Dogma1 PDF

History of Dogma - Volume I
by
Adolf Harnack
About History of Dogma - Volume I by Adolf Harnack

Title:
URL:
Author(s):
Publisher:
Date Created:
General Comments:
CCEL Subjects:
LC Call no:
LC Subjects:

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/harnack/dogma1.html
Harnack, Adolf (1851-1930)
Grand Rapids, MI: Christian Classics Ethereal Library
2005-02-20
(tr. Neil Buchanan)
All; Theology; History
BT21.H33 V.1
Doctrinal theology
Doctrine and dogma
Adolf Harnack
Table of Contents
About This Book. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . p. ii
Title Page. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . p. 1
Volume I.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . p. 2
Prefatory Material. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . p. 2
Introductory Division. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . p. 11
Chapter I. Prolegomena to the Discipline of the History of Dogma. . . . . p. 12
Chapter II. The Presuppositions of the History of Dogma. . . . . . . . . . p. 34
Supplementary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . p. 85
The Genesis of the Ecclesiastical Dogma, or the Genesis of the Catholic
Apostolic Dogmatic Theology and the First Scientific Ecclesiastical System
of Doctrine. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . p. 89
Chapter I. Historical Survey. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . p. 90
Chapter II. The Element Common to All Christians and the Breach with
Judaism. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . p. 93
Chapter III. The Common Faith and the Beginnings of Knowledge in
Gentile Christianity as It Was Being Developed into Catholicism. . . . . p. 95
Chapter IV. The Attempts of the Gnostics to Create an Apostolic Dogmatic,
and a Christian Theology; or, the Acute Secularising of Christianity. . . . p. 138
Chapter V. Marcions Attempt to Set Aside the Old Testament Foundation
of Christianity to Purify Tradition, and to Reform Christendom on Basis
of Pauline Gospel. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . p. 163
Chapter VI. The Christianity of Jewish Christians, Definition of the Notion
of Jewish Christianity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . p. 175
Appendices. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . p. 193
Appendix I. On the Conception of Pre-existence. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . p. 193
Appendix II. On Liturgies and the Genesis of Dogma. . . . . . . . . . . . p. 201
Appendix III. On Neoplatonism. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . p. 203
Indexes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . p. 220
Index of Scripture References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . p. 220
Greek Words and Phrases. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . p. 221
Latin Words and Phrases. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . p. 241
Index of Pages of the Print Edition. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . p. 247
iii
Adolf Harnack
iv
Adolf Harnack
HISTORY OF DOGMA
BY
DR. ADOLPH HARNACK

ORDINARY PROF. OF CHURCH HISTORY IN THE UNIVERSITY, AND FELLOW OF THE ROYAL
ACADEMY OF SCIENCE, BERLIN
TRANSLATED FROM THE THIRD GERMAN

EDITION
BY
NEIL BUCHANAN
VOLUME I
iv
Adolf Harnack
VORWORT ZUR ENGLISCHEN AUSGABE.

Ein theologisches Buch erhlt erst dadurch einen Platz in der Weltlitteratur, dass es Deutsch und
Englisch gelesen werden kann. Diese beiden Sprachen zusammen haben auf dem Gebiete der
Wissenschaft vom Christenthum das Lateinische abgelst. Es ist mir daher eine grosse Freude, dass
mein Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte in das Englische bersetzt worden ist, und ich sage dem
Uebersetzer sowie den Verlegern meinen besten Dank.
Der schwierigste Theil der Dogmengeschichte ist ihr Anfang, nicht nur weil in dem Anfang die
Keime fur alle spteren Entwickelungen liegen, und daher ein Beobachtungsfehler beim Beginn
die Richtigkeit der ganzen folgenden Darstellung bedroht, sondern auch desshalb, weil die Auswahl
des wichtigsten Stoffs aus der Geschichte des Urchristenthums und der biblischen Theologie ein
schweres Problem ist. Der Eine wird finden, dass ich zu viel in das Buch aufgenommen habe, und
der Andere zu wenigvielleicht haben Beide recht; ich kann dagegen nur anfhren, dass sich mir
die getroffene Auswahl nach wiederholtem Nachdenken und Experimentiren aufs Neue erprobt
hat.
vi
Wer ein theologisches Buch aufschlagt, fragt gewhnlich zuerst nach dem Standpunkt des
Verfassers. Bei geschichtlichen Darstellungen sollte man so nicht fragen. Hier handelt es sich
darum, ob der Verfasser einen Sinn hat fr den Gegenstand den er darstellt, ob er Originales und
Abgeleitetes zu unterscheiden versteht, ob er seinen Stoff volkommen kennt, ob er sich der Grenzen
des geschichtlichen Wissens bewusst ist, und ob er wahrhaftig ist. Diese Forderungen erhalten den
kategorischen Imperativ fr den Historiker; aber nur indem man rastlos an sich selber arbeitet, sind
sie zu erfllen,so ist jede geschichtliche Darstellung eine ethische Aufgabe. Der Historiker treu
sein: ob er das gewesen ist, darnach soll mann fragen.
Berlin, am 1. Mai, 1894.
ADOLF HARNACK.
vii
THE AUTHORS PREFACE TO THE ENGLISH EDITION.

No theological book can obtain a place in the literature of the world unless it can be read both in
German and in English. These two languages combined have taken the place of Latin in the sphere
of Christian Science. I am therefore greatly pleased to learn that my History of Dogma has been
translated into English, and I offer my warmest thanks both to the translator and to the publishers.
The most difficult part of the history of dogma is the beginning, not only because it contains the
germs of all later developments, and therefore an error in observation here endangers the correctness
of the whole following account, but also because the selection of the most important material from
the history of primitive Christianity and biblical theology is a hard problem. Some will think that
I have admitted too much into the book, others too little. Perhaps both are right. I can only reply
that after repeated consideration and experiment I continue to be satisfied with my selection.
viii
Adolf Harnack
In taking up a theological book we are in the habit of enquiring first of all as to the stand-point
of the Author. In a historical work there is no room for such enquiry. The question here is, whether
the Author is in sympathy with the subject about which he writes, whether he can distinguish
original elements from those that are derived, whether he has a thorough acquaintance with his
material, whether he is conscious of the limits of historical knowledge, and whether he is truthful.
These requirements constitute the categorical imperative for the historian: but they can only be
fulfilled by an unwearied self-discipline. Hence every historical study is an ethical task. The historian
ought to be faithful in every sense of the word ; whether he has been so or not is the question on
which his readers have to decide.
Berlin, 1st May, 1894.
ADOLF HARNACK.
xix
FROM THE AUTHORS PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION.

The task of describing the genesis of ecclesiastical dogma which I have attempted to perform in
the following pages, has hitherto been proposed by very few scholars, and, properly speaking,
undertaken by one only. I must therefore crave the indulgence of those acquainted with the subject
for an attempt which no future historian of dogma can avoid.
At first I meant to confine myself to narrower limits, but I was unable to carry out that intention,
because the new arrangement of the material required a more detailed justification. Yet no one will
find in the book, which presupposes the knowledge of Church history so far as it is given in the
ordinary manuals, any repertory of the theological thought of Christian antiquity. The diversity of
Christian ideas, or of ideas closely related to Christianity, was very great in the first centuries. For
that very reason a selection was necessary; but it was required, above all, by the aim of the work.
The history of dogma has to give an account only of those doctrines of Christian writers which
were authoritative in wide circles, or which furthered the advance of the development; otherwise
it would become a collection of monographs, and thereby lose its proper value. I have endeavoured
to subordinate everything to the aim of exhibiting the development which led to the ecclesiastical
dogmas, and therefore have neither, for example, communicated the details of the gnostic systems,
nor brought forward in detail the theological ideas of Clemens Romanus, Ignatius, etc. Even a
history of Paulinism will be sought for in the book in vain. It is a task by itself, to trace the
after-effects of the theology of Paul in the post-Apostolic age. The History of Dogma can only
furnish fragments here; for it is not consistent with its task to give an accurate account of the history
of a theology the effects of which were at first very limited. It is certainly no easy matter to determine
what was authoritative in wide circles at the time when dogma was first being developed, and I
may confess that I have found the working out of the third chapter of the first book very difficult.
But I hope that the severe limitation in the material will be of service to the subject. If the result of
this limitation should be to lead students to read connectedly the manual which has grown out of
my lectures, my highest wish will be gratified.
Adolf Harnack
There can be no great objection to the appearance of a text-book on the history of dogma at the
present time. We now know in what direction we have to work; but we still want a history of
Christian theological ideas in their relation to contemporary philosophy. Above all, we have net
got an exact knowledge of the Hellenistic philosophical terminologies in their development up to
the fourth century. I have keenly felt this want, which can only be remedied by well-directed
common labour. I have made a plentiful use of the controversial treatise of Celsus against
Christianity, of which little use has hitherto been made for the history of dogma. On the other hand,
except in a few cases, I have deemed it inadmissible to adduce parallel passages, easy to be got,
from Philo, Seneca, Plutarch, Epictetus, Marcus Aurelius, Porphyry, etc.; for only a comparison
strictly carried out would have been of value here. I have been able neither to borrow such from
others, nor to furnish it myself. Yet I have ventured to submit my work, because, in my opinion, it
is possible to prove the dependence of dogma on the Greek spirit, without being compelled to enter
into a discussion of all the details.
The Publishers of the Encyclopedia Brittannica have allowed me to print here, in a form but slightly
altered, the articles on Neoplatonism and Manichism which I wrote for their work, and for this I
beg to thank them.
xi
It is now eighty-three years since my grandfather, Gustav Ewers, edited in German the excellent
manual on the earliest history of dogma by Mnter, and thereby got his name associated with the
history of the founding of the new study. May the work of the grandson be found not unworthy of
the clear and disciplined mind which presided over the beginnings of the young science.
Giessen, 1st August, 1885.
xii
AUTHORS PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION.

In the two years that have passed since the appearance of the first edition I have steadily kept in
view the improvement of this work, and have endeavoured to learn from the reviews of it that have
appeared. I owe most to the study of Weizsckers work on the Apostolic Age, and his notice of
the first edition of this volume in the Gttinger gelehrte Anzeigen, 1886, No. 21. The latter, in
several decisive passages concerning the general conception, drew my attention to the fact that I
had emphasised certain points too strongly, but had not given due prominence to others of equal
importance, while not entirely overlooking them. I have convinced myself that these hints were,
almost throughout, well founded, and have taken pains to meet them in the new edition. I have also
learned from Heinricis commentary on the Second Epistle to the Corinthians, and from Biggs
Lectures on the Christian Platonists of Alexandria. Apart from these works there has appeared
very little that could be of significance for my historical account; but I have once more independently
considered the main problems, and in some cases, after repeated reading of the sources, checked
my statements, removed mistakes and explained what had been to briefly stated. Thus, in particular,
Chapter II. 1-3 of the Presuppositions, also the Third Chapter of the First Book (especially
xiii
xiv
Adolf Harnack
Section 6), also in the Second Book, Chapter I. and Chapter II. (under B), the Third Chapter
(Supplement 3 and excursus on Catholic and Romish), the Fifth Chapter (under 1 and 3) and the
Sixth Chapter (under 2) have been subjected to changes and greater additions. Finally, a new
excursus has been added on the various modes of conceiving pre-existence, and in other respects
many things have been improved in detail. The size of the book has thereby been increased by
about fifty pages. As I have been misrepresented by some as one who knew not how to appreciate
the uniqueness of the Gospel history and the evangelic faith, while others have conversely reproached
me with making the history of dogma proceed from an apostasy from the Gospel to Hellenism,
I have taken pains to state my opinions on both these points as clearly as possible. In doing so I
have only wrought out the hints which were given in the first edition, and which, as I supposed,
were sufficient for readers. But it is surely a reasonable desire when I request the critics in reading
the paragraphs which treat of the Presuppositions, not to forget how difficult the questions there
dealt with are, both in themselves and from the nature of the sources, and how exposed to criticism
the historian is who attempts to unfold his position towards them in a few pages. As is self-evident,
the centre of gravity of the book lies in that which forms its subject proper, in the account of the
origin of dogma within the Grco-Roman empire. But one should not on that account, as many
have done, pass over the beginning which lies before the beginning, or arbitrarily adopt a
starting-point of his own; for everything here depends on where and how one begins. I have not
therefore been able to follow the well-meant counsel to simply strike out the Presuppositions.
I would gladly have responded to another advice to work up the notes into the text; but I would
then have been compelled to double the size of some chapters. The form of this book, in many
respects awkward, may continue as it is so long as it represents the difficulties by which the subject
is still pressed. When they have been removedand the smallest number of them lie in the subject
matterI will gladly break up this form of the book and try to give it another shape. For the friendly
reception given to it I have to offer my heartiest thanks. But against those who, believing themselves
in possession of a richer view of the history here related, have called my conception meagre, I
appeal to the beautiful words of Tertullian: Malumus in scripturis minus, si forte, sapere quam
contra.
Marburg, 24th December, 1887.
xv
AUTHORS PREFACE TO THE THIRD EDITION.

In the six years that have passed since the appearance of the second edition I have continued to
work at the book, and have made use of the new sources and investigations that have appeared
during this period, as well as corrected and extended my account in many passages. Yet I have not
found it necessary to make many changes in the second half of the work. The increase of about
sixty pages is almost entirely in the first half.
xvi
Berlin, 31st December, 1893.

.
, ,

5
Adolf Harnack
.
, .
Marcellus of Ancyra
Die Christliche Religion hat nichts in der Philosophie zu thun, Sie ist
ein mchtiges Wesen fr sich, woran die gesunkene und leidende
Menschheit von Zeit zu Zeit sich immer wieder emporgearbeitet
hat; und indem man ihr diese Wirkung zugesteht, ist sie ber aller
Philosophie erhaben und bedarf von ihr keine Sttze.
Gesprche mit Goethe von
Eckermann, Th. p. 39
CONTENTS.
xvii
Page
INTRODUCTORY DIVISION
CHAPTER I.Prolegomena to the Study of the History
140
1. The Idea and Task of the History of Dogma
123
Definition
Limits and Divisions
Dogma and Theology
Factors in the formation of Dogma
12
Explanation as to the conception and 13

task of the History of Dogma
2. History of the History of Dogma
2340
The Early, the Medival, and the 23

Roman Catholic Church
The Reformers and the 17th Century 25
Mosheim, Walch Ernesti
27
Lessing, Semler, Lange, Mnscher, 29

Baumgarten-Crusius, Meir
Baur, Neander, Kliefoth, Thomasius, 37
Nitzsch, Ritschl, Renan, Loofs
CHAPTER II.The Presuppositions of the History of Dogma
41136
4157
1. Introductory
The Gosppel and the Old Testament
41
The Detachment of the Christians from 43

the Jewish Church
Adolf Harnack
The Church and the Grco-Roman 45

World
The Greek spirit an element of the 47
Ecclesiastical Doctrine of Faith
xviii
The Elements connecting Primitive 50

Christianity and the growing
Catholic Church
The Presuppositions of the origin of 57
the Apostolic Catholic Doctrine of
Faith
2. The Gospel of Jesus Christ according to His own 5876

Testimony concerning Himself
Fundamental Features
58
Details
61
Supplements
70
Literature
75
3. The Common Preaching concerning Jesus Christ in 7698

the first generation of believers
General Outline
76
The faith of the first Disciples
78
The beginnings of Christology
80
Conceptions of the Work of Jesus
83
Belief in the Resurrection
84
Righteousness and the Law
86
Paul
86
The Self-consciousness of being the 88

Church of God
Supplement 1. Universalism
89
Supplement 2. Questions as to the 89

validity of the Law; the four main
tendencies at the close of the
Apostolic Age
Supplement 3. The Pauline Theology 92
Supplement 4. The Johannine Writings 95
Supplement 5. The Authorities in the 98
Church
Adolf Harnack
4. The current Exposition of the Old Testament and the 99107

Jewish hopes of the future, in their significance for the
Earliest types of Christian preaching
The Rabbinical
Methods
and
Exegetical 99
The Jewish Apocalyptic literature
100
Mythologies and poetical ideas, notions 102

of pre-existence and their application
to Messiah
The limits of the explicable
105
Literature
107
5. The Religious Conceptions and the Religious 107116

Philosophy of the Hellenistic Jews in their significance
for the later formulation of the Gospel
xix
Spiritualising and Moralising of the 107

Jewish Religion
Philo
109
The Hermeneutic principles of Philo 114

6. The religious dispositions of the Greeks and Romans 116129
in the first two centuries, and the current Grco-Roman
philosophy of religion
The new religious needs and the old 116

worship (Excursus on
The System of associations, and the 121
Empire
Philosophy and its acquisitions
122
Platonic and Stoic Elements in the 126

philiosophy of religion
Greek culture and Roman ideas in the 127
Church
The Empire and philosophic schools 128
(the Cynics)
Literature
128
SUPPLEMENTARY.
(1) The twofold conception of the blessing of Salvation in 129

its significance for the following period
(2) Obscurity in the origin of the most important Christian 132
ideas and Ecclesiastical forms
8
Adolf Harnack
(3) Significance of the Pauline theology for the legitimising 133

and reformation of the doctrine of the Church in the
following period
DIVISION I.The Genesis of Ecclesiastical Dogma, or the Genesis of the Catholic Apostolic
Dogmatic Theology, and the first Scientific Ecclesiastical System of Doctrine
BOOK I.
THE PREPARATION.
CHAPTER I.Historical Survey
141144
CHAPTER II.The Element common to all Christians and the breach with 145149
Judaism
CHAPTER III.The Common Faith and the Beginnings of Knowledge in 150222
Gentile Christianity as it was being developed into Catholicism
(1) The Communities and the Church
150
xx
(2) The Foundation of the Faith; the Old Testament, and 155
the traditions about Jesus (sayings of Jesus, the Kerygma
about Jesus), the significance of the Apostolic
(3) The main articles of Christianity and the conceptions 163
of salvation. The new law. Eschatology.
(4) The Old Testament as source of the knowledge of faith 175
(5) The knowledge of God and of the world, estimate of 180
the world (Demons)
(6) Faith in Jesus Christ
183
Jesus the Lord
183
Jesus the Christ
184
Jesus the Son of God, the Theologia 186

Christi
The Adoptian and the Pneumatic 190
Christology
Ideas of Christs work
199
(7) The Worship, the sacred actions, and the organization 204
of the Churches
The Worship and Sacrifice
204
Baptism and the Lords Supper
207
The organization
214
SUPPLEMENTARY.
9
Adolf Harnack
The premises of Catholicism
Doctrinal diversities of the Apostolic 218

Fathers
CHAPTER IV.The attempts of the Gnostics to create an Apostolic Dogmatic,

and a Christian theology; or the acute secularising of Christianity
218
223266
(1) The conditions for the rise of Gnosticism
223
(2) The nature of Gnosticism
227
(3) History of Gnosticism and the forms in which it 238

appeared
(4) The most important Gnostic doctrines
CHAPTER V.The attempt of Marcion to set aside the Old Testament
foundation of Christianity, to purify the tradition and reform Christendom
on the basis of the Pauline Gospel
Characterisation of Marcions attempt
253
267286
267
xxi
(1)
His estimate of the Old Testament and 271

the god of the Jews
(2)
The God of the Gospel
(3)
The relation of the two Gods according 274

to Marcion
The Gnostic woof in Marcions 275

Christianity
(4)
The Christology
275
(5)
Eschatology and Ethics
277
(6)
Criticism of the Christian tradition, the 278

Marcionite Church
Remarks
CHAPTER VI.The Christianity of Jewish Christians, Definition of the notion

Jewish Christianity
Characterisation of Marcions attempt
272
282
287317
267
(1)
General conditions for the development 287

of Jewish Christianity
(2)
Jewish Christianity and the Catholic 289

Church, insignificance of Jewish
Christianity,
Judaising
in
Catholicism
10
Adolf Harnack
Alleged documents of Jewish 295

Christianity (Apocalpse of John,
Acts of the Apostles, Epistle to the
Hebrews, Hegesippus)
History of Jewish Christianity
296
The witness of Justin
296
The witness of Celsus
298
The witness of Irenus and Origen
299
The witness of Eusebius and Jerome
300
The Gnostic Jewish Christianity
302
The Elkesaites and Ebionites of 304

