Tertullian, the Alexamenos Graffito, and P66

Approximately 1800 years ago someone (a child or teenager) scrawled (in Greek) an insult into the plaster walls of Emperor Caligula's former palace, "Alexamenos worships [his] god'' along with a crudely drawn image of a figure raising their hand in worship to a crucified figure with a donkey's head. This particular section of Caligula's palace was later used as a training school for court servants who had graduated from the Paedagogium ad caput Africae (School at the head of Africa), "from the name of a street which led from the Coliseum to the aristocratic quarter of the Coelia" (Lanciani, Ancient Rome, 122). There are many inscriptions that testify to this time period. One inscription reads, Corinthus exit de paedagogio (Corinthus exits the School). The most famous inscription is the insult to Alexamenos, also known as the Alexamenos Graffitto. The crudely drawn image has the Greek phrase "Ἀλεξάμενος σέβετε θεόν," with σέβετε being a phonetic misspelling of σέβεται, the ε and the diphthong αι were pronounced the same at this time (MacLean, An Introduction to Greek Epigraphy, 208).

Sketch of the Alexamenos graffito (Garrucci, Il crocifisso graffito, 5)

There have been a variety of dates given for this inscription with proposals ranging as early as 85 CE, but with the standard date given as the third century. Hans Schwarz, Christology, argues that the Alexamenos gaffito dates to 85AD (pg. 207) whereas Raffaele Garrucci, Il crocifisso graffito, argues that the graffito should be dated to the early third century (pg. 13). Peter Keegan notes that 

"[u]sing relative and internal criteria to determine various relationships between the building and the graffiti, it is possible to say that, in relative terms, the graffiti in room 6 are Trajanic, Hadrianic, or possibly Antonine (CE 98-138 or 192), while those in rooms 7 and 8 date to the second and third centuries AD. Applying internal criteria case by case allows a few graffiti to be traced specifically to the time of Septimius Severus and the Severan period." (Keegan, "Reading the ‘Pages’ of the Domus Caesaris," 72)

Image of Alexamenos graffito (Lanciani, Ancient Rome, 123)

 

The uncertainty expressed concerting the dating of the graffito has probably been leveraged too far in the case of P.Bodmer II (P66). Brent Nongbri argued that P66 was likely copied in the 4th century rather than the early 3rd-century as it has often been presented (Nongbri, "The Limits," 34-35). One piece of evidence that Nongbri points to as supporting a 4th century date is the presence of the tau-rho ligature known as the "staurogram" (see earlier post). I have already addressed some of the problems with these conclusions in an earlier post, as further support for dating the use of cruciform imagery into the 4th century, Nongbri mentioned the Alexamenos graffito (Nongbri, "The Limits," 33-34, footnote 84). He notes the certainty of the terminus post quem yet states that the 3rd century dating "was largely based upon the editor's opinion of when such a polemical graffito would have been appropriate" (Nongbri, "The Limits," 33-34, footnote 84). The editor Nongbri was citing was Raffaele Garrucci. Unfortunately, Nongbri never engages with the content of Garrucci's arguments but rather disregards it as mere editorial opinion. Garrucci actually cites several ancient sources that do in fact make a date of the early third century a more plausible date for the graffito. Lets turn to some of the evidence below.

Tertullian 

Tertullian wrote his Apology in the year 197-198 CE (Glover, "Introduction," xix). In it he quotes a common myth, perpetuated by the Roman historian Tacitus (Tertullian quotes from book five of his Annals), that Jews worshiped the head of an ass.

"For, like some others, you are under the delusion that our god is an ass's head. Cornelius Tacitus first put this notion into people's minds. In the fifth book of his histories, beginning the (narrative of the) Jewish war with an account of the origin of the nation; and theorizing at his pleasure about the origin, as well as the name and the religion of the Jews, he states that having been delivered, or rather, in his opinion, expelled from Egypt, in crossing the vast plains of Arabia, where water is so scanty, they were in extremity from thirst; but taking the guidance of the wild asses, which it was thought might be seeking water after feeding, they discovered a fountain, and thereupon in their gratitude they consecrated a head of this species of animal. And as Christianity is nearly allied to Judaism, from this, I suppose, it was taken for granted that we too are devoted to the worship of the same image." (Tertullian, Apol. 16)

Tertullian continued with the same theme of Christians being accused of worshiping an ass's head later in the same chapter.

"But lately a new edition of our god has been given to the world in that great city: it originated with a certain vile man who was wont to hire himself out to cheat the wild beasts, and who exhibited a picture with this inscription: The God of the Christians, born of an ass. He had the ears of an ass, was hoofed in one foot, carried a book, and wore a toga. Both the name and the figure gave us amusement. But our opponents ought straightway to have done homage to this biformed divinity, for they have acknowledged gods dog-headed and lion-headed, with horn of buck and ram, with goat-like loins, with serpent legs, with wings sprouting from back or foot. These things we have discussed ex abundanti, that we might not seem willingly to pass by any rumor against us unrefuted." (Tertullian, Apol. 16)

This myth was so widespread that Tertullian, living in Carthage North Africa, was able to speak of the popularity of this myth in Rome.

 

Minucius Felix 

Writing about the same time as Tertullian, Minucius Felix, living in Rome, wrote about a similar myth that the Romans believed concerning the Christians supposedly worshiping the head of an ass.

"I hear that they adore the head of an ass, that basest of creatures, consecrated by I know not what silly persuasion." (Minucius Felix, Octavius, 9)

Celsus

Origen, writing in the mid 3rd century, quotes from Celsus, the pagan philosopher who wrote a polemic against Christians around the year 180 CE (Hoffmann, Celsus, On the true Doctrine, 32). Celsus's work was called, On the True Doctrine, and he mentions the following myth concerning Jews and Christians.

