Forgery and Counterforgery: The Use of Literary Deceit in Early Christian Polemics (133 page)

63
. For example, Lightfoot argues that the author speaks of the Son as “begotten before the Ages.” But he admits that most Arians would have no trouble saying that as well. He indicates that the author condemns those who see Christ as a mere man as well as those who deny that he is God; that too could be and was part of Arian polemic. And he points out that the author calls Christ “God”—but so too do Arians. Lightfoot also maintains that Arians would not consider Christ “unchangeable” by nature (on the basis of a passage in the Thalia); but Perler has argued that whereas extreme Arians may not have made the claim, those like Eusebius of Caesarea easily could have done so (Othmar Perler, “Die Briefe des Ignatius von Antiochian: Frage der Echtheit—neue, arabische Übersetzung,”
FZPhTh
18, 1971, 381–96). At the end of the day, the author simply uses too much “Arian” language to be dismissed.

64
. For the fullest and best synthesis of Marcellus’s life and theology, see Lienhard,
Contra Marcellum;
in addition see Ayres,
Niceae
, pp. 62–69.

65
. That he was not a Nicene of Apollinarian leanings was shown long ago, especially in Amelungk’s refutation of Funk, “Untersuchung”; his conclusion stands close to the position staked out here; pp. 521–22. What he does not realize is that the subtle views are set up by the smokescreen. See also Light-foot,
Apostolic Fathers
,
part 2
, vol. 1, pp. 254–61.

66
. Others who have seen the author as an Arian of a more-or-less-Eusebian mode include Perler, “Die Briefe des Ignatius von Antiochian,” pp. 381–96, with Perler earlier making a more specific proposal, in “Pseudo-Ignatius”; and K. J. Woollcombe, “The Doctrinal Connexions of the Pseudo-Ignatian Letters,”
StPatr
6 (1962): 269–73. Amelungk has helpfully deduced a large number of parallels between the Pseudo-Ignatians and the Ekthesis makrostichos in particular, possibly a source for Julian’s work; see the tabular results in Amelungk, “Untersuchungen,” pp. 573–81.

67
. On the famous textual problem, where scribes nervous about the claim being taken in a Gnostic way added a negative, so that now the Word does
not
come forth from “Sige,” see Lightfoot,
Apostolic Fathers
,
part 2
, vol. 2, pp. 126–28.

68
. Translation mine.

69
.
Apostolic Fathers
,
part 2
, vol. 1, p. 268.

70
. On Marcellus’s views, see Lienhard
Marcellus
, p. 218.

71
. See ibid., pp. 210–40.

72
. Apollinarius saw the Logos as taking the place of the
or
not the
, though the matter came to be complicated in later Apollinarians. Other aspects of the author’s teaching, however, seem to distance him from Apollinarius. See further Lightfoot,
Apostolic Fathers
,
part 2
, vol. 1, pp. 271–73, and note 65 above.

73
. “Pseudo-Ignatius und Eusebius von Emesa,” pp. 80–81.

74
. N. Brox, “Pseudo-Paulus.”

75
. On the use of “the Jew” as a convenient label against fellow Christians in fourth-century controversies, see, e.g., Christine Shepardson,
Anti-Judaism and Christian Orthodoxy: Ephrem’s Hymns in Fourth Century Syria
(Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2008).

76
. See for example Robert Wilken,
John Chrysostom and the Jews: Rhetoric and Reality in the Fourth Century
(Berkeley: University of California, 1983).

I
n the preceding chapters I have focused on Christian forgeries that attack views thought to be problematic or dangerous—the standard province of polemics. The obverse of the battle coin is apologia, the defense put up against the attacks of others.
¹
Early Christian forgeries were used in the intellectual defense of the faith against non-Christian opponents, and it is that apologetic function of forged writings that I will consider in this chapter.
²

Several of the forgeries I have already discussed may well have functioned, in one sense or another, apologetically.

The Acts of the Apostles, a non-pseudepigraphic forgery that strives, among other things, to champion Paul, his message, and his mission, has often been read as an apology of sorts, not just for Paul (and Jesus) but for the Christian movement as
a whole.
³
To some extent, though not completely, this apologetic thrust hinges on the identification of Theophilus. If he is thought of as a Roman official of some kind—whether an actual figure or one dreamt up for the occasion—it would make sense that the history of the Christian church that follows would be oriented toward convincing him that the movement comes from God, that there is nothing illegal or immoral about it, that its success is evidence of its truth claims, and that any social conflict that has erupted with its appearance is due not to rabble-rousers among the Christians but to the recalcitrant Jews who have rejected not only God but also his messiah and the people who follow him. This bilateral approach that sets its apologetic sights on both pagans, to whom apology is made, and Jews, who are faulted and condemned in the process, became a regular feature of the early Christian apologetic literature, for reasons that are not hard to fathom. For Christian thinkers intent on establishing the legitimacy of the religion as ancient only one real option was available: to present the Christian faith as the “true” form of Judaism, a religion that could be traced as far back as Moses—who lived four centuries before the pagan Homer—and beyond him all the way to Abraham. In a world that respected antiquity and suspected novelty, Judaism was a religion with venerable roots, and Christians needed to claim them as their own. It was a claim hard to sustain, given the thriving communities of non-Christian Jews, far outnumbering the followers of Jesus, legitimately able to claim themselves to be “true” Jews. They, unlike most Christians, actually followed Jewish laws and traditions. And if they were the Jews, what were the Christians but a set of interlopers who tried to usurp Israel’s rightful place as the people of the one Creator God? As a matter of survival, then, Christian apologists had to attack contemporary Judaism as an aberrant form of the faith that descended from Abraham and Moses.