Epiphanius
Estimate of the Pseudo-Clementine 311
Recognitions and Homilies, their
want of significance for the question
as to the genesis of Catholicism and
its doctrine
APPENDICES.
I.
On the different notions of Pre-existence
318
II.
On Liturgies and the genesis of Dogma
332
III.
On Neoplatonism
335
Literature
361
xxii
xxiii
I
PROLEGOMENA TO THE DISCIPLINE OF
THE HISTORY OF DOGMA.
11
Adolf Harnack
II
THE PRESUPPOSITIONS OF THE
HISTORY OF DOGMA
CHAPTER I.
PROLEGOMENA TO THE DISCIPLINE OF THE HISTORY OF DOGMA.
I. The Idea and Task of the History of Dogma.
1. The History of Dogma is a discipline of general Church History, which has for its object the
dogmas of the Church. These dogmas are the doctrines of the Christian faith logically formulated
and expressed for scientific and apologetic purposes, the contents of which are a knowledge of
God, of the world, and of the provisions made by God for mans salvation. The Christian Churches
teach them as the truths revealed in Holy Scripture, the acknowledgment of which is the condition
of the salvation which religion promises. But as the adherents of the Christian religion had not these
dogmas from the beginning, so far, at least, as they form a connected system, the business of the
history of dogma is, in the first place, to ascertain the origin of Dogmas (of Dogma), and then
secondly, to describe their development (their variations).
2. We cannot draw any hard and fast line between the time of the origin and that of the development
of dogma; they rather shade off into one another. But we shall have to look for the final point of
division at the time when an article of faith logically formulated and scientifically expressed, was
first raised to the articulus constitutivus ecclesia, and as such was universally enforced by the
Church. Now that first happened when the doctrine of Christ, as the pre-existent and personal Logos
of God, had obtained acceptance everywhere in the confederated Churches as the revealed and
fundamental doctrine of faith, that is, about the end of the third century or the beginning of the
12
Adolf Harnack
fourth. We must therefore, in our account, take this as the final point of division.1 As to the
development of dogma, it seems to have closed in the Eastern Church with the seventh cumenical
Council (787). After that time no further dogmas were set up in the East as revealed truths. As to
the Western Catholic, that is, the Romish Church, a new dogma was promulgated as late as the
year 1870, which claims to be, and in point of form really is, equal in dignity to the old dogmas.
Here, therefore, the History of Dogma must extend to the present time. Finally, as regards the
Protestant Churches, they are a subject of special difficulty in the sphere of the history of dogma;
for at the present moment there is no agreement within these Churches as to whether, and in what
sense, dogmas (as the word was used in the ancient Church) are valid. But even if we leave the
present out of account and fix our attention on the Protestant Churches of the 16th century, the
decision is difficult. For, on the one hand, the Protestant faith, the Lutheran as well as the Reformed
(and that of Luther no less), presents itself as a doctrine of faith which, resting Catholic canon of
scripture, is, in point of form, quite analogous to the Catholic doctrine of faith, has a series of
dogmas in common with it, and only differs in a few. On the other hand, Protestantism has taken
its stand in principle on the Gospel exclusively, and declared its readiness at all times to test all
doctrines afresh by a true understanding of the Gospel. The Reformers, however, in addition to
this, began to unfold a conception of Christianity which might be described, in contrast with the
Catholic type of religion, as a new conception, and which indeed draws support from the old dogmas,
but changes their original significance materially and formally. What this conception was may still
be ascertained from those writings received by the Church, the Protestant symbols of the 16th
century, in which the larger part of the traditionary dogmas are recognised as the appropriate
expression of the Christian religion, nay, as the Christian religion itself.2 Accordingly, it can neither
be maintained that the expression of the Christian faith in the form of dogmas is abolished in the
Protestant Churchesthe very acceptance of the Catholic canon as the revealed record of faith is
opposed to that viewnor that its meaning has remained absolutely unchanged.3 The history of
dogma has simply to recognise this state of things, and to represent it exactly as it lies before us in
the documents.
2
3
Weizscker, Gott. Gel. Anz. 1886, p. 823 f. says, It is a question whether we should limit the account of the genesis of Dogma
to the Antenicene and designate all else as a development of that. This is undoubted correct so long as our view is limited to the
history of dogma of the Greek Church in the second period, and the development of it by the cumenical Synods. On the other
hand, the Latin Church, in its own way and in its own province, becomes productive from the days of Augustine onwards; the
formal signification of dogma in the narrower sense becomes different in the middle ages. Both are repeated in a much greater
measure through theReformation. We may therefore in process, in opposition to that division into genesis and development,
regard the whole as a continuous process, in which the contents as well as the formal authority of dogma are in process of
continuous development. This view is certainly just, and I think is indicated by myself in what follows. We have to decide here,
as so often elsewhere in our account, between rival points of view. The view favoured by me has the advantage of making the
nature of dogma clearly appear as a product of the mode of thought of the early church, and that is what it has remained, in spite
of all changes both in form and substance, till the present day.
See Kattenbusch. Luthers Stellung zu den kumenischen Symbolen, 1883.
See Ritschl. Geschichte des Pietismus, I. p. 80 ff.: 93 ff., II. p. 60 f.: 88 f. The Lutheran view of life did not remain pure and
undefiled, but was limited and obscured by the preponderance of dogmatic interests. Protestantism was not delivered from the
womb of the Western Church of the middle ages in full power and equipment, like Athene from the head of Jupiter. The
incompleteness of its ethical view, the splitting up of its general conceptions into a series of particular dogmas, the tendency to
express its beliefs as a hard and fast whole, are defects which soon made Protestantism appear to disadvantage in comparison
with the wealth of medival theology and asceticism. . . The scholastic form of pure doctrine is really only the provisional, and
not the final form of Protestantism.
13
Adolf Harnack
But the point to which the historian should advance here still remains an open question. If we adhere
strictly to the definition of the idea of dogma given above, this much is certain, that dogmas were
no longer set up after the Formula of Concord, or in the case of the Reformed Church, after the
decrees of the Synod of Dort. It cannot, however, be maintained that they have been set aside in
the centuries that have passed since then; for apart from some Protestant National and independent
Churches, which are too insignificant and whose future is too uncertain to be taken into account
here, the ecclesiastical tradition of the 16th century, and along it the tradition of the early Church,
have not been abrogated in authoritative form. Of course, changes of the greatest importance with
regard to doctrine have appeared everywhere in Protestantism from the 17th century to the present
day. But these changes cannot in any sense be taken into account in a history of dogma, because
they have not as yet attained a form valid for the Church. However we may changes, whether we
regard them as corruptions or improvements, or explain the want of fixity in which the Protestant
Churches find themselves, as a situation that is forced on them, or the situation that is agreeable to
them and for which they are adapted, in no sense is there here a development which could be
described as history of dogma.
These facts would seem to justify those who, like Thomasius and Schmid, carry the history of
dogma in Protestantism to the Formula of Concord, or, in the case of the Reformed Church, to the
decrees of the Synod of Dort. But it may be objected to this boundary line; (1) That those symbols
have at all times attained only a partial authority in Protestantism; (2) That as noted above, the
dogmas, that is, the formulated doctrines of faith have different meanings on different matters in
the Protestant and in the Catholic Churches. Accordingly, it seems advisable within the frame-work
of the history of dogma, to examine Protestantism only so far as this is necessary for obtaining a
knowledge of its deviations from the Catholic dogma materially and formally, that is, to ascertain
the original position of the Reformers with regard to the doctrine of the Church, a position which
is beset with contradictions. The more accurately we determine the relation of the Reformers to
Catholicism, the more intelligible will be the developments which Protestantism has passed through
in the course of its history. But these developments themselves (retrocession and advance) do not
belong to the sphere of the history of dogma, because they stand in no comparable relation to the
course of the history of dogma within the Catholic Church. As history of Protestant doctrines they
form a peculiar independent province of Church history.
As to the division of the history of dogma, it consists of two main parts. The first has to describe
the origin of dogma, that is, of the Apostolic Catholic system of doctrine based on the foundation
of the tradition authoritatively embodied in the creeds and Holy Scripture, and extends to the
beginning of the fourth century. This may be conveniently divided into two parts, the first of which
will treat of the preparation, the second of the establishment of the ecclesiastical doctrine of faith.
The second main part, which has to portray the development of dogma, comprehends three stages.
In the first stage the doctrine of faith appears as Theology and Christology. The Eastern Church
has never got beyond this stage, although it has to a large extent enriched dogma ritually and
mystically (see the decrees of the seventh council). We will have to shew how the doctrines of faith
formed in this stage have remained for all time in the Church dogmas . The second
stage was initiated by Augustine. The doctrine of faith appears here on the one side completed, and
on the other re-expressed by new dogmas, which treat of the relation of sin and grace, freedom and
14
Adolf Harnack
grace, grace and the means of grace. The number and importance of the dogmas that were, in the
middle ages, really fixed after Augustines time, had no relation to the range and importance of the
questions which they raised, and which emerged in the course of centuries in consequence of
advancing knowledge, and not less in consequence of the growing power of the Church. Accordingly,
in this second stage which comprehends the whole of the middle ages, the Church as an institution
kept believers together in a larger measure than was possible to dogmas. These in their accepted
form were too poor to enable them to be the expression of religious conviction and the regulator
of Church life. On the other hand, the new decisions of Theologians, Councils and Popes, did not
yet possess the authority which could have made them incontestable truths of faith. The third stage
begins with the Reformation, which compelled the Church to fix its faith on the basis of the
theological work of the middle ages. Thus arose the Catholic dogma which has found in the Vatican
decrees its provisional settlement. This Roman Catholic dogma, as it was formulated at Trent, was
moulded in express opposition to the Theses of the Reformers. But these Theses themselves represent
a peculiar conception of Christianity, which has its root in the theology of Paul and Augustine, and
includes either explicitly or implicitly a revision of the whole ecclesiastical tradition, and therefore
of dogma also. The History of Dogma in this last stage, therefore, has a twofold task. It has, on the
one hand, to present the Romish dogma as a product of the ecclesiastical development of the middle
ages under the influence of the Reformation faith which was to be rejected, and on the other hand,
to portray the conservative new formation which we have in original Protestantism, and determine
its relation to dogma. A closer examination, however, shews that in none of the great confessions
does religion live in dogma, as of old. Dogma everywhere has fallen into the background; in the
Eastern Church it has given place to ritual, in the Roman Church to ecclesiastical instructions, in
the Protestant Churches, so far as they are mindful of their origin, to the Gospel. At the same time,
however, the paradoxical fact is unmistakable that dogma as such is nowhere at this moment so
powerful as in the Protestant Churches, though by their history they are furthest removed from it.
Here, however, it comes into consideration as an object of immediate religious interest, which,
strictly speaking, in the Catholic Church is not the case.4 The Council of Trent was simply wrung
It is very evident how the medival and old catholic dogmas were transformed in the view which Luther originally took of them.
In this view we must remember that he did away with all the presuppositions of dogma, the infallible Apostolic Canon of
Scripture, the infallible teaching function of the Church, and the infallible Apostolic doctrine and constitution. On this basis
dogmas can only be utterances which do not support faith, but are supposed by it. But, on the other hand his opposition to all
the Apocryphal saints which the Church has created, compelled him to emphasise faith alone, and to give it a firm basis in
Scripture, in order to free it from the burden of tradition. Here then, very soon, first by Melanchthon, a summary of articuli fide
was substituted for the faith, and the Scriptures recovered their place as a rule. Luther himself, however, is responsible for both,
and so it came about that very soon the new evangelic standpoint was explained almost exclusively by the abolition of abuses,
and by no means so surely by the transformation of the whole doctrinal tradition. The classic authority for this is the Augsburg
confession (hc fere summa est doctrina apud suos, in qua cerni potest nihil inesse, quod discrepet a scripturis vel ab ecclesia
Catholica vel ab ecclesia Romana . . . . sed dissensio est de quibusdam abusibus). The purified catholic doctrine has since then
become the palladium of the Reformation Churches. The refuters of the Augustana have justly been unwilling to admit the mere
purifying, but have noted in addition that the Augustana does not say everything that was urged by Luther and the Doctors
(see Ficker, Die Konfutation des Augsburgischen Bekenntnisse, 1891). At the same time, however, the Lutheran Church, though
not so strongly as the English, retained the consciousness of being the true Catholics. But, as the history of Protestantism proves,
the original impulse has not remained inoperative. Though Luther himself all his life measured his personal Christian standing
by an entirely different standard than subjection to a law of faith; yet, however presumptous the words may sound, we might
say that in the complicated struggle that was forced on him, he did not always clearly understand his own faith.
15
Adolf Harnack
from the Romish Church, and she has made the dogmas of that council in a certain sense innocuous
by the Vatican decrees.5 In this sense, it may be said that the period of development of dogma is
altogether closed, and that therefore our discipline requires a statement such as belongs to a series
of historical phenomena that has been completed.
3. The Church has recognised her faith, that is religion itself, in her dogmas. Accordingly, one very
important business of the History of Dogma is to exhibit the unity that exists in the dogmas of a
definite period, and to shew how the several dogmas are connected with one another and what
leading ideas they express. But, as a matter of course, this undertaking has its limits in the degree
of unanimity which actually existed in the dogmas of the particular period. It may be shewn without
much difficulty, that a strict though by no means absolute unanimity is expressed only in the dogmas
of the Greek Church. The peculiar character of the western post-Augustinian ecclesiastical conception
of Christianity, no longer finds a clear expression in dogma, and still less is this the case with the
conception of the Reformers. The reason of this is that Augustine, as well as Luther, disclosed a
new conception of Christianity, but at the same time appropriated the old dogmas.6 But neither
Baurs nor Kliefoths method of writing the history of dogmas has done justice to this fact. Not
Baurs, because, notwithstanding the division into six periods, it sees a uniform process in the
development of dogma, a process which begins with the origin of Christianity and has run its course,
as is alleged, in a strictly logical way. Not Kliefoths, because, in the dogmas of the Catholic Church
which the East has never got beyond, it only ascertains the establishment of one portion of the
Christian faith, to which the parts still wanting have been successively added in later times.7 In
contrast with this, we may refer to the fact that we can clearly distinguish three styles of building
in the history of dogma, but only three; the style of Origen, that of Augustine, and that of the
Reformers. But the dogma of the post-Augustinian Church, as well as that of Luther, does not in
any way represent itself as a new building, not even as the mere extension of an old building, but
as a complicated rebuilding, and by no means in harmony with former styles, because neither
In the modern Romish Church, dogma is, above all, a judicial regulation which one has to submit to, and in certain circumstances
submission alone is sufficient, fides implicita. Dogma is thereby just as much deprived of its original sense and its original
authority as by the demand of the Reformers, that every thing should be based upon a clear understanding of the Gospel. Moreover,
the changed position of the Romish Church towards dogma is also shewn by the fact that it no longer gives a plain answer to
the question as to what dogma is. Instead of a series of dogmas definitely defined, and of equal value, there is presented an
infinite multitude of whole and half dogmas, doctrinal directions, pious opinions, probable theological propositions, etc. It is
often a very difficult question whether a solemn decision has or has not already been taken on this or that statement, or whether
such a decision is still necessary. Everything that must be believed is nowhere stated, and so one sometimes hears in Catholic
circles the exemplary piety of a cleric praised with the words that he believes more than is necessary. The great dogmatic
conflicts within the Catholic Church, since the Council of Trent, have been silenced by arbitrary Papal pronouncements and
doctrinal directions. Since one has simply to accommodate oneself to these as laws, it once more appears clear that dogma has
become a judicial regulation, administered by the Pope, which is carried out in an administrative way and loses itself in an endless
casuistry. We do not mean by this to deny that dogma has a decided value for the pious Catholic as a summary of the faith. But
in the Catholic Church it is no longer piety, but obedience that is decisive. The solidarity with the orthodox Protestants may be
explained by political reasons, in order, from political reasons again, to condemn, where it is necessary, all Protestants as heretics
and revolutionaries.
See the discussions of Biedermann (Christliche Dogmatik. 2 Ed. p. 150 f.) about what he calls the law of stability in the history
of religion.
See Ritschls discussion of the methods of the early histories of dogma in the Jahrb. f. Deutsche Theologie, 1871, p. 181 ff.
16
Adolf Harnack
Augustine nor Luther ever dreamed of building independently.8 This perception leads us to the
most peculiar phenomenon which meets the historian of dogma, and which must determine his
method.
10
Dogmas arise, develop themselves and are made serviceable to new aims; this in all cases takes
place through Theology. But Theology is dependent on innumerable factors, above all on the spirit
of the time; for it lies in the nature of theology that it desires to make its object intelligible. Dogmas
are the product of theology, not inversely; of a theology of course which, as a rule, was in
correspondence with the faith of the time. The critical view of history teaches this: first we have
the Apologists and Origen, then the councils of Nice and Chalcedon; first the Scholastics, and the
Council of Trent. In consequence of this, dogma bears the mark of all the factors on which the
theology was dependent. That is one point. But the moment in which the product of theology became
dogma, the way which led to it must be obscured; for, according to the conception of the Church,
dogma can be nothing else than the revealed faith itself. Dogma is regarded not as the exponent,
but as the basis of theology, and there-fore the product of theology having passed into dogma limits,
and criticises the work of theology both past and future.9 That is the second point. It follows from
this that the history of the Christian religion embraces a very complicated relation of ecclesiastical
dogma and theology, and that the ecclesiastical conception of the significance of theology cannot
at all do justice to this significance. The ecclesiastical scheme which is here formed and which
denotes the utmost concession that can be made to history, is to the effect that theology gives
expression only to the form of dogma, while so far as it is ecclesiastical theology, it presupposes
the unchanging dogma, i.e., the substance of dogma. But this scheme, which must always leave
uncertain what the form really is, and what the substance, is in no way applicable to the actual
circumstances. So far, however, as it is itself an article of faith it is an object of the history of dogma.
Ecclesiastical dogma when put on its defence must at all times take up an ambiguous position
towards theology, and ecclesiastical theology a corresponding position towards dogma; for they
are condemned to perpetual uncertainty as to what they owe each other, and what they have to fear
from each other. The theological Fathers of dogma have almost without exception failed to escape
being condemned by dogma, either because it went beyond them, or lagged behind their theology.
The Apologist, Origen and Augustine may be cited in support of this; and even in Protestantism,
mutatis mutandis, the same of thing has been repeated, as is proved by the fate of Melanchthon and
Schleiermacher. On the other hand, there have been few theologians who have not shaken some
article of the traditional dogma. We are wont to get rid of these fundamental facts by hypostatising
the ecclesiastical principle or the common ecclesiastical spirit, and by this normal hypostasis,
measuring, approving or condemning the doctrines of the theologians, unconcerned about the actual
conditions and frequently following a hysteron-proteron. But this is a view of history which should
in justice be left to the Catholic Church, which indeed cannot dispense with it. The critical history
of dogma has, on the contrary, to shew above all how an ecclesiastical theology has arisen; for it
8
In Catholicism, the impulse which proceeded from Augustine has finally proved powerless to break the traditional conception
of Christianity, as the Council of Trent and the decrees of the Vatican have shewn. For that very reason the development of the
Roman Catholic Church doctrine belongs to the history of dogma. Protestantism must, however, under all circumstances be
recognised as a new thing, which indeed in none of its phases has been free from contradictions.
Here then begins the ecclesiastical theology which takes as its starting-point the finished dogma it strives to prove or harmonise,
but very soon, as experience has shewn, loses its firm footing in such efforts and so occasions new crises.
17
11
12
Adolf Harnack
can only give account of the origin of dogma in connection with this main question. The horizon
must be taken here as wide as possible; for the question as to the origin of theology can only be
answered by surveying all the relations into which the Christian religion has entered in naturalising
itself in the world and subduing it. When ecclesiastical dogma has once been created and recognised
as an immediate expression of the Christian religion, the history of dogma has only to take the
history of theology into account so far as it has been active in the formation of dogma. Yet it must
always keep in view the peculiar claim of dogma to be a criterion and not a product of theology.
But it will also be able to shew how, partly by means of theology and partly by other meansfor
dogma is also dependent on ritual, constitution, and the practical ideals of life, as well as on the
letter, whether of Scripture, or of tradition no longer understooddogma in its development and
re-expression has continually changed, according to the conditions under which the Church was
placed. If dogma is originally the formulation of Christian faith as Greek culture understood it and
justified it to itself, then dogma has never indeed lost this character, though it has been radically
modified in later times. It is quite as important to keep in view the tenacity of dogma as its changes,
and in this respect the Protestant way of writing history, which, here as elsewhere in the history of
the Church, is more disposed to attend to differences than to what is permanent, has much to learn
from the Catholic. But as the Protestant historian, as far as possible, judges of the progress of
development in so far as it agrees with the Gospel in its documentary form, he is still able to shew,
with all deference to that tenacity, that dogma has been so modified and used to the best advantage
by Augustine and Luther, that its Christian character has in many respects gained, though in other
respects it has become further and further alienated from that character. In proportion as the
traditional system of dogmas lost its stringency it became richer. In proportion as it was stripped
by Augustine and Luther of its apologetic philosophic tendency, it was more and more filled with
Biblical ideas, though, on the other hand, it became more full of contradictions and less impressive.
This outlook, however, has already gone beyond the limits fixed for these introductory paragraphs
and must not be pursued further. To treat in abstracto of the method of the history of dogma in
relation to the discovery, grouping, and interpretation of the material is not to be recommended;
for general rules to preserve the ignorant and half instructed from overlooking the important, and
laying hold of what is not important, cannot be laid down. Certainly everything depends on the
arrangement of the material; for the understanding of history is to find the rules according to which
the phenomena should be grouped, and every advance in the knowledge of history is inseparable
from an accurate observance of these rules. We must, above all, be on our guard against preferring
one principle at the expense of another in the interpretation of the origin and aim of particular
dogmas. The most diverse factors have at all times been at work in the formation of dogmas. Next
to the effort to determine the doctrine of religion according to the finis religionis, the blessing of
salvation, the following may have been the most important. (1) The conceptions and sayings
contained in the canonical Scriptures. (2) The doctrinal tradition originating in earlier epochs of
the Church, and no longer understood. (3) The needs of worship and organisation. (4) The effort
to adjust the doctrine of religion to the prevailing doctrinal opinions. (5) Political and social
circumstances. (6) The changing moral ideals of life. (7) The so-called logical consistency, that is
the abstract analogical treatment of one dogma according to the form of another. (8) The effort to
adjust different tendencies and contradictions in the Church. (9) The endeavour to reject once for
all a doctrine regarded as erroneous. (10) The sanctifying power of blind custom. The method of
18
13
Adolf Harnack
explaining everything wherever possible by the impulse of dogma to unfold itself, must be given
up as unscientific, just as all empty abstractions whatsoever must be given up as scholastic and
mythological. Dogma has had its history in the individual living man and nowhere else. As soon
as one adopts this statement in real earnest, that medival realism must vanish to which a man so
often thinks himself superior while imbedded in it all the time. Instead of investigating the actual
conditions in which believing and intelligent men have been placed, a system of Christianity has
been constructed from which, as from a Pandoras box, all doctrines which in course of time have
been formed, are extracted, and in this way legitimised as Christian. The simple fundamental
proposition that that only is Christian which can be established authoritatively by the Gospel, has
never yet received justice in the history of dogma. Even the following account will in all probability
come short in this point; for in face of a prevailing false tradition the application of a simple principle
to every detail can hardly succeed at the first attempt.
Explanation as to the Conception and Task of the History of Dogma.
14
No agreement as yet prevails with regard to the conception of the history of dogma. Mnscher
(Handbuch der Christl. D. G. 3rd ed. I. p. 3 f.) declared that the business of the history of dogma
is To represent all the changes which the theoretic part of the Christian doctrine of religion has
gone through from its origin up to the present, both in form and substance, and this definition held
sway for a long time. Then it came to be noted that the question was not about changes that were
accidental, but about those that were historically necessary, that dogma has a relation to the Church,
and that it represents a rational expression of the faith. Emphasis was put sometimes on one of
these elements and sometimes on the other. Baur, in particular, insisted on the first; V. Hofmann,
after the example of Schleiermacher, on the second, and indeed exclusively (Encyklop. der theol.
p. 257 f.: The history of dogma is the history of the Church confessing the faith in words). Nitzsch
(Grundriss der Christl. D. G. I. p. I) insisted on the third: The history of dogma is the scientific
account of the origin and development of the Christian system of doctrine or that part of historical
theology which presents the history of the expression of the Christian faith in notions, doctrines
and doctrinal systems. Thomasius has combined the second and third by conceiving the history
of dogma as the history of the development of the ecclesiastical system of doctrine. But even this
conception is not sufficiently definite, inasmuch as it fails to do complete justice to the special
peculiarity of the subject.
Ancient and modern usage does certainly seem to allow the word dogma to be applied to particular
doctrines, or to a uniform system of doctrine, to fundamental truths, or to opinions, to theoretical
propositions or practical rules, to statements of belief that have not been reached by a process of
reasoning, as well as to those that bear the marks of such a process. But this uncertainty vanishes
on closer examination. We then see that there is always an authority at the basis of dogma, which
gives it to those who recognise that authority the signification of a fundamental truth qu sine
scelere prodi non poterit (Cicero Qust. Acad. IV. 9). But therewith at the same time is introduced
into the idea of dogma a social element (see Biedermann, Christl. Dogmatik. 2 Edit. I. p. 2 f.); the
confessors of one and the same dogma form a community.
There can be no doubt that these two elements are also demonstrable in Christian dogma, and
therefore we must reject all definitions of the history of dogma which do not take them into account.
19
Adolf Harnack
If we define it as the history of the understanding of Christianity by itself, or as the history of the
changes of the theoretic part of the doctrine of religion or the like, we shall fail to do justice to the
idea of dogma in its most general acceptation. We cannot describe as dogmas, doctrines such as
the Apokatastasis, or the Kenosis of the Son of God, without coming into conflict with the ordinary
usage of language and with ecclesiastical law.
15
16
If we start, therefore, from the supposition that Christian dogma is an ecclesiastical doctrine which
presupposes revelation as its authority, and therefore claims to be strictly binding, we shall fail to
bring out its real nature with anything like completeness. That which Protestants and Catholics call
dogmas, are not only ecclesiastical doctrines, but they are also: (1) theses expressed in abstract
terms, forming together a unity, and fixing the contents of the Christian religion as a knowledge
of God, of the world, and of the sacred history under the aspect of a proof of the truth. But (2) they
have also emerged at a definite stage of the history of the Christian religion; they shew in their
conception as such, and in many details, the influence of that stage, viz., the Greek period, and they
have preserved this character in spite of all their reconstructions and additions in after periods. This
view of dogma Cannot be shaken by the fact that particular historical facts, Miraculous or not
miraculous are described as dogmas; for here they are regarded as such only in so far as they have
got the value of doctrines which have been inserted in the complete structure of doctrines and are,
on the other hand, members of a chain of proofs, viz., proofs from prophecy.
But as soon as we perceive this, the parallel between the ecclesiastical dogmas and those of ancient
schools of philosophy appears to be in point of form complete. The only difference is that revelation
is here put as authority in the place of human knowledge, although the later philosophic schools
appealed to revelation also. The theoretical as well as the practical doctrines which embraced the
peculiar conception of the world and the ethics of the school, together with their rationale, were
described in these schools as dogmas. Now, in so far as the adherents of the Christian religion
possess dogmas in this sense, and form a community which has gained an understanding of its
religious faith by analysis and by scientific definition and grounding, they appear as a great
philosophic school in the ancient sense of the word. But they differ from such a school in so far as
they have always eliminated the process of thought which has led to the dogma, looking upon the
whole system of dogma as a revelation and there-fore, even in respect of the reception of the dogma,
at least at first, they have taken account not of the powers of human understanding, but of the Divine
enlightenment which is bestowed on all the willing and the virtuous. In later times, indeed, the
analogy was far more complete, in so far as the Church reserved the full possession of dogma to a
circle of consecrated and initiated individuals. Dogmatic Christianity is therefore a definite stage
in the history of the development of Christianity. It corresponds to the antique mode of thought,
but has nevertheless continued to a very great extent in the following epochs, though subject to
great transformations. Dogmatic Christianity stands between Christianity as the religion of the
Gospel, presupposing a personal experience and dealing with disposition and conduct, and
Christianity as a religion of cultus, sacraments, ceremonial and obedience, in short of superstition,
and it can be united with either the one or the other. In itself and in spite of all its mysteries it is
always intellectual Christianity, and therefore there is always the danger here that as knowledge it
may supplant religious faith, or connect it with a doctrine of religion, instead of with God and a
living experience.
20
Adolf Harnack
If then the discipline of the history of dogma is to be what its name purports, its object is the very
dogma which is so formed, and its fundamental problem will be to discover how it has arisen. In
the history of the canon our method of procedure has for long been to ask first of all, how the canon
originated, and then to examine the changes through which it has passed. We must proceed in the
same way with the history of dogma, of which the history of the canon is simply a part. Two
objections will be raised against this. In the first place, it will be said that from the very first the
Christian religion has included a definite religious faith as well as a definite ethic, and that therefore
Christian dogma is as original as Christianity itself, so that there can be no question about a genesis,
but only as to a development or alteration of dogma within the Church. Again it will be said, in the
second place, that dogma as defined above, has validity only for a definite epoch in the history of
the Church, and that it is therefore quite impossible to write a comprehensive history of dogma in
the sense we have indicated.
17
18
As to the first objection, there can of course be no doubt that the Christian religion is founded on
a message, the contents of which are a definite belief in God and in Jesus Christ whom he has sent,
and that the promise of salvation is attached to this belief. But faith in the Gospel and the later
dogmas of the Church are not related to each other as theme and the way in which it is worked out,
any more than the dogma of the New Testament canon is only the explication of the original reliance
of Christians on the word of their Lord and the continuous working of the Spirit; but in these later
dogmas an entirely new element has entered into the Conception of religion. The message of religion
appears here Clothed in a knowledge of the world and of the ground of the World which had already
been obtained without any reference to it, and therefore religion itself has here become a doctrine
Which has, indeed, its certainty in the Gospel, but only in part derives its contents from it, and
which can also be appropriated by such as are neither poor in spirit nor weary itnd heavy laden.
Now, it may of course be shewn that a philosophic conception of the Christian religion is possible,
Ind began to make its appearance from the very first, as in the case of Paul. But the Pauline gnosis
has neither been simply identified with the Gospel by Paul himself (I Cor. III. 2 f.: XII. 3: Phil. I.
18) nor is it analogous to the later dogma, not to speak of being identical with it. The characteristic
of this dogma is that it represents itself in no sense as foolishness, but as wisdom, and at the same
time desires to be regarded as the contents of revelation itself. Dogma in its conception and
development is a work of the Greek spirit on the soil of the Gospel. By comprehending in itself
and giving excellent expression to the religious conceptions contained in Greek philosophy and
the Gospel, together with its Old Testament basis; by meeting the search for a revelation as well
as the desire for a universal knowledge; by subordinating itself to the aim of the Christian religion
to bring a Divine life to humanity as well as to the aim of philosophy to know the world: it became
the instrument by which the Church conquered the ancient world and educated the modern nations.
But this dogmaone cannot but admire its formation or fail to regard it as a great achievement of
the spirit, which never again in the history of Christianity has made itself at home with such freedom
and boldness in religionis the product of a comparatively long history which needs to be
deciphered; for it is obscured by the completed dogma. The Gospel itself is not dogma, for belief
in the Gospel provides room for knowledge only so far as it is a state of feeling and course of action,
that is a definite form of life. Between practicl faith in the Gospel and the historico-critical account
of the Christian religion and its history, a third element can no longer be thrust in without its coming
into conflict with faith, or with the historical data--the only thing left is the practical task of defending
21
Adolf Harnack
the faith. But a third element has been thrust into the history of this religion, viz., dogma, that is,
the philosophical means which were used in early times for the purpose of making the Gospel
intelligible have been fused with the contents of the Gospel and raised to dogma. This dogma, next
to the Church, has become a real world power, the pivot in the history of the Christian religion.
The transformation of the Christian faith into dogma is indeed no accident, but has its reason is in
spiritual character of the Christian religion, which at all times will feel the need of a scientific
apologetic.10 But the question here is not as to something indefinite and general, but as to the definite
dogma formed in the first centuries, and binding even yet.
19
This already touches on the second objection which was raised above, that dogma, in the given
sense of the word, was too narrowly conceived, and could not in this conception be applied
throughout the whole history of the Church. This objection would only be justified, if our task were
to carry the history of the development of dogma through the whole history of the Church. But the
question is just whether we are right in proposing such a task. The Greek Church has no history of
dogma after the seven great Councils, and it is incomparably more important to recognise this fact
than to register the theologoumena which were later on introduced by Individual Bishops and
scholars in the East, who were partly Influenced by the West. Roman Catholicism in its dogmas,
though, as noted above, these at present do not very clearly characterise it, is to-day essentiallythat
is, so far as it is religionwhat it was 1500 years ago, viz., Christianity as Understood by the
ancient world. The changes which dogma has experienced in the course of its development in
western Catholicism are certainly deep and radical: they have, in point of fact, as has been indicated
in the text above, modified the position of the Church towards Christianity as dogma. But as the
Catholic Church herself maintains that she adheres to Christianity in the old dogmatic sense, this
claim of hers cannot be contested. She has embraced new things and changed her relations to the
old, but still preserved the old. But she has further developed new dogmas according to the scheme
of the old. The decrees of Trent and of the Vatican are formally analogous to the old dogmas. Here,
then, a history of dogma may really be carried forward to the present day without thereby shewing
that the definition of dogma given above is too narrow to embrace the new doctrines. Finally, as
to Protestantism, it has been briefly explained above why the changes in Protestant systems of
doctrine are not to be taken up into the history of dogma. Strictly speaking, dogma, as dogma, has
had no development in Protestantism, inasmuch as a secret note of interrogation has been here
associated with it from the very beginning. But the old dogma has continued to be a power in it,
because of its tendency to look back and to seek for authorities in the past, and partly in the original
unmodified form. The dogmas of the fourth and fifth centuries have more influence to-day in wide
circles of Protestant Churches than all the doctrines which are concentrated around justification by
faith. Deviations from the latter are borne comparatively easy, while as a rule, deviations from the
former are followed by notice to quit the Christian communion, that is, by excommunication. The
10
Weizscker, Apostolic Age, Vol. I. p. 123. Christianity as religion is absolutely inconceivable without theology; first of all, for
the same reasons which called forth the Pauline theology. As a religion it cannot be separated from the religion of its founder,
hence not from historical knowledge. And as Monotheism and belief in a world purpose, it is the religion of reason with the
inextinguishable impulse of thought. The first gentile Christians therewith gained the proud consciousness of a gnosis. But of
ecclesiastical Christianity which rests on dogma ready made, as produced by an earlier epoch, this conception holds good only
in a very qualified way; and of the vigorous Christian piety of the earliest and of every period, it may also be said that it no less
feels the impulse to think against reason than with reason.
22
20
21
Adolf Harnack
historian of to-day would have no difficulty in answering the question whether the power of
Protestantism as a Church lies at present in the elements which it has in common with the old
dogmatic Christianity, or in that by which it is distinguished from it. Dogma, that is to say, that
type of Christianity which was formed in ecclesiastical antiquity, has not been suppressed even in
Protestant Churches, has really not been modified or replaced by a new conception of the Gospel.
But, on the other hand, who could deny that the Reformation began to disclose such a conception,
and that this new conception was related in a very different way to the traditional dogma from that
of the new propositions of Augustine to the dogmas handed down to him? Who could further call
in question that, in consequence of the reforming impulse in Protestantism, the way was opened
up for a conception which does not identify Gospel and dogma, which does not disfigure the latter
by changing or paring down its meaning while failing to come up to the former? But the historian
who has to describe the formation and changes of dogma can take no part in these developments.
It is a task by itself more rich and comprehensive than that of the historian of dogma, to portray
the diverse conceptions that have been formed of the Christian religion, to portray how strong men
and weak men, great and little minds have explained the Gospel outside and inside the frame-work
of dogma, and how under the cloak, or in the province of dogma, the Gospel has had its own peculiar
history. But the more limited theme must not be put aside. For it can in no way be conducive to
historical knowledge to regard as indifferent the peculiar character of the expression of Christian
faith as dogma, and allow the history of dogma to be absorbed in a general history of the various
conceptions of Christianity. Such a liberal view would not agree either with the teaching of history
or with the actual situation of the Protestant Churches of the present day: for it is, above all, of
crucial importance to perceive that it is a peculiar stage in the development of the human spirit
which is described by dogma. On this stage, parallel with dogma and inwardly united with it, stands
a definite psychology, metaphysic and natural philosophy, as well as a view of history of a definite
type. This is the conception of the world obtained by antiquity after almost a thousand years labour,
and it is the same connection of theoretic perceptions and practical ideals which it accomplished.
This stage on which the Christian religion has also entered we have in no way as yet transcended,
though science has raised itself above it.11 But the Christian religion, as it was not born of the culture
of the ancient world, is not for ever chained to it. The form and the new contents which the Gospel
received when it entered into that world have only the same guarantee of endurance as that world
itself. And that endurance is limited. We must indeed be on our guard against taking episodes for
decisive crises. But every episode carries us forward, and retrogressions are unable to undo that
progress. The Gospel since the Reformation, in spite of retrograde movements which have not been
wanting, is working itself out of the forms which it was once compelled to assume, and a true
comprehension of its history will also contribute to hasten this process.
1. The definition given above, p. 17: Dogma in its conception and development is a work of the
Greek spirit on the soil of the Gospel, has frequently been distorted by my critics, as they have
11
In this sense it is correct to class dogmatic theology as historical theology, as Schleiermacher has done. If we, maintain that for
practical reasons it must be taken out of the province of historical theology, then we must make it part of practical theology. By
dogmatic theology here, we understand the exposition of Christianity in the form of Church doctrine, as it has been shaped since
the second century. As distinguished from it, a branch of theological study must be conceived which harmonises the historical
exposition of the Gospel with the general state of knowledge of the time. The Church can as little dispense with such a discipline
as there can be a Christianity which does not account to itself for its basis and spiritual contents.
23
22
Adolf Harnack
suppressed the words on the soil of the Gospel. But these words are decisive. The foolishness of
identifying dogma and Greek philosophy never entered my mind; on the contrary, the peculiarity
of ecclesiastical dogma seemed to me to lie in the very fact that, on the one hand, it gave expression
to Christian Monotheism and the central significance of the person of Christ, and, on the other
hand, comprehended this religious faith and the historical knowledge connected with it in a
philosophic system. I have given quite as little ground for the accusation that I look upon the whole
development of the history of dogma as a pathological process within the history of the Gospel. I
do not even look upon the history of the origin of the Papacy as such a process, not to speak of the
history of dogma. But the perception that everything must happen as it has happened does not
absolve the historian from the task of ascertaining the powers which have formed the history, and
distinguishing between original and later, permanent and transitory, nor from the duty of stating
his own opinion.
2. Sabatier has published a thoughtful treatise on Christian Dogma: its Nature and its Development,
I agree with the author in this, that in dogmarightly understoodtwo elements are to be
distinguished, the religious proceeding from the experience of the individual or from the religious
spirit of the Church, and the intellectual or theoretic. But I regard as false the statement which he
makes, that the intellectual element in dogma is only the symbolical expression of religious
experience. The intellectual element is itself again to be differentiated. On the one hand, it certainly
is the attempt to give expression to religious feeling, and so far is symbolical; but, on the other
hand, within the Christian religion it belongs to the essence of the thing itself, inasmuch as this not
only awakens feeling, but has a quite definite content which determines and should determine the
feeling. In this sense Christianity without dogma, that is, without a clear expression of its content,
is inconceivable. But that does not justify the unchangeable permanent significance of that dogma
which has once been formed under definite historical conditions.
23
3. The word dogmas (Christian dogmas) is, if I see correctly, used among us in three different
senses, and hence spring all manner of misconceptions and errors. By dogmas are denoted: (1) The
historical doctrines of the Church. (2) The historical facts on which the Christian religion is reputedly
or actually founded. (3) Every definite exposition of the contents of Christianity is described as
dogmatic. In contrast with this the attempt has been made in the following presentation to use
dogma only in the sense first stated. When I speak, therefore, of the decomposition of dogma, I
mean by that, neither the historical facts which really establish the Christian religion, nor do I call
in question the necessity for the Christian and the Church to have a creed. My criticism refers not
to the general genus dogma, but to the species, viz., the defined dogma, as it was formed on the
soil of the ancient world, and is still a power, though under modifications.
2. History of the History of Dogma.
The history of dogma as a historical and critical discipline had its origin in the last century through
the works of Mosheim, C. W. F. Walch, Ernesti, Lessing and Semler. Lange gave to the world in
1796 the first attempt at a history of dogma as a special branch of theological study. The theologians
of the Early and Mediaeval Churches have only transmitted histories of Heretics and of Literature,
24
24
Adolf Harnack
regarding dogma as unchangeable.12 This presupposition is so much a part of the nature of