"For the sake of such a monstrous delusion, and in support of those wonderful advisers, and those wonderful words which you address to the lion, to the amphibious creature, to the creature in the form of an ass, and to others, for the sake of those divine doorkeepers whose names you commit to memory with such pains, in such a cause as this you suffer cruel tortures, and perish at the stake." (Origen, Contra Celsum, 7.40)

Celsus notes that Christians are willing to die as martyrs for their beliefs and associates the image of an ass with Christian devotion.

Conclusions

The literary evidence from the first through the third centuries is extensive; the Romans believed that Christians worshiped the head of an ass. It seems very fitting then that a slave in the imperial entourage would be a Christian (see Pliny the Younger, Ep. 10.96, who describes Christian slaves as the object of his interrogation). It also seems highly plausible that one of the many other slaves would taunt this Christian with images of a donkey-headed Jesus on a cross sometime in the late second century when Celsus was writing and when Tertullian was writing about these myths. This negative depiction of Christian veneration of Jesus on the cross fits well within a late second through early third century context. This means that the use of the "staurogram" as a visual representation of Jesus on the cross in P.Bodmer II (P66) fits well within the period of it's early third century dating.

The Staurogram in P.Bodmer II (P66) 

(https://bodmerlab.unige.ch/fr/constellations/papyri/mirador/1072205287?page=140)

________________________________

Bibliography

 

Garrucci, Raffaele, Il crocifisso graffito in casa dei cesari ed il simbolismo cristiano in una corniola del secondo secolo (COI TIPI DELLA CIVILTÀ CATTOLICA, 1857)
(https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_kE9SZ86woNQC/page/n1/mode/2up)

Glover, T. R., trans. Tertullian, Apology and De Spectaculis, Gerald H. Rendall, trans. Minucius Felix, Octavius (LOEB, Harvard University Press, 1931)

Hoffmann, R. Joseph , tans. Celsus, On the true doctrine: a discourse against the Christians (New York: Oxford University Press, 1987). 

Keegan, Peter, “Reading the ‘Pages’ of the Domus Caesaris: Pueri Delicati, Slave Education, and the Graffiti of the Palatine Paedagogium,” in Roman Slavery and Roman Material Culture, edited by Michelle George (University of Toronto Press, 2013); 69–98

Lanciani, Rodolfo, Ancient Rome in the Light of Recent Discoveries (Cambridge, MA: Houghton and Mifflin, 1888) (https://archive.org/details/ancientromeinlig00lancuoft/page/121/mode/1up)
 

MacLean, B.H., An Introduction to Greek Epigraphy of the Hellenistic and Roman Periods from Alexander the Great down to the Reign of Constantine (University of Michigan Press, 2002).
(https://books.google.com/books?id=x2AD3M77TgMC&pg=RA1-PA208#v=onepage&q&f=false)

Nongbri, Brent “The Limits of Palaeographic Dating of Literary Papyri: Some Observations on the Date and Provenance of P. Bodmer II (P66),” Museum Helveticum 71 (2014): 1-35.

Schwarz, Hans, Christology (Eerdmans, 1998).

Interview on The Hardcore Humanities Podcast

Released today is an interview I did with Jamie Tibke host of The Hardcore Humanities Podcast.  The interview can be found on Spotify and Apple ITunes. Link to Spotify posted below.

The Hardcore Humanities Podcast https://open.spotify.com/episode/2480jEi5oxaKZxaRMUsEXb

Clement of Rome and the Holy Rule Handed Down

While reading through 1 Clement in Greek, I came across an interesting phrase,

"Therefore let us abandon empty and futile thoughts, and let us conform to the glorious and holy rule of our tradition." (1 Clement 7.2; Holmes, 37)

"διὸ ἀπολίπωμεν τὰς κενὰς καὶ ματαίας φροντίδας, καὶ ἔλθωμεν ἐπὶ τὸν εὐκλεῆ καὶ σεμνὸν τῆς παραδόσεως ἡμῶν κανόνα." (1 Clement 7.2; Holmes, 36)

The author (traditionally thought to be Clement of Rome, ca. 96 CE), appears to be referring to the "rule of faith" or the "rule of truth." This was commonly appealed to as a standard of doctrine, Christology, and belief that separated the orthodox from the heterodox. For example, Eusebius, in his history, recounts that Dionysius (ca. 170) wrote a letter to the Nicomedians "in which he combats the heresy of Marcion and compares it with the rule of the truth (τῷ τῆς ἀληθείας παρίσταται κανόνι)" (Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 4.23.4; LCL, 379).

The "rule of faith" appears to have governed the manner in which the scriptures were interpreted as well. Irenaeus (ca. 180 CE) wrote that

"he also who retains unchangeable in his heart the rule (κανόνα) of the truth which he received by means of baptism, will doubtless recognize the names, the expressions, and the parables taken from the Scriptures" (Haer. 1.9.4; ANF 1:303).

Some early Christian writers use the phrase in a way that seems to include, not only the basic theology of the church, but also an accepted body of scripture handed down from the Apostles. Tertullian of Carthage (ca. 200 CE), in his "On the Prescription of Heretics," wrote that,

"For wherever it shall be manifest that the true Christian rule and faith shall be, there will likewise be the true Scriptures and expositions thereof, and all the Christian traditions." (Praescr. 19; ANF 3:251–252)

Tertullian is here including a received body of Scripture as an integral element of the "rule of faith." Returning to 1 Clement, it may be that the author (Clement) had a received body of scriptures in mind (along with "true" theology) when he wrote of the "glorious and holy rule of our traditions." There are a few clues in the context of 1 Clement they may support such a reading of 7.2.

