The Apostolic Fathers

These past few days, I've been reading a collection of works by people often called "the apostolic fathers" - or rather, the leaders and thinkers in the early church, whose ideas and traditions are often only one or two degrees removed from the apostles themselves (or not at all, as some of them heard/met Saint Paul, or those such as Papias, who was a disciple of John, and may in fact have been the one who transcribed his gospel).

What I've found most striking about this collection is that according to the editor and translator, quite a few of these writings were included by some in the canon of writings that comprise the New Testament. In fact, the only reason we have some of these writings is that they became parts of certain bibles. However, none of them were officially canonized, and so one might end up in a particular bible here and there, but no more, which is why many of these writings were lost for a long period of time; one, for instance, was thought to have been lost to the tradition around the 4th or 5th century, only to be rediscovered in then 17th.

I believe that reading these writings can give one a good insight into not only the mindset of the early church, but also into how the bible was compiled, by showing what WASN'T included. Pretty much every time I've heard people talk about how the bible was assembled (atheists, mostly) they talk about how it was political, and somewhat random. But the reality that I'm starting to see in the writings that didn't make the cut, as it were, when contrasted with the bible, a certain disruption in the narrative. Most of these writings simply do not fit into the picture, and had they been included, would have created some very difficult logical issues.

Let's take the Epistle of Barnabas, an early writing sometimes attributed to a certain companion of Paul's mentioned in Acts. However, the editor doesn't seem to agree, as apparently the views espoused by Barnabas in Acts on the Jewish people simply don't line up at all with the views expressed in the epistle. Regardless, what struck me in this writing is how the author is basically reinterpreting large parts of the Old Testament - he points out, for instance, that the purity laws involving food were always meant to have been metaphorical. He's basically stating that the Jewish religion, as it had been practiced for hundreds of years, was based on a completely invalid reading of their ancient texts. This simply doesn't work, especially when contrasted with the views of Paul, who saw a much more complicated narrative - Jesus was a fulfillment of the old law, not a correction to it. Had this Epistle been included in the canon (it was certainly written early enough, and was apparently considered), it would have created a large disagreement within the bible.

Another writing in this collection is the Shepherd of Hermas. It contains a lot of really good, practical advice for living as a Christian, and is an interesting read. According to the editor, it was most likely written sometime between 100-140, and was copied more widely than almost any other early Christian writing. In other words, it was quite popular and well-regarded. And again, one can see the reason it never made it into the bible. Within the book is contained a long list of commandments, with the "Shepherd" (Hermas' guide through his vision) basically stating that these were absolutely necessary to follow to attain salvation. This is in marked contrast with, say, Paul, who spends quite a bit of time talking about what the life of a Christian should look like, as opposed to creating a list of commands to follow. I supposed one might interpret the Shepherd's commands in the same light, but the wording seems to be far more imperative than Paul. This, again, would have thrown a big wrench into what is a guiding narrative in the New Testament, that of Jesus fulfilling the Old Testament law, and instituting a new way of living, that of love for God and our neighbors, as opposed to a list of rules to follow.

Now, I can well understand where these ideas come from. Early Christianity was surrounded by enemies on all sides, and even from within. There were factions that claimed there had been no literal resurrection, some that claimed Jesus was not a man at all but simply God in disguise (as opposed to both), some that the earthly realm doesn't matter, only the spiritual, and a whole host of other ideas, ideas which threatened to water down the movement, or perhaps change it entirely. Christians were being persecuted, tortured and executed, finding opposition everywhere they went. Thus, the greatest strength a Christian could find was in the unity and support of his or her community, both locally and as a whole, and any threat to this unity had to be stamped out. Thus one finds, in the first letter of Clement to the Corinthians, a member of a Roman church (possibly the leader, but the history seems controversial) admonishing some members of the church in Corinth to stay humble and trust the work of their elders. Apparently, some young blood had risen up and taken over the jobs of the elder presbyters. Or, in the letters of Ignatius, one sees constant pleas for the various churches to always follow the leadership of the bishop, so that doctrinal purity and unity of action would be maintained.

These writings contain a wealth of information on the early church, far too much to really go into here. One can see in them the rough basis for what was to eventually become the Catholic Church as we know it today (the ideas of Apostolic succession found in Ignatius - an unbroken line of church leaders, the first being appointed by the apostles themselves). They also flesh out what the early church valued, and show just how incredibly seriously they took their new-found faith. Back then, Christianity was for all of its membership a matter of life in death, not only in the next world but this one as well, and this shows itself well in what they wrote.