Catholicism that it has been maintained till the present day. It is there-fore impossible for a Catholic
to make a free, impartial and scientific investigation of the history of dogma.13 There have, indeed,
at almost all times before the Reformation, been critical efforts in the domain of Christianity,
especially of western Christianity, efforts which in some cases have led to the proof of the novelty
and inadmissibility of particular dogmas. But, as a rule, these efforts were of the nature of a polemic
against the dominant Church. They scarcely prepared the way for, far less produced a historical
view of, dogmatic tradition.14 The progress of the sciences15 and the conflict with Protestantism
could here, for the Catholic Church, have no other effect than that of leading to the collecting, with
great learning, of material for the history of dogma,16 the establishing of the consensus patrum et
doctorum, the exhibition of the necessity of a continuous explication of dogma, and the description
of the history of heresies pressing in from without, regarded now as unheard-of novelties, and again
as old enemies in new masks. The modern Jesuit-Catholic historian indeed exhibits, in certain
circumstances, a manifest indifference to the task of establishing the semper idem in the faith of
the Church, but this indifference is at present regarded with disfavour, and, besides, is only an
apparent one, as the continuous though inscrutable guidance of the Church by the infallible teaching
of the Pope is the more emphatically maintained.17
25
12
13
14
15
16
17
See Eusebius preface to his Church History. Eusebius in this work set himself a comprehensive task, but in doing so he never
in the remotest sense thought of a history of dogma. In place of that we have a history of men who from generation to generation
proclaimed the word of God orally or by writing, and a history of those who by their passion for novelties, plunged themselves
into the greatest errors.
See for example, B. Schwane, Dogmengesch. d. Vornicnischen Zeit, 1862, where the sense in which dogmas have no historical
side is first expounded, and then it is shewn that dogmas, notwithstanding, present a certain side which permits a historical
consideration, because in point of fact they have gone through historical developments. But these historical developments
present themselves simply either as solemn promulgations and explications, or as private theological speculations.
If we leave out of account the Marcionite gnostic criticism of ecclesiastical Christianity, Paul of Samosata and Marcellus of
Ancyra may be mentioned as men who, in the earliest period, criticised the apologetic Alexandrian theology which was being
naturalised (see the remarkable statement of Marcellus in Euseb. C. Marc. I. 4:
..., which I have chosen as the motto of this book). We know too little of Stephen Gobarus (VI. cent.)
to enable us to estimate his review of the doctrine of the Church and its development (Photius Bibl. 232). With regard to the
middle ages (Abelard Sic et Non), see Reuter, Gesch. der relig. Aufklrung im MA., 1875. Hahn Gesch. der Ketzer, especially
in the 11th, 12th and 13th centuries, 3 vols., 1845. Keller, Die Reformation und die alteren Reform-Parteien, 1885.
See Voigt, Die Wiederbelebung des classischen Alterthums, 2 vols., 1881, especially vol. II. p. 1 ff. 363 ff. 494 ff. (Humanism
and the science of history). The direct importance of humanism for illuminating the history of the middle ages is very little,
and least of all for the history of the Church and of dogma. The only prominent works here are those of Saurentius Valla and
Erasmus. The criticism of the scholastic dogmas of the Church and the Pope began as early as the 12th century. For the attitude
of the Renaissance to religion, see Burckhardt, Die Cultur der Renaissance, 2 vols., 1877.
Baronius, Annals Eccles. XIi. vol. 1588-1607. Chief work: Dionysius Petavius, Opus de theologicis dogmatibus. 4 vols.
(incomplete) 1644-1650. See further Thomassin, Dogmata theologica. 3 vols. 1684-1689.
See Holtzmann, Kanon und Tradition, 1859. Hase, Handbuch der protest, Polemik. 1878. Joh. Delitszch, Das Lehrsystem der
rm. Kirche, 1875. New revelations, however, are rejected, and bold assumptions leading that way are not favoured: See Schwane,
above work p. 11: The content of revelation is not enlarged by the decisions or teaching of the Church, nor are new revelations
added in course of time.... Christian truth cannot therefore in its content be completed by the Church, nor has she ever claimed
the right of doing so, but always where new designations or forms of dogma became necessary for the putting down of error or
the instruction of the faithful, she would always teach what she had received in Holy Scripture or in the oral tradition of the
Apostles. Recent Catholic accounts of the history of dogma are Klee, Lehrbuch der D.G. 2 vols. 1837, (Speculative). Schwane,
Dogmengesch. der Vornicnischen Zeit, 1862, der patrist. Zeit, 1869; der Mittleren Zeit, 1882. Bach, Die D.G. des MA. 1873.
There is a wealth of material for the history of dogma in Kuhns Dogmatik, as well as in the great controversial writings occasioned
25
26
Adolf Harnack
It may be maintained that the Reformation opened the way for a critical treatment of the history of
dogma.18 But even in Protestant Churches, at first, historical investigations remained under the ban
of the confessional system of doctrine and were used only for polemics.19 Church history itself up
to the 18th century was not regarded as a theological discipline in the strict sense of the word; and
the history of dogma existed only within the sphere of dogmatics as a collection of testimonies to
the truth, theologia patristica. It was only after the material had been prepared in the course of the
16th and 17th centuries by scholars of the various Church parties, and, above all, by excellent
editions of the Fathers,20 and after Pietism had exhibited the difference between Christianity and
Ecclesiasticism, and had begun to treat the traditional confessional structure of doctrine with
indifference,21 that a critical investigation was entered on.
The man who was the Erasmus of the 18th century, neither orthodox nor pietistic, nor rationalistic,
but capable of appreciating all these tendencies; familiar with English, French and Italian literature;
influenced by the spirit of the new English Science,22 while avoiding all statements of it that would
endanger positive Christianity: John Lorenz Mosheim, treated Church history in the spirit of his
27
18
19
20
21
22
by the celebrated work of Bellarmin; Disputationes de controversiis Christian fidei adversus hujus temporis hreticos, 1581-1593.
It need not be said that, in spite of their inability to treat the history of dogma historically and critically, much may be learned
from these works, and some other striking monographs of Roman Catholic scholars. But everything in history that is fitted to
shake the high antiquity and unanimous attestation of the Catholic dogmas, becomes here a problem, the solution of which is
demanded, though indeed its carrying out often requires a very exceptional intellectual subtlety.
Historical interest in Protestantism has grown up around the questions as to the power of the Pope, the significance of Councils,
or the Scripturalness of the doctrines set up by them, and about the meaning of the Lords supper, of the conception of it by the
Church Fathers; (see colampadius and Melanchthon.) Protestants were too sure that the doctrine of justification was taught in
the scriptures to feel any need of seeking proofs for it by studies in the history of dogma, and Luther also dispensed with the
testimony of history for the dogma of the Lords supper. The task of shewing how far and in what way Luther and the Reformers
compounded with history has not even yet been taken up. And yet there may be found in Luthers writings surprising and excellent
critical comments on the history of dogma and the theology of the Fathers, as well as genial conceptions which have certainly
remained inoperative; see especially the treatise Von den Conciliis und Kirchen, and his judgment on different Church Fathers.
In the first edition of the Loci of Melanchthon we have also critical material for estimating the old systems of dogma. Calvin's
depreciatory estimate of the Trinitarian and Christological Formula, which, however, he retracted at a later period is well known.
Protestant Church history was brought into being by the Interim, Flacius being its Father; see his Catalogus Testium Veritatis,
and the so-called Magdeburg Centuries, 1559-1574; also Jundt., Les Centuries de Magdebourg, Paris, 1883. Von Engelhardt
(Christenthum Justins, p. 9 ff.) has drawn attention to the estimate of Justin in the Centuries, and has justly insisted on the high
importance of this first attempt at a criticism of the Church Fathers. Kliefoth (Einl. in d. D.G. 1839) has the merit of pointing
out the somewhat striking judgment of A. Hyperius on the history of dogma. Chemnitz, Examen concilii Tridentini, 1565.
Forbesius a Corse (a Scotsman). Instructiones historico-theologi de doctrina Christiana, 1645.
The learning, the diligence in collecting, and the carefulness of the Benedictines and Maurians, as well as of English, Dutch and
French theologians, such as Casaubon, Vossius, Pearson, Dallus, Spanheim, Grabe, Basnage, etc. have never since been equalled,
far less surpassed. Even in the literary, historical and higher criticism these scholars have done splendid work, so far as the
confessional dogmas did not come into question.
See especially, G. Arnold, Unpartheyische Kirchen- und Ketzerhistorie, 1699 also Baur, Epochen der kirchlichen
Geschichtsschreibung, p. 84 ff.; Floring, G. Arnold als Kirchenhistoriker, Darmstadt, 1883. The latter determines correctly the
measure of Arnolds importance. His work was the direct preparation for an impartial examination of the history of dogma,
however partial it was in itself. Pietism, here and there, after Spener, declared war against scholastic dogmatics as a hindrance
to piety, and in doing so broke the ban under which the knowledge of history lay captive.
The investigations of the so-called English Deists about the Christian religion contain the first, and to some extent a very
significant free-spirited attempt at a critical view of the history of dogma (see Lechler, History of English Deism, 1841). But
the criticism is an abstract, rarely a historical one. Some very learned works bearing on the history of dogma were written in
England against the position of the Deists, especially by Lardner: see also at an earlier time Bull, Defensio fidei nic.
26
28
Adolf Harnack
great teacher Leibnitz,23 and by impartial analysis, living reproduction, and methodical artistic form
raised it for the first time to the rank of a science. In his monographic works also, he endeavours
to examine impartially the history of dogma, and to acquire the historic stand-point between the
estimate of the orthodox dogmatics and that of Gottfried Arnold. Mosheim, averse to all fault-finding
and polemic, and abhorring theological crudity as much as pietistic narrowness and undevout
Illuminism, aimed at an actual correct knowledge of history, in accordance with the principle of
Leibnitz, that the valuable elements which are everywhere to be found in history must be sought
out and recognised. And the richness and many-sidedness of his mind qualified him for gaining
such a knowledge. But his latitudinarian dogmatic standpoint as well as the anxiety to awaken no
controversy or endanger the gradual naturalising of a new science and culture, caused him to put
aside the most important problems of the history of dogma and devote his attention to political
Church history as well as to the more indifferent historical questions. The opposition of two periods
which he endeavoured peacefully to reconcile could not in this way be permanently set aside.24 In
Mosheims sense, but without the spirit of that great man, C. W. F. Walch taught on the subject
and described the religious controversies of the Church with an effort to be impartial, and has thus
made generally accessible the abundant material collected by the diligence of earlier scholars.25
Walch, moreover, in the Gedanken von der Geschichte der Glaubenslehre, 1756, gave the impulse
that was needed to fix attention on the history of dogma as a special discipline. The stand-point
which he took up was still that of subjection to ecclesiastical dogma, but without confessional
narrowness. Ernesti in his programme of the year 1759, De theologi histori et dogmatic
conjungend necessitate, gave eloquent expression to the idea that Dogmatic is a positive science
which has to take its material from history, but that history itself requires a devoted and candid
study, on account of our being separated from the earlier epochs by a complicated tradition.26 He
has also shewn in his celebrated Antimuratorius, that an impartial and critical investigation of
the problems of the history of dogma, might render the most effectual service to the polemic against
the errors of Romanism. Besides, the greater part of the dogmas were already unintelligible to
Ernesti, and yet during his lifetime the way was opened up for that tendency in theology, which,
prepared in Germany by Chr. Thomasius, supported by English writers, drew the sure principles
23
24
25
26
Calixtus of Helmstdt was the forerunner of Leibnitz with regard to Church history. But the merit of having recognised the main
problem of the history of dogma does not belong to Calixtus. By pointing out what Protestantism and Catholicism had in common
he did not in any way clear up the historical-critical problem. On the other hand the Consensus repetitus of the Wittenberg
theologians shews what fundamental questions Calixtus had already stirred.
Among the numerous historical writings of Mosheim may be mentioned specially his Dissert ad hist. Eccles. pertinentes. 2 vols.
1731-1741, as well as the work: De rebus Christianorum ante Constantinum M. Commentarii, 1753; see also Institutions
hist. Eccl. last Edition, 1755.
Walch, Entwurf einer vollstndigen Historie der Ketzereien, Spaltungen und Religionsstreitigkeiten bis auf die Zeiten der
Reformation. II Thle (incomplete), 1762-1785. See also his Entwurf einer vollstndigen Historie der Kirchenversammlungen,
1759, as well as numerous monographs on the history of dogma. Such were already produced by the older Walch, whose a
Histor. theol. Einleitung in die Religionsstreitigkeiten der Ev. Luth. Kirche, 5 vols. 1730-1739, and Histor.-theol. Einleit. in
die Religionsstreitigkeiten welche sonderlich ausser der Ev. Luth. Kirche entstanden sind 5 Thle, 1933-1736, had already put
polemics behind the knowledge of history (see Gass. Desch. der protest. Dogmatik, 3rd Vol. p. 205 ff.).
Opusc. p. 576 f.: Es quo fit, ut nullo modo in theologicis, qu omnia e libris antiquis hebraicis, grcis, latinis ducuntur, possit
aliquis bene in definiendo versari et a peccatis multis et magnis sibi cavere, nisi litteras et historiam assumat. The title of a
programme of Crusius, Ernestis opponent, De dogmatum Christianorum historia cum probatione dogmatum non confundenda,
1770, is significant of the new insight which was steadily making way.
27
29
30
Adolf Harnack
of faith and life from what is called reason, and therefore was not only indifferent to the system of
dogma, but felt it more and more to be the tradition of unreason and of darkness. Of the three
requisites of a historian ; knowledge of his subject, candid criticism, and a capacity for finding
himself at home in foreign interests and ideas, the Rationalistic Theologians who had outgrown
Pietism and passed through the school of the English Deists and of Wolf, no longer possessed the
first, a knowledge of the subject, to the same extent as some scholars of the earlier generation. The
second, free criticism, they possessed in the high degree guaranteed by the conviction of having a
rational religion; the third, the power of comprehension, only in a very limited measure. They had
lost the idea of positive religion, and with it a living and just conception of the history of religion.
In the history of thought there is always need for an apparently disproportionate expenditure of
power, in order to produce an advance in the development. And it would appear as if a certain
self-satisfied narrow-mindedness within the progressing ideas of the present, as well as a great
measure of inability even to understand the past and recognise its own dependence on it, must make
its appearance, in order that a whole generation may be freed from the burden of the past. It needed
the absolute certainty which Rationalism had found in the religious philosophy of the age, to give
sufficient courage to subject to historical criticism the central dogmas on which the Protestant
system as well as the Catholic finally rests, the dogmas of the canon and inspiration on the one
hand, and of the Trinity and Christology on the other. The work of Lessing in this respect had no
great results. We to-day see in his theological writings the most important contribution to the
understanding of the earliest history of dogma, which that period supplies; but we also understand
why its results were then so trifling. This was due, not only to the fact that Lessing was no theologian
by profession, or that his historical observations were couched in aphorisms, but because, like
Leibnitz and Mosheim, he had a capacity for appreciating the history of religion which forbade
him to do violence to that history or to sit in judgment on it, and because his philosophy in its
bearings on the case allowed him to seek no more from his materials than an assured understanding
of them; in a word again, because he was no theologian. The Rationalists, on the other hand, who
within certain limits were no less his opponents than the orthodox, derived the strength of their
opposition to the systems of dogma, as the Apologists of the second century had already done with
regard to polytheism, from their religious belief and their inability to estimate these systems
historically. That, however, is only the first impression which one gets here from the history, and
it is everywhere modified by other impressions. In the first place, there is no mistaking a certain
latitudinarianism in several prominent theologians of the rationalistic tendency. Moreover, the
attitude to the canon was still frequently, in virtue of the Protestant principle of scripture, an uncertain
one, and it was here chiefly that the different types of rational supernaturalism were developed.
Then, with all subjection to the dogmas of Natural religion, the desire for a real true knowledge
was unfettered and powerfully excited. Finally, very significant attempts were made by some
rationalistic theologians to explain in a real historical way the phenomena of the history of dogma,
and to put an authentic and historical view of that history in the place of barren pragmatic or
philosophic categories.
The special zeal with which the older rationalism applied itself to the investigation of the canon,
either putting aside the history of dogma, or treating it merely in the frame-work of Church history,
has only been of advantage for the treatment of our subject. It first began to be treated with
28
31
32
Adolf Harnack
thoroughness when the historical and critical interests had become more powerful than the
rationalistic. After the important labours of Semler, which here, above all, have wrought in the
interests of freedom,27 and after some monographs on the history of dogma,28 S. G. Lange for the
first time treated the history of dogma as a special subject.29 Unfortunately, his comprehensively
planned and carefully written work, which shews a real understanding of the early history of dogma,
remains in-complete. Consequently, W. Mnscher, in his learned manual, which was soon followed
by his compendium of the history of dogma, was the first to produce a complete presentation of
our subject.30 Mnschers compendium is a counterpart to Gieslers Church history; it shares with
that the merit of drawing from the sources, intelligent criticism and impartiality, but with a thorough
knowledge of details it fails to impart a real conception of the development of ecclesiastical dogma.
The division of the material into particular loci, which, in three sections, is carried through the
whole history of the Church, makes insight into the whole Christian conception of the different
epochs impossible, and the prefixed General History of Dogma, is far too sketchily treated to
make up for that defect. Finally, the connection between the development of dogma and the general
ideas of the time is not sufficiently attended to. A series of manuals followed the work of Mnscher,
but did not materially advance the study.31 The compendium of Baumgarten Crusius,32 and that of
F. K. Meier,33 stand out prominently among them. The work of the former is distinguished by its
independent learning as well as by the discernment of the author that the centre of gravity of the
subject lies in the so-called general history of dogma.34 The work of Meier goes still further, and
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
Semler, Einleitung zu Baumgartens evang. Glaubenslehre, 1759: also Geschichte der Glaubenslehre, zu Baumgartens Untersuch.
theol. Streitigkesten, 1762-1764. Semler paved the way for the view that dogmas have arisen and been gradually developed
under definite historical conditions. He was the first to grasp the problem of the relation of Catholicism to early Christianity,
because he freed the early Christian documents from the letters of the Canon. Schrckh (Christl. Kirchengesch., 1786) in the
spirit of Semler described with impartiality and care the changes of the dogmas.
Rssler, Lehrbegriff der Christlichen Kirche in den 3 ersten Jahrb., 1775; also, Arbeiten by Burscher, Heinrich, Studlin, etc.,
see especially, Lfflers Abhandlung welche eine kurze Darstellung der Entstehungsart der Dreieinigkeit enthlt, 1792, in the
translation of Souverains Le Platonisme devoil, 1700. The question as to the Platonism of the Fathers, this fundamental question
of the history of dogma, was raised even by Luther and Flacius, and was very vigorously debated at the end of the 17th and
beginning of the 18th centuries, after the Socinians had already affirmed it strongly. The question once more emerges on German
soil in the church history of G. Arnold, but cannot he said to have received the attention it deserves in the 150 years that have
followed (see the literature of the controversy in Tzsohirner, Fall des Heidenthums, p. 580 f.). Yet the problem was first thrust
aside by the speculative view of the history of christianity.
Lange. Ausfhr. Gesch. der Dogmen, oder der Glaubenslehre der Christl. Kirche nach den Kirchenvater ausgearbeitet. 1796.
Mnscher, Handb. d. Christl. D. G. 4 vols. first 6 Centuries 1797-1809; Lehrbuch, 1st Edit. 1811; 3rd Edit. edited by v. Clln,
Hupfeld and Neudecker, 1832-1838. Plancks epoch-making work: Gesch. der Vernderungen und der Bildung unseres
protestantischen Lehrbegriffs. 6 vols. 1791-1800, had already for the most part appeared. Contemporary with Mnscher are
Wundemann, Gesch. d. Christl. Glaubenslehren vom Zeitalter des Athanasius bis auf Gregor. d. Gr. 2 Thle. 1789-1799; Mnter,
Handbuch der alteren Christl. D. G. hrsg. von Ewers. 2 vols. 1802-1804; Studlin, Lehrbuch der Dogmatik und Dogmengeschichte,
1800, last Edition 1822, and Beck, Comment. hist. decretorum religionis Christian, 1801.
Augusti, Lehrb. d. Christl. D. G. 1805. 4 Edit. 1835. Berthold, Handb. der D. G. 2 vols. 1822-1823. Schickedanz, Versuch einer
Gesch. d. Christl. Glaubenslehre, etc. 1827. Rperti, Geschichte der Dogmen, 1831. Lenz, Gesch. der Christl. Dogmen. 2 parts.
1834-1835. J. G. V. Engelhardt, Dogmengesch. 1839. See also Giesler, Dogmengesch. 2 vols. edited by Redepenning, 1855:
also Illgen, Ueber den Werth der Christl. D. G. 1817.
Baumgarten Crusius, Lehrb. d. Christl. D. G. 1852: also conpendium d. Christl. D. G. 2 parts 1830-1846, the second part edited
by Hase.
Meier, Lehrb. d. D. G, 1840, 2nd Edit. revised by G. Baur 1854.
The Special History of Dogma, in Baumgarten Crusius, in which every particular dogma is by itself pursued through the whole
history of the Church, is of course entirely unfruitful. But even the opinions which are given in the General History of Dogma,
29
Adolf Harnack
accurately perceives that the division into a general and special history of dogma must be altogether
given up, while it is also characterised by an accurate setting and proportional arrangement of the
facts.35
33
34
The great spiritual revolution at the beginning of our century, which must in every respect be
regarded as a reaction against the efforts of the rationalistic epoch, changed also the conceptions
of the Christian religion and its history. It appears therefore plainly in the treatment of the history
of dogma. The advancement and deepening of Christian life, the zealous study of the past, the new
philosophy which no longer thrust history aside, but endeavoured to appreciate it in all its phenomena
as the history of the spirit, all these factors co-operated in begetting a new temper, and accordingly,
a new estimate of religion proper and of its history. There were three tendencies in theology that
broke up rationalism; that which was identified with the names of Schleiermacher and Neander,
that of the Hegelians, and that of the Confessionalists. The first two were soon divided into a right
and a left, in so far as they included conservative and critical interests from their very
commencement. The conservative elements have been used for building up the modern
confessionalism, which in its endeavours to go back to the Reformers has never actually got beyond
the theology of the Formula of Concord, the stringency of which it has no doubt abolished by new
theologoumena and concessions of all kinds. All these tendencies have in common the effort to
gain a real comprehension of history and be taught by it, that is, to allow the idea of development
to obtain its proper place, and to comprehend the power and sphere of the individual. In this and
in the deeper conception of the nature and significance of positive religion, lay the advance beyond
Rationalism. And yet the wish to understand history, has in great measure checked the effort to
obtain a true knowledge of it, and the respect for history as the greatest of teachers, has not resulted
in that supreme regard for facts which distinguished the critical rationalism. The speculative
pragmatism, which, in the Hegelian School, was put against the lower pragmatism, and was
rigorously carried out with the view of exhibiting the unity of history, not only neutralised the
historical material, in so far as its concrete definiteness was opposed, as phenomenon, to the essence
of the matter, but also curtailed it in a suspicious way, as may be seem for example, in the works
of Baur. Moreover, the universal historical suggestions which the older history of dogma had given
were not at all, or only very little regarded. The history of dogma was, as it were, shut out by the
watchword of the immanent development of the spirit in Christianity. The disciples of Hegel, both
of the right and of the left, were, and still are, agreed in this watch-word,36 the working out of which,
including an apology for the course of the history of dogma, must be for the advancement of
conservative theology. But at the basis of the statement that the history of Christianity is the history
35
36
are frequently very far from the mark (Cf. e.g., 14 and p. 67), which is the more surprising as no one can deny that he takes a
scholarly view of history.
Meiers Lehrbuch is formally and materially a very important piece of work, the value of which has not been sufficiently
recognised, because the author followed neither the track of Neander nor of Bauer. Besides the excellences noted in the text,
may be further mentioned, that almost everywhere Meier has distinguished correctly between the history of dogma and the
history of theology, and has given an account only of the former.
Biedermann (Christl. Dogmatik. 2 Edit. I vol. p. 332 f.) says, The history of the development of the Dogma of the Person of
Christ will bring before us step by step the ascent of faith in the Gospel of Jesus Christ to its metaphysical basis in the nature of
his person. This was the quite normal and necessary way of actual faith, and is not to be reckoned as a confused mixture of
heterogeneous philosophical opinions.... The only thing taken from the ideas of contemporary philosophy was the special
30
35
Adolf Harnack
of the spirit, there lay further a very one-sided conception of the nature of religion, which confirmed
the false idea that religion is theology. It will always, however, be the imperishable merit of Hegels
great disciple, F. Chr. Baur, in theology, that he was the first who attempted to give a uniform
general idea of the history of dogma, and to live through the whole process in himself, without
renouncing the critical acquisitions of the 18th century.37 His brilliantly written manual of the history
of dogma, in which the history of this branch of theological science is relatively treated with the
utmost detail, is, however, in material very meagre, and shews in the very first proposition of the
historical presentation an abstract view of history.38 Neander, whose Christliche Dogmengeschichte,
1857, is distinguished by the variety of its points of view, and keen apprehension of particular forms
of doctrine, shews a far more lively and therefore a far more just conception of the Christian religion.
But the general plan of the work, (General history of dogmaloci, and these according to the
established scheme), proves that Neander has not succeeded in giving real expression to the historical
character of the study, and in attaining a clear insight into the progress of the development.39
Kliefoths thoughtful and instructive, Einleitung in die Dogmengeschichte, 1839, contains the
programme for the conception of the history of dogma characteristic of the modern confessional
theology. In this work the Hegelian view of history, not without being influenced by Schleiermacher,
is so represented as to legitimise a return to the theology of the Fathers. In the successive great
epochs of the Church several circles of dogmas have been successively fixed, so that the respective
doctrines have each time been adequately formulated.40 Disturbances of the development are due
to the influence of sin. Apart from this, Kliefoths conception is in point of form equal to that of
Baur and Strauss, in so far as they also have considered the theology represented by themselves as
the goal of the whole historical development. The only distinction is that, according to them, the
next following stage always cancels the preceding, while according to Kliefoth, who, moreover,
has no desire to give effect to mere traditionalism, the new knowledge is added to the old. The new
edifice of true historical knowledge, according to Kliefoth, is raised on the ruins of Traditionalism,
37
38
39
40
material of consciousness in which the doctrine of Christs Divinity was at any time expressed. The process of this doctrinal
development was an inward necessary one.
Baur, Lehrbuch der Christl. D. G. 1847. 3rd Edit. 1867: also Vorles. ber die Christl. D. G. edited by F. Baur, 1865-68. Further
the Monographs, Ueber die Christl. Lehre v. d. Vershnung in ihrer gesch. Entw. 1838: Ueber die Christl. Lehre v. d.
Dreieinigkeit u. d. Menschwerdung. 1841: etc. D. F. Strauss, preceded him with his work: Die Christl. Glaubenslehre in ihrer
gesch. Entw. 2 vols. 1840-41. From the stand-point of the Hegelian right we have: Marheineke, Christl. D. G. edited by Matthias
and Vatke, 1849. From the same stand-point, though at the same time influenced by Schleiermacher, Dorner wrote The History
of the Person of Christ.
See p. 63: As Christianity appeared in contrast with Judaism and Heathenism, and could only represent a new and peculiar
form of the religious consciousness in distinction from both, reducing the contrasts of both to a unity in itself, so also the first
difference of tendencies developing themselves within Christianity, must be determined by the relation in which it stood to
Judaism on the one hand, and to Heathenism on the other. Compare also the very characteristic introduction to the first volume
of the Vorlesungen.
Hagenbachs Manual of the history of dogma, might be put alongside of Neanders work. It agrees with it both in plan and spirit.
But the material of the history of dogma, which it offers in superabundance, seems far less connectedly worked out than by
Neander. In Shedds history of Christian doctrine the Americans possess a presentation of the history of dogma worth noting, 2
vols. 3 Edit. 1883. The work of Fr. Bonifas. Hist. des Dogmes. 2 vols. 1886, appeared after the death of the author and is not
important.
No doubt Kliefoth also maintains for each period a stage of the disintegration of dogma, but this is not to be understood in the
ordinary sense of the word. Besides, there are ideas in this introduction which would hardly obtain the approval of their author
to-day.
31
36
37
Adolf Harnack
Scholasticism, Pietism, Rationalism and Mysticism. Thomasius (Das Bekenntniss der evang.-luth.
Kirche in der Consequenz seines Princips, 1848) has, after the example of Sartorius, attempted to
justify by history the Lutheran confessional system of doctrine from another side, by representing
it as the true mean between Catholicism and the Reformed Spiritualism. This conception has found
much approbation in the circles of Theologians related to Thomasius, as against the Union Theology.
But Thomasius is entitled to the merit of having produced a Manual of the history of dogma which
represents in the most worthy manner41 the Lutheran confessional view of the history of dogma.
The introduction, as well as the selection and arrangement of his material, shews that Thomasius
has learned much from Baur. The way in which he distinguishes between central and peripheral
dogmas is, accordingly, not very appropriate, especially for the earliest period. The question as to
the origin of dogma and theology is scarcely even touched by him. But he has an impression that
the central dogmas contain for every period the whole of Christianity, and that they must therefore
be apprehended in this sense.42 The presentation is dominated throughout by the idea of the
self-explication of dogma, though a malformation has to be admitted for the middle ages,43 and
therefore the formation of dogma is almost everywhere justified as the testimony of the Church
represented as completely hypostatised, and the outlook on the history of the time is put into the
background. But narrow and insufficient as the complete view here is, the excellences of the work
in details are great, in respect of exemplary clearness of presentation, and the discriminating
knowledge and keen comprehension of the author for religious problems. The most important work
done by Thomasius is contained in his account of the history of Christology.
In his outlines of the history of Christian dogma (Grundriss der Christl. Dogmengesch. 1870),
which unfortunately has not been carried beyond the first part (Patristic period), F. Nitzsch, marks
an advance in the history of our subject. The advance lies, on the one hand, in the extensive use he
makes of monographs on the history of dogma, and on the other hand, in the arrangement. Nitzsch
has advanced a long way on the path that was first entered by F. K. Meier, and has arranged his
material in a way that far excels all earlier attempts. The general and special aspects of the history
of dogma are here almost completely worked into one,44 and in the main divisions, Grounding of
the old Catholic Church doctrine, and Development of the old Catholic Church doctrine, justice
41
42
43
44
Thomasius Die Christl. Dogmengesch. als Entwickel. Gesch. des Kirchl. Lehrbegriffs. 2 vols. 187476. 2nd Edit. intelligently
and carefully edited by Bonwetsch. and Seeberg, 1887. (Seeberg has produced almost a new work in vol. II.) From the same
stand-point is the manual of the history of dogma by H. Schmid, 1859, (in the 4th Ed. revised and transformed into an excellent
collection of passages from the sources by Hauck, 1887) as well as the Luther. Dogmatik (Vol. II. 1864: Der Kirchenglaube) of
Kahnis, which, however, subjects particular dogmas to a freer criticism.
See Vol. I. p. 14.
See Vol. I. p. 11. The first period treats of the development of the great main dogmas which were to become the basis of the
further development (the Patristic age). The problem of the second period was, partly to work up this material theologically, and
partly to develop it. But this development, under the influence of the Hierarchy, fell into false paths, and became partly, at least,
corrupt (the age of Scholasticism), and therefore a reformation was necessary. It was reserved for this third period to carry back
the doctrinal formation, which had become abnormal, to the old sound paths, and on the other hand, in virtue of the regeneration
of the Church which followed, to deepen it and fashion it according to that form which it got in the doctrinal systems of the
Evangelic Church, while the remaining part fixed its own doctrine in the decrees of Trent (period of the Reformation.). This
view of history, which from the Christian stand-point, will allow absolutely nothing to be said against the doctrinal formation
of the early Church, is a retrogression from the view of Luther and the writers of the Centuries, for these were well aware that
the corruption did not first begin in the middle ages.
This fulfils a requirement urged by Weizscker (Jahrb. f. Deutsche Theol. 1866, p. 170 ff.).
32
38
39
Adolf Harnack
is at last done to the most important problem which the history of dogma presents, though in my
opinion the division is not made at the right place, and the problem is not so clearly kept in view
in the execution as the arrangement would lead one to expect.45 Nitzsch has freed himself from that
speculative view of the history of dogma which reads ideas into it. No doubt idea and motive on
the one hand, form and expression on the other, must be distinguished for every period. But the
historian falls into vagueness as soon as he seeks and professes to find behind the demonstrable
ideas and aims which have moved a period, others of which, as a matter of fact, that period itself
knew nothing at all. Besides, the invariable result of that procedure is to concentrate the attention
on the theological and philosophical points of dogma, and either neglect or put a new construction
on the most concrete and important, the expression of the religious faith itself. Rationalism has
been reproached with throwing out the child with the bath, but this is really worse, for here the
child is thrown out while the bath is retained. Every advance in the future treatment of our subject
will further depend on the effort to comprehend the history of dogma without reference to the
momentary opinions of the present, and also on keeping it in closest connection with the history
of the Church, from which it can never be separated without damage. We have something to learn
on this point from rationalistic historians of dogma.46 But progress is finally dependent on a true
45
46
See Ritschls Essay, Ueber die Methode der alteren Dogmengeschichte (Jahrb. f. deutsche Theol. 1871. p. 191 ff.) in which
the advance made by Nitzsch is estimated, and at the same time an arrangement proposed for the treatment of the earlier history
of dogma which would group the material more clearly and more suitable than has been done by Nitzsch. After having laid the
foundation for a correct historical estimate of the development of early Christianity in his work Entstehung der Alt-Katholischen
Kirche, 1857, Ritschl published an epoch-making study in the history of dogma in his History of the doctrine of justification
and reconciliation, 2 edit. 1883. We have no superabundance of good monographs on the history of dogma. There are few that
give such exact information regarding the Patristic period as that of Von Engelhardt Ueber das Christenthum Justins, 1878,
and Zahns work on Marcellus, 1867. Among the investigators of our age, Renan above all has clearly recognised that there are
only two main periods in the history of dogma, and that the changes which Christianity experienced after the establishment of
the Catholic Church bear no proportion to the changes which preceded. His words are as follows (Hist. des origin. du Christianisme
T. VII. p. 503 f.):the division about the year 180 is certainly placed too early, regard being had to what was then really
authoritative in the Church.Si nous comparons maintenant le Christianisme, tel quil existait vers lan 180, an Christianisme
du IVe et du Ve sicle, au Christianisme du moyen ge, an Christianisme de nos jours, nous trouvons quen ralit it sest
augmente des trs peu de chose dans les sicles qui ont suivis. En 180, le nouveau Testament est clos: it ne sy ajoutera plus un
seul livre nouveau(?). Lentement, les pitres de Paul ont conquis leur place la suite des Evangiles, dans le code sacr et dans
la liturgie. Quant aux dogmes, rien nest fix; mais le germe de tout existe; presque aucune ide napparaitra qui ne puisse faire
valoir des autorits du 1er et du 2e sicle. Il y a du trop, il y a des contradictions; le travail thologique consistera bien plus
monder, carter des superfuites qu inventer du nouveau. Lglise laissera tomber une foule de choses mal commences,
elle sortira de bien des impasses. Elle a encore deux curs, pour ainsi dire; elle a plusieurs ttes; ces anomalies tomberont; mais
aucun dogme vraiment original ne se formera plus. Also the discussions in chapter 2834 of the same volume. H. Thiersch
(Die Kirche im Apostolischen Zeitalter, 1852) reveals a deep insight into the difference between the spirit of the New Testament
writers and the post-Apostolic Fathers, but he has overdone these differences, and sought to explain them by the mythological
assumption of an Apostasy. A great amount of material for the history of dogma may be found in the great work of Bhringer,
Die Kirche Christi und ihre Zeugen, oder die Kirchengeschichte in Biographien. 2 Edit. 1864.
By the connection with general church history we must, above all, understand, a continuous regard to the world within which
the church has been developed, The most recent works on the history of the church and of dogma, those of Renan, Overbeck
(Anfnge der patristischen Litteratur). Aube, Von Engelhardt (Justin), Khn (Minucius Felix). Hatch (Organization of the Early
Church, and especially his posthumous work The influence of Greek ideas and usages upon the Christian Church, 1890, in
which may be found the most ample proof for the conception of the early history of dogma which is set forth in the following
pages), are in this respect worthy of special note. Deserving of mention also is R. Rothe, who, in his Vorlesungen ber
Kirchengeschichte, edited by Weingarten, 1875, 2 vols., gave most significant suggestions towards a really historical conception
of the history of the church and of dogma. To Rothe belongs the undiminished merit of realising thoroughly the significance of
a nationality in church history. But the theology of our century is also indebted for the first scientific conception of Catholicism,
not to Marheineke or Winer, but to Rothe (see Vol. II. pp. 111 especially p. 7 f.). The development of the Christian Church
33
40
Adolf Harnack
perception of what the Christian religion originally was, for this perception alone enables us to
distinguish that which sprang out of the inherent power of Christianity from that which it has
assimilated in the course of its history. For the historian, however, who does not wish to serve a
party, there are two standards in accordance with which he may criticise the history of dogma. He
may either, as far as this is possible, compare it with the Gospel, or he may judge it according to
the historical conditions of the time and the result. Both ways can exist side by side, if only they
are not mixed up with one another. Protestantism has in principle expressly recognised the first,
and it will also have the power to bear its conclusions ; for the saying of Tertullian still holds good
in it; Nihil veritas erubescit nisi solummodo abscondi. The historian who follows this maxim,
and at the same time has no desire to be wiser than the facts, will, while furthering science, perform
the best service also to every Christian community that desires to build itself upon the Gospel.
After the appearance of the first and second editions of this Work, Loofs published, Leitfaden fr
seine Vorlesungen ber Dogmengeschichte, Halle, 1889, and in the following year, Leitfaden
zum Studium der Dogmengeschichte, zunchst fr seine Vorlesungen, (second and enlarged edition
of the first-named book). The work in its conception of dogma and its history comes pretty near
that stated above, and it is distinguished by independent investigation and excellent selection of
material. I myself have published a Grundriss der Dogmengeschichte, 2 Edit. in one vol. 1893.
(Outlines of the History of Dogma, English translation. Hodder and Stoughton). That this has not
been written in vain, I have the pleasure of seeing from not a few notices of professional colleagues.
I may mention the Church history of Herzog in the new revision by Koffmane, the first vol. of the
Church history of Karl Mller, the first vol. of the Symbolik of Kattenbusch, and Kaftans work.
The truth of the Christian religion. Wilhelm Schmidt, Der alte Glaube und die Wahrheit des
Christenthums, 1891, has attempted to furnish a refutation in principle of Kaftans work.
41
II
in the Grco-Roman world was not at the same time a development of that world by the Church and further by Christianity.
There remained, as the result of the process, nothing but the completed Church. The world which had built it had made itself
bankrupt in doing so. With regard to the origin and development of the Catholic cultus and constitution, nay, even of the Ethic
(see Luthardt, Die antike Ethik, 1887, preface), that has been recognised by Protestant scholars, which one always hesitates to
recognise with regard to catholic dogma: see the excellent remarks of Schwegler, Nachapostolisches Zeitalter, Vol. I. p. 3 ff. It
may be hoped that an intelligent consideration of early christian literature will form the bridge to a broad and intelligent view
of the history of dogma. The essay of Overbeck mentioned above (Histor. Zeitschrift N. F. XII. p. 417 ff.) may be most heartily
recommended in this respect. It is very gratifying to find an investigator so conservative as Sohm, now fully admitting that
Christian theology grew up in the second and third centuries, when its foundations were laid for all time (?), the last great
production of the Hellenic Spirit. (Kirchengeschichte im Grundriss. 1888, p. 37). The same scholar in his very important
Kirchenrecht. Bd. I. 1892. has transferred to the history of the origin of Church law and Church organization, the points of view
which I have applied in the following account to the consideration of dogma. He has thereby succeeded in correcting many old
errors and prejudices; but in my opinion he has obscured the truth by exaggerations connected with a conception, not only of
original Christianity, but also of the Gospel in general, which is partly a narrow legal view, partly an enthusiastic one. He has
arrived ex errare per veritatem ad errorem; but there are few books from which so much may be learned about early church
history as from this paradoxical Kirchenrecht.
34
Adolf Harnack
THE PRESUPPOSITIONS OF THE HISTORY OF DOGMA