Immediately following the author's admonition to "conform to the glorious and holy rule of our tradition" (7.2), is a long series of examples drawn from the Hebrew Bible. The author writes,

"Let us review all the generations in turn, and learn from generation to generation the Master has given an opportunity for repentance to those who desire to turn from him." (1 Clement 7.5; Holmes, 37)

From this point, Clement lists, in the fashion of Hebrews 11, Noah (7.6), Jonah (7.7), Enoch (9.3), Abraham (10.1), Lot (11.1), and Rahab (12.1). Previously, the author brought to mind, Abel (4.1), Jacob and Esau (4.8), Joseph (4.9), Moses (4.10), and David (4.13).
After an exhaustive quotation from Isaiah 53, and a brief line taken from Psalms 22 (a Psalm commonly quoted as a prophecy concerning Christ's crucifixion), Clement applies these passages to Christ's incarnation and death on the cross and then writes,

"You see, dear friends, the kind of pattern (ὑπογραμμὸς) that has been given to us; for if the Lord so humbled himself, what should we do, who through him have come under the yoke of grace?" (1 Clement 16.17; Holmes, 47-49)

The noun ὑπογραμμὸς, of course, can mean simply "pattern," but it is interesting that in its basic meaning refers specifically to a "written pattern" that students used to copy texts as they were learning to write (LSJ references Clement of Alexandria, Strom. 5.8.49,48). Because the phrasing follows extensive quotations from Isaiah 53, it suggest to me that Clement is referring to the example of Christ "written" in the Scriptures he referenced. Because of these citations and allusions to Old Testament themes, it is hard not to see that the author is referencing written sources here, the Greek translation of the Jewish scriptures, as part of these traditions handed down mentioned in 7.2.

The idea that Christian communities in the first century accepted some type of Greek translation of the Jewish writings as scripture is not very controversial. However, it seems that Clement has a collection of received Christian "New Testament" scriptures in view here as well. In the preceding context of 1 Clement 5, the author is speaking of the saints who gave the ultimate testimony in sacrificing for the name of Jesus through martyrdom, namely the Apostles Peter and Paul. He then uses the same noun as in 16.17,

"Finally, when he had given his testimony before rulers, he thus departed this world and went to the holy place, having become an outstanding example (ὑπογραμμὸς) of patient endurance." (1 Clement 5.7; Holmes, 35)

Of course, one should be careful not to take too much from the use of this word. But coupled with the extensive quotations from the Septuagint discussed above, it seems that Clement is also here referring to a "written" example of Paul.

This view is strengthened by the explicit reference to the letter of 1 Corinthians made in 47.1, "Take up the epistle of the blessed Paul the apostle" (Holmes, 83). The gospels are alluded to and loosely quoted in several places as well (13.2-7; 15.2; 24.5; 43.6; 46.7-8; 49.1), as well as Hebrews (36.2-5) along with other New Testament writings (Gregory, 129-157).

The view that I am entertaining here, that the "holy rule of our tradition" in 1 Clement 7.2 includes a body of scriptures, Septuagint and some "New Testament" writings, does not seem to be widely held in the academy. Concerning this 1 Clement 7.2, Lee Martin McDonald wrote,

"Later, Clement of Rome (ca. 90 CE) used "canon" in reference to the church's revealed truth when he encourages the Christians at Corinth to "put aside empty and vain cares, and let us come to the glorious and venerable rule of our tradition." (McDonald, 50)

McDonald does not entertain the possibility that this "rule" that was handed included a core body of scriptures, at least at this early date. Yet, I think that it may be necessary to rethink this understanding of Clement's "holy rule of our tradition." That the statements of Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria, that the "rule of faith" included a received body of scriptures, may date at least from the time Clement took up the pen to admonish the Church at Corinth in the 90s CE.

Finally, in further support of understanding 1 Clement 7.2 as including some kind of received body of scriptures, Paul (if you accept traditional Pauline authorship) in 2Thessalonians 2:15, uses the same word as Clement of Rome to refer to the teaching likely transmitted by word of mouth and to teaching contained within a letter sent from Paul.

"So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions (παραδόσεις) which you were taught, whether by word of mouth (λόγου) or by letter (ἐπιστολῆς) from us." (NASB)

Here Paul is including both oral teaching and a written text with received traditions taught to the Thessalonian Church.

I am not attempting to anachronistically back load later meanings of "canon" (κανών) into 1 Clement 7.2. I do not think 1 Clement is using "canon" here to refer to an authoritative list of books. Rather, I am proposing that, in 1 Clement 7.2, "canon" includes not only a body of received apostolic teaching, but a group of scriptural works that convey this apostolic teaching. This likely would have included the Greek translation of the Jewish scriptures, and Christian writings such as some of Paul's letters and a gospel, though the exact contours of this collection is unkown.
_______________________________
BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bokedal, Thomas, "The Rule of Faith: Tracing its Origins." Journal of Theological Interpretation 7.2 (2013): 233-255.

Eusebius. Ecclesiastical History, Volume I: Books 1-5. Translated by Kirsopp Lake. Loeb Classical Library 153. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1926.

Gregory, Andrew. "1 Clement and the Writings That Later Formed the New Testament," pages 129-157 in The Reception of the New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005.

Hagner, D.A. The Use of the Old and New Testaments in Clement of Rome. NovTSup 34. Leiden: Brill, 1973

Holmes, Michael W., ed. The Apostolic Fathers: Greek texts and English translations. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1999.

McDonald, Lee Martin. The Biblical Canon: Its Origin, Transmission, and Authority. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2007.

Roberts, Alexander, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, eds. The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus. Vol. 1. The Ante-Nicene Fathers. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885.

Roberts, Alexander, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, eds. Latin Christianity: Its Founder, Tertullian. Vol. 3. The Ante-Nicene Fathers. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885.

An image of Papyrus 6. Containing fragments of 1st Clement (Coptic), the Epistle of James (Coptic), and the Gospel of John (Coptic and Greek).