This is one of the factors that led to the early animosities between Jews and Christians, and it played itself out narratively not just in the minds of Christians but also on the written page, in a book such as Acts which portrays the Jews in a negative light, blaming them for the Christians’ woes and portraying them as troublemakers who have refused to accept the true prophet and messiah sent from their own God. The persecution of Christians in this book does not usually originate with Roman mobs or officials incensed at the claims made for Jesus. It almost always originates with Jews, who have rejected their own messiah.
⁴
Thus the apologetic function of the book depends in part on its castigation of Jews and the true religion that they belligerently refuse to embrace.

And so the book absolves Christians—especially the apostles, and in particular Paul—of any wrongdoing. The apologetic
Tendenz
is seen especially in the speeches delivered to pagan officials in the book, speeches that dominate the final quarter of the narrative in the episodes of Paul on trial. These speeches are not
historical recollections; they are apologetic models for Christian readers who also needed to defend themselves against charges that the author considered unfair and unjustified. The Christians have done nothing to rouse the ire of the state; they are simply following the true understanding of the Jewish faith made available now with the coming of the messiah. Any social unrest that accompanies the movement originates with the wicked machinations of unbelieving Jews.

We will see this correlation of antagonism to Jews and apology to gentiles in such works as the Acts of Pilate, the Martyrdom of Polycarp, and the Sibylline Oracles. In the case of the Acts of the Apostles, the intertwined themes are connected to the identity of the pseudonymous author. He is not simply someone who is basing his work on hearsay. He has done substantial research into the matter (Luke 1:1–4), and more than that, he was personally there to see how the principal figure in his narrative—the apostle Paul himself—engendered unwarranted hatred by the Jews, leading to his arrest and trials, where he delivered his apologetic addresses. The alleged author, then, is well situated to show that the followers of Jesus are no threat to the social order.

Another forgery that is both closely connected with Paul and related to issues of apologia is the letter of 1 Peter.
⁵
Unlike Acts, 1 Peter is not principally framed to convey an apologetic message; it instead gives instructions for Christians confronted with animosity and opposition, urging them to behave in ways that reveal their innocence in the face of charges—unofficial, in this case—brought against them: “Be prepared at all times to provide an apologia to everyone who asks you for a word concerning the hope that is in you” (3:15). As noted earlier, the book is especially obsessed with the issue of Christian persecution and suffering. The author is particularly concerned that Christians suffer only for doing what is right, not what is wrong (3:17). Suffering “as a Christian” is to be expected, since Christ himself had to suffer (3:18). But his followers should suffer for their faith, not because they have done anything to incur legitimate animosity: “For what credit is there if you sin and suffer for it, but endure it? But if you do what is good and suffer, and endure it, this is acceptable to God” (2:20). Christians are to lead moral and upright lives, in no small measure because doing so may pay the ultimate apologetic reward of leading others to join the faith: “Abstain from the fleshly passions which do battle against your soul; keep your conduct good among the gentiles, so that when they malign you as evil doers they may see your good works and give glory to God on the day of visitation” (2:11–12).

The Christians’ behavior should not merely be acceptable to outsiders, it should be exemplary. They should “no longer live according to human passions
but according to the will of God” (4:2). In this they display a newness of life that should attract the right kind of attention:

The time that is already past is sufficient to fulfill the will of the gentiles, participating in licentiousness, passions, drunkenness, revels, drinking parties, and lawless idolatries. They are surprised when you do not run around with them in the same wild profligacy, and they blaspheme—but they will render an account to the one who is ready to judge the living and the dead. (4:3–4).

In addition, Christians are to subject themselves to every civil authority (2:13–14), “for it is the will of God that by doing good you might silence the ignorance of the foolish” (2:15). On the home front, Christians are to follow established lines of authority. Slaves are to obey masters (2:18) and women are to be submissive to husbands, “so that if some are disobedient to the word, they might be gained through the behavior of their wives without them saying a word” (3:1). In short, believers are to be model citizens, slaves, and spouses; they should not break the law or acceptable moral codes (4:15); but if they suffer “as a Christian” that is all to the good, as in the long run it may have a positive effect, for both sufferer and oppressor (3:16–17).