I. Introductory.
THE Gospel presents itself as an Apocalyptic message on the soil of the Old Testament, and as the
fulfilment of the law and the prophets, and yet is a new thing, the creation of a universal religion
on the basis of that of the Old Testament. It appeared when the time was fulfilled, that is, it is not
without a connection with the stage of religious and spiritual development which was brought about
by the intercourse of Jews and Greeks, and was established in the Roman Empire; but still it is a
new religion because it cannot be separated from Jesus Christ. When the traditional religion has
become too narrow the new religion usually appears as something of a very abstract nature;
philosophy comes upon the scene, and religion withdraws from social life and becomes a private
matter. But here an overpowering personality has appearedthe Son of God. Word and deed
coincide in that personality, and as it leads men into a new communion with God, it unites them at
the same time inseparably with itself, enables them to act on the world as light and leaven, and
joins them together in a spiritual unity and an active confederacy.
42
2. Jesus Christ brought no new doctrine, but he set forth in his own person a holy life with God and
before God, and gave himself in virtue of this life to the service of his brethren in order to win then
for the Kingdom of God, that is, to lead them out of selfishness and the world to God, out of the
natural connections and contrasts to a union in love, and prepare them for an eternal kingdom and
an eternal life. But while working for this Kingdom of God he did not withdraw from the religious
and political communion of his people, nor did he induce his disciples to leave that communion.
On the contrary, he described the Kingdom of God as the fulfilment of the promises given to the
nation, and himself as the Messiah whom that nation expected. By doing so he secured for his new
message, and with it his own person, a place in the system of religious ideas and hopes, which by
means of the Old Testament were then, in diverse forms, current in the Jewish nation. The origin
of a doctrine concerning the Messianic hope, in which the Messiah was no longer an unknown
being, but Jesus of Nazareth, along with the new temper and disposition of believers was a direct
result of the impression made by the person of Jesus. The conception of the Old Testament in
accordance with the analogia fidei, that is, in accordance with the conviction that this Jesus of
Nazareth is the Christ, was therewith given. Whatever sources of comfort and strength Christianity,
even in its New Testament, has possessed or does possess up to the present, is for the most part
taken from the Old Testament, viewed from a Christian stand-point, in virtue of the impression of
the person of Jesus. Even its dross was changed into gold; its hidden treasures were brought forth,
and while the earthly and transitory were recognised as symbols of the heavenly and eternal, there
rose up a world of blessings, of holy ordinances, and of sure grace prepared by God from eternity.
One could joyfully make oneself at home in it; for its long history guaranteed a sure future and a
blessed close, while it offered comfort and certainty in all the changes of life to every individual
heart that would only raise itself to God. From the positive position which Jesus took up towards
the Old Testament, that is, towards the religious traditions of his people, his Gospel gained a footing
which, later on, preserved it from dissolving in the glow of enthusiasm, or melting away in the
ensnaring dream of antiquity, that dream of the indestructible Divine nature of the human spirit,
35
43
44
Adolf Harnack
and the nothingness and baseness of all material things.47 But from the positive attitude of Jesus to
the Jewish tradition, there followed also, for a generation that had long been accustomed to grope
after the Divine active in the world, the summons to think out a theory of the media of revelation,
and so put an end to the uncertainty with which speculation had hitherto been afflicted. This, like
every theory of religion, concealed in itself the danger of crippling the power of faith; for men are
ever prone to compound with religion itself by a religious theory.
3. The result of the preaching of Jesus, however, in the case of the believing Jews, was not only
the illumination of the Old Testament by the Gospel and the confirmation of the Gospel by the Old
Testament, but not less, though indirectly, the detachment of believers from the religious community
of the Jews from the Jewish Church. How this came about cannot be discussed here: we may satisfy
ourselves with the fact that it was essentially accomplished in the first two generations of believers.
The Gospel was a message for humanity even when there was no break with Judaism; but it seemed
impossible to bring this message home to men who were not Jews in any other way than by leaving
the Jewish Church. But to leave that Church was to declare it to be worthless, and that could only
be done by conceiving it as a malformation from its very commencement, or assuming that it had
temporarily or completely fulfilled its mission. In either case it was necessary to put another in its
place, for, according to the Old Testament, it was unquestionable that God had not only given
revelations, but through these revelations had founded a nation, a religious community. The result,
also, to which the conduct of the unbelieving Jews, and the social union of the disciples of Jesus
required by that conduct, led, was carried home with irresistible power: believers in Christ are the
community of God, they are the true Israel, the : but the Jewish Church persisting
in its unbelief is the Synagogue of Satan. Out of this consciousness sprangfirst as a power in
which one believed, but which immediately began to be operative, though not as a
commonwealththe Christian Church, a special communion of hearts on the basis of a personal
union with God, established by Christ and mediated by the Spirit; a communion whose essential
mark was to claim as its own the Old Testament and the idea of being the people of God, to sweep
aside the Jewish conception of the Old Testament and the Jewish Church, and thereby gain the
shape and power of a community that is capable of a mission for the world.
4. This independent Christian community could not have been formed had not Judaism, in
consequence of inner and outer developments, then reached a point at which it must either altogether
cease to grow or burst its shell. This community is the presupposition of the history of dogma, and
the position which it took up towards the Jewish tradition is, strictly speaking, the point of departure
for all further developments, so far as with the removal of all national and ceremonial peculiarities
it proclaimed itself to be what the Jewish Church wished to be. We find the Christian Church about
the middle of the third century, after severe crisis, in nearly the same position to the Old Testament
47
The Old Testament of itself alone could not have convinced the Grco-Roman world. But the converse question might perhaps
be raised as to what results the Gospel would have had in that world without its union with the Old Testament. The Gnostic
Schools and the Marcionite Church are to some extent the answer. But would they ever have arisen without the presupposition
of a Christian community which recognised the Old Testament?
36
45
46
Adolf Harnack
and to Judaism as it was 150 or 200 years earlier.48 It makes the same claim to the Old Testament,
and builds its faith and hope upon its teaching. It is also, as before, strictly anti-national; above all,
anti-judaic, and sentences the Jewish religious community to the abyss of hell. It might appear,
then, as though the basis for the further development of Christianity as a church was completely
given from the moment in which the first breach of believers with the synagogue and the formation
of independent Christian communities took place. The problem, the solution of which will always
exercise this church, so far as it reflects upon its faith, will be to turn the Old Testament more
completely to account in its own sense, so as to condemn the Jewish Church with its particular and
national forms.
5. But the rule even for the Christian use of the Old Testament lay originally in the living connection
in which one stood with the Jewish people and its traditions, and a new religious community, a
religious commonwealth, was not yet realised, although it existed for faith and thought. If again
we compare the Church about the middle of the third century with the condition of Christendom
150 or 200 years before, we shall find that there is now a real religious commonwealth, while at
the earlier period there were only communities who believed in a heavenly Church, whose earthly
image they were, endeavoured to give it expression with the simplest means, and lived in the future
as strangers and pilgrims on the earth, hastening to meet the Kingdom of whose existence they had
the surest guarantee. We now really find a new commonwealth, politically formed and equipped
with fixed forms of all kinds. We recognise in these forms few Jewish, but many Grco-Roman
features, and finally we perceive also in the doctrine of faith on which this common-wealth is based,
the philosophic spirit of the Greeks. We find a Church as a political union and worship institute, a
formulated faith and a sacred learning; but one thing we no longer find, the old enthusiasm and
individualism which had not felt itself fettered by subjection to the authority of the Old Testament.
Instead of enthusiastic independent Christians, we find a new literature of revelation, the New
Testament, and Christian priests. When did these formations begin? How and by what influence
was the living faith transformed into the creed to be believed, the surrender to Christ into a
philosophic Christology, the Holy Church into the corpus permixtum, the glowing hope of the
Kingdom of heaven into a doctrine of immortality and deification, prophecy into a learned exegesis
and theological science, the bearers of the spirit into clerics, the brethren into laity held in tutelage,
miracles and healings into nothing or into priestcraft, the fervent prayers into a solemn ritual,
renunciation of the world into a jealous dominion over the world, the spirit into constraint and
law ?
There can be no doubt about the answer: these formations are as old in their origin as the detachment
of the Gospel from the Jewish Church. A religious faith which seeks to establish a communion of
its own in opposition to another, is compelled to borrow from that other what it needs. The religion
which is life and feeling of the heart cannot be converted into a knowledge determining the motley
multitude of men without deferring to their wishes and opinions. Even the holiest must clothe itself
in the same existing earthly forms as the profane if it wishes to found on earth a confederacy which
48
We here leave out of account learned attempts to expound Paulinism. Nor do we take any notice of certain truths regarding the
relation of the Old Testament to the New, and regarding the Jewish religion, stated by the Antignostic church teachers, truths
which are certainly very important, but have not been sufficiently utilised.
37
47
Adolf Harnack
is to take the place of another, and if it does not wish to enslave, but to determine the reason. When
the Gospel was rejected by the Jewish nation, and had disengaged itself from all connection with
that nation, it was already settled whence it must take the material to form for itself a new body
and be transformed into a Church and a theology. National and particular, in the ordinary sense of
the word, these forms could not be: the contents of the Gospel were too rich for that; but separated
from Judaism, nay, even before that separation, the Christian religion came in contact with the
Roman world and with a culture which had already mastered the world, viz., the Greek. The Christian
Church and its doctrine were developed within the Roman world and Greek culture in opposition
to the Jewish Church. This fact is just as important for the history of dogma as the other stated
above, that this Church was continuously nourished on the Old Testament. Christendom was of
course conscious of being in opposition to the empire and its culture, as well as to Judaism; but
this from the beginningapart from a few exceptionswas not without reservations. No man can
serve two masters; but in setting up a spiritual power in this world one must serve an earthly master,
even when he desires to naturalise the spiritual in the world. As a consequence of the complete
break with the Jewish Church there followed not only the strict necessity of quarrying the stones
for the building of the Church from the Grco-Roman world, but also the idea that Christianity
has a more positive relation to that world than to the synagogue. And, as the Church was being
built, the original enthusiasm must needs vanish. The separation from Judaism having taken place,
it was necessary that the spirit of another people should be admitted, and should also materially
determine the manner of turning the Old Testament to advantage.
6. But an inner necessity was at work here no less than an outer. Judaism and Hellenism in the age
of Christ were opposed to each other, not only as dissimilar powers of equal value, but the latter
having its origin among a small people, became a universal spiritual power, which, severed from
its original nationality, had for that very reason penetrated foreign nations. It had even laid hold of
Judaism, and the anxious care of her professional watchmen to hedge round the national possession,
is but a proof of the advancing decomposition within the Jewish nation. Israel, no doubt, had a
sacred treasure which was of greater value than all the treasures of the Greeks,the living God;
but in what miserable vessels was this treasure preserved, and how much inferior was all else
possessed by this nation in comparison with the riches, the power, the delicacy and freedom of the
Greek spirit and its intellectual possessions. A movement like that of Christianity, which discovered
to the Jew the soul whose dignity was not dependent on its descent from Abraham, but on its
responsibility to God, could not continue in the frame-work of Judaism however expanded, but
must soon recognise in that world which the Greek spirit had discovered and prepared, the field
which belonged to it: ,
[to the Jews the law, to the Greeks Philosophy, up to the Parousia;
from that time the catholic invitation]. But the Gospel at first was preached exclusively to the lost
sheep of the house of Israel, and that which inwardly united it with Hellenism did not yet appear
in any doctrine or definite form of knowledge.
48
On the contrary, the Church doctrine of faith, in the preparatory stage, from the Apologists up to
the time of Origen, hardly in any point shews the traces, scarcely even the remembrance of a time
in which the Gospel was not detached from Judaism. For that very reason it is absolutely impossible
to understand this preparation and development solely from the writings that remain to us as
38
49
Adolf Harnack
monuments of that short earliest period. The attempts at deducing the genesis of the Churchs
doctrinal system from the theology of Paul, or from compromises between Apostolic doctrinal
ideas, will always miscarry; for they fail to note that to the most important premises of the Catholic
doctrine of faith belongs an element which we cannot recognise as dominant in the New Testament.49
viz., the Hellenic50 spirit. As far backwards as we can trace the history of the propagation of the
Churchs doctrine of faith, from the middle of the third century to the end of the first, we nowhere
perceive a leap, or the sudden influx of an entirely new element. What we perceive is rather the
gradual disappearance of an original element, the Enthusiastic and Apocalyptic, that is, of the sure
consciousness of an immediate possession of the Divine Spirit, and the hope of the future conquering
the present; individual piety conscious of itself and sovereign, living in the future world, recognising
no external authority and no external barriers. This piety became ever weaker and passed away:
the utilising of the Codex of Revelation, the Old Testament, proportionally increased with the
Hellenic influences which controlled the process, for the two went always hand in hand. At an
earlier period the Churches made very little use of either, because they had in individual religious
inspiration on the basis of Christs preaching and the sure hope of his Kingdom which was near at
49
50
There is indeed no single writing of the new Testament which does not betray the influence of the mode of thought and general
conditions of the culture of the time which resulted from the Hellenising of the east: even the use of the Greek translation of the
Old Testament attests this fact. Nay, we may go further, and say that the Gospel itself is historically unintelligible, so long as
we compare it with an exclusive Judaism as yet unaffected by any foreign influence. But on the other hand, it is just as clear
that, specifically, Hellenic ideas form the pre-suppositions neither for the Gospel itself, nor for the most important New Testament
writings. It is a question rather as to a general spiritual atmosphere created by Hellenism, which above all strengthened the
individual element, and with it the idea of completed personality, in itself living and responsible. On this foundation we meet
with a religious mode of thought in the Gospel and the early Christian writings, which so far as it is at all dependent on an earlier
mode of thought, is determined by the spirit of the Old Testament (Psalms and Prophets) and of Judaism. But it is already
otherwise with the earliest Gentile Christian writings. The mode of thought here is so thoroughly determined by the Hellenic
spirit that we seem to have entered a new world when we pass from the synoptists, Paul and John, to Clement, Barnabas, Justin
or Valeutinus. We may therefore say, especially in the frame-work of the history of dogma, that the Hellenic element has exercised
an influence on the Gospel first on Gentile Christian soil, and by those who were Greek by birth, if only we reserve the general
spiritual atmosphere above referred to. Even Paul is no exception; for in spite of the well-founded statement of Weizscker
(Apostolic Age, vol. I. Book II) and Heinrici (Das 2 Sendschreiben an die Korinthier, 1887, p. 578 ff.), as to the Hellenism of
Paul, it is certain that the Apostles mode of religious thought, in the strict sense of the word, and therefore also the doctrinal
formation peculiar to him, are but little determined by the Greek spirit. But it is to he specially noted that as a missionary and
an Apologist he made use of Greek ideas (Epistles to the Romans and Corinthians). He was not afraid to put the Gospel into
Greek modes of thought. To this extent we can already observe in him the beginning of the development which we can trace so
clearly in the Gentile Church from Clement to Justin, and from Justin to Irenus.
The complete universalism of salvation is given in the Pauline conception of Christianity. But this conception is singular. Because:
(1) the Pauline universalism is based on a criticism of the Jewish religion as religion, including the Old Testament, which was
not understood and therefore not received by Christendom in general. (2) Because Paul not only formulated no national
anti-judaism, but always recognised the prerogative of the people of Israel as a people. (3) Because his idea of the Gospel, with
all his Greek culture, is independent of Hellenism in its deepest grounds. This peculiarity of the Pauline Gospel is the reason
why little more could pass from it into the common consciousness of Christendom than the universalism of salvation, and why
the later development of the Church cannot be explained from Paulinism. Baur, therefore, was quite right when he recognised
that we must exhibit another and more powerful element in order to comprehend the post-Pauline formations. In the selection
of this element, however, he has made a fundamental mistake by introducing the narrow national Jewish Christianity, and he
has also given much too great scope to Paulinism by wrongly conceiving it as Gentile Christian doctrine. One great difficulty
for the historian of the early Church is that he cannot start from Paulinism, the plainest phenomenon of the Apostolic age, in
seeking to explain the following development, that in fact the premises for this development are not at all capable of being
indicated in the form of outlines, just because they were too general. But, on the other hand, the Pauline theology, this theology
of one who had been a Pharisee, is the strongest proof of the independent and universal power of the impression made by the
Person of Jesus.
39
50
51
Adolf Harnack
hand, much more than either could bestow. The factors whose co-operation we observe in the
second and third centuries, were already operative among the earliest Gentile Christians. We
nowhere find a yawning gulf in the great development which lies between the first Epistle of
Clement and the work of Origen, . Even the importance which the Apostolic was to
obtain, was already foreshadowed by the end of the first century, and enthusiasm always had its
limits.51 The most decisive division, therefore, falls before the end of the first century; or more
correctly, the relatively new element, the Greek, which is of importance for the forming of the
Church as a commonwealth, and consequently for the formation of its doctrine, is clearly present
in the churches even in the Apostolic age. Two hundred years, however, passed before it made
itself completely at home in the Gospel, although there were points of connection inherent in the
Gospel.
7. The cause of the great historical fact is clear. It is given in the fact that the Gospel, rejected by
the majority of the Jews, was very soon proclaimed to those who were not Jews, that after a few
decades the greater number of its professors were found among the Greeks, and that, consequently.
the development leading to the Catholic dogma took place within Grco-Roman culture. But within
this culture there was lacking the power of understanding either the idea of the completed Old
Testament theocracy, or the idea of the Messiah. Both of these essential elements of the original
proclamation, therefore, must either be neglected or remodelled.52 But it is hardly allowable to
mention details however important, where the whole aggregate of ideas, of religious historical
perceptions and presuppositions, which were based on the old Testament, understood in a Christian
sense, presented itself as something new and strange. One can easily appropriate words, but not
practical ideas. Side by side with the Old Testament religion as the presupposition of the Gospel,
and using its forms of thought, the moral and religious views and ideals dominant in the world of
Greek culture could not but insinuate themselves into the communities consisting of Gen-tiles.
From the enormous material that was brought home to the hearts of the Greeks, whether formulated
by Paul or by any other, only a few rudimentary ideas could at first be appropriated. For that very
reason, the Apostolic Catholic doctrine of faith in its preparation and establishment, is no mere
continuation of that which, by uniting things that are certainly very dissimilar, is wont to be described
as Biblical Theology of the New Testament. Biblical Theology, even when kept within reasonable
limits, is not the presupposition of the history of dogma. The Gentile Christians were little able to
comprehend the controversies which stirred the Apostolic age within Jewish Christianity. The
51
52
In the main writings of the New Testament itself we have a twofold conception of the Spirit. According to the one he comes
upon the believer fitfully, expresses himself in visible signs, deprives men of self-consciousness, and puts them beside themselves.
According to the other, the spirit is a constant possession of the Christian, operates in him by enlightening the conscience and
strengthening the character, and his fruits are love, joy, peace, patience, gentleness, etc. (Gal. V. 22). Paul above all taught
Christians to value these fruits of the spirit higher than all the other effects of his working. But he has not by any means produced
a perfectly clear view on this point: for he himself spoke with more tongues than they all. As yet Spirit lay within Spirit.
One felt in the spirit of sonship a completely new gift coming from God and recreating life, a miracle of God; further, this spirit
also produced sudden exclamationsAbba, Father and thus shewed himself in a way patent to the senses. For that very reason,
the spirit of ecstasy and of miracle appeared identical with the spirit of sonship. (See Gunkel, Die Wirkungen d. h. Geistes nach
der popularen Anschauung der Apostol. Zeit. Gttingen, 1888).
It may even be said here that the ( ), on the one hand, and the , on the other, have already appeared
in place of the , and that the idea of Messiah has been finally replaced by that of the Divine Teacher and of
God manifest in the flesh.
40
Adolf Harnack
presuppositions of the history of dogma are given in certain fundamental ideas, or rather motives
of the Gospel, (in the preaching concerning Jesus Christ, in the teaching of Evangelic ethics and
the future life, in the Old Testament capable of any interpretation, but to be interpreted with reference
to Christ and the Evangelic history), and in the Greek spirit.53
52
53
8. The foregoing statements involve that the difference between the development which led to the
Catholic doctrine of religion and the original condition, was by no means a total one. By recognising
the Old Testament as a book of Divine revelation, the Gentile Christians received along with it the
religious speech which was used by Jewish Christians, were made dependent upon the interpretation
which had been used from the very beginning, and even received a great part of the Jewish literature
which accompanied the Old Testament. But the possession of a common religious speech and
literature is never a mere outward bond of union, however strong the impulse be to introduce the
old familiar contents into the newly acquired speech. The Jewish, that is, the Old Testament element,
divested of its national peculiarity, has remained the basis of Christendom. It has saturated this
element with the Greek spirit, but has always clung to its main idea, faith in God as the creator and
ruler of the world. It has in the course of its development rejected important parts of that Jewish
element, and has borrowed others at a later period from the great treasure that was transmitted to
it. It has also been able to turn to account the least adaptable features, if only for the external
confirmation of its own ideas. The Old Testament applied to Christ and his universal Church has
always remained the decisive document, and it was long ere Christian writings received the same
authority, long ere individual doctrines and sayings of Apostolic writings obtained an influence on
the formation of ecclesiastical doctrine.
9. From yet another side there makes its appearance an agreement between the circles of Palestinian
believers in Jesus and the Gentile Christian communities, which endured for more than a century,
though it was of course gradually effaced. It is the enthusiastic element which unites them, the
consciousness of standing in an immediate union with God through the Spirit, and receiving directly
53
It is one of the merits of Bruno Bauer (Christus und die Csaren, 1877), that he has appreciated the real significance of the Greek
element in the Gentile Christianity which became the Catholic Church and doctrine, and that he has appreciated the influence
of the Judaism of the Diaspora as a preparation for this Gentile Christianity. But these valuable contributions have unfortunately
been deprived of their convincing power by a baseless criticism of the early Christian literature, to which Christ and Paul have
fallen a sacrifice. Somewhat more cautious are the investigations of Havet in the fourth volume of Le Christianisme, 1884; Le
Nouveau Testament. He has won great merit by the correct interpretation of the elements of Gentile Christianity developing
themselves to catholicism, but his literary criticism is often unfortunately entirely abstract, reminding one of the criticism of
Voltaire, and therefore his statements in detail are, as a rule, arbitrary and untenable. There is a school in Holland at the present
time closely related to Bruno Bauer and Havet, which attempts to banish early Christianity from the world. Christ and Paul are
creations of the second century: the history of Christianity begins with the passage of the first century into the seconda peculiar
phenomenon on the soil of Hellenised Judaism in quest of a Messiah. This Judaism created Jesus Christ just as the later Greek
religious philosophers created their Saviour (Apollonius, for example). The Marcionite Church produced Paul, and the growing
Catholic Church completed him. See the numerous treatises of Loman, the Verisimilia of Pierson and Naber (1886), and the
anonymous English work Antigua Mater (1887), also the works of Steck (see especially his Untersuchung ber den Galaterbrief).
Against these works see P. V. Schmidts Der Galaterbrief, 1892. It requires a deep knowledge of the problems which the first
two centuries of the Christian Church present, in order not to thrust aside as simply absurd these attempts, which as yet have
failed to deal with the subject in a connected way. They have their strength in the difficulties and riddles which are contained
in the history of the formation of the Catholic tradition in the second century. But the single circumstance that we are asked to
regard as a forgery such a document as the first Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, appears to me, of itself, to be an unanswerable
argument against the new hypotheses.
41
54
55
Adolf Harnack
from Gods hand miraculous gifts, powers and revelations, granted to the individual that he may
turn them to account in the service of the Church. The depotentiation of the Christian religion,
where one may believe in the inspiration of another, but no longer feels his own, nay, dare not feel
it, is not altogether coincident with its settlements on Greek soil. On the contrary, it was more than
two centuries ere weakness and reflection suppressed, or all but suppressed, the forms in which the
personal consciousness of God originally expressed itself.54 Now it certainly lies in the nature of
enthusiasm, that it can assume the most diverse forms of expression, and follow very different
impulses, and so far it frequently separates instead of uniting. But so long as criticism and reflection
are not yet awakened, and a uniform ideal hovers before one, it does unite, and in this sense there
existed an identity of disposition between the earliest Jewish Christians and the still enthusiastic
Gentile Christian communities.
10. But, finally, there is a still further uniting element between the beginnings of the development
to Catholicism, and the original condition of the Christian religion as a movement within Judaism,
the importance of which cannot be over-rated, although we have every reason to complain here of
the obscurity of the tradition. Between the Grco-Roman world which was in search of a spiritual
religion, and the Jewish commonwealth which already possessed such a religion as a national
property, though vitiated by exclusiveness, there had long been a Judaism which, penetrated by the
Greek spirit, was, ex professo, devoting itself to the task of bringing a new religion to the Greek
world, the Jewish religion, but that religion in its kernel Greek, that is, philosophically moulded,
spiritualised and secularised. Here then was already consummated an intimate union of the Greek
spirit with the Old Testament religion, within the Empire and to a less degree in Palestine itself. If
everything is not to be dissolved into a grey mist, we must clearly distinguish this union between
Judaism and Hellenism and the spiritualising of religion it produced, from the powerful but
indeterminable influences which the Greek spirit exercised on all things Jewish, and which have
been a historical condition of the Gospel. The alliance, in my opinion, was of no significance at all
for the origin of the Gospel, but was of the most decided importance, first, for the propagation of
Christianity, and then, for the development of Christianity to Catholicism, and for the genesis of
54
It would be a fruitful task, though as yet it has not been undertaken, to examine how long visions, dreams and apocalypses, on
the one hand, and the claim of speaking in the power and name of the Holy Spirit, on the other, played a rle in the early Church;
and further to shew how they nearly died out among the laity, but continued to live among the clergy and the monks, and how,
even among the laity, there were again and again sporadic outbreaks of them. The material which the first three centuries present
is very great. Only a few may he mentioned here: Ignat. ad. Rom. VII. 2: ad Philad VII. ad. Eph. XX. I. etc.: 1 Clem. LXIII. 2:
Martyr. Polyc.: Acta Perpet. et Felic: Tertull de animo XLVII.: Major pne vis hominum e visionibus deum discunt. Orig. c.
Celsum. 1. 46: , ...
(even Arnobius was ostensibly led to Christianity by a dream). Cyprian makes the most extensive use of
dreams, visions, etc., in his letters, see for example Ep. XI. 35: XVI. 4 (prter nocturnas visiones per dies quoque impletur
apud nos spiritu sancto puerorum innocens tas, qu in ecstasi videt, etc.); XXXIX. i: LXVI. Io (very interesting: quamquam
sciam somnia ridicula et visiones ineptas quibusdam videri, sed utique illis, qui malunt contra sacerdotes credere quam sacerdoti,
sed nihil mirum, quando de Joseph fratres sui dixerunt: ecce somniator ille, etc.). One who took part in the baptismal controversy
in the great Synod of Carthage writes, secundum motum animi mei et spiritus Sancti. The enthusiastic element was always
evoked with special power in times of persecution, as the genuine African matyrdoms, from the second half of the third century,
specially shew. Cf. especially the passio Jacobi, Mariani, etc. But where the enthusiasm was not convenient it was called, as in
the case of the Montanists, dmonic. Even Constantine operated with dreams and visions of Christ (see his Vita).
42
Adolf Harnack
the Catholic doctrine of faith.55 We cannot certainly name any particular personality who was
specially active in this, but we can mention three facts which prove more than individual references.
(1) The propaganda of Christianity in the Diaspora followed the Jewish propaganda and partly took
its place, that is, the Gospel was at first preached to those Gentiles who were already acquainted
with the general outlines of the Jewish religion, and who were even frequently viewed as a Judaism
of a second order, in which Jewish and Greek elements had been united in a peculiar mixture. (2)
The conception of the Old Testament, as we find it even in the earliest Gentile Christian teachers,
the method of spiritualising it, etc., agrees in the most surprising way with the methods which were
used by the Alexandrian Jews. (3) There are Christian documents in no small number and of
unknown origin, which completely agree in plan, in form and contents with Grco-Jewish writings
of the Diaspora, as for example, the Christian Sibylline Oracles, and the pseudo-Justinian treatise,
de Monarchia. There are numerous tractates of which it is impossible to say with certainty whether
they are of Jewish or of Christian origin.
56
57
The Alexandrian and non-Palestinian Judaism is still Judaism. As the Gospel seized and moved
the whole of Judaism, it must also have been operative in the non-Palestinian Judaism. But that
already foreshadowed the transition of the Gospel to the non-Jewish Greek region, and the fate
which it was to experience there. For that non-Palestinian Judaism formed the bridge between the
Jewish Church and the Roman Empire, together with its culture.56 The Gospel passed into the world
chiefly by this bridge. Paul indeed had a large share in this, but his own Churches did not understand
the way he led them, and were not able on looking back to find it.57 He indeed became a Greek to
the Greeks, and even began the undertaking of placing the treasures of Greek knowledge at the
service of the Gospel. But the knowledge of Christ crucified, to which he subordinated all other
55
56
57
As to the first, the recently discovered Teaching of the Apostles in its first moral part, shews a great affinity with the moral
philosophy which was set up by Alexandrian Jews and put before the Greek world as that which had been revealed: see Massebieau,
Lenseignement des XII. Aptres. Paris. 1884, and in the Journal Le Tmoignage, 7 Febr. 1885. Usener, in his Preface to the
Ges. Abhandl. Jacob Bernays, which he edited, 1885, p. v. f., has, independently of Massebieau, pointed out the relationship
of chapters 1-5 of the Teaching of the Apostles with the Phocylidean poem (see Bernays above work, p. 192 ff.). Later Taylor
The teaching of the twelve Apostles, 1886, threw out the conjecture that the Didache had a Jewish foundation, and I reached
the same conclusion independently of him: see my Treatise: Die Apostellehre und die jdischen beiden Wege, 1886.
It is well known that Judaism at the time of Christ embraced a great many different tendencies. Beside Pharisaic Judaism as the
stem proper, there was a motley mass of formations which resulted from the contact of Judaism with foreign ideas, customs and
institutions (even with Babylonian and Persian), and which attained importance for the development of the predominant church,
as well as for the formation of the so-called gnostic Christian communions. Hellenic elements found their way even into Pharisaic
theology. Orthodox Judaism itself has marks which shew that no spiritual movement was able to escape the influence which
proceeded from the victory of the Greeks over the east. Besides, who would venture to exhibit definitely the origin and causes
of that spiritualising of religions and that limitation of the moral standard of which we can find so many traces in the Alexandrian
age? The nations who inhabited the eastern shore of the Mediterranean sea, had from the fourth century B. C., a common history,
and therefore had similar convictions. Who can decide what each of them acquired by its own exertions, and what it obtained
through interchange of opinions? But in proportion as we see this we must be on our guard against jumbling the phenomena
together and effacing them. There is little meaning in calling a thing Hellenic, as that really formed an element in all the phenomena
of the age. All our great political and ecclesiastical parties to-day are dependent on the ideas of 1789, and again on romantic
ideas. It is just as easy to verify this as it is difficult to determine the measure and the manner of the influence for each group.
And yet the understanding of it turns altogether on this point. To call Pharisaism, or the Gospel, or the old Jewish Christianity
Hellenic, is not paradox, but confusion.
The Acts of the Apostles is in this respect a most instructive book. It, as well as the Gospel of Luke, is a document of Gentile
christianity developing itself to Catholicism: Cf. Overbeck in his Commentar z. Apostelgesch. But the comprehensive judgment
of Havet (in the work above mentioned, IV. p. 395 is correct. Lhellnisme tient assez peu de place clans le N. T., du moins
43
Adolf Harnack
knowledge as only of preparatory value, had nothing in common with Greek philosophy, while the
idea of justification and the doctrine of the Spirit (Rom. VIII.), which together formed the peculiar
contents of his Christianity, were irreconcilable with the moralism and the religious ideals of
Hellenism. But the great mass of the earliest Gentile Christians became Christians because they
perceived in the Gospel the sure tidings of the benefits and obligations which they had already
sought in the fusion of Jewish and Greek elements. It is only by discerning this that we can grasp
the preparation and genesis of the Catholic Church and its dogma.
From the foregoing statements it appears that there fall to be considered as presuppositions of the
origin of the Catholic Apostolic doctrine of faith, the following topics, though of unequal importance
as regards the extent of their influence.
(a). The Gospel of Jesus Christ.
(b). The common preaching of Jesus Christ in the first generation of believers.
(c). The current exposition of the Old Testament, the Jewish speculations and hopes of the future,
in their significance for the earliest types of Christian preaching.58
(d). The religious conceptions, and the religious philosophy of the Hellenistic Jews, in their
significance for the later restatement of the Gospel.
(e). The religious dispositions of the Greeks and Romans of the first two centuries, and the current
Grco-Roman philosophy of religion.
2. The Gospel of Jesus Christ according to His own testimony concerning Himself.
58
I. The Fundamental Features.