Philosophical Schools: Early Christian and Jewish Scripture Reading

I have been slowly reading through Brian J Wright’s excellent new book “Communal Reading in the Time of Jesus: A Window into Early Christian Reading Practices,” which came out December 2017. I can’t recommend this work enough and I hope to give an extensive review once I finish plodding through the amassed information (it is rich with primary source material). Until then, I can’t help but write a little on some of the gems. One such nugget are the references to Philo of Alexandria’s (ca. 20 BCE-50 CE) descriptions of synagogue worship (Wright, 102-104). There are two such references in Philo’s works and Wright quotes both of these in full. What is particularly striking to me is how similar these descriptions are to Justin Martyr’s famous reference to Christian worship around 100 years later. The similarities are still present even later in the writings of Tertullian of Carthage who wrote about 150-160 years after Philo. I thought it might be helpful to quote each of these in full for comparison purposes. Philo wrote

“For that day [Sabbath] has been set apart to be kept holy and on it they abstain from all other work and proceed to sacred spots which they call synagogues [συναγωγαί]. There, arranged in rows according to their ages, the younger below the elder, they sit decorously as befits the occasion with attentive ears. Then one takes the books [τὰς βίβλους] and reads aloud [ὰναγινώσκει] and another [ἕτερος] of especial proficiency [τῶν ὲμπειροτάτων] comes forward and expounds [ὰναδιδάσκει] what is not understood.” (Good Person 81-82; Wright, 103)

Philo gave another similar description of synagogue worship in a different work;

“And indeed [δῆτα] they do always [μὲν αἰεί] assemble and sit together, most of them in silence except when it is the practice [νομίζεται] to add something to signify approval [προσεπευφημῆσαι] of what is read [ἀναγινωσκομένος]. But some priest who is present or one of the elders reads [ἀναγινώσκει] the holy laws to them and expounds [ἐξηγεῖται] them point by point till about the late afternoon, when they depart having gained both expert knowledge of the holy laws and considerable advance in piety.” (Hypothetica 7.13; Wright, 104)

Now compare this reference to the Christian worship gathering described by Justin Martyr (ca. 100-165 CE) from about 100 years after the time of Philo. Justin wrote,

“And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things.” (1 Apol 67)

Justin Martyr is likely describing the practices in and around Rome which is where he likely wrote his 1st Apology. However, considering that Justin was born in Palestine, and spent some time in Ephesus, his description may include Christian communities in these regions as well. Fast-forward another 50 or so years and we have Tertullian (ca. 155-240 CE) who gave a description of Christian worship practices in Carthage. Tertullian wrote,

“We are a body knit together as an assembly and congregation, that, offering up prayer to God as with united force, we may wrestle with him in our supplications….We assemble to read our sacred writings, if any peculiarity of the times makes either forewarning or reminiscence needful. However it be in that respect, with the sacred words we nourish our faith, we animate our hope, we make our confidence more stedfast; and no less by inculcations of God’s precepts we confirm good habits. In the same place also exhortations are made, rebukes and sacred censures are administered.” (Apol 39)

The similarities between Philo’s synagogue services and Justin and Tertullian’s Christian services are these;

1) The scriptures are read out to the gathered assembly. Without getting into detail about which Christian texts, it can be fairly certain that the Hebrew scriptures were being read, obviously in the Jewish synagogues, but also by the Christians (in Greek or possibly Latin) in both Justin and Tertullian’s descriptions.

2) Someone else stands and exhorts, preaches, or teaches to the congregation from the text that was read. In Philo, this person is either an individual of “especial proficiency,” a priest, or an elder. In Justin, the speaker is the “president,” the “προεστὼς” who gives the “speech,” the “διὰ λόγου" (Blunt, 100).

3) The congregation comes together, at least in part, in order to gain instruction on Godly living and habits. In Philo, it is to “advance in piety,” in Justin, it is to “imitate these good things” found in the scriptures, and in Tertullian it is to “confirm good habits” that are derived from “God’s precepts.”

From these references one can see how much the Christian worship practice of reading scriptures and preaching and exhorting from them is rooted in the Hebrew synagogue tradition. There seems to be very little parallel in the Greek and Roman culture, even though communal reading of texts was a widespread and common phenomena (see Wright’s work on this for nearly exhaustive coverage of primary source material), the systematic study of texts coupled with a lifestyle of adherence to these same texts can only really be found in the various philosophical schools. This comparison comes out in the writings of the physician Galen of Pergamum (ca. 129-215/16 ce) who, when briefly mentioning the Jews and Christians, refer to them in the context of philosophical ‘schools’;

“They compare those who practice medicine without scientific knowledge to Moses, who framed laws for the tribe of Israel, since it is his method in his books to write without offering proofs, saying ‘God commanded, God spake.’” (On Hippocrates Anatomy; Wilken, 72)

In another place he mentions Christians and Jews together as belonging to philosophical schools;

“For one might more easily teach novelties to the followers of Moses and Christ than to the physicians and philosophers who cling fast to their schools. So in the end I decided that I should avoid unnecessary talk by having nothing to do with them at all, which is what I do at present and what I shall continue to do in the future.” (De pulsuum differentiis; Wilken, 72)

When writing for a Roman audience, Flavius Josephus (ca. 37-100 CE) in similar way compared his own Jewish tradition with Greek and Roman philosophical schools. He wrote;

“For there are three philosophical sects among the Jews. The followers of the first of which are the Pharisees, of the second, the Sadducees, and the third sect, which pretends to a severer discipline, are called Essenes.” (Jewish War 2.8.2)

Both the Jewish and Christian communities stood out against other contemporary religions of antiquity in that they were more like the philosophical schools of the day. Both Jews and Christians were communities of followers who gathered together for the close reading of their books and a discussion of how to apply these texts into their everyday lives.

_____________________

BIBLIOGRAPHY

A. W. F. Blunt, ed. "The Apologies of Justin Martyr" (Cambridge Patristic Texts. A. J. Mason, ed. London: Cambridge University Press, 1911).

