Early Christology question

M.J.

Hello,

My knowledge about this is limited to some quotes of what various early Church fathers taught and what they said about "heresies", in addition to the NT. Could some of the more knowledgeable folks on this board give their input as to what schools of thought were out there in the 1st century regarding Christ's nature, the worship of Christ, etc.? Leolaia in another post mentioned how there were three principle factions around the question of salvation. Did each of these also correspond with a differing view of Christ?

I've read about the Gnostic view and I've also read vague references to an early "Angel-Christology" which the first Chapter of Hebrews may have been written to refute.

But it seems that from what I've read, the worship of Christ among early Christians was pretty consistent.

Encyclopedia Britannica mentions:

Yet before any theological reflection about the nature of this preexistence had been able to find terms and concepts, the early Christians were worshipping Christ as divine. Phil. 2:6?11 may be a quotation from a hymn used in such worship. Theological reflection told them that if this worship was legitimate, he must have existed with the Father ?before all ages.?
"Jesus Christ." Encyclopædia Britannica from Encyclopædia Britannica Premium Service. < http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?tocId=13665 > [Accessed April 13, 2005].

Narkissos

Vast question. There is a lot to read on this subject and I guess English-speaking posters will be in a better position to provide helpful tips.

I think the classical distinctions between descending and ascending christologies, or high and low christologies, could be somewhat helpful, from a slightly different perspective.

Some early christologies refer to the descent of a heavenly being diversely related to the one God of monotheism (the Revealer, the Son of God, the Son of Man, the Logos or Word, personified Wisdom, the chief angel, etc.) and his saving manifestation to mankind.

Other christologies focus on the destiny of a righteous man (the Messiah, the final Prophet, the New Moses, the New Elijah, etc.) and his subsequent vindication and elevation by God.

Whether there was a historical Jesus (which is still strongly debated) or the "earthly Jesus" is the product of an artificial historicisation of the myth of the heavenly Christ is still debated. In any case, those two threads did merge in different doctrinal and narrative ways: either the heavenly Revealer became the man Jesus (incarnation or mere appearance) or he somehow united with him at some point (after death, on the cross, at baptism, or even from birth). All the shades of christology which show in early Christian texts can be derived from some combination of those threads.

The Pauline and Johannine writings clearly reflect a high Christology. The Judeo-Christian writings (most of Matthew, for instance) imply a low Christology. The later Catholic synthesis rejects the low Christology on one side and docetism (the "earthly Jesus" being a mere appearance or metamorphosis of a divine being) on the other. But the rejected stances were present in older Christian writings.

Hope this helps a little as an introduction to the issue.

Deputy Dog

MJ

Go to e-Sword.net and clic on extras, then down load Ante-Nicene Fathers (9 volumes). It's searchable and a good tool.

D Dog

rick_here

(From the back cover of The Great Angel: A Study in Israel's Second God by Margaret Barker, (Westminster, John Knox Press, 1992):

What did "Son of God," "Messiah," and "Lord" mean to the first Christians when they used these words to describe their beliefs about Jesus? In this groundbreaking, clearly written book, Margaret Barker goes against protocol and treats these three titles collectively. She explores the possibility that in the expectations and traditions of first-century Palestine they belonged together, and that the first Christians fit Jesus' identity into an existing pattern of belief. Barker claims that pre-Christian Judaism was not monotheistic and that the roots of Christian Trinitarian theology lie in a pre-Christian Palestinian belief about the angels - a belief derived from the ancient religion of Israel in which there was a High God and several Sons of God. Yahweh was a Son of God, manifested on earth in human form as an angel or in the Davidic King. Jesus was a manifestation of Yahweh, acknowledged as Son of God, Messiah, and Lord....Barker supports her thoughtful investigation with canonical and deutero-canonical works and literature from Qumran and rabbinic sources. Her stimulating book will shed new light on the origins of Christianity and is an excellent source for Old and New Testament scholars and anyone interested in Jesus as a person.