The Gospel entered into the world as an apocalyptic eschatological message, apocalyptical and
eschatological not only in its form, but also in its contents. But Jesus announced that the kingdom
of God had already begun with his own work, and those who received him in faith became sensible
of this beginning; for the apocalyptical was not merely the unveiling of the future, but above all
the revelation of God as the Father, and the eschatological received its counterpoise in the view
of Jesus work as Saviour, in the assurance of being certainly called to the kingdom, and in the
conviction that life and future dominion is hid with God the Lord and preserved for believers by
him. Consequently, we are following not only the indications of the succeeding history, but also
the requirement of the thing itself, when, in the presentation of the Gospel, we place in the
foreground, not that which unites it with the contemporary disposition of Judaism, but that which
58
lhellnisme voulu et rflchi. Ces livres sont crits en grec et leurs auteurs vivaient en pays grec; il y a donc eu chez eux
infiltration des ides et des sentiments hellniques; quelquefois mme limagination hellnique y a pntr comme dans le 3
vangile et dans les Actes .... Dans son ensemble, le N. T. garde le caractre dun livre hbraque Le christianisme ne commence
avoir une littrature et des doctrines vraiment hellniques quau milieu du second sicle. Mais il y avait un judasme, celui
dAlexandrie, qui avait faite alliance avec 1hellnisme avant mme quil y et des chrtiens.
The right of distinguishing (b) and (c) may be contested. But if we surrender this we therewith surrender the right to distinguish
kernel and husk in the original proclamation of the Gospel. The dangers to which the attempt is exposed should not frighten us
from it, for it has its justification in the fact that the Gospel is neither doctrine nor law.
44
Adolf Harnack
raises it above it. Instead of the hope of inheriting the kingdom, Jesus had also spoken simply of
preserving the soul, or the life. In this one substitution lies already a transformation of universal
significance, of political religion into a religion that is individual and therefore holy; for the life is
nourished by the word of God, but God is the Holy One.
59
60
The Gospel is the glad message of the government of the world and of every individual soul by the
almighty and holy God, the Father and Judge. In this dominion of God, which frees men from the
power of the Devil, makes them rulers in a heavenly kingdom in contrast with the kingdoms of the
world, and which will also be sensibly realised in the future on just about to appear, is secured life
for all men who yield themselves to God, although they should lose the world and the earthly life.
That is, the soul which is pure and holy in connection with God, and in imitation of the Divine
perfection is eternally preserved with God, while those who would gain the world and preserve
their life, fall into the hands of the Judge who sentences them to Hell. This dominion of God imposes
on men a law, an old and yet a new law, viz., that of the Divine perfection and therefore of undivided
love to God and to our neighbour. In this love, where it sways the inmost feeling, is presented the
better righteousness (better not only with respect to the Scribes and Pharisees, but also with respect
to Moses, see Matt. V.), which corresponds to the perfection of God. The way to attain it is a change
of mind, that is, self-denial, humility before God, and heartfelt trust in him. In this humility and
trust in God there is contained a recognition of ones own unworthiness; but the Gospel calls to the
kingdom of God those very sinners who are thus minded, by promising the forgiveness of the sins
which hitherto have separated them from God. But the Gospel which appears in these three elements,
the dominion of God, a better righteousness embodied in the law of love, and the forgiveness of
sin, is inseparably connected with Jesus Christ; for in preaching this Gospel Jesus Christ everywhere
calls men to himself. In him the Gospel is word and deed; it has become his food, and therefore his
personal life, and into this life of his he draws all others. He is the Son who knows the Father. In
him men are to perceive the kindness of the Lord; in him they are to feel Gods power and
government of the world, and to become certain of this consolation; they are to follow him the
meek and lowly, and while he, the pure and holy one, calls sinners to himself, they are to receive
the assurance that God through him forgiveth sin.
Jesus Christ has by no express statement thrust this connection of his Gospel with his Person into
the foreground. No words could have certified it unless his life, the overpowering impression of
his Person, had created it. By living, acting and speaking from the riches of that life which he lived
with his Father, he became for others the revelation of the God of whom they formerly had heard,
but whom they had not known. He declared his Father to be their Father and they understood him.
But he also declared himself to be Messiah, and in so doing gave an intelligible expression to his
abiding significance for them and for his people. In a solemn hour at the close of his life, as well
as on special occasions at an earlier period, he referred to the fact that the surrender to his Person
which induced them to leave all and follow him, was no passing element in the new position they
had gained towards God the Father. He tells them, on the contrary, that this surrender corresponds
to the service which he will perform for them and for the many, when he will give his life a sacrifice
for the sins of the world. By teaching them to think of him and of his death in the breaking of bread
and the drinking of wine, and by saying of his death that it takes place for the remission of sins, he
has claimed as his due from all future disciples what was a matter of course so long as he sojourned
45
Adolf Harnack
with them, but what might fade away after he was parted from them. He who in his preaching of
the kingdom of God raised the strictest self-examination and humility to a law, and exhibited them
to his followers in his own life, has described with clear consciousness his life crowned by death
as the imperishable service by which men in all ages will be cleansed from their sin and made joyful
in their God. By so doing he put himself far above all others, although they were to become his
brethren; and claimed a unique and permanent importance as Redeemer and Judge. This permanent
importance as the Lord he secured, not by disclosures about the mystery of his Person, but by the
impression of his life and the interpretation of his death. He interprets it, like all his sufferings, as
a victory, as the passing over to his glory, and in spite of the cry of God-forsakenness upon the
cross, he has proved himself able to awaken in his followers the real conviction that he lives and
is Lord and Judge of the living and the dead.
61
The religion of the Gospel is based on this belief in Jesus Christ, that is, by looking to him, this
historical person, it becomes certain to the believer that God rules heaven and earth, and that God,
the Judge, is also Father and Redeemer. The religion of the Gospel is the religion which makes the
highest moral demands, the simplest and the most difficult, and discloses the contradiction in which
every man finds himself towards them. But it also procures redemption from such misery, by
drawing the life of men into the inexhaustible and blessed life of Jesus Christ, who has overcome
the world and called sinners to himself.
In making this attempt to put together the fundamental features of the Gospel, I have allowed myself
to be guided by the results of this Gospel in the case of the first disciples. I do not know whether
it is permissible to present such fundamental features apart from this guidance. The preaching of
Jesus Christ was in the main so plain and simple, and in its application so manifold and rich, that
one shrinks from attempting to systematise it, and would much rather merely narrate according to
the Gospel. Jesus searches for the point in every man on which he can lay hold of him and lead
him to the Kingdom of God. The distinction of good and evilfor God or against Godhe would
make a life question for every man, in order to shew him for whom it has become this, that he can
depend upon the God whom he is to fear. At the same time he did not by any means uniformly fall
back upon sin, or even the universal sinfulness, but laid hold of individuals very diversely, and led
them to God by different paths. The doctrinal concentration of redemption on sin was certainly not
carried out by Paul alone; but, on the other hand, it did not in any way become the prevailing form
for the preaching of the Gospel. On the contrary, the antitheses, night, error, dominion of demons,
death and light, truth, deliverance, life, proved more telling in the Gentile Churches. The
consciousness of universal sinfulness was first made the negative fundamental frame of mind of
Christendom by Augustine.
II. Details.
62
1. Jesus announced the Kingdom of God which stands in opposition to the kingdom of the devil,
and therefore also to the kingdom of the world, as a future Kingdom, and yet it is presented in his
preaching as present; as an invisible, and yet it was visiblefor one actually saw it. He lived and
spoke within the circle of eschatological ideas which Judaism had developed more than two hundred
years before: but he controlled them by giving them a new content and forcing them into a new
direction. Without abrogating the law and the prophets he, on fitting occasions, broke through the
46
Adolf Harnack
national, political and sensuous eudmonistic forms in which the nation was expecting the realisation
of the dominion of God, but turned their attention at the same time to a future near at hand, in which
believers would be delivered from the oppression of evil and sin, and would enjoy blessedness and
dominion. Yet he declared that even now, every individual who is called into the kingdom may
call on God as his Father, and be sure of the gracious will of God, the hearing of his prayers, the
forgiveness of sin. and the protection of God even in this present life.59 But everything in this
proclamation is directed to the life beyond: the certainty of that life is the power and earnestness
of the Gospel.
2. The conditions of entrance to the kingdom are, in the first place, a complete change of mind, in
which a man renounces the pleasures of this world, denies himself, and is ready to surrender all
that he has in order to save his soul; then, a believing trust in Gods grace which he grants to the
humble and the poor, and therefore hearty confidence in Jesus as the Messiah chosen and called
by God to realise his kingdom on the earth. The announcement is therefore directed to the poor,
the suffering, those hungering and thirsting for righteousness, not to those who live, but to those
who wish to be healed and redeemed, and finds them prepared for entrance into, and reception of
the blessings of the kingdom of God,60 while it brings down upon the self-satisfied, the rich and
those proud of their righteousness, the judgment of obduracy and the damnation of Hell.
63
3. The commandment of undivided love to God and the brethren, as the main commandment, in
the observance of which righteousness is realised, and forming the antithesis to the selfish mind,
the lust of the world, and every arbitrary impulse,61 corresponds to the blessings of the Kingdom
of God, viz., forgiveness of sin, righteousness, dominion and blessedness. The standard of personal
worth for the members of the Kingdom is self-sacrificing labour for others, not any technical mode
of worship or legal preciseness. Renunciation of the world together with its goods, even of life
itself in certain circumstances, is the proof of a mans sincerity and earnestness in seeking the
Kingdom of God; and the meekness. which renounces every right, bears wrong patiently, requiting
it with kindness, is the practical proof of love to God, the conduct that answers to Gods perfection.
4. In the proclamation and founding of this kingdom, Jesus summoned men to attach themselves
to him, because he had recognised himself to be the helper called by God, and therefore also the
59
60
61
Therewith are, doubtless, heavenly blessings bestowed in the present. Historical investigation has, notwithstanding, every reason
for closely examining, whether, and in how far, we may speak of a present for the Kingdom of God, in the sense of Jesus. But
even if the question had to be answered in the negative, it would make little or no difference for the correct understanding of
Jesus preaching. The Gospel viewed in its kernel is independent of this question. It deals with the inner constitution and mood
of the soul.
The question whether, and in what degree, a man of himself can earn righteousness before God is one of those theoretic questions
to which Jesus gave no answer. He fixed his attention on all the gradations of the moral and religious conduct of his countrymen
as they were immediately presented to him, and found some prepared for entrance into the kingdom of God, not by a technical
mode of outward preparation, but by hungering and thirsting for it, and at the same time unselfishly serving their brethren.
Humility and love unfeigned were always the decisive marks of these prepared ones. They are to be satisfied with righteousness
before God, that is, are to receive the blessed feeling that God is gracious to them as sinners, and accepts them as his children.
Jesus, however, allows the popular distinction of sinners and righteous to remain, but exhibits its perverseness by calling sinners
to himself, and by describing the opposition of the righteous to his Gospel as a mark of their godlessness and hardness of heart.
The blessings of the kingdom were frequently represented by Jesus as a reward for work done. But this popular view is again
broken through by reference to the fact that all reward is the gift of Gods free grace.
47
64
65
Adolf Harnack
Messiah who was promised.62 He gradually declared himself to the people as such by the names
he assumed,63 for the names Anointed, King, Lord, Son of David, Son of Man, Son of
God, all denote the Messianic office, and were familiar to the greater part of the people.64 But
though, at first, they express only the call, office, and power of the Messiah, yet by means of them
and especially by the designation Son of God, Jesus pointed to a relation to God the Father, then
and in its immediateness unique, as the basis of the office with which he was entrusted. He has,
however, given no further explanation of the mystery of this relation than the declaration that the
Son alone knoweth the Father, and that this knowledge of God and Sonship to God are secured for
all others by the sending of the Son.65 In the proclamation of God as Father,66 as well as in the other
proclamation that all the members of the kingdom following the will of God in love, are to become
one with the Son and through him with the Father,67 the message of the realised kingdom of God
receives its richest, inexhaustible content: the Son of the Father will be the first-born among many
brethren.
5. Jesus as the Messiah chosen by God has definitely distinguished himself from Moses and all the
Prophets: as his preaching and his work are the fulfilment of the law and the prophets, so he himself
is not a disciple of Moses, but corrects that law-giver; he is not a Prophet, but Master and Lord. He
proves this Lordship during his earthly ministry in the accomplishment of the mighty deeds given
62
63
64
65
66
67
Some Criticsmost recently Havet, Le Christianisme et ses origines, 1884. T. IV. p. 15 ff.have called in question the fact
that Jesus called himself Messiah. But this article of the Evangelic tradition seems to me to stand the test of the most minute
investigation. But, in the case of Jesus, the consciousness of being the Messiah undoubtedly rested on the certainty of being the
Son of God, therefore of knowing the Father and being constrained to proclaim that knowledge.
We can gather with certainty from the Gospels that Jesus did not enter on his work with the announcement: Believe in me for I
am the Messiah. On the contrary, he connected his work with the baptising movement of John, but carried that movement further,
and thereby made the Baptist his forerunner (Mark I. 15:
). He was in no hurry to urge anything that went beyond that message, but gradually prepared, and
cautiously required of his followers an advance beyond it. The goal to which he led them was to believe in him as Messiah
without putting the usual political construction on the Messianic ideal.
Even Son of Man probably means Messiah: we do not know whether Jesus had any special reason for favouring this designation
which springs from Dan. VII. The objection to interpreting the word as Messiah really resolves itself into this, that the disciples
(according to the Gospels) did not at once recognise him as Messiah. But that is explained by the contrast of his own peculiar
idea of Messiah with the popular idea. The confession of him as Messiah was the keystone of their confidence in him, inasmuch
as by that confession they separated themselves from old ideas.
The distinction between the Father and the Son stands out just as plainly in the sayings of Jesus, as the complete obedient
subordination of the Son to the Father. Even according to Johns Gospel, Jesus finishes the work which the Father has given
him, and is obedient in everything even unto death. He declares Mat. XIX. 17: . Special notice should be given
to Mark XIII. 32, (Matt. XXIV, 36). Behind the only manifested life of Jesus, later speculation has put a life in which he wrought,
not in subordination and obedience, but in like independence and dignity with God. That goes beyond the utterances of Jesus
even in the fourth Gospel. But it is no advance beyond these, especially in the religious view and speech of the time, when it is
announced that the relation of the Father to the Son lies beyond time. It is not even improbable that the sayings in the fourth
Gospel referring to this, have a basis in the preaching of Jesus himself.
Paul knew that the designation of God as the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, was the new Evangelic confession. Origen was
the first among the Fathers (though before him Marcion) to recognise that the decisive advance beyond the Old Testament stage
of religion, was given in the preaching of God as Father; see the exposition of the Lords Prayer in his treatise De oratione. No
doubt the Old Testament, and the later Judaism knew the designation of God as Father; but it applied it to the Jewish nation, it
did not attach the evangelic meaning to the name, and it did not allow itself in any way to be guided in its religion by this idea.
See the farewell discourses in John, the fundamental ideas of which are, in my opinion, genuine, that is, proceed from Jesus.
48
66
67
Adolf Harnack
him to do, above all in withstanding the Devil and his kingdom,68 andaccording to the law of the
Kingdom of Godfor that very reason in the service which he performs. In this service Jesus also
reckoned the sacrifice of his life, designating it as a which he offered for the redemption
of man.69 But he declared at the same time that his Messianic work was not yet fulfilled in his
subjection to death. On the contrary, the close is merely initiated by his death; for the completion
of the kingdom will only appear when he returns in glory in the clouds of heaven to judgment.
Jesus seems to have announced this speedy return a short time before his death, and to have
comforted his disciples at his departure, with the assurance that he would immediately enter into
a supramundane position with God.70
6. The instructions of Jesus to his disciples are accordingly dominated by the thought that the
end,the day and hour of which, however, no one knows,is at hand. In consequence of this,
also, the exhortation to renounce all earthly good takes a prominent place. But Jesus does not impose
68
69
70
The historian cannot regard a miracle as a sure given historical event: for in doing so he destroys the mode of consideration on
which all historical investigation rests. Every individual miracle remains historically quite doubtful, and a summation of things
doubtful never leads to certainty. But should the historian, notwithstanding, be convinced that Jesus Christ did extraordinary
things, in the strict sense miraculous things, then, from the unique impression he has obtained of this person, he infers the
possession by him of supernatural power. This conclusion itself belongs to the province of religious faith: though there has
seldom been a strong faith which would not have drawn it. Moreover, the healing miracles of Jesus are the only ones that come
into consideration in a strict historical examination. These certainly cannot be eliminated from the historical accounts without
utterly destroying them. But how unfit are they of themselves, after 1800 years, to secure any special importance to him to whom
they are attributed, unless that importance was already established apart from them. That he could do with him-self what he
would, that he created a new thing without overturning the old, that he won men to himself by announcing the Father, that he
inspired without fanaticism, set up a kingdom without politics, set men free from the world without asceticism, was a teacher
without theology, at a time of fanaticism and politics, asceticism and theology, is the great miracle of his person, and that he
who preached the Sermon on the Mount declared himself in respect of his life and death, to be the Redeemer and Judge of the
world, is the offence and foolishness which mock all reason.
See Mark X. 45That Jesus at the celebration of the first Lords supper described his death as a sacrifice which he should offer
for the forgiveness of sin, is clear from the account of Paul. From that account it appears to be certain that Jesus gave expression
to the idea of the necessity and saving significance of his death for the forgiveness of sins, in a symbolical ordinance (based on
the conclusion of the covenant, Exod. XXIV. 3 ff., perhaps, as Paul presupposes, on the Passover), in order that his disciples by
repeating it in accordance with the will of Jesus, might be the more deeply impressed by it. Certain observations based on John
VI., on the supper prayer in the Didache, nay, even on the report of Mark, and supported at the same time by features of the
earliest practice in which it had the character of a real meal, and the earliest theory of the supper, which viewed it as a
communication of eternal life and an anticipation of the future existence, have for years made me doubt very much whether the
Pauline account and the Pauline conception of it, were really either the oldest, or the universal and therefore only one. I have
been strengthened in this suspicion by the profound and remarkable investigation of Spitta (z. Gesch. u. Litt. d. Urchristenthums:
Die urchristl. Traditionen . den Urspr. u. Sinnd. Abendmahls, 1893). He sees in the supper as not instituted, but celebrated by
Jesus, the festival of the Messianic meal, the anticipated triumph over death, the expression of the perfection of the Messianic
work, the symbolic representation of the filling of believers with the powers of the Messianic kingdom and life. The reference
to the Passover and the death of Christ was attached to it later, though it is true very soon. How much is thereby explained that
was hitherto obscurecritical, historical, and dogmatico-historical questionscannot at all be stated briefly. And yet I hesitate
to give a full recognition to Spittas exposition: the words I. Cor. XI. 23: ,
..., are too strong for me. Cf. besides, Weizsckers investigation in The Apostolic Age. Lobstein, La doctrine de la
s. cne, 1889. A. Harnack i. d. Texten u. Unters. VII. 2 p. 139 if. Schrer, Theol. Lit. Ztg. 1891, p. 29 if. Jlicher Abhandl. f.
Weizsker, 1892, p. 215 ff.
With regard to the eschatology, no one can say in detail what proceeds from Jesus, and what from the disciples. What has been
said in the text does not claim to be certain, but only probable. The most important, and at the same time the most certain point,
is that Jesus made the definitive fate of the individual depend on faith, humility and love. There are no passages in the Gospel
which conflict with the impression that Jesus reserved day and hour to God, and wrought in faith and patience as long as for him
it was day.
49
Adolf Harnack
ascetic commandments as a new law, far less does he see in asceticism, as such, sanctification71he
himself did not live as an ascetic, but was reproached as a wine-bibberbut he prescribed a perfect
simplicity and purity of disposition, and a singleness of heart which remains invariably the same
in trouble and renunciation, in possession and use of earthly good. A uniform equality of all in the
conduct of life is not commanded: To whom much is given, of him much shall be required. The
disciples are kept as far from fanaticism and overrating of spiritual results as from asceticism.
Rejoice not that the spirits are subject to you, but rejoice that your names are written in heaven.
When they besought him to teach them to pray, he taught them the Lords prayer, a prayer which
demands such a collected mind, and such a tranquil, childlike elevation of the heart to God, that it
cannot be offered at all by minds subject to passion or preoccupied by any daily cares.
68
69
7. Jesus himself did not found a new religious community, but gathered round him a circle of
disciples, and chose Apostles whom he commanded to preach the Gospel. His preaching was
universalistic inasmuch as it attributed no value to ceremonialism as such, and placed the fulfilment
of the Mosaic law in the exhibition of its moral contents, partly against or beyond the letter. He
made the law perfect by harmonising its particular requirements with the fundamental moral
requirements which were also expressed in the Mosaic law. He emphasised the fundamental
requirements more decidedly than was done by the law itself, and taught that all details should be
referred to them and deduced from them. The external righteousness of Pharisaism was thereby
declared to be not only an outer covering, but also a fraud, and the bond which still united religion
and nationality in Judaism was sundered.72 Political and national elements may probably have been
made prominent in the hopes of the future, as Jesus appropriated them for his preaching. But from
the conditions to which the realising of the hopes for the individual was attached, there already
71
72
He did not impose on every one, or desire from every one even the outward following of himself: see Mark V. 18-19. The
imitation of Jesus, in the strict sense of the word, did not play any noteworthy role either in the Apostolic or in the old Catholic
period.
It is asserted by well-informed investigators, and may be inferred from the Gospels (Mark XII. 3234; Luke X. 27, 28), perhaps
also from the Jewish original of the Didache, that some representatives of Pharisaism, beside the pedantic treatment of the law,
attempted to concentrate it on the fundamental moral commandments. Consequently, in Palestinian and Alexandrian Judaism
at the time of Christ, in virtue of the prophetic word and the Thora, influenced also, perhaps, by the Greek spirit which everywhere
gave the stimulus to inwardness, the path was indicated in which the future development of religion was to follow. Jesus entered
fully into the view of the law thus attempted, which comprehended it as a whole and traced it back to the disposition. But he
freed it from the contradiction that adhered to it, (because, in spite of and alongside the tendency to a deeper perception, men
still persisted in deducing righteousness from a punctilious observance of numerous particular commandments, because in so
doing they became self-satisfied, that is, irreligious, and because in belonging to Abraham, they thought they had a claim of
right on God). For all that, so far as a historical understanding of the activity of Jesus is at all possible, it is to be obtained from
the soil of Pharisaism, as the Pharisees were those who cherished and developed the Messianic expectations, and because, along
with their care for the Thora, they sought also to preserve, in their own way, the prophetic inheritance. If everything does not
deceive us, there were already contained in the Pharisaic theology of the age, speculations which were fitted to modify considerably
the narrow view of history, and to prepare for universalism. The very men who tithed mint, anise and cummin, who kept their
cups and dishes outwardly clean, who, hedging round the Thora, attempted to hedge round the people, spoke also of the sum
total of the law. They made room in their theology for new ideas which are partly to be described as advances, and on the other
hand, they have already pondered the question even in relation to the law, whether submission to its main contents was not
sufficient for being numbered among the people of the covenant (see Renan: Paul). In particular the whole sacrificial system,
which Jesus also essentially ignored, was therewith thrust into the background. Baldensperger (Selbstbewusstsein Jesu. p. 46)
justly says, There lie before us definite marks that the certainty of the nearness of God in the Temple (from the time of the
Maccabees) begins to waver, and the efficacy of the temple institutions to be called in question. Its recent desecration by the
Romans, appears to the author of the Psalms of Solomon (II. 2) as a kind of Divine requital for the sons of Israel themselves
50
Adolf Harnack
shone the clearer ray which was to eclipse those elements, and one saying such as Matt. XXII. 31.,
annulled at once political religion and religious politics.
70
Supplement 1.The idea of the inestimable inherent value of every individual human soul, already
dimly appearing in several psalms, and discerned by Greek Philosophers, though as a rule developed
in contradiction to religion, stands out plainly in the preaching of Jesus. It is united with the idea
of God as Father, and is the complement to the message of the communion of brethren realising
itself in love. In this sense the Gospel is at once profoundly individualistic and Socialistic. The
prospect of gaining life, and preserving it for ever, is therefore also the highest which Jesus has set
forth; it is not, however, to be a motive, but a reward of grace. In the certainty of this prospect,
which is the converse of renouncing the world, he has proclaimed the sure hope of the resurrection,
and consequently the most abundant compensation for the loss of the natural life. Jesus put an end
to the vacillation and uncertainty which in this respect still prevailed among the Jewish people of
his day. The confession of the Psalmist, Whom have I in heaven but thee, and there is none upon
the earth that I desire beside thee, and the fulfilling of the Old Testament commandment, Love
having been guilty of so grossly profaning the sacrificial gifts. Enoch calls the shewbread of the second Temple polluted and
unclean ... There had crept in among the pious a feeling of the insufficiency of their worship, and from this side the Essenic
schism will certainly represent only the open outbreak of a disease which had already begun to gnaw secretly at the religious
life of the nation: see here the excellent explanations of the origin of Essenism in Lucius (Essenism, 75 ff. 509 ff.). The spread
of Judaism in the world, the secularization and apostacy of the priestly caste, the desecration of the Temple, the building of the
Temple at Leontopolis, the perception brought about by the spiritualising of religion in the empire of Alexander the Great, that
no blood of beasts can be a means of reconciling Godall these circumstances must have been absolutely dangerous and fatal,
both to the local centralisation of worship, and to the statutory sacrificial system. The proclamation of Jesus (and of Stephen)
as to the overthrow of the Temple, is therefore no absolutely new thing, nor is the fact that Judaism fell back upon the law and
the Messianic hope, a mere result of the destruction of the Temple. This change was rather prepared by the inner development.
Whatever point in the preaching of Jesus we may fix on, we shall find, thatapart from the writings of the Prophets and the
Psalms, which originated in the Greek Maccabean periodsparallels can be found only in Pharisaism, but at the same time that
the sharpest contrasts must issue from it. Talmudic Judaism is not in every respect the genuine continuance of Pharisaic Judaism,
but a product of the decay which attests that the rejection of Jesus by the spiritual leaders of the people had deprived the nation
and even the Virtuosi of Religion of their best part: (see for this the expositions of Kuenen Judaismus und Christenthum, in
his (Hibbert) lectures on national religions and world religions). The ever recurring attempts to deduce the origin of Christianity
from Hellenism, or even from the Roman Greek culture, are there also rightly, briefly and tersely rejected. Also the hypotheses,
which either entirely eliminate the person of Jesus or make him an Essene, or subordinate him to the person of Paul, may be
regarded as definitively settled. Those who think they can ascertain the origin of Christian religion from the origin of Christian
Theology will indeed always think of Hellenism: Paul will eclipse the person of Jesus with those who believe that a religion for
the world must be born with a universalistic doctrine. Finally, Essenism will continue in authority with those who see in the
position of indifference which Jesus took to the Temple worship, the main thing, and who, besides, create for themselves an
Essenism of their own finding. Hellenism, and also Essenism, can of course indicate to the historian some of the conditions
by which the appearance of Jesus was prepared and rendered possible; but they explain only the possibility, not the reality of
the appearance. But this with its historically not deducible power is the decisive thing. If some one has recently said that the
historical speciality of the person of Jesus is not the main thing in Christianity; he has thereby betrayed that he does not know
how a religion that is worthy of the name is founded, propagated, and maintained. For the latest attempt to put the Gospel in a
historical connection with Buddhism (Seydel. Das Ev. von Jesus in seinem Verhltnissen zur Buddha-Sage, 1882: likewise, Die
Buddha-Legende und das Leben Jesu, 1884), see, Oldenburg, Theol. Lit.-Ztg. 1882, Col. 415 f.; 1884, 185 f. However much
necessarily remains obscure to us in the ministry of Jesus when we seek to place it in a historical connection, what is known is
sufficient to confirm the judgment that his preaching developed a germ in the religion of Israel (see the Psalms) which was finally
guarded and in many respects developed by the Pharisees, but which languished and died under their guardianship. The power
of development which Jesus imported to it was not a power which he himself had to borrow from without; but doctrine and
speculation were as far from him as ecstasy and visions. On the other hand, we must remember we do not know the history of
Jesus up to his public entrance on his ministry, and that therefore we do not know whether in his native province he had any
connection with Greeks.
51
71
Adolf Harnack
thy neighbour as thyself, were for the first time presented in their connection in the person of
Jesus. He himself therefore is Christianity, for the impression of his person convinced the disciples
of the facts of forgiveness of sin and the second birth, and gave them courage to believe in and to
lead a new life. We cannot therefore state the doctrine of Jesus; for it appears as a supramundane
life which must be felt in the person of Jesus, and its truth is guaranteed by the fact that such a life
can be lived.
Supplement 2.The history of the Gospel contains two great transitions, both of which, however,
fall within the first century; from Christ to the first generation of believers, including Paul, and
from the first, Jewish Christian, generation of these believers to the Gentile Christians; in other
words, from Christ to the brotherhood of believers in Christ, and from this to the incipient Catholic
Church. No later transitions in the Church can be compared with these in importance. As to the
first, the question has frequently been asked, Is the Gospel of Christ to be the authority or the Gospel
concerning Christ? But the strict dilemma here is false. The Gospel certainly is the Gospel of Christ.
For it has only, in the sense of Jesus, fulfilled its Mission when the Father has been declared to men
as he was known by the Son, and where the life is swayed by the realities and principles which
ruled the life of Jesus Christ. But it is in accordance with the mind of Jesus and at the same time a
fact of history, that this Gospel can only be appropriated and adhered to in connection with a
believing surrender to the person of Jesus Christ. Yet every dogmatic formula is suspicious, be-cause
it is fitted to wound the spirit of religion; it should not at least be put before the living experience
in order to evoke it; for such a procedure is really the admission of the half belief which thinks it
necessary that the impression made by the person must be supplemented. The essence of the matter
is a personal life which awakens life around it as the fire of one torch kindles another. Early as
weakness of faith is in the Church of Christ, it is no earlier than the procedure of making a formulated
and ostensibly proved confession the foundation of faith, and therefore demanding, above all,
subjection to this confession. Faith assuredly is propagated by the testimony of faith, but dogma is
not in itself that testimony.
72
The peculiar character of the Christian religion is conditioned by the fact that every reference to
God is at the same time a reference to Jesus Christ, and vice versa. In this sense the Person of Christ
is the central point of the religion, and inseparably united with the substance of piety as a sure
reliance on God. Such a union does not, as is supposed, bring a foreign element into the pure essence
of religion. The pure essence of religion rather demands such a union; for the reverence for persons,
the inner bowing before the manifestation of moral power and goodness is the root of all true
religion (W. Herrmann). But the Christian religion knows and names only one name before which
it bows. In this rests its positive character, in all else, as piety, it is by its strictly spiritual and inward
attitude, not a positive religion alongside of others, but religion itself. But just because the Person
of Christ has this significance is the knowledge and understanding of the historical Christ required:
for no other comes within the sphere of our knowledge. The historical Christ that, to be sure, is
not the powerless Christ of contemporary history shewn to us through a coloured biographical
medium, or dissipated in all sorts of controversies, but Christ as a power and as a life which towers
above our own life, and enters into our life as God's Spirit and God's Word, (see Herrmann, Der
Verkehr des Christen mit Gott. 2. Edit. 1892, [i. e., The Fellowship of the Christian with God,
an important work included in the present series of translations. Ed.]: Khler, Der sog. historische
52
Adolf Harnack
Jesus und der geschichtliche biblische Christus, 1892). But historical labour and investigation are
needed in order to grasp this Jesus Christ ever more firmly and surely.
73
As to the second transition, it brought with it the most important changes, which, however, became
clearly manifest only after the lapse of some generations. They appear, first, in the belief in holy
consecrations, efficacious in themselves, and administered by chosen persons; further, in the
conviction, that the relation of the individual to God and Christ is, above all, conditioned on the
acceptance of a definite divinely attested law of faith and holy writings; further, in the opinion that
God has established Church arrangements, observance of which is necessary and meritorious, as
well as in the opinion that a visible earthly community is the people of a new covenant. These
assumptions, which formally constitute the essence of Catholicism as a religion, have no support
in the teaching of Jesus, nay, offend against that teaching.
Supplement 3.The question as to what new thing Christ has brought, answered by Paul in the
words, If any man be in Christ he is a new creature, old things are passed away, behold all things
are become new, has again and again been pointedly put since the middle of the second century
by Apologists, Theologians and religious Philosophers within and without the Church, and has
received the most varied answers. Few of the answers have reached the height of the Pauline
confession. But where one cannot attain to this confession, one ought to make clear to oneself that
every answer which does not lie in the line of it is altogether unsatisfactory; for it is not difficult
to set over against every article from the preaching of Jesus an observation which deprives it of its
originality. It is the Person, it is the fact of his life that is new and creates the new. The way in
which he called forth and established a people of God on earth, which has become sure of God and
of eternal life; the way in which he set up a new thing in the midst of the old and transformed the
religion of Israel into the religion: that is the mystery of his Person, in which lies his unique and
permanent position in the history of humanity.
74
Supplement 4.The conservative position of Jesus towards the religious traditions of his people
had the necessary result that his preaching and his Person were placed by believers in the frame-work
of this tradition, which was thereby very soon greatly expanded. But, though this way of
understanding the Gospel was certainly at first the only possible way, and though the Gospel itself
could only be preserved by such means (see 1), yet it cannot be mistaken that a displacement in
the conception of the Person and preaching of Jesus, and a burdening of religious faith, could not
but forthwith set in, from which developments followed, the premises of which would be vainly
sought for in the words of the Lord (see 3, 4). But here the question arises as to whether the
Gospel is not inseparably connected with the eschatological world-renouncing element with which
it entered into the world, so that its being is destroyed where this is omitted. A few words may be
devoted to this question. The Gospel possesses properties which oppose every positive religion,
because they depreciate it, and these properties form the kernel of the Gospel. The disposition
which is devoted to God, humble, ardent and sincere in its love to God and to the brethren, is as an
abiding habit, law, and at the same time a gift of the Gospel, and also finally exhausts it. This quiet,
peaceful element was at the beginning strong and vigorous, even in those who lived in the world
of ecstasy and expected the world to come. One may be named for all, Paul. He who wrote I. Cor.
XIII. and Rom. VIII. should not, in spite of all that he has said elsewhere, be called upon to witness
53
75
Adolf Harnack
that the nature of the Gospel is exhausted in its world-renouncing, ecstatic and eschatological
elements, or at least that it is so inseparable united with these as to fall along with them. He who
wrote those chapters, and the greater than he who promised the kingdom of heaven to children and
to those who were hungering and thirsting for righteousness, he to whom tradition ascribes the
words: Rejoice not that the spirits are subject to you. but rather rejoice that your names are written
in heavenboth attest that the Gospel lies above the antagonisms between this world and the
next, work and retirement from the world, reason and ecstasy, Judaism and Hellenism. And because
it lies above them it may be united with either, as it originally unfolded its powers under the ruins
of the Jewish religion. But still more; it not only can enter into union with them, it must do so if it
is other-wise the religion of the living and is itself living. It has only one aim; that man may find
God and have him as his own God, in order to gain in him humility and patience, peace, joy and
love. How it reaches this goal through the advancing centuries, whether with the co-efficients of
Judaism or Hellenism, of renunciation of the world or of culture, of mysticism or the doctrine of
predestination, of Gnosticism or Agnosticism, and whatever other incrustations there may yet be
which can defend the kernel, and under which alone living elements can growall that belongs to
the centuries. However each individual Christian may reckon to the treasure itself the earthly vessel
in which he hides his treasure; it is the duty and the right, not only of the religious, but also of the
historical estimate to distinguish between the vessel and the treasure; for the Gospel did not enter
into the world as a positive statutory religion, and cannot therefore have its classic manifestation
in any form of its intellectual or social types, not even in the first. It is therefore the duty of the
historian of the first century of the Church, as well as that of those which follow, not to be content
with fixing the changes of the Christian religion, but to examine how far the new forms were capable
of defending, propagating and impressing the Gospel itself. It would probably have perished if the
forms of primitive Christianity had been scrupulously maintained in the Church; but now primitive
Christianity has perished in order that the Gospel might be preserved. To study this progress of the
development, and fix the significance of the newly received forms for the kernel of the matter, is
the last and highest task of the historian who himself lives in his subject. He who approaches from
without must be satisfied with the general view that in the history of the Church some things have
always remained, and other things have always been changing.
Literature.Weiss. Biblical Theology of the New Testament. T. and T. Clark. Wittichen. Beitr.
z. bibl. Theol. 3. Thle. 1864-72.
Schurer. Die Predigt Jesu in ihrem Verhaltniss z. A. T. u z. Judenthum, 1882.
Wellhausen. Abriss der Gesch. Israels u. Juda's (Skizzen u. Vorarbeiten) 1. Heft. 1884.
Baldensperger. Das Selbstbewusstsein Jesu im Licht der Messianischen Hoffnungen seiner Zeit,
1888, (2 Aufl. 1891). The prize essays of Schmoller and Issel, Ueber die Lehre vom Reiche Gottes
irn N. Test. 1891 (besides Gunkel in d. Theol. Lit. Ztg. 1893. No. 2).
Wendt. Die Lehre Jesu. (The teaching of Jesus. T. and T. Clark. English translation.)
76
Job. Weiss. Die Predigt Jesu vom Reiche Gottes, 1892.