Brian J. Wright, "Communal Reading in the Time of Jesus: A Window into Early Christian Reading Practices" (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2017).

Robert Louis Wilken, "The Christians as the Romans Saw Them" (2nd ed. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003).

English translations of Justin Martyr and Tertullian of Carthage are taken from, The Ante-Nicene Fathers. Edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. 1885–1887. 10 vols.

English translation of Josephus taken from the translation of William Whiston located at http://penelope.uchicago.edu/josephus/index.html

Celsus on the Corruption of Scripture

Celsus was a pagan philosopher who flourished in the last half of the second century. He was a brilliant opponent of Christianity who had intimate knowledge of the Christian scriptures. Sometime around 180 CE he penned a refutation of the Christian religion, "On The True Doctrine." No known copies of this work survive in any manuscript, however, Origen (184-254 CE) preserves most of the work in his treatise against Celsus. “On The True Doctrine” is valuable as a window into the 2nd century Roman perspective of Christians.

Near the beginning of the work Celsus accused Christians of altering their scriptures in order to remove contradictions and difficult passages.

"It is clear to me that the writings of the Christians are a lie, and that your fables have not been well enough constructed to conceal this monstrous fiction. I have even heard that some of your interpreters, as if they had just come out of a tavern, are onto the inconsistencies and, pen in hand, alter the original writings three, four, and several more times over in order to be able to deny the contradictions in the face of criticism.” (On the True Doctrine, 3; Hoffmann, pg. 64) 

It is difficult to determine exactly what circumstance Celsus is referring to, and he may be making an unfounded accusation in order to discredit their use of the scriptures. However, it may be that Celsus is making reference to Marcion and his alteration of the Pauline epistles and Luke.

At a couple of places in his treatise Celsus makes reference to the many differences and disputations between the various Christian communities. In the midst of a discussion about differing teachings about Jesus, he wrote that “some among the Christians—Marcion and his disciple Apelles for example — think that the creator is an inferior god,” and a little later, while talking about the many different sects in Christianity mentioned that some “call themselves Marcionites after their leader, Marcion” (On the True Doctrine, 6; Hoffmann, pg. 90-91).
For being an outsider, Celsus had incredible insight into the internecine conflict between the various groups within Christianity. It may be that Celsus was drawing a connection between a difference in doctrine and a deliberate alteration of Christian scriptural books. It is striking that Tertullian noted that;

"Corruption of the Scriptures and of their interpretation is to be expected wherever difference in doctrine is discovered. . . . Marcion openly and nakedly used the knife, not the pen, massacring Scripture to suit his own material.” (Prescript. 38)

It may be that Celsus, in accusing some Christians of altering their own scriptures, was referring to the widely known accusations against Marcion.

Saint Mark the Evangelist - Gabriel Mälesskircher, Museo Thyssen

_________________________

R. Joseph Hoffmann, tans. Celsus, On the true doctrine: a discourse against the Christians. New York: Oxford University Press, 1987.

S. L. Greenslade, ed. Early Latin Theology: Selections from Tertullian, Cyprian, Ambrose, and Jerome. 1956. Reprint, Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2006.

Galen and Papias on Forgery and Authorship

In a recent article in the Journal of Biblical Literature, Armin D. Baum published a response to Bart Ehrman's book, "Forgery and Counterforgery: The Use of Literary Deceit in Early Christian Polemics" (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012).

"Content and Form: Authorship Attribution and Pseudonymity in Ancient Speeches, Letters, Lectures, and Translations —A Rejoinder to Bart Ehrman," JBL 136.2 (2017): 381–403.

In this article Baum cites several ancient Christian and non-Christian Greco-Roman primary sources to support his thesis that,

"Everywhere an authorial attribution was regarded as correct and nondeceptive if either the wording or the content of a particular text could be traced back to the author whose name it carried." (pg. 402)

In one interesting section, Baum discusses the Christian tradition that, even though Mark and Luke "composed" gospels that bore their names, Peter (for Mark) and Paul (for Luke), "were regarded as the intellectual authors of their contents (pg. 390)." Baum shows this attitude by siting the statements of Tertullian,

"That which Mark edited is stated to be Peter’s [Petri affirmetur], whose interpreter Mark was. Luke’s digest also they usually attribute to Paul [Paulo adscribere solent]. It is permissible for the works which disciples published to be regarded as belonging to their masters [Capit magistrorum videri quae discipuli promulgarint]." (Marc. 4.5.3–4)(Baum, pg. 390)

Another source not referenced by Baum support's this conclusion, Papias's (ca. 100-110 CE) statements on the composition of Mark.

"And the Elder used to say this: 'Mark, having become Peter's interpreter, wrote down accurately everything he remembered, though not in order, of the things either said or done by Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but afterward, as I said, followed Peter, who adapted his teachings as needed but had no intention of giving an ordered account of the Lord's sayings. Consequently Mark did nothing wrong in writing down some things as he remembered them, for he made it his one concern not omit anything which he heard or to make any false statement in them." (Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 3.39; Holmes, 569)

It is clear that, though Papias acknowledged that his gospel was composed and written down by Mark, he considered Peter as the true "intellectual author."
Galen (ca. 160s-170s CE), In the midst of analyzing the textual work and editions of two former Hippocratic scholars who were active in the first part of the second century, Galen wrote;

"A second book written in place of one formerly written is said to be revised (επιδιεσκευασθαι), when it has the same 'hypothesis'(υποθεσις) and most of the same words; some (of the words) taken out from the former work; some added; some altered. If you want an example of this for the sake of clarity, you have the second Autolycus of Eupolis revised from the former. Thus the doctors from Cnidus published the second 'Cnidian Opinions'in place of the former ones; some having the same in every way; but some added; some taken away; just as some altered. This then is the second book of Hippocrates which they say is more medical than the former." (Hipp. vict. acut. 120.5-14; Scherbenske's translation)

Though Galen is speaking specifically in reference to editing an ancient author's work, it is clear that Galen saw that a work was still considered to be that of the ancient authors as long as "some of the words" were still from the original author and that the editing did not alter the original ideas.
Thus, both Papias and Galen confirm Baum's conclusion that,

"Everywhere an authorial attribution was regarded as correct and nondeceptive if either the wording or the content of a particular text could be traced back to the author whose name it carried." (pg. 402)

_____________________________

Holmes, Michael W., ed. The Apostolic Fathers: Greek texts and English translations. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1999.