I'm about half-way thru Barker's book and am finding so much information that it's a bit hard to digest! Not in the sense of it being, in any sense, "unpalatable" (or radical)... it's the exact opposite; entirely "enlightening" (for lack of vocabulary).

rick_here

M.J. posted:

My knowledge about this is limited to some quotes of what various early Church fathers taught and what they said about "heresies", in addition to the NT. Could some of the more knowledgeable folks on this board give their input as to what schools of thought were out there in the 1st century regarding Christ's nature, the worship of Christ, etc.?

As Narkissos has pointed out, post-first century "conflicts" regarding Christology are wide and varied, depending on what (exact) time frame is in question. In other words, the differences of opinion in Christology ("who Jesus Christ was") in the early centuries evolved along lines of, and in the context of, current debates of those specific times.

Did each of these also correspond with a differing view of Christ? .... I've read about the Gnostic view and I've also read vague references to an early "Angel-Christology" which the first Chapter of Hebrews may have been written to refute.

"The Gnostics", per se, as non-proto-orthodox groups, weren't really identified as such till the mid to late second century. "They" weren't any certain sect, but represented a multitude of belief-sytems that were, then, currently being defined as 'not having orthodoxy' (orthodox simply means, "having the correct opinion of"). "(Christian) orthodoxy" was still developing in the second century and probably didn't have any patent or succint definitions till after the Council of Nicaea, in 325 AD. We look back to these developments in hindsight and often fail to see their true historical significances.

Ironically, I've found in the writings of "The Apologists" (the earliest of the Early Fathers of the second century) certain themes that seem to go-along-with what Margaret Barker has observed. Keeping in mind that, in the second century, we are speaking of proto-orthodoxy (in its formative stages).

As to "Angel-Christology"... in their writings these earliest Apologists/Fathers seem to fully support ideas that see Jesus Christ as (both) the (OT) Angel of Yahweh and of Christ actually being Yahweh Himelf (incarnated)

However, a clear distinction is made here.
Yahweh (or Jehovah) was one of the "sons of God" (of the Father-God: EL, or El-Elyon). Yahweh, or Jehovah, is the incarnate Jesus, the deity who was appointed over Israel by His Father: EL.

But it seems that from what I've read, the worship of Christ among early Christians was pretty consistent.

The earliest Christians, who were Jewish, believed in One God (EL, "the father of the gods and of humanity") and in One Lord (Jesus Christ) (Yahweh, His Son, sent to the people of Israel).

rick

\o/

M.J.

Thanks. Ok can anyone now tell me about the history of the Jews? Kidding...

But seriously, thanks for the input and suggestions for further research. I can see this isn't something that can be completely answered in a single post!

rick_here

M.J.,

I should have said that this is a "hypothesis" (of mine); that God can be identified as EL, the Most High God, and His Son, (among other divine sons) is Yahweh...Jesus. In any event, this probably wouldn't reflect Margaret Barker's view exactly.

Here's an article from Bryan T. Huie that has some quotes from Margaret Barker and some Early (Apologist) Fathers, Ignatius and Justin:

Who Is Jesus Christ?

Bryan Huie's articles are rather long but jam-packed with information! (Btw, I don't go along with 'everything' he says).

So, M.J., I know you didn't ask for more input. Yet this article -- as well as Huie's other articles on "The Godhead" -- just have so much in them that I like to pass them on....

rick

\o/

Leolaia

I don't know if any Christians held that view, but it does underlie the mythological background of the merkebah vision in Daniel, in which the "Ancient of Days" is based on El and the "one like a son of man" (= Michael, as suggested by John Day) is based on Yahweh/Baal. The "Son of Man" christology of Jesus in Mark and the synoptics would seem to equate Jesus with the Son of Man (described in Danielic language derived from this vision), which would link the Father with the "Ancient of Days" figure (cf. the father-son relationship between El and Baal, tho El becomes Baal's father only through Baal's enthronement as king).

M.J.

Any good books dedicated to the subject which are relatively objective?

Narkissos

Here's a bibliographical selection on the topic: http://www.earlychurch.org.uk/christ.html

Early Christology question

Share this