Bousset. Jesu Predigt in ihrem Gegensatz zum Judenthum, 1892.
54
Adolf Harnack
C. Holtzman. Die Offenbarung durch Christus und das Neue Testament (Zeitschr. f. Theol. und
Kirche I. p. 367 ff.) The special literature in the above work of Weiss, and in the recent works on
the life of Jesus, and the Biblical Theology of the New Testament by Beyschlag. [T. T. Clark]
3. The Common Preaching concerning Jesus Christ in the First Generation of Believers.
77
Men had met with Jesus Christ and in him had found the Messiah. They were convinced that God
had made him to be wisdom and righteousness, sanctification and redemption. There was no hope
that did not seem to be certified in him, no lofty idea which had not become in him a living reality.
Everything that one possessed was offered to him. He was everything lofty that could be imagined.
Everything that can be said of him was already said in the first two generations after his appearance.
Nay, more: he was felt and known to be the ever living one Lord of the world and operative principle
of one's own life. To me to live is Christ and to die is gain; He is the way, the truth and the life.
One could now for the first time be certain of the resurrection and eternal life, and with that certainty
the sorrows of the world melted away like mist before the sun, and the residue of this present time
became as a day. This group of facts which the history of the Gospel discloses in the world, is at
the same time the highest and most unique of all that we meet in that history: it is its seal and
distinguishes it from all other universal religions. Where in the history of mankind can we find
anything resembling this, that men who had eaten and drunk with their Master should glorify him,
not only as the revealer of God, but as the Prince of life, as the Redeemer and Judge of the world,
as the living power of its existence, and that a choir of Jews and Gentiles, Greeks and Barbarians,
wise and foolish, should along with them immediately confess that out of the fulness of this one
man they have received grace for grace? It has been said that Islam furnishes the unique example
of a religion born in broad daylight, but the community of Jesus was also born in the clear light of
day. The darkness connected with its birth is occasioned not only by the imperfection of the records,
but by the uniqueness of the fact, which refers us back to the uniqueness of the Person of Jesus.
But though it certainly is the first duty of the historian to signalise the overpowering impression
made by the Person of Jesus on the disciples, which is the basis of all further developments, it
would little become him to renounce the critical examination of all the utterances which have been
connected with that Person with the view of elucidating and glorifying it; unless he were with
Origen to conclude that Jesus was to each and all whatever they fancied him to be for their
edification. But this would destroy the personality. Others are of opinion that we should conceive
him, in the sense of the early communities, as the second God who is one in essence with the Father,
in order to understand from this point of view all the declarations and judgments of these
communities. But this hypothesis leads to the most violent distortion of the original declarations,
and the suppression or concealment of their most obvious features. The duty of the historian rather
consists in fixing the common features of the faith of the first two generations, in explaining them
as far as possible from the belief that Jesus is Messiah, and in seeking analogies for the several
assertions. Only a very meagre sketch can be given in what follows. The presentation of the matter
in the frame-work of the history of dogma does not permit of more, because as noted above, 1,
the presupposition of dogma forming itself in the Gentile Church is not the whole infinitely rich
abundance of early Christian views and perceptions. That presupposition is simply a proclamation
of the one God and of Christ transferred to Greek soil, fixed merely in its leading features and
55
78
Adolf Harnack
otherwise very plastic, accompanied by a message regarding the future, and demands for a holy
life. At the same time the Old Testament and the early Christian Palestinian writings with the rich
abundance of their contents, did certainly exercise a silent mission in the earliest communities, till
by the creation of the canon they became a power in the Church.
1. The contents of the faith of the disciples,73 and the common proclamation which united them,
may be comprised in the following propositions. Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah promised by the
prophets. Jesus after his death is by the Divine awakening raised to the right hand of God, and will
soon return to set up his kingdom visibly upon the earth. He who believes in Jesus, and has been
received into the community of the disciples of Jesus, who, in virtue of a sincere change of mind,
calls on God as Father, and lives according to the commandments of Jesus, is a saint of God, and
as such can be certain of the sin-forgiving grace of God, and of a share in the future glory, that is,
of redemption.74
79
A community of Christian believers was formed within the Jewish national community. By its
organisation, the close brotherly union of its members, it bore witness to the impression which the
Person of Jesus had made on it, and drew from faith in Jesus and hope of his return, the assurance
of eternal life, the power of believing in God the Father and of fulfilling the lofty moral and social
commands which Jesus had set forth. They knew themselves to be the true Israel of the Messianic
time (see 1), and for that very reason lived with all their thoughts and feelings in the future. Hence
the Apocalyptic hopes which in manifold types were current in the Judaism of the time, and which
Jesus had not demolished, continued to a great extent in force (see 4). One guarantee for their
fulfilment was supposed to be possessed in the various manifestations of the Spirit,75 which were
displayed in the members of the new communities at their entrance, with which an act of baptism
seems to have been united from the very first,76 and in their gatherings. They were a guarantee that
73
74
75
76
See the brilliant investigations of Weizscker (Apost. Zeitalter. p. 36) as to the earliest significant names, self-designations, of
the disciples. The twelve were in the first place (disciples and family-circle of Jesus, see also the significance of
James and the brethren of Jesus), then witnesses of the resurrection and therefore Apostles; very soon there appeared beside
them, even in Jerusalem, Prophets and Teachers.
The christian preaching is very pregnantly described in Acts XXVIII. 31, as ,
.
On the spirit of God (of Christ) see note, p. 50. The earliest christians felt the influence of the spirit as one coming on them from
without.
It cannot be directly proved that Jesus instituted baptism, for Matth. XXVIII. 19, is not a saying of the Lord. The reasons for
this assertion are: (1) It is only a later stage of the tradition that represents the risen Christ as delivering speeches and giving
commandments. Paul knows nothing of it. (2) The Trinitarian formula is foreign to the mouth of Jesus, and has not the authority
in the Apostolic age which it must have had if it had descended from Jesus himself. On the other hand, Paul knows of no other
way of receiving the Gentiles into the Christian communities than by baptism, and it is highly probable that in the time of Paul
all Jewish Christians were also baptised. We may perhaps assume that the practice of baptism was continued in consequence of
Jesus' recognition of John the Baptist and his baptism, even after John himself had been removed. According to John IV. 2, Jesus
himself baptised not, but his disciples under his superintendence. It is possible only with the help of tradition to trace back to
Jesus a Sacrament of Baptism, or an obligation to it ex necessitate salutis, though it is credible that tradition is correct here.
Baptism in the Apostolic age was , and indeed (1. Cor. I. 13: Acts XIX. 5). We cannot make
out when the formula, , , , emerged. The formula, ,
expresses that the person baptised is put into a relation of dependence on him into whose name he is baptised. Paul has given
baptism a relation to the death of Christ, or justly inferred it from the . The descent of the spirit on the
baptised very soon ceased to be regarded as the necessary and immediate result of baptism; yet Paul, and probably his
56
80
81
Adolf Harnack
believers really were the , those called to be saints, and, as such, kings and priests
unto God77 for whom the world, death and devil are overcome, although they still rule the course
of the world. The confession of the God of Israel as the Father of Jesus, and of Jesus as Christ and
Lord78 was sealed by the testimony of the possession of the Spirit, which as Spirit of God assured
every individual of his call to the kingdom, united him personally with God himself and became
to him the pledge of future glory.79
2. As the Kingdom of God which was announced had not yet visibly appeared, as the appeal to the
Spirit could not be separated from the appeal to Jesus as Messiah, and as there was actually nothing
possessed but the reality of the Person of Jesus, so, in preaching, all stress must necessarily fall on
this Person. To believe in him was the decisive fundamental requirement, and, at first, under the
presupposition of the religion of Abraham and the Prophets, the sure guarantee of salvation. It is
not surprising then to find that in the earliest Christian preaching Jesus Christ comes before us as
frequently as the Kingdom of God in the preaching of Jesus himself. The image of Jesus and the
power which proceeded from it were the things which were really possessed. Whatever was expected
was expected only from Jesus the exalted and returning one. The proclamation that the Kingdom
of heaven is at hand must therefore become the proclamation that Jesus is the Christ, and that in
him the revelation of God is complete. He who lays hold of Jesus lays hold in him of the grace of
God and of a full salvation. We cannot, however, call this in itself a displacement: but as soon as
the proclamation that Jesus is the Christ ceased to be made with the same emphasis and the same
meaning that it had in his own preaching, and what sort of blessings they were which he brought,
not only was a displacement inevitable, but even a dispossession. But every dispossession requires
the given forms to be filled with new contents. Simple as was the pure tradition of the confession:
Jesus is the Christ, the task of rightly appropriating and handing down entire the peculiar contents
which Jesus had given to his self-witnessing and preaching was nevertheless great, and in its limit
uncertain. Even the Jewish Christian could perform this task only according to the measure of his
spiritual understanding and the strength of his religious life. Moreover, the external position of the
first communities in the midst of contemporaries who had crucified and rejected Jesus, compelled
them to prove, as their main duty, that Jesus really was the Messiah who was promised.
Consequently, everything united to bring the first communities to the conviction that the proclamation
of the Gospel with which they were entrusted, resolved itself into the proclamation that Jesus is
77
78
79
contemporaries also, considered the grace of baptism and the communication of the spirit to be inseparably united. See Scholten.
Die Taufformel. 1885. Holtzman, Die Taufe im N. T. Ztsch. f. wiss. Theol. 1879.
The designation of the Christian community as originates perhaps with Paul, though that is by no means certain; see
as to this name of honour, Sohm, Kirchenrecht, Vol. I. p. 16 ff. The words of the Lord, Matt. XVI. 18: XVIII. 17, belong to
a later period. According to Gal. I. 22, is added to the . The independence of every
individual Christian in and before God is strongly insisted on in the Epistles of Paul, and in the Epistle of Peter, and in the
Christian portions of Revelations: , .
Jesus is regarded with adoring reverence as Messiah and Lord, that is, these are regarded as the names which his Father has
given him. Christians are those who call on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ (1 Cor. I. 2): every creature must bow before him
and confess him as Lord (Phil. II. 9): see Deissmann on the N. T. formula in Christo Jesu.
The confession of Father, Son and Spirit is therefore the unfolding of the belief that Jesus is the Christ; but there was no intention
of expressing by this confession the essential equality of the three persons, or even the similar relation of the Christian to them.
On the contrary, the Father in it is regarded as the God and Father over all, the Son as revealer, redeemer and Lord, the Spirit as
a possession, principle of the new supernatural life and of holiness. From the Epistles of Paul we perceive that the Formula,
Father, Son and Spirit, could not yet have been customary, especially in Baptism. But it was approaching (2 Cor. XIII. 13).
57
Adolf Harnack
the Christ. The (teaching to observe all that Jesus

had commanded), a thing of heart and life, could not lead to reflection in the same degree, as the
(teaching that this is the Christ of God); for a
community which possesses the Spirit does not reflect on whether its conception is right, but,
especially a missionary community, on what the certainty of its faith rests.
82
The proclamation of Jesus as the Christ, though rooted entirely in the Old Testament, took its start
from the exaltation of Jesus, which again resulted from his suffering and death. The proof that the
entire Old Testament points to him, and that his person, his deeds and his destiny are the actual and
precise fulfilment of the Old Testament predictions, was the foremost interest of believers, so far
as they at all looked backwards. This proof was not used in the first place for the purpose of making
the meaning and value of the Messianic work of Jesus more intelligible, of which it did not seem
to be in much need, but to confirm the Messiahship of Jesus. Still, points of view for contemplating
the Person and work of Jesus could not fail to be got from the words of the Prophets. The fundamental
conception of Jesus dominating everything was, according to the Old Testament, that God had
chosen him and through him the Church. God had chosen him and made him to be both Lord and
Christ. He had made over to him the work of setting up the Kingdom, and had led him through
death and resurrection to a supramundane position of sovereignty, in which he would soon visibly
appear and bring about the end. The hope of Christ's speedy return was the most important article
in the Christology, inasmuch as his work was regarded as only reaching its conclusion by that
return. It was the most difficult, inasmuch as the Old Testament contained nothing of a second
advent of Messiah. Belief in the second advent became the specific Christian belief.
But the searching in the scriptures of the Old Testament, that is, in the prophetic texts, had already,
in estimating the Person and dignity of Christ, given an important impulse towards transcending
the frame-work of the idea of the theocracy completed solely in and for Israel. Moreover, belief in
the exaltation of Christ to the right hand of God, caused men to form a corresponding idea of the
beginning of his existence. The missionary work among the Gentiles, so soon begun and so rich in
results, threw a new light on the range of Christ's purpose and work, and led to the consideration
of its significance for the whole human race. Finally, the self-testimony of Jesus summoned them
to ponder his relation to God the Father, with the presuppositions of that relation, and to give it
expression in intelligible statements. Speculation had already begun on these four points in the
Apostolic age, and had resulted in very different utterances as to the Person and dignity of Jesus
(4).80
80
The Christological utterances which are found in the New Testament writings, so far as they explain and paraphrase the confession
of Jesus as the Christ and the Lord, may be almost entirely deduced from one or other of the four points mentioned in the text.
But we must at the same time insist that these declarations were meant to be explanations of the confession that Jesus is the
Lord, which of course included the recognition that Jesus by the resurrection became a heavenly being (see Weizscker in
above mentioned work, p. 110). The solemn protestation of Paul, I Cor. XII. 3;
, , , (cf. Rom. X. 9), shews
that he who acknowledged Jesus as the Lord, and accordingly believed in the resurrection of Jesus, was regarded as a full-born
Christian. It undoubtedly excludes from the Apostolic age the independent authority of any christological dogma besides that
confession and the worship of Christ connected with it. It is worth notice, however, that those early Christian men who recognised
Christianity as the vanquishing of the Old Testament religion (Paul, the Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, John) all held that
Christ was a being who had come down from heaven.
58
83
84
Adolf Harnack
3. Since Jesus had appeared and was believed on as the Messiah promised by the Prophets, the aim
and contents of his mission seemed already to be therewith stated with sufficient clearness. Further,
as the work of Christ was not yet completed, the view of those contemplating it was, above all,
turned to the future. But in virtue of express words of Jesus, and in the consciousness of having
received the Spirit of God, one was already certain of the forgiveness of sin dispensed by God, of
righteousness before him, of the full knowledge of the Divine will, and of the call to the future
Kingdom as a present possession. In the procuring of these blessings not a few perceived with
certainty the results of the first advent of Messiah, that is, his work. This work might be seen in the
whole activity of Christ. But as the forgiveness of sins might be conceived as the blessing of
salvation which included with certainty every other blessing, as Jesus had put his death in express
relation with this blessing, and as the fact of this death so mysterious and offensive required a
special explanation, there appeared in the foreground from the very beginning the confession, in I
Cor. XV. 3: , ,
. I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, that Christ died for our sins.
Not only Paul, for whom, in virtue of his special reflections and experiences, the cross of Christ
had become the central point of all knowledge, but also the majority of believers, must have regarded
the preaching of the death of the Lord as an essential article, in the preaching of Christ,81 seeing
that, as a rule, they placed it somehow under the aspect of a sacrifice offered to God. Still, there
were very different conceptions of the value of the death as a means of procuring salvation, and
there may have been many who were satisfied with basing its necessity on the fact that it had been
predicted, ( : he died for our sins according to the scriptures), while
their real religious interests were entirely centered in the future glory to be procured by Christ. But
it must have been of greater significance for the following period that, from the first, a short account
of the destiny of Jesus lay at the basis of all preaching about him (see a part of this in 1. Cor. XV.
1-11). Those articles in which the identity of the Christ who had appeared with the Christ who had
been promised stood out with special clearness, must have been taken up into this report, as well
as those which transcended the common expectations of Messiah, which for that very reason
appeared of special importance, viz., his death and resurrection. In putting together this report,
there was no intention of describing the work of Christ. But after the interest which occasioned
it had been obscured, and had given place to other interests, the customary preaching of those
articles must have led men to see in them Christ's real performance, his work.82
4. The firm confidence of the disciples in Jesus was rooted in the belief that he did not abide in
death, but was raised by God. That Christ had risen was, in virtue of what they had experienced in
him, certainly only after they had seen him, just as sure as the fact of his death, and became the
81
82
Compare in their fundamental features the common declarations about the saving value of the death of Christ in Paul, in the
johannine writings, in 1st Peter, in the Epistle to the Hebrews, and in the Christian portions of the book of Revelation:
, : Compare the reference to Isaiah LIII. and
the Passover lamb: the utterances about the lamb generally in the early writings: see Westcott, The Epistles of John, p. 34 f.:
The idea of the blood of Christ in the New Testament.
This of course could not take place otherwise than by reflecting on its significance. But a dislocation was already completed as
soon as it was isolated and separated from the whole of Jesus, or even from his future activity. Reflection on the meaning or the
causes of particular facts might easily, in virtue of that isolation, issue in entirely new conceptions.
59
85
Adolf Harnack
main article of their preaching about him.83 But in the message of the risen Lord was contained not
only the conviction that he lives again, and now lives for ever, but also the assurance that his people
will rise in like manner and live eternally. Consequently, the resurrection of Jesus became the sure
pledge of the resurrection of all believers, that is of their real personal resurrection. No one at the
beginning thought of a mere immortality of the spirit, not even those who assumed the perishableness
of man's sensuous nature. In conformity with the uncertainty which yet adhered to the idea of
resurrection in Jewish hopes and speculations, the concrete notions of it in the Christian communities
were also fluctuating. But this could not affect the certainty of the conviction that the Lord would
raise his people from death. This conviction, whose reverse side is the fear of that God who casts
into hell, has become the mightiest power through which the Gospel has won humanity.84
83
See the discriminating statements of Weizscker, Apostolic Age, p. 1 f., especially as to the significance of Peter as first
witness of the resurrection. Cf. 1 Cor. XV. 5 with Luke XXIV. 34: also the fragment of the Gospel of Peter which unfortunately
breaks off at the point where one expects the appearance of the Lord to Peter.
84
It is often said that Christianity rests on the belief in the resurrection of Christ. This may be correct, if it is first declared who
this Jesus Christ is, and what his life signifies. But when it appears as a naked report to which one must above all submit, and
when in addition, as often happens, it is supplemented by the assertion that the resurrection of Christ is the most certain fact in
the history of the world, one does not know whether he should marvel more at its thoughtlessness or its unbelief. We do not
need to have faith in a fact, and that which requires religious belief, that is, trust in God, can never be a fact which would hold
good apart from that belief. The historical question and the question of faith must therefore be clearly distinguished here. The
following points are historically certain. (1) That none of Christ's opponents saw him after his death. (2) That the disciples were
convinced that they had seen him soon after his death. (3) That the succession and number of those appearances can no longer
be ascertained with certainty. (4) That the disciples and Paul were conscious of having seen Christ not in the crucified earthly
body, but in heavenly gloryeven the later incredible accounts of the appearances of Christ, which strongly emphasise the
reality of the body, speak at the same time of such a body as can pass through closed doors, which certainly is not an earthly
body. (5) That Paul does not compare the manifestation of Christ given to him with any of his later visions, but, on the other
hand, describes it in the words (Gal. I. 15: , and yet puts it on a level
with the appearances which the earlier Apostles had seen. But, as even the empty grave on the third day can by no means be
regarded as a certain historical fact, because it appears united in the accounts with manifest legendary features, and further
because it is directly excluded by the way in which Paul has portrayed the resurrection 1 Cor. XV. it follows: (1) That every
conception which represents the resurrection of Christ as a simple reanimation of his mortal body, is far from the original
conception, and (2) that the question generally as to whether Jesus has risen, can have no existence for any one who looks at it
apart from the contents and worth of the Person of Jesus. For the mere fact that friends and adherents of Jesus were convinced
that they had seen him, especially when they themselves explain that he appeared to them in heavenly glory, gives, to those who
are in earnest about fixing historical facts, not the least cause for the assumption that Jesus did not continue in the grave.
History is therefore at first unable to bring any succour to faith here. However firm may have been the faith of the disciples in
the appearances of Jesus in their midst, and it was firm, to believe in appearances which others have had is a frivolity which is
always revenged by rising doubts. But history is still of service to faith: it limits its scope and therewith shews the province to
which it belongs. The question which history leaves to faith is this: Was Jesus Christ swallowed up of death, or did he pass
through suffering and the cross to glory, that is, to life, power and honour? The disciples would have been convinced of that in
the sense in which Jesus meant them to understand it, though they had not seen him in glory (a consciousness of this is found
in Luke XXIV. 26: and Joh. XX. 29:
, ) and we might probably add, that no appearances of the Lord could
permanently have convinced them of his life, if they had not possessed in their hearts the impression of his Person. Faith in the
eternal life of Christ and in our own eternal life is not the condition of becoming a disciple of Jesus, but is the final confession
of discipleship. Faith has by no means to do with the knowledge of the form in which Jesus lives, but only with the conviction
that he is the living Lord The determination of the form was immediately dependent on the most varied general ideas of the
future life, resurrection, restoration, and glorification of the body, which were current at the time. The idea of the rising again
of the body of Jesus appeared comparatively early, because it was this hope which animated wide circles of pious people for
their own future. Faith in Jesus, the living Lord, in spite of the death on the cross, cannot be generated by proofs of reason or
authority, but only to-day in the same way as Paul has confessed of himself:
60
86
87
88
Adolf Harnack
5. After the appearance of Paul, the earliest communities were greatly exercised by the question as
to how believers obtain the righteousness which they possess, and what significance a precise
observance of the law of the Fathers may have in connection with it. While some would hear of no
change in the regulations and conceptions which had hitherto existed, and regarded the bestowal
of righteousness by God as possible only on condition of a strict observance of the law, others
taught that Jesus as Messiah had procured righteousness for his people, had fulfilled the law once
for all, and had founded a new covenant, either in opposition to the old, or as a stage above it. Paul
especially saw in the death of Christ the end of the law, and deduced righteousness solely from
faith in Christ, and sought to prove from the Old Testament itself, by means of historical speculation,
the merely temporary validity of the law and therewith the abrogation of the Old Testament religion.
Others, and this view, which is not everywhere to be explained by Alexandrian influences (see
above p. 72 f.), is not foreign to Paul, distinguished between spirit and letter in the Mosaic law,
giving to everything a spiritual significance, and in this sense holding that the whole law as
was binding. The question whether righteousness comes from the works of the law
or from faith, was displaced by this conception, and therefore remained in its deepest grounds
unsolved, or was decided in the sense of a spiritualised legalism. But the detachment of Christianity
from the political forms of the Jewish religion, and from sacrificial worship, was also completed
by the conception, although it was regarded as identical with the Old Testament religion rightly
understood. The surprising results of the direct mission to the Gentiles would seem to have first
called forth those controversies (but see Stephen) and given them the highest significance. The fact
that one section of Jewish Christians, and even some of the Apostles at length recognised the right
of the Gentile Christians to be Christians without first becoming Jews, is the clearest proof that
what was above all prized was faith in Christ and surrender to him as the Saviour. In agreeing to
the direct mission to the Gentiles the earliest Christians, while they themselves observed the law,
broke up the national religion of Israel, and gave expression to the conviction that Jesus was not
only the Messiah of his people, but the redeemer of humanity.85 The establishment of the universal
85
. The conviction of having seen the Lord was no doubt of the greatest importance for the disciples and made them
Evangelists: but what they saw cannot at first help us. It can only then obtain significance for us when we have gained that
confidence in the Lord which Peter has expressed in Mark VIII. 29. The Christian even to-day confesses with Paul:
, . He believes in a future life for himself with
God because he believes that Christ lives. That is the peculiarity and paradox of Christian faith. But these are not convictions
that can be common and matter of course to a deep feeling and earnest thinking being standing amid nature and death, but can
only be possessed by those who live with their whole hearts and minds in God, and even they need the prayer: I believe, help
thou mine unbelief. To act as if faith in eternal life and in the living Christ was the simplest thing in the world, or a dogma to
which one has just to submit, is irreligious. The whole question about the resurrection of Christ, its mode and its significance,
has thereby been so thoroughly confused in later Christendom, that we are in the habit of considering eternal life as certain, even
apart from Christ. That, at any rate, is not Christian. It is Christian to pray that God would give the Spirit to make us strong to
overcome the feelings and the doubts of nature, and create belief in an eternal life through the experience of dying to live.
Where this faith, obtained in this way, exists, it has always been supported by the conviction that the Man lives who brought
life and immortality to light. To hold fast this faith is the goal of life, for only what we consciously strive for is in this matter
our own. What we think we possess is very soon lost.
Weizscker (Apostolic Age, p. 73) says very justly: The rising of Judaism against believers put them on their own feet. They
saw themselves for the first time persecuted in the name of the law, and therewith for the first time it must have become clear
to them, that in reality the law was no longer the same to them as to the others. Their hope is the coming kingdom of heaven, in
which it is not the law, but their Master from whom they expect salvation. Everything connected with salvation is in him. But
we should not investigate the conditions of the faith of that early period, as though the question had been laid before the Apostles
61
Adolf Harnack
character of the Gospel, that is, of Christianity as a religion for the world, became now, however,
a problem, the solution of which, as given by Paul, but few were able to understand or make their
own.
89
6. In the conviction that salvation is entirely bound up with faith in Jesus Christ, Christendom
gained the consciousness of being a new creation of God. But while the sense of being the true
Israel was thereby, at the same time, held fast, there followed, on the one hand, entirely new historical
perspectives, and on the other, deep problems which demanded solution. As a new creation of God,
, the community was conscious of having been chosen by God in Jesus before
the foundation of the world. In the conviction of being the true Israel, it claimed for itself the whole
historical development recorded in the Old Testament, convinced that all the divine activity there
recorded had the new community in view. The great question which was to find very different
answers, was how, in accordance with this view, the Jewish nation, so far as it had not recognised
Jesus as Messiah, should be judged. The detachment of Christianity from Judaism was the most
important preliminary condition, and therefore the most important preparation, for the Mission
among the Gentile nations, and for union with the Greek spirit.
Supplement 1.Renan and others go too far when they say that Paul alone has the glory of freeing
Christianity from the fetters of Judaism. Certainly the great Apostle could say in this connection
also: , but there were others beside him who, in the power
of the Gospel, transcended the limits of Judaism. Christian communities, it may now be considered
certain, had arisen in the empire, in Rome for example, which were essentially free from the law
without being in any way determined by Paul's preaching. It was Paul's merit that he clearly
formulated the great question, established the universalism of Christianity in a peculiar manner,
and yet in doing so held fast the character of Christianity as a positive religion, as distinguished
from Philosophy and Moralism. But the later development presupposes neither his clear formulation
nor his peculiar establishment of universalism, but only the universalism itself.
Supplement 2.The dependence of the Pauline Theology on the Old Testament or on Judaism is
overlooked in the traditional contrasting of Paulinism and Jewish Christianity, in which Paulinism
is made equivalent to Gentile Christianity. This theology, as we might a priori suppose, could,
apart from individual exceptions, be intelligible as a whole to born Jews, if to any, for its doctrinal
presuppositions were strictly Pharisaic, and its boldness in criticising the Old Testament, rejecting
and asserting the law in its historical sense, could be as little congenial to the Gentile Christians as
its piety towards the Jewish people. This judgment is confirmed by a glance at the fate of Pauline
Theology in the 120 years that followed. Marcion was the only Gentile Christian who understood
whether they could have part in the Kingdom of heaven without circumcision, or whether it could be obtained by faith in Jesus,
with or without the observance of the law. Such questions had no existence for them either practically or as questions of the
school. But though they were Jews, and the law which even their Master had not abolished, was for them a matter of course,
that did not exclude a change of inner position towards it, through faith in their Master and hope of the Kingdom. There is an
inner freedom which can grow up along-side of all the constraints of birth, custom, prejudice, and piety. But this only comes
into consciousness, when a demand is made on it which wounds it, or when it is assailed on account of an inference drawn not
by its own consciousness, but only by its opponents.
62
90
91
Adolf Harnack
Panl, and even he misunderstood him: the rest never got beyond the appropriation of particular
Pauline sayings, and exhibited no comprehension especially of the theology of the Apostle, so far
as in it the universalism of Christianity as a religion is proved, even without recourse to Moralism
and without putting a new construction on the Old Testament religion. It follows from this, however,
that the scheme Jewish ChristianityGentile Christianity is insufficient. We must rather, in
the Apostolic age, at least at its close, distinguish four main tendencies that may have crossed each
other here and there,86 (within which again different shades appear). (1) The Gospel has to do with
the people of Israel, and with the Gentile world only on the condition that believers attach themselves
to the people of Israel. The punctilious observance of the law is still necessary and the condition
on which the messianic salvation is bestowed (particularism and legalism, in practice and in principle,
which, however, was not to cripple the obligation to prosecute the work of the Mission). (2) The
Gospel has to do with Jews and Gentiles: the first, as believers in Christ, are under obligation as
before to observe the law, the latter are not; but for that reason they cannot on earth fuse into one
community with the believing Jews. Very different judgments in details were possible on this
stand-point; but the bestowal of salvation could no longer be thought of as depending simply on
the keeping of the ceremonial commandments of the law87 (universalism in principle, particularism
in practice; the prerogative of Israel being to some extent clung to). (3) The Gospel has to do with
both Jews and Gentiles; no one is any longer under obligation to observe the law; for the law is
abolished (or fulfilled), and the salvation which Christ's death has procured is appropriated by faith.
The law (that is the Old Testament religion) in its literal sense is of divine origin, but was intended
from the first only for a definite epoch of history. The prerogative of Israel remains, and is shewn
in the fact that salvation was first offered to the Jews, and it will be shewn again at the end of all
history. That prerogative refers to the nation as a whole, and has nothing to do with the question
of the salvation of individuals (Paulinism: universalism in principle and in practice, and
Antinomianism in virtue of the recognition of a merely temporary validity of the whole law; breach
with the traditional religion of Israel; recognition of the prerogative of the people of Israel; the
clinging to the prerogative of the people of Israel was not, however, necessary on this stand-point:
see the epistle to the Hebrews and the Gospel of John). (4) The Gospel has to do with Jews and
Gentiles: no one need therefore be under obligation to observe the ceremonial commandments and
sacrificial worship, because these commandments themselves are only the wrappings or moral and
spiritual commandments which the Gospel has set forth as fulfilled in a more perfect form
(universalism in principle and in practice in virtue of a neutralising of the distinction between law
and Gospel, old and new; spiritualising and universalising of the law).88
86
87
88
Only one of these four tendenciesthe Pauline, with the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Johannine writings which are related
to Paulinismhas seen in the Gospel the establishment of a new religion. The rest identified it with Judaism made perfect, or
with the Old Testament religion rightly understood. But Paul, in connecting Christianity with the promise given to Abraham,
passing thus beyond the actual Old Testament religion, has not only given it a historical foundation, but also claimed for the
Father of the Jewish nation a unique significance for Christianity. As to the tendencies named 1 and 2, see Book I. chap. 6.
It is clear from Gal. II. 11 ff. that Peter then and for long before occupied in principle the stand-point of Paul: see the judicious
remarks of Weizscker in the book mentioned above, p. 75 f.
These four tendencies were represented in the Apostolic age by those who had been born and trained in Judaism, and they were
collectively transplanted into Greek territory. But we cannot be sure that the third of the above tendencies found intelligent and
independent representatives in this domain, as there is no certain evidence of it. Only one who had really been subject to it, and
therefore understood it, could venture on a criticism of the Old Testament religion. Still, it may be noted that the majority of
non-Jewish converts in the Apostolic age had probably come to know the Old Testament beforehandnot always the Jewish
63
92
93
Adolf Harnack
Supplement 3.The appearance of Paul is the most important fact in the history of the Apostolic
age. It is impossible to give in a few sentences an abstract of his theology and work; and the insertion
here of a detailed account is forbidden, not only by the external limits, but by the aim of this
investigation. For, as already indicated (1), the doctrinal formation in the Gentile Church is not
connected with the whole phenomenon of the Pauline theology, but only with certain leading
thoughts which were only in part peculiar to the Apostle. His most peculiar thoughts acted on the
development of Ecclesiastical doctrine only by way of occasional stimulus. We can find room here
only for a few general outlines.89
(1) The inner conviction that Christ had revealed himself to him, that the Gospel was the message
of the crucified and risen Christ, and that God had called him to proclaim that message to the world,
was the power and the secret of his personality and his activity. These three elements were a unity
in the consciousness of Paul, constituting his conversion and determining his after-life. (2) In this
conviction he knew himself to be a new creature, and so vivid was this knowledge that he was
constrained to become a Jew to the Jews, and a Greek to the Greeks in order to gain them. (3) The
crucified and risen Christ became the central point of his theology, and not only the central point,
but the one source and ruling principle. The Christ was not in his estimation Jesus of Nazareth now
exalted, but the mighty personal spiritual being in divine form who had for a time humbled himself,
and who as Spirit has broken up the world of law, sin and death, and continues to overcome them
in believers. (4) Theology therefore was to him, looking forwards, the doctrine of the liberating
power of the Spirit (of Christ) in all the concrete relations of human life and need. The Christ who
has already overcome law, sin and death, lives as Spirit, and through his Spirit lives in believers,
who for that very reason know him not after the flesh. He is a creative power of life to those who
receive him in faith in his redeeming death upon the cross, that is to say, to those who are justified.
The life in the Spirit, which results from union with Christ, will at last reveal itself also in the body
(not in the flesh). (5) Looking backwards, theology was to Paul a doctrine of the law and of its
abrogation; or more accurately, a description of the old system before Christ in the light of the
Gospel, and the proof that it was destroyed by Christ. The scriptural proof, even here, is only a
superadded support to inner considerations which move entirely within the thought that that which
is abrogated has already had its due, by having its whole strength made manifest that it might then
be annulled,the law, the flesh of sin, death: by the law the law is destroyed, sin is abolished in
sinful flesh, death is destroyed by death. (6) The historical view which followed from this begins,
89
religion, (see Havet, Le Christianisme, T. IV. p. 120: Je ne sais s'il y est entr, du vivant de Paul, un seul paen: je veux dire un
homme, qui ne connt pas dj, avant d'y entrer, le judaism et la Bible). These indications will shew how mistaken and misleading
it is to express the different tendencies in the Apostolic age and the period closely following by the designations Jewish
ChristianityGentile Christianity. Short watchwords are so little appropriate here that one might even with some justice reverse
the usual conception, and maintain that what is usually understood by Gentile Christianity (criticism of the Old Testament
religion) was possible only within Judaism, while that which is frequently called Jewish Christianity is rather a conception which
must have readily suggested itself to born Gentiles superficially acquainted with the Old Testament.
The first edition of this volume could not appeal to Weizscker's work, Das Apostolisehe Zeitalter der Christlichen Kirche, 1886,
[second edition translated in this series]. The author is now in the happy position of being able to refer the readers of his imperfect
sketch to this excellent presentation, the strength of which lies in the delineation of Paulinism in its relation to the early Church,
and to early Christian theology (p. 79-172). The truth of Weizscker's expositions of the inner relations (p. 85 f.), is but little
affected by his assumptions concerning the outer relations, which I cannot everywhere regard as just. (The work of Weizscker
as a whole is, in my opinion, the most important work on Church history we have received since Ritschl's Entstehung der
alt-katholischen Kirche. 2 Aufl. 1857.)
64
Adolf Harnack
as regards Christ, with Adam and Abraham; as regards the law, with Moses. It closes, as regards
Christ, with the prospect of a time when he shall have put all enemies beneath his feet, when God
will be all in all; as regards Moses and the promises given to the Jewish nation, with the prospect
of a time when all Israel will be saved. (7) Paul's doctrine of Christ starts from the final confession
of the primitive Church, that Christ is with the Father as a heavenly being and as Lord of the living
and the dead. Though Paul must have accurately known the proclamation concerning the historical
Christ, his theology in the strict sense of the word does not revert to it: but springing over the
historical, it begins with the pre-existent Christ (the Man from heaven), whose moral deed it was
to assume the flesh in self-denying love, in order to break for all men the powers of nature and the
doom of death. But he has pointed to the words and
94
95
example of the historical Christ in order to rule the life in the Spirit. (8) Deductions, proofs, and
perhaps also conceptions, which in point of form betray the theology of the Pharisaic schools, were
forced from the Apostle by Christian opponents, who would only grant a place to the message of
the crucified Christ beside the . Both as an exegete and as a typologist he
appears as a disciple of the Pharisees. But his dialectic about law, circumcision and sacrifice, does
not form the kernel of his religious mode of thought, though, on the other hand, it was unquestionably
his very Pharisaism which qualified him for becoming what he was. Pharisaism embraced nearly
everything lofty which Judaism apart from Christ at all possessed, and its doctrine of providence,
its energetic insistance on making manifest the religious contrasts, its Messianic expectations, its
doctrines of sin and predestination, were conditions for the genesis of a religious and Christian
character such as Paul.90 This first Christian of the second generation is the highest product of the
Jewish spirit under the creative power of the Spirit of Christ. Pharisaism had fulfilled its mission
for the world when it produced this man. (9) But Hellenism also had a share in the making of Paul,
a fact which does not conflict with his Pharisaic origin, but is partly given with it. In spite of all its
exclusiveness the desire for making proselytes especially in the Diaspora, was in the blood of
Pharisaism. Paul continued the old movement in a new way, and he was qualified for his work
among the Greeks by an accurate knowledge of the Greek translation of the Old Testament, by
considerable dexterity in the use of the Greek language, and by a growing insight into the spiritual
life of the Greeks. But the peculiarity of his Gospel as a message from the Spirit of Christ, which
was equally near to and equally distant from every religious and moral mode of thought among the
nations of the world, signified much more than all this. This Gospelwho can say whether Hellenism
had already a share in its conceptionrequired that the missionary to the Greeks should become
a Greek and that believers should come to know, all things are yours, and ye are Christ's. Paul,
as no doubt other missionaries besides him, connected the preaching of Christ with the Greek mode
of thought; he even employed philosophic doctrines of the Greeks as presuppositions in his
apologetic,91 and therewith prepared the way for the introduction of the Gospel to the Grco-Roman
world of thought. But, in my opinion, he has nowhere allowed that world of thought to influence
90
91
Kabisch, Die Eschatologie des Paulus, 1893, has shewn how strongly the eschatology of Paul was influenced by the later Pharisaic
Judaism. He has also called attention to the close connection between Paul's doctrine of sin and the fall, and that of the Rabbis.
Some of the Church Fathers (see Socr. H. E. III. 16) have attributed to Paul an accurate knowledge of Greek literature and
philosophy: but that cannot be proved. The references of Heinrici (2 Kor -Brief. p. 537-604) are worthy of our best thanks; but
no certain judgment can be formed about the measure of the Apostles' Greek culture, so long as we do not know how great was
the extent of spiritual ideas which were already precipitated in the speech of the time.
65
Adolf Harnack
his doctrine of salvation. This doctrine, however, was so fashioned in its practical aims that it was
not necessary to become a Jew in order to appropriate it. (10) Yet we cannot speak of any total
effect of Paulinism, as there was no such thing. The abundance of its details was too great and the
greatness of its simplicity too powerful, its hope of the future too vivid, its doctrine of the law too
difficult, its summons to a new life in the spirit too mighty to be comprehended and adhered to
even by those communities which Paul himself had founded. What they did comprehend was its
Monotheism, its universalism, its redemption, its eternal life, its asceticism; but all this was otherwise
combined than by Paul. The style became Hellenic, and the element of a new kind of knowledge
from the very first, as in the Church of Corinth, seems to have been the ruling one. The Pauline
doctrine of the incarnate heavenly Man was indeed apprehended; it fell in with Greek notions,
although it meant something very different from the notions which Greeks had been able to form
of it.
96
97
Supplement 4.What we justly prize above all else in the New Testament is that it is a union of
the three groups, Synoptic Gospels, Pauline Epistles,92 and Johannine writings, in which are expressed
the richest contents of the earliest history of the Gospel. In the Synodic Gospels and the epistles of
Paul are represented two types of preaching the Gospel which mutually supplement each other.
The subsequent history is dependent on both, and would have been other than it is had not both
existed alongside of each other. On the other hand, the peculiar and lofty conception of Christ and
of the Gospel, which stands out in the writings of John, has directly exercised no demonstrable
influence on the succeeding developmentwith the exception of one peculiar movement, the
Montanistic which, however, does not rest on a true understanding of these writingsand indeed
partly for the same reason that has prevented the Pauline theology as a whole from having such an
influence. What is given in these writings is a criticism of the Old Testament as religion, or the
independence of the Christian religion, in virtue of an accurate knowledge of the Old Testament
through development of its hidden germs. The Old Testament stage of religion is really transcended
and over-come in the Johannine Christianity, just as in Paulinism, and in the theology of the epistle
to the Hebrews. The circle of disciples who appropriated this characterisation of Jesus is, says
Weizscke, a revived Christ-party in the higher sense. But this transcending of the Old Testament
religion was the very thing that was unintelligible, because there were few ripe for such a conception.
Moreover, the origin of the Johannine writings is, from the stand-point of a history of literature and
dogma, the most marvellous enigma which the early history of Christianity presents: Here we have
portrayed a Christ who clothes the indescribable with words, and proclaims as his own self-testimony
what his disciples have experienced in him, a speaking, acting, Pauline Christ, walking on the earth,
far more human than the Christ of Paul and yet far more Divine, an abundance of allusions to the
historical Jesus, and at the same time the most sovereign treatment of the history. One divines that
the Gospel can find no loftier expression than John XVII.: one feels that Christ himself put these
words into the mouth of the disciple, who gives them back to him, but word and thing, history and
92
The epistle to the Hebrews and the first epistle of Peter, as well as the Pastoral epistles belong to the Pauline circle; they are of
the greatest value because they shew that certain fundamental features of Pauline theology took effect after-wards in an original
way, or received independent parallels, and because they prove that the cosmic Christology of Paul made the greatest impression
and was continued. In Christology, the epistle to the Ephesians in particular, leads directly from Paul to the pneumatic Christology
of the post-apostolic period. Its non-genuineness is by no means certain to me.
66
98
Adolf Harnack
doctrine are surrounded by a bright cloud of the suprahistorical. It is easy to shew that this Gospel
could as little have been written without Hellenism, as Luther's treatise on the freedom of a Christian
man could have been written without the Deutsche Theologie. But the reference to Philo and
Hellenism is by no means sufficient here, as it does not satisfactorily explain even one of the external
aspects of the problem. The elements operative in the Johannine theology were not Greek
Theologoumenaeven the Logos has little more in common with that of Philo than the name, and
its mention at the be-ginning of the book is a mystery, not the solution of one93but the Apostolic
testimony concerning Christ has created from the old faith of Psalmists and Prophets, a new faith
in a man who lived with the disciples of Jesus among the Greeks. For that very reason, in spite of
his abrupt Anti Judaism, we must without doubt regard the Author as a born Jew.
Supplement 5.The authorities to which the Christian communities were subjected in faith and
life, were these: (1) The Old Testament interpreted in the Christian sense. (2) The tradition of the
Messianic history of Jesus. (3) The words of the Lord: see the epistles of Paul, especially I
Corinthians. But every writing which was proved to have been given by the Spirit has also to be
regarded as an authority, and every tested Christian Prophet and Teacher inspired by the Spirit
could claim that his words be received and regarded as the words of God. Moreover, the twelve
whom Jesus had chosen had a special authority, and Paul claimed a similiar authority for himself
( ). Consequently, there were numerous courts of appeal in the earliest
period of Christendom, of diverse kinds and by no means strictly defined. In the manifold gifts of
the spirit was given a fluid element indefinable in its range and scope, an element which guaranteed
freedom of development, but which also threatened to lead the enthusiastic communities to
extravagance.
Literature.Weiss, Biblical Theology of the New Testament, 1884. Beyschlag, New Testament
Theology, 1892. Ritschl, Entstehung der Alt-Katholischen Kirche, 2 Edit. 1857. Reuss, History of
Christian Theology in the Apostolic Age, 1864. Baur, The Apostle Paul, 1866. Holsten, Zum
Evangelium des Paulus und Petrus, 1868. Pfleiderer, Paulinism, 1873: also, Das Urchristenthum,
1887. Schenkel, Das Christusbild der Apostel, 1879. Renan, Origins of Christianity, Vols. II.IV.
Havet, Le Christianisme et ses orig. T. IV. 1884. Lechler, The Apostolic and Post-Apostolic Age,
1885. Weizscker, The Apostolic Age, 1892. Hatch, Article Paul in the Encyclopdia Britannica.
93
In the Ztschr. fr Theol. und Kirche, II. p. 1.89 if. I have discussed the relation of the prologue of the fourth Gospel to the whole
work and endeavoured to prove the following: The prologue of the Gospel is not the key to its comprehension. It begins with
a well-known great object, the Logos, re-adapts and transforms itimplicitly opposing false Christologiesin order to substitute
for it Jesus Christ, the , or in order to unveil it as this Jesus Christ. The idea of the Logos is allowed to fall from
the moment that this takes place. The author continues to narrate of Jesus only with the view of establishing the belief that he
is the Messiah, the Son of God. This faith has for its main article the recognition that Jesus is descended from God and from
heaven; but the author is far from endeavouring to work out this recognition from cosmological, philosophical considerations.
According to the Evangelist, Jesus proves himself to be the Messiah, the Son of God, in virtue of his self-testimony, and because
he has brought a full knowledge of God and lifepurely supernatural divine blessings. (Cf. besides, and partly in opposition,
Holtzmann, i. d. Ztschr. f. wissensch. Theol. 1893.) The author's peculiar world of theological ideas, is not, however, so entirely
isolated in the early Christian literature as appears on the first impression. If, as is probable, the Ignatian Epistles are independent
of the Gospel of John, further, the Supper prayer in the Didache, finally, certain mystic theological phrases in the Epistle of
Barnabas, in the second epistle of Clement, and in Hermas: a complex of Theologoumena may be put together, which reaches
back to the primitive period of the Church, and may be conceived as the general ground for the theology of John. This complex
has on its side a close connection with the final development of the Jewish Hagiographic literature under Greek influence.
67
Adolf Harnack
Everett, The Gospel of Paul. Boston, 1893. On the origin and earliest history of the Christian proofs
from prophecy, see my Texte und Unters. z. Gesch. der Alt-Christl. Lit. I. 3, p. 56 f.
4. The Current Exposition of the Old Testament, and the Jewish hopes of the future, in their
significance for the earliest types of Christian preaching.
99
Instead of the frequently very fruitless investigations about Jewish-Christian, and