Scherbenske, Eric W. Canonizing Paul: Ancient Editorial Practice and the Corpus Paulinum (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), 39

The Staurogram and The Epistle of Barnabas: Further Discussion

In a previous post, the comments of Dr. Brent Nongbri in reference to the staurogram and its place in a third century manuscript were taken up. At issue is whether Christian scribes of the second and third centuries were experimenting with images of Jesus on the cross in their art and worship practices. Dr. Nonbgri argued that,

"At the very least, such experimentation with cruciform imagery [in the staurogram] would appear less out of place in the fourth century than in the late second or early third century. (pg. 33-34)"

These observations are striking when looking at the many references in early Christian writings of the second and third century; Minucius Felix, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, and the author of the Epistle of Barnabas. These authors mention the cross and cross shapes as venerated symbols of Christian identity. Yet, it is argued by Nongbri, each of these early Christian examples are merely allusions to the cross and its shape and not to the image of the crucified Jesus, which scholars purport the staurogram to be.
There was an oft repeated story in early Christian literature that may serve to illustrate that the image of Jesus as a crucified figure on the cross was a familiar Christian icon. In the Epistle of Barnabas, reference is made to the story of Israel defeating the armies of Amalek in Exodus 17:8-13. In this account, Moses lifted up his hands as a sign to the Lord; when his hands were held aloft, Israel was victorious, when his hands fell to his side, Amalek was victorious. Aaron and Hur eventually held Moses' hands aloft as he grew weary and the Israelites won the battle. In light of this story, the Epistle of Barnabas (70-135 CE) wrote;

"Once again you have a reference about the cross and about him who was destined to be crucified. And again he speaks to Moses, when war was being waged against Israel by foreigners, and in order that he might remind those being attacked that they had been handed over to death because of their sins, the Spirit says to the heart of Moses that he should make a symbol of the cross and of him who was destined to suffer because, he is saying, unless they place their hope in him, war shall be waged against them forever. Therefore Moses piled one shield upon another in the midst of the battle, and standing high above them all he stretched out his hands, and so Israel was again victorious. But whenever he lowered them, the men began to be killed. Why so? So that they might learn that they cannot be saved unless they place their hope in him. (12:1-3)"

There are some aspects of this story that bear reflection. First, the Epistle of Barnabas assumes that Moses raised his hands horizontally, in the shape of the cross, and this is mentioned in such a way that this must have been a familiar Christian interpretation of this story. And second, the Epistle of Barnabas specifically references this as a symbol of the crucified Jesus and not just of the cross. At one point Barnabas uses the word "suffer" (πασχειν) (12:2) and the middle/passive infinitive (σταυρουσθαι) to refer to this event as a reference to Jesus (12:1). It is clear that Barnabas was viewing the imagery of Moses standing with arms outstretched as a visual representation of Jesus suffering on the cross.

Moses with outstretched hands as a symbol of Jesus on the cross

This story in Barnabas is set in the midst of several allegorical references to the cross that were found in the familiar passages and stories of the Old Testament. At Barnabas 8:1,5; 9:7; 11:1,8; and 13:5. In each of these other references the cross is mentioned as a stand alone representation of salvation with no visualization of the crucified Jesus. However, at 12:1-3, specific mention is made to the imagery of Moses with outstretched hands as a visual representation of the suffering Jesus on the cross.
Though, there is no specific reference to scribes taking this iconography and creating a staurogram, the impetus for doing so is already present in Barnabas some 80-100 years before it is found, represented by the staurogram, in the texts of P66, P45, and P75. The reverence for Jesus and the cross was already tied to a textual representation in the nomina sacra at Barn. 9:7-8. It takes no stretch of the imagination to conclude that a visual representation of Jesus on the cross, as found at Barn. 12:1-3, would find expression in a staurogram.

_______________ 
 

Holmes, Michael W., ed. The Apostolic Fathers: Greek texts and English translations. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1999.

Hurtado, Larry W. Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005.

Hurtado, Larry W. The Earliest Christian Artifacts: Manuscripts and Christian Origins. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006.

Longenecker, Bruce W. The Cross Before Constantine The Early Life of a Christian Symbol. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2015.

Nongbri, Brent. “The Limits of Palaeographic Dating of Literary Papyri: Some Observations on the Date and Provenance of P. Bodmer II (P66),” Museum Helveticum 71 (2014): 1-35.

P. Bodmer II (P66), and the Staurogram

During the last few years there has been a pushback against some of the early dates posited for Christian New Testament papyri. Scholars such as Pasquale Orsini, Willy Clarysse, Don Barker, Roger Bagnall, and Brent Nongbri have criticized the theological and apologetic motivations behind some of these early dates. To be sure, many of these criticisms are valid as there have been some extraordinarily early and narrow dating ranges proposed for a few of the papyri such as P46 (an early collection of Paul's epistles) and P52 (an early copy of the Gospel of John). However, in regard to a few of these recent pushbacks, perhaps the pendulum has swung too far in the other direction. This can be seen in Brent Nongbri's article,

“The Limits of Palaeographic Dating of Literary Papyri: Some Observations on the Date and Provenance of P. Bodmer II (P66),” Museum Helveticum 71 (2014): 1-35."

In this piece Nongbri criticized the narrow "ca. 200 CE" date traditionally assigned to P. Bodmer II (here after simply referred to as P66), contending that palaeography does not allow for such a narrow time frame. Instead, he argued, palaeography only permits a date of composition sometime between the late second century and the early fourth century CE. Nongbri then examined the codicological evidence and provenance to propose a date at the later end of this range, that is, a date in the early fourth century. While the article masterfully questioned the warrant for the traditional dating of P66, I was surprised to find the following comments concerning the presence of the staurogram in the manuscript;

At several points in the fragmentary final pages of P.Bodmer II, forms of the terms σταυρος and σταυροω are abbreviated in a manner that involves combining the letters tau and rho to form a monogram, generally referred to as a staurogram. . . . Larry Hurtado and others have plausibly argued that these examples of the staurogram should be interpreted as visual representation of the crucifixion of Jesus. If this understanding is correct, then this fact would point to a date for the production of this codex in the fourth century, when Christian use of the imagery of crucifixion begins to become more common. Hurtado, assuming a date of “ca. 200 CE” for P.Bodmer II, argued that the appearance of the staurogram in this manuscript, and in the Chester Beatty Gospels-Acts codex (P45) and P.Bodmer XIV-XV (P75), provided proof of Christian use of the imagery of the crucifixion in the form of the tau-rho monogram at least as early as the final decades of the second century, and quite plausibly somewhat earlier. Yet, in light of the evidence laid out above, it would seem more prudent to interpret this feature as further support for a fourth century date for P.Bodmer II. At the very least, such experimentation with cruciform imagery would appear less out of place in the fourth century than in the late second or early third century. (pg. 33-34)

What surprised me was Nongbri's declaration that the staurogram "would appear less out of place in the fourth century than in the late second or early third century." Does Nongbri's assertion accurately reflect Christian attitudes in the second and third centuries? Would second and third century Christians be unlikely to visualize their reverence for the crucifixion in a pictogram embedded in the text of a Biblical manuscript? In order to answer these questions the discussion will now turn to a few Christian authors of the second and third centuries.

Marcus Minucius Felix (ca. 210 CE)
Very little is known about the Christian apologist Marcus Minucius Felix. According to Jerome, Minucius Felix lived in Rome and worked as a "solicitor" (Vir. ill. 58). He is known exclusively through his sole surviving work known simply as Octavius. The date of Octavius is uncertain, and scholars have placed its composition somewhere between the late second century and the early third century. In other words, its composition is roughly contemporaneous with the traditional "ca. 200 CE" dating of P66. The writing records a dialogue between two protagonists, the pagan Caecilius Natalis and the Christian Octavius Januarius with Marcus Minucius Felix acting as the moderator. During the interchange, Caecilius accused Christians of several debase acts. One of these detestable acts he described as follows;

I know not whether these things are false; certainly suspicion is applicable to secret and nocturnal rites; and he who explains their ceremonies by reference to a man punished by extreme suffering for his wickedness, and to the deadly wood of the cross, appropriates fitting altars for reprobate and wicked men, that they may worship what they deserve. (Oct. 9; ANF 4:177)

Caecilius made note that Christians worshiped the cross and the cruel act of crucifixion. In response to these charges, Octavius countered;

For in that you attribute to our religion the worship of a criminal and his cross, you wander far from the neighbourhood of the truth, in thinking either that a criminal deserved, or that an earthly being was able, to be believed God. . . . Crosses, moreover, we neither worship nor wish for. You, indeed, who consecrate gods of wood, adore wooden crosses perhaps as parts of your gods. For your very standards, as well as your banners; and flags of your camp, what else are they but crosses gilded and adorned? Your victorious trophies not only imitate the appearance of a simple cross, but also that of a man affixed to it. We assuredly see the sign of a cross, naturally, in the ship when it is carried along with swelling sails, when it glides forward with expanded oars; and when the military yoke is lifted up, it is the sign of a cross; and when a man adores God with a pure mind, with hands outstretched. Thus the sign of the cross either is sustained by a natural reason, or your own religion is formed with respect to it.(Oct. 29; ANF 4:191).

Octavius denied that Christians worshiped a criminal and his cross, but rather, they worshiped Jesus as God, and his provision of eternal salvation found in the crucifixion. What is interesting in Octavius' response is his reference to the "T" or cross shapes that can be seen in the various objects described. Octavius was pointing to a familiar Christian symbol, "the sign of the cross," and pagans unknowingly worshiped the crucifixion through these hidden cross symbols that could be found in every day objects.
The symbol of a cross must have been commonly associated with late second and early third century Christians in Rome, otherwise Caecilius' accusations and Octavius' rebuttal would make little sense.

Tertullian of Carthage (ca. 145-220 CE)
In the midst of a plea that tradition should have some authority in Christian practice, Tertullian mentioned a curious Christian tradition,

At every forward step and movement, at every going in and out, when we put on our clothes and shoes, when we bathe, when we sit at table, when we light the lamps, on couch, on seat, in all the ordinary actions of daily life, we trace upon the forehead the sign. (Cor. 3; ANF 3:94–95)

The sign that Tertullian was referring to was the cross or "T" shaped symbol traced upon the forehead. In his famous Apology, Tertullian mentioned the symbol of the cross as a familiar aspect of Christian worship in North Africa.

Then, if any of you think we render superstitious adoration to the cross, in that adoration he is sharer with us. . . . We have shown before that your deities are derived from shapes modeled from the cross. But you also worship victories, for in your trophies the cross is the heart of the trophy. The camp religion of the Romans is all through a worship of the standards, a setting the standards above all gods. Well, as those images decking out the standards are ornaments of crosses. All those hangings of your standards and banners are robes of crosses. I praise your zeal: you would not consecrate crosses unclothed and unadorned. (Apol. 16; ANF 3:31)

With a little humor mixed in Tertullian was making a similar argument that Minucius Felix made through the mouth of Octavius, that is, the cross, or "T" shaped symbol, could be seen throughout many venerated pagan objects. Thus, pagans inadvertently worshiped the crucifixion in the same manner as Christians.
In North Africa, during the same time period as the traditional date given to P66, "ca. 200 CE," Tertullian could confidently refer to the cross, or "T" shaped symbol as an intricate component of Christian worship and practice.

Clement of Alexandria (ca. 153-217 CE) and the Epistle of Barnabas (ca. 70-135 CE)
In his third work on the Christian life, Stromata ("miscellaneous"), Clement loosely quoted from an even earlier Christian source, the Epistle of Barnabas. Both Christian writings referred to a passage found at Genesis 14:14.,

When Abram heard that his relative had been taken captive, he led out his trained men, born in his house, three hundred and eighteen, and went in pursuit as far as Dan. (NASB)

In the Greek number system 300 was designated by the Greek letter tau, a "T" shaped letter, and 18 was designated by the Greek letter combination iota and eta. In the majascule hand used in Biblical manuscripts of the day, the number 18 would have looked like "IH" which was a common abbreviated nomina sacra form of Jesus' name found in New Testament manuscripts of the second and third centuries. The "T" shape of the tau was seen as representing the cross, and thus, salvation by the death of Jesus on the cross (see the discussion in Larry Hurtado's Earliest Christian Artifacts, 113-114).
In the midst of discussing Christian symbology, Clement, in his Stromata, wrote concerning Genesis 14:14,

As then in astronomy we have Abraham as an instance, so also in arithmetic we have the same Abraham.“For, hearing that Lot was taken captive, and having numbered his own servants, born in his house, 318,” he defeats a very great number of the enemy. They say, then, that the character representing 300 is, as to shape, the type of the Lord’s sign, and that the Iota and the Eta indicate the Saviour’s name; that it was indicated, accordingly, that Abraham’s domestics were in salvation, who having fled to the Sign and the Name became lords of the captives, and of the very many unbelieving nations that followed them. (Strom. 6.11; ANF 2:500)

The cross, or "T" shaped symbol, had become so familiar in Alexandrian Christianity that Clement could simply refer to it as "the Lord's sign."
The author of the Epistle of Barnabas, writing nearly one hundred years earlier than Clement, referred to this account in Genesis 14:14 (and 17:23) in the following manner,

Learn abundantly, therefore, children of love, about everything: Abraham, who first instituted circumcision, looked forward in the spirit to Jesus when he circumcised, having received the teaching of the three letters. For it says: "And Abaraham circumcised ten and eight and three hundred men of his household." What, then, is the knowledge that was given to him? Observe that it mentions the "ten and eight" first, and then after an interval the "three hundred." As for the "ten and eight," the I is ten and the H is eight; thus you have "Jesus." And because the cross, which is shaped like the T, was  destined to convey grace, it mentions also the "three hundred." So he reveals Jesus in the two letters, and the cross in the other one. He who placed within us the implanted gift of his covenant understands. (Barn. 9.7-8; Holmes, Apostolic Fathers, 299)

As early as the beginning of the second century, the author of the Epistle of Barnabas could discuss the "T" shaped form of the Greek letter tau that all Christians would recognize as a clear reference to the cross, and salvation. Therefore, nearly one hundred years before the traditional date of "ca. 200 CE" assigned to P66, Christians were drawing theological meaning and worshipful devotion from the "T" shaped cross symbol.

Conclusion
As can be seen from the discussion above, for Christians of the second and third centuries, the cross, or "T" shape, had significant meaning as a visual representation of the salvation found in Jesus' crucifixion. Thus, Christians saw the cross in many "T" shaped objects of everyday life, and therefore drew spiritual meaning from this crucifix symbol. Christians made the sign of the cross on their foreheads at the beginning of the third century and drew theological and spiritual meaning from "T" shape of the Greek letter tau in their Biblical manuscripts from at least the beginning of the second century onward.
Very often, Christian worship practices found expression in the manner in which they manufactured their New Testament manuscripts. The public reading of the Old and New Testaments was clearly referenced as early as Justin Martyr in Rome (Apol. 1.67; ca. 140 CE), and was alluded to in the first century writings of Paul (see previous post). This aspect of Christian public reading of scriptures can be seen in the copious reading aids found in Biblical manuscripts of the second and third centuries and beyond. Coupled with this, Jesus and God were revered and worshiped in Christianity from the first century onward (see Larry Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ). This worship and devotion can be seen expressed in the nomina sacra abbreviations used in the Christian papyri of the second and third century and beyond.
If each of these central Christian practices found expression in the manufacture of their Biblical papyri, then, we should see some form of this early Christian reverence for the cross, or "T" shape, in the Biblical papyri as well. Therefore, the staurogram appears in several manuscripts near the "ca. 200 CE" time period that the cross, or "T" shape, is expressed as having significance in Christian devotion by Minucius Felix, Tertullian, and Clement. Namely, the New Testament codices P66, P45, and P75. Contrary to the doubts expressed by Brent Nongbri, the staurogram is not "out of place," but rather is right at home, in second and third century Christianity.

_____________________

References Cited

Holmes, Michael W., ed. The Apostolic Fathers: Greek texts and English translations. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1999.

Hurtado, Larry W. Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005.

Hurtado, Larry W. The Earliest Christian Artifacts: Manuscripts and Christian Origins. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006.

Nongbri, Brent. “The Limits of Palaeographic Dating of Literary Papyri: Some Observations on the Date and Provenance of P. Bodmer II (P66),” Museum Helveticum 71 (2014): 1-35.

P. Bodmer II, P66, at John Chapter 1

The Staurogram in P75 at Luke 14:27