), he proved his two essences (duo autou ousias) to us: his Deity (tén theotéta autou) through the signs in the three years after his baptism, and his manhood in the thirty seasons before the baptism, which because of his fleshly immaturity he hid the signs of his Deity (apekrube ta sémeia tés autou theotétos), although he was true God pre-eternally existing (theos alethés pro aionios huparkhon)." (Melito of Sardis, Fragmenta 6.21-30, quoted by Anastasius Sinaiticus, Hodegus 12).

  He also was one of the first to express explicit anti-Jewish statements concerning the Passion of Jesus. I also have to say that he wrote in a lovely poetic style and Peri Pascha was written in such simple Greek and it was the first work I kind of "got the hang with" in the Greek (I remember that event well....I went with a friend of mine to her Mass and I sat there reading Peri Pascha in a Catholic Church ).
• 

  Gill

  Greenddawn and Leolaia - Thanks. 'The Great Apostasy' - something I had heard about for nearly forty years and still never knew what the WTBTS meant by it. And yet, when you think about it, everything we read in the NT is 'somebody's opinion' which in turn is influenced by other opinions and society's current knowledge. No one knows 'for sure without any doubt' what the character of Jesus REALLY did say or do, only what people say he said or did and others felt it meant. So far from both these articles that the WTBTS have printed trying to provide e 'evidence' that the Bible really is what it claims to be and that the Canon "MUST BE CORRECT" only proves that No One Really Knows For Sure. Leolaia - Reading 'the words of Melito de Sardis' just proves why the Watchtower would label him an apostate!
• 

  Leolaia

  As for the OT canon list that Melito compiled, it was along the following lines:

  The five books of Moses, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, and also Joshua, Judges, Ruth, the four books of Kings, the two of Chronicles, the book of the Psalms of David, the Proverbs of Solomon, also called the Book of Wisdom, Ecclesiastes, the Song of Songs, Job, the books of the prophets Isaiah, Jeremiah, the twelve contained in a single book, Daniel, Ezekiel, and Esdras. From these I have made my extracts, dividing them into six books.

  The seeming "omission" of Nehemiah in this list is clear evidence that Melito is here mentioning the apocryphal book of 1 Esdras, which was edited from both Ezra and Nehemiah and was part of the Greek Septuagint. The Society does not probably realize that an apocryphal book is probably being mentioned.

  The order of the books is also interesting, for it departs from the order in both the Hebrew Tanakh and the codices of the LXX. He has interspersed the books from the Writings (=Hagiographa) throughout the books of the Prophets, such that Ruth appears after Judges and Chronicles, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Canticles appear before Isaiah, just as is found in Codex Sinaiticus. In the Tanakh, the book of the twelve Minor Prophets follows the three major prophets, but here Daniel, Ezekiel, and Esdras form a group following the Minor Prophets. Might this be a residue of the Hagiographa, with Daniel still classed with the Writings and Ezekiel demoted from its status among the Major Prophets? It is well-known that Ezekiel had canonicity problems in the early second century in the Hebrew canon, being a disputed book (along with Esther, which is omitted here). Compare with the Codex Vaticanus which has Ezekiel and Daniel at the end of the canon. At any rate, the order that has Daniel and Esdras towards the end of the canon conforms to Hebrew order which has Daniel and Ezra in the final group of the canon following the Megilot.
• 

  Gill

  Leolaia - That's very interesting - the ommission of the books of Nehemiah and Ezra, and the inclusion of the apocryphal book. It makes me wonder about the WTBTS aim in having these two articles on 'proving' Bible canonicity. Any JW, (which I doubt would happen) but any that might look up these two people, both Muratoria and Melito of Sardis, who, to the average person are just obscure historical characters, may risk realising that the information is only partial and twisted strongly to the WTBTS doctrine. There was NO ATTEMPT at all to list the Bible books that Melito of Sardis decided were included in the Canon. I wonder why?
• 

  Leolaia

  Bear in mind that the Greek name for "Ezra" is "Esdras," and it is still possible that Melito was not referring to 1 Esdras but to canonical Ezra (= 2 Esdras in the LXX).

  Edit: Actually, now I think about it, it is hard to say either way because of the varying status of Nehemiah as an independent book. Similarly, Melito does not mention Lamentations or Baruch because these were often included in Jeremiah.
• 

  greendawn

  Gill there never was a great apostasy, as if it were possible for the Church to apostatise from one day to the next as soon as John died as the WTS claims.
  
  The Christians of those days may have got some ideas wrong and it's not surprising given that many letters, gospels and revelations were circulating and no one knew exactly what was genuine and what was bogus. So even if they got some ideas wrong that doesn't make them apostate otherewise the WTS is the foremost apostate since they can't ever get anything right, their dogmas come and go.
  
  I am astonished by the viciouness of their attack against the early church that kept Christianity going through three fiercely difficult centuries. To them even the martyrs don't count for anything.
• 

  Gill

  Leolaia - Thanks. I understand now. what I don't understand is that the WTBTS would be discussing someone that they then claim is apostate, and affected by apostate reasoning. Greendawn - I take it then that the 'early church' then evolved into the Catholic Church?
• 

  greendawn

  The early church continued as one until about the year 1000 AD when it split into the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox parts with the Protestants splitting off from the Catholics about 500 years later.
  
  In my view there was an apostasy with Constantine but this was carried out by corrupt bishops that were lusting for power and glory (just like the FDS of the JWs). The result was that the church got flooded by pagans who were not really interested in Christianity and it's nature and character were dramatically changed.