Gentile-Christian, it should be asked, What Jewish elements have been naturalised in the Christian
Church, which were in no way demanded by the contents of the Gospel? Have these elements been
simply weakened in course of the development, or have some of them been strengthened by a
peculiar combination with the Greek? We have to do here, in the first instance, with the doctrine
of Demons and Angels, the view of history, the growing exclusiveness, the fanaticism; and on the
other hand, with the cultus, and the Theocracy, expressing itself in forms of law.
1. Although Jesus had in principle abolished the methods of pedantry, the casuistic treatment of
the law, and the subtleties of prophetic interpretation, yet the old Scholastic exegesis remained
active in the Christian communities above all the unhistorical local method in the exposition of the
Old Testament, both allegoristic and Haggadic; for in the exposition of a sacred textand the Old
Testament was regarded as suchone is always required to look away from its historical limitations
and to expound it according to the needs of the present.94 The traditional view exercised its influence
on the exposition of the Old Testament, as well as on the representations of the person, fate and
deeds of Jesus, especially in those cases where the question was about the proof of the fulfilment
of prophecy, that is, of the Messiahship of Jesus. (See above 3, 2.) Under the impression made
by the history of Jesus it gave to many Old Testament passages a sense that was foreign to them,
and, on the other hand, enriched the life of Jesus with new facts, turning the interest at the same
time to details which were frequently unreal and seldom of striking importance.95
100
2. The Jewish Apocalyptic literature, especially as it flourished since the time of Antiochus
Epiphanes, and was impregnated with new elements borrowed from an ethico-religious philosophy,
as well as with Babylonian and Persian myths (Greek myths can only be detected in very small
94
95
The Jewish religion, specially since the (relative) close of the canon, had become more and more a religion of the Book.
Examples of both in the New Testament are numerous. See above all, Matt. I. II. Even the belief that Jesus was born of a Virgin
sprang from Isaiah VII. 14. It cannot, however, be proved to be in the writings of Paul (the two genealogies in Matt. and Luke
directly exclude it: according to Dillmann, Jahrb. f. protest. Theol. p. 192 ff. Luke I. 34, 35 would be the addition of a redactor);
but it must have arisen very early, as the Gentile Christians of the second century would seem to have unanimously confessed
it (see the Romish Symbol. Ignatius, Aristides, Justin, etc.). For the rest, it was long before theologians recognised in the Virgin
birth of Jesus more than fulfilment of a prophecy, viz., a fact of salvation. The conjecture of Usener, that the idea of the birth
from a Virgin is a heathen myth which was received by the Christians, contradicts the entire earliest development of Christian
tradition, which is free from heathen myths so far as these had not already been received by wide circles of Jews, (above all,
certain Babylonian and Persian Myths), which in the case of that idea is not demonstrable. Besides, it is in point of method not
permissible to stray so far when we have near at hand such a complete explanation as Isaiah VII. 14. Those who suppose that
the reality of the Virgin birth must be held fast, must assume that a misunderstood prophecy has been here fulfilled (on the true
meaning of the passage see Dillmann [Jesajas, 5 Aufl. p. 69]: of the birth by a Virgin [i.e., of one who at the birth was still a
Virgin.] the Hebrew text says nothing ... Immanuel as beginning and representative of the new generation, from which one
should finally take possession of the king's throne). The application of an unhistorical local method in the exposition of the Old
TestamentHaggada and Rabbinic allegorismmay be found in many passages of Paul (see, e.g., Gal. III. 16, 19; IV. 2231;
1 Cor. IX. 9; X. 4; XI. 10; Rom. IV. etc.).
68
101
102
Adolf Harnack
number), was not banished from the circles of the first professors of the Gospel, but was rather held
fast, eagerly read, and even extended with the view of elucidating the promises of Jesus.96 Though
their contents seem to have been modified on Christian soil, and especially the uncertainty about
the person of the Messiah exalted to victory and coming to judgment,97 yet the sensuous earthly
hopes were in no way repressed. Green fat meadows and sulphurous abysses, white horses and
frightful beasts, trees of life, splendid cities, war and blood-shed filled the fancy,98 and threatened
to obscure the simple and yet, at bottom, much more affecting maxims about the judgment which
is certain to every individual soul, and drew the confessors of the Gospel into a restless activity,
into politics, and abhorrence of the State. It was an evil inheritance which the Christians took over
from the Jews,99 an inheritance which makes it impossible to reproduce with certainty the
eschatological sayings of Jesus. Things directly foreign were mixed up with them, and, what. was
most serious, delineations of the hopes of the future could easily lead to the undervaluing of the
most important gifts and duties of the Gospel.100
3. A wealth of mythologies and poetic ideas was naturalised and legitimised101 in the Christian
communities, chiefly by the reception of the Apocalyptic literature, but also by the reception of
artificial exegesis and Haggada. Most important for the following period were the speculations
about Messiah, which were partly borrowed from expositions of the Old Testament and from the
Apocalypses, partly formed in-dependently, according to methods the justice of which no one
contested, and the application of which seemed to give a firm basis to religious faith.
96
The proof of this may be found in the quotations in early Christian writings from the Apocalypses of Enoch, Ezra, Eldad and
Modad, the assumption of Moses and other Jewish Apocalypses unknown to us. They were regarded as Divine revelations beside
the Old Testament; see the proofs of their frequent and long continued use in Schrer's History of the Jewish people in the time
of our Lord. But the Christians in receiving these Jewish Apocalypses did not leave them intact, but adapted them with greater
or less Christian additions (see Esra, Enoch, Ascension of Isaiah). Even the Apocalypse of John is, as Vischer (Texte u. Unters.
3 altchristl. lit. Gesch. Bd. II. H. 4) has shown, a Jewish Apocalypse adapted to a Christian meaning. But in this activity, and in
the production of little Apocalyptic prophetic sayings and articles, (see in the Epistle to the Ephesians, and in those of Barnabas
and Clement) the Christian labour here in the earliest period seems to have exhausted itself. At least we do not know with certainty
of any great Apocalyptic writing of an original kind proceeding from Christian circles. Even the Apocalypse of Peter which,
thanks to the discovery of Bouriant, we now know better, is not a completely original work as contrasted with the Jewish
Apocalypses.
97 The Gospel reliance on the Lamb who was slain very significantly pervades the Revelation of John, that is, its Christian parts.
Even the Apocalypse of Peter shews Jesus Christ as the comfort of believers and as the Revealer of the future. In it (v. 3,) Christ
says; Then will God come to those who believe on me, those who hunger and thirst and mourn, etc.
98 These words were written before the Apocalypse of Peter was discovered. That Apocalypse confirms what is said in the text.
Moreover, its delineation of Paradise and blessedness are not wanting in poetic charm and power. In its delineation of Hell,
which prepares the way for Dante's Hell, the author is scared by no terror.
99 These ideas, however, encircled the earliest Christendom as with a wall of fire, and preserved it from a too early contact with
the world.
100 An accurate examination of the eschatological sayings of Jesus in the synoptists shews that much foreign matter is mixed with
them (see Weiffenbach, Der Wiederkunftsgedanke Jesu, 1875). That the tradition here was very uncertain, because influenced
by the Jewish Apocalyptic, is shewn by the one fact that Papias (in Iren. V. 33) quotes as words of the Lord which had been
handed down by the disciples, a group of sayings which we find in the Apocalypse of Baruch, about the amazing fruitfulness of
the earth during the time of the Messianic Kingdom.
101 We may here call attention to an interesting remark of Goethe. Among his Apophthegms (no. 537) is the following: Apocrypha:
It would be important to collect what is historically known about these books, and to shew that these very Apocryphal writings
with which the communities of the first centuries of our era were flooded, were the real cause why Christianity at no moment
of political or Church history could stand forth in all her beauty and purity. A historian would not express himself in this way,
but yet there lies at the root of this remark a true historical insight.
69
103
104
Adolf Harnack
Some of the Jewish Apocalyptists had already attributed pre-existence to the expected Messiah, as
to other precious things in the Old Testament history and worship, and, without any thought of
denying his human nature, placed him as already existing before his appearing in a series of angelic
beings.102 This took place in accordance with an established method of speculation, so far as an
attempt was made thereby to express the special value of an empiric object, by distinguishing
between the essence and the inadequate form of appearance, hypostatising the essence, and exalting
it above time and space. But when a later appearance was conceived as the aim of a series of
preparations, it was frequently hypostatised and placed above these preparations even in time. The
supposed aim was, in a kind of real existence, placed, as first cause, before the means which were
destined to realise it on earth.103
Some of the first confessors of the Gospel, though not all the writers of the New Testament, in
accordance with the same method, went beyond the declarations which Jesus himself had made
about his person, and endeavoured to conceive its value and absolute significance abstractly and
speculatively. The religious convictions (see 3. 2): (1) That the founding of the Kingdom of God
102
See Schrer, History of the Jewish people. Div. II. vol. II. p. 160 f.; yet the remarks of the Jew Trypho in the dialogue of Justin
shew that the notions of a pre-existent Messiah were by no means very widely spread in Judaism. (See also Orig. c. Cels. 1. 49:
A Jew would not at all admit that any Prophet had said the Son of God will come; they avoided this designation and used instead
the saying, the anointed of God will come.) The Apocalyptists and Rabbis attributed pre-existence, that is, a heavenly origin,
to many sacred things and persons, such as the Patriarchs, Moses, the Tabernacle, the Temple vessels, the city of Jerusalem.
That the true Temple and the real Jerusalem were with God in heaven and would come down from heaven at the appointed time,
must have been a very wide-spread idea, especially at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem, and even earlier than that (see
Gal. IV. 26: Rev. XXI. 2: Heb. XII. 22). In the Assumption of Moses (c. I) Moses says of himself: Dominus invenit me, qui ab
initio orbis terrarum prparatus sum, ut sim arbiter () testamenti illius ( ). In the Midrasch Bereschith
rabba VIII. 2. we read, R. Simeon ben Lakisch says, 'The law was in existence 2000 years before the creation of the world.
In the Jewish treatise , which Origen has several times quoted, Jacob says of himself (ap. Orig. torn. II. in Joann.
c. 25. Op. IV. 84: , ,
, . . . . . These examples
could easily be increased. The Jewish speculations about Angels and Mediators, which at the time of Christ grew very luxuriantly
among the Scribes and Apocalyptists, and endangered the purity and vitality of the Old Testament idea of God, were also very
important for the development of Christian dogmatics. But neither these speculations, nor the notions of heavenly Archetypes,
nor of pre-existence, are to be referred to Hellenic influence. This may have co-operated here and there, but the rise of these
speculations in Judaism is not to be explained by it; they rather exhibit the Oriental stamp. But, of course, the stage in the
development of the nations had now been reached, in which the creations of Oriental fancy and Mythology could be fused with
the ideal conceptions of Hellenic philosophy.
103 The conception of heavenly ideals of precious earthly things followed from the first naive method of speculation we have
mentioned, that of a pre-existence of persons from the last. If the world was created for the sake of the people of Israel, and the
Apocalyptists expressly taught that, then it follows that in the thought of God Israel was older than the world. The idea of a kind
of pre-existence of the people of Israel follows from this. We can still see this process of thought very plainly in the shepherd
of Hermas, who expressly declares that the world was created for the sake of the Church. In consequence of this he maintains
that the Church was very old, and was created before the foundation of the world. See Vis. I. 2. 4: II. 4. 11:
(sci1. ): , , , . But in order
to estimate aright the bearing of these speculations, we must observe that, according to them, the precious things and persons,
so far as they are now really manifested, were never conceived as endowed with a double nature. No hint is given of such an
assumption; the sensible appearance was rather conceived as a mere wrapping which was necessary only to its becoming visible,
or, conversely, the pre-existence or the archetype was no longer thought of in presence of the historical appearance of the object.
That pneumatic form of existence was not set forth in accordance with the analogy of existence verified by sense, but was left
in suspense. The idea of existence here could run through all the stages which, according to the Mythology and Metaphysic
of the time, lay between what we now call valid, and the most concrete being. He who nowadays undertakes to justify the
notion of pre-existence, will find himself in a very different situation from these earlier times, as he will no longer be able to
count on shifting conceptions of existence. See Appendix I. at the end of this Vol. for a fuller discussion of the idea of pre-existence.
70
105
Adolf Harnack
on earth, and the mission of Jesus as the perfect mediator, were from eternity based on God's plan
of Salvation, as his main purpose; (2) that the exalted Christ was called into a position of Godlike
Sovereignty belonging to him of right; (3) that God himself was manifested in Jesus, and that he
therefore surpasses all mediators of the Old Testament, nay, even all angelic powers,these
convictions with some took the form that Jesus pre-existed, and that in him has appeared and taken
flesh a heavenly being fashioned like God, who is older than the world, nay, its creative principle.104
The conceptions of the old Teachers, Paul, the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Apocalypse,
the author of the first Epistle of Peter, the fourth Evangelist, differ in many ways when they attempt
to define these convictions more closely. The latter is the only one who has recognised with perfect
clearness that the premundane Christ must be assumed to be , so as
not to endanger by this speculation the contents and significance of the revelation of God which
was given in Christ. This, in the earliest period, was essentially a religious problem, that is, it was
not introduced for the explanation of cosmological problems, (see, especially, Epistle to the
Ephesians, I Peter; but also the Gospel of John), and there stood peacefully beside it, such conception
as recognised the equipment of the man Jesus for his office in a communication of the Spirit at his
baptism,105 or in virtue of Isaiah VII., found the germ of his unique nature in his miraculous origin.106
But as soon as that speculation was detached from its original foundation, it necessarily withdrew
the minds of believers from the consideration of the work of Christ, and from the contemplation
of the revelation of God which was given in the ministry of the historical person Jesus. The mystery
of the person of Jesus in itself, would then necessarily appear as the true revelation.107
A series of theologoumena and religious problems for the future doctrine of Christianity lay ready
in the teaching of the Pharisees and in the Apocalypses (see especially the fourth book of Ezra),
and was really fitted for being of service to it; e.g., doctrines about Adam, universal sinfulness, the
fall, predestination, Theodocy, etc., besides all kinds of ideas about redemption. Besides these
spiritual doctrines there were not a few spiritualised myths which were variously made use of in
the Apocalypses. A rich, spiritual, figurative style, only too rich and therefore confused, waited for
the theological artist to purify, reduce and vigorously fashion. There really remained very little of
the Cosmico-Mythological in the doctrine of the great Church.
104
It must be observed here that Palestinian Judaism, without any apparent influence from Alexandria, though not independently
of the Greek spirit, had already created a multitude of intermediate beings between God and the world, avowing thereby that the
idea of God had become stiff and rigid. Its original aim was simply to help the God of Judaism in his need. Among these
intermediate beings should be specially mentioned the Memra of God (see also the Shechina and the Metatron).
105 See Justin. Dial. 48. fin: Justin certainly is not favourably disposed towards those who regard Christ as a man among men,
but he knows that there are such people.
106 The miraculous genesis of Christ in the Virgin by the Holy Spirit and the real pre-existence are of course mutually exclusive.
At a later period, it is true, it became necessary to unite them in thought.
107 There is the less need for treating this more fully here, as no New Testament Christology has become the direct starting-point
of later doctrinal developments. The Gentile Christians had transmitted to them, as an unanimous doctrine, the message that
Christ is the Lord who is to be worshipped, and that one must think of him as the Judge of the living and the dead, that is,
. But it certainly could not fail to be of importance for the result that already many of the earliest Christian writers, and
therefore even Paul, perceived in Jesus a spiritual being come down from heaven () who was , and whose
real act of love consisted in his very descent.
71
106
107
Adolf Harnack
Supplement.The reference to the proof from prophecy, to the current exposition of the Old
Testament, the Apocalyptic and the prevailing methods of speculation, does not suffice to explain
all the elements which are found in the different types of Christian preaching. We must rather bear
in mind here that the earliest communities were enthusiastic, and had yet among them prophets and
ecstatic persons. Such circumstances will always directly produce facts in the history. But, in the
majority of cases, it is absolutely impossible to account subsequently for the causes of such
productions, because their formation is subject to no law accessible to the understanding. It is
therefore inadmissible to regard as proved the reality of what is recorded and believed to be a fact,
when the motive and interest which led to its acceptance can no longer be ascertained.108
Moreover, if we consider the conditions, outer and inner, in which the preaching of Christ in the
first decades was placed, conditions which in every way threatened the Gospel with extravagance,
we shall only see cause to wonder that it continued to shine forth amid all its wrappings. We can
still, out of the strangest fulfilments, legends and mythological ideas, read the religious conviction
that the aim and goal of history is disclosed in the history of Christ, and that the Divine has now
entered into history in a pure form.
Literature.The Apocalypses of Daniel, Enoch, Moses, Baruch, Ezra; Schrer, History of the
Jewish People in the time of Christ; Baldensperger, in the work already mentioned. Weber, System
der Altsynagogalen palstinischen Theologie, 1880, Kuenen, Hibbert Lectures, 1883. Hilgenfeld,
Die jdische Apokalyptik, 1859. Wellhausen, Sketch of the History of Israel and Judah, 1887.
Diestel, Gesch. des A. T. in der Christl. Kirche, 1869. Other literature in Schrer. The essay of
Hellwag in the Theol. Jahrb. von Baur and Zeller, 1848, Die Vorstellung von der Prexistenz
Christi in der ltesten Kirche, is worth noting; also Jol; Blicke in die Religionsgeschichte zu
Anfang des 2 Christl. Jahrhunderts, 1880 1883.
5. The Religious Conceptions and the Religious Philosophy of the Hellenistic Jews, in their
significance for the later formulation of the Gospel.
108
The creation of the New Testament canon first paved the way for putting an end, though only in part, to the production of
Evangelic facts within the Church. For Hermas (Sim. IX. 16) can relate that the Apostles also descended to the under world
and there preached. Others report the same of John the Baptist. Origen in his homily on 1. Kings XXVII. says that Moses, Samuel
and all the Prophets descended to Hades and there preached. A series of facts of Evangelic history which have no parallel in the
accounts of our Synoptists, and are certainly legendary, may be but together from the epistle of Barnabas, Justin, the second
epistle of Clement, Papias, the Gospel to the Hebrews, and the Gospel to the Egyptians. But the synoptic reports themselves,
especially in the articles for which we have only a solitary witness, shew an extensive legendary material, and even in the Gospel
of John, the free production of facts cannot be mistaken. Of what a curious nature some of these were, and that they are by no
means to be entirely explained from the Old Testament, as for example, Justin's account of the ass on which Christ rode into
Jerusalem, having been bound to a vine, is shewn by the very old fragment in one source of the Apostolic constitutions (Texte
u. Unters. II, 5. p. 28 ff.);
, the women) . . . . , .
. Narratives such as those of Christ's descent to Hell and ascent to heaven, which arose comparatively
late, though still at the close of the first century (see Book I. Chap. 3) sprang out of short formula containing an antithesis (death
and resurrection, first advent in lowliness, second advent in glory: descensus de clo, ascensus in clum; ascensus in clum,
descensus ad inferna) which appeared to be required by Old Testament predictions, and were commended by their naturalness.
Just as it is still, in the same way naively inferred: if Christ rose bodily he must also have ascended bodily (visibly?) into heaven.
72
108
Adolf Harnack
1. From the remains of the Jewish Alexandrian literature and the Jewish Sibylline writings, also
from the work of Josephus, and especially from the great propaganda of Judaism in the Grco-Roman
world, we may gather that there was a Judaism in the Diaspora, for the consciousness of which the
cultus and ceremonial law were of comparatively subordinate importance; while the monotheistic
worship of God, apart from images, the doctrines of virtue and belief in a future reward beyond
the grave, stood in the foreground as its really essential marks. Converted Gentiles were no longer
everywhere required to be even circumcised; the bath of purification was deemed sufficient. The
Jewish religion here appears transformed into a universal human ethic and a monotheistic cosmology.
For that reason, the idea of the Theocracy as well as the Messianic hopes of the future faded away
or were uprooted. The latter, indeed, did not altogether pass away; but as the oracles of the Prophets
were made use of mainly for the purpose of proving the antiquity and certainty of monotheistic
belief, the thought of the future was essentially exhausted in the expectation of the dissolution of
the Roman empire, the burning of the world, and the eternal recompense. The specific Jewish
element, however, stood out plainly in the assertion that the Old Testament, and especially the
books of Moses, were the source of all true knowledge of God, and the sum total of all doctrines
of virtue for the nations, as well as in the connected assertion that the religious and moral culture
of the Greeks was derived from the Old Testament, as the source from which the Greek Poets and
Philosophers had drawn their inspiration.109
These Jews and the Greeks converted by them formed, as it were, a Judaism of a second order
without law, i.e., ceremonial law, and with a minimum of statutory regulations. This Judaism
prepared the soil for the Christianising of the Greeks, as well as for the genesis of a great Gentile
Church in the empire, free from the law; and this the more that, as it seems, after the second
destruction of Jerusalem, the punctilious observance of the law110 was imposed more strictly than
before on all who worshipped the God of the Jews.111
109
The Judaism just portrayed, developed itself, under the influence of the Greek culture with which
it came in contact, into a kind of Cosmopolitanism. It divested itself, as religion, of all national
forms, and exhibited itself as the most perfect expression of that natural religion which the stoics
had disclosed. But in proportion as it was enlarged and spiritualised to a universal religion for
humanity, it abandoned what was most peculiar to it, and could not compensate for that loss by the
109
The Sibylline Oracles, composed by Jews, from 160 B.C. to 189 A.D. are specially instructive here: see the Editions of Friedlieb.
1852; Alexandre, 1869; Rzach. 1891. Delaunay, Moines et Sibylles dans lantiquit judo-grecque, 1874. Schrer in the work
mentioned above. The writings of Josephus also yield rich booty, especially his apology for Judaism in the two books against
Apion. But it must be noted that there were Jews enlightened by Hellenism, who were still very zealous in their observance of
the law. Philo urges most earnestly to the observance of the law in opposition to that party which drew the extreme inferences
of the allegoristic method, and put aside the outer legality as something not essential for the spiritual life. Philo thinks that by
exact observance of these ceremonies on their material side, one will also come to know better their symbolical meaning
(Siegfried, Philo, p. 157).
110 Direct evidence is certainly almost entirely wanting here, but the indirect speaks all the more emphatically: see 3, Supplement
1. 2.
111 The Jewish propaganda, though by no means effaced, gave way very distinctly to the Christian from the middle of the second
century. But from this time we find few more traces of an enlightened Hellenistic Judaism. Moreover, the Messianic expectation
also seems to have somewhat given way to occupation with the law. But the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, as well as other
Jewish terms certainly played a great rle in Gentile and Gnostic magical formul of the third century, as may be seen e.g., from
many passages in Origen c. Celtum.
73
Adolf Harnack
assertion of the thesis that the Old Testament is the oldest and most reliable source of that natural
religion, which in the traditions of the Greeks had only witnesses of the second rank. The vigour
and immediateness of the religious feeling was flattened down to a moralism, the barrenness of
which drove some Jews even into Gnosis, mysticism and asceticism.112
110
2. The Jewish Alexandrian philosophy of religion, of which Philo gives us the clearest conception,113
is the scientific theory which corresponded to this religious conception. The theological system
which Philo, in accordance with the example of others, gave out as the Mosaic system revealed by
God, and proved from the Old Testament by means of the allegoric exegetic method, is essentially
identical with the system of Stoicism, which had been mixed with Platonic elements and had lost
its Pantheistic materialistic impress. The fundamental idea from which Philo starts is a Platonic
one; the dualism of God and the world, spirit and matter. The idea of God itself is therefore abstractly
and negatively conceived (God, the real substance which is not finite), and has nothing more in
common with the Old Testament conception. The possibility, however, of being able to represent
God as acting on matter, which as the finite is the non-existent, and therefore the evil, is reached,
with the help of the Stoic as working powers and of the Platonic doctrine of archetypal ideas,
and in outward connection with the Jewish doctrine of angels and the Greek doctrine of demons,
by the introduction of intermediate spiritual beings which, as personal and impersonal powers
proceeding from God, are to be thought of as operative causes and as Archetypes. All these beings
are, as it were, comprehended in the Logos. By the Logos Philo understands the operative reason
of God, and consequently also the power of God. The Logos is to him the thought of God and at
the same time the product of his thought, therefore both idea and power. But further, the Logos is
God himself on that side of him which is turned to the world, as also the ideal of the world and the
unity of the spiritual forces which produce the world and rule in it. He can therefore be put beside
God and in opposition to the world; but he can also, so far as the spiritual contents of the world are
comprehended in him, be put with the world in contrast with God. The Logos accordingly appears
as the Son of God, the foremost creature, the representative, Viceroy, High Priest, and Messenger
of God; and again as principle of the world, spirit of the world, nay, as the world itself. He appears
as a power and as a person, as a function of God and as an active divine being. Had Philo cancelled
the contradiction which lies in this whole conception of the Logos, his system would have been
112
113
The prerogative of Israel was, for all that, clung to: Israel remains the chosen people.
The brilliant investigations of Bernays, however, have shewn how many-sided that philosophy of religion was. The proofs of
asceticism in this Hellenistic Judaism are especially of great interest for the history of dogma (see Theophrastus' treatise on
piety). In the eighth Epistle of Heraclitus, composed by a Hellenistic Jew in the first century, it is said (Bernays, p. 182). So
long a time before, O Hermodorus, saw thee that Sibyl, and even then thou wert ( , ,
, ). Even here then the notion is expressed that foreknowledge and predestination invest the known
and the deter-mined with a kind of existence. Of great importance is the fact that even before Philo, the idea of the wisdom of
God creating the world and passing over to men had been hypostatised in Alexandrian Judaism (see Sirach, Baruch. the wisdom
of Solomon, Enoch, nay, even the book of Proverbs). But so long as the deutero-canonical Old Testament, and also the Alexandrine
and Apocalyptic literature continue in the sad condition in which they are at present, we can form no certain judgment and draw
no decided conclusions on the subject. When will the scholar appear who will at length throw light on these writings, and
therewith or the section of inner Jewish history most interesting to the Christian theologian? As yet we have only a most
thankworthy preliminary study in Schrer's great work, and beside it particular or dilettante attempts which hardly shew what
the problem really is, far less solve it. What disclosures even the fourth book of the Maccabees alone yields for the connection
of the Old Testament with Hellenism!
74
111
112
Adolf Harnack
demolished; for that system with its hard antithesis of God and the world, needed a mediator who
was, and yet was not God, as well as world. From this contrast, however, it further followed that
we can only think of a world-formation by the Logos, not of a world-creation.114 Within this world
man is regarded as a microcosm, that is, as a being of Divine nature according to his spirit, who
belongs to the heavenly world, while the adhering body is a prison which holds men captive in the
fetters of sense, that is, of sin.
The Stoic and Platonic ideals and rules of conduct (also the Neo-pythagorean) were united by Philo
in the religious Ethic as well as in the Cosmology. Rationalistic moralism is surmounted by the
injunction to strive after a higher good lying above virtue. But here, at the same time, is the point
at which Philo decidedly goes beyond Platonism, and introduces a new thought into Greek Ethics,
and also in correspondence therewith into theoretic philosophy. This thought, which indeed lay
altogether in the line of the development of Greek philosophy, was not, however, pursued by Philo
into all its consequences, though it was the expression of a new frame of mind. While the highest
good is resolved by Plato and his successors into knowledge of truth, which truth, together with
the idea of God, lies in a sphere really accessible to the intellectual powers of the human spirit, the
highest good, the Divine original being, is considered by Philo, though not invariably, to be above
reason, and the power of comprehending it is denied to the human intellect. This assumption, a
concession which Greek speculation was compelled to make to positive religion for the supremacy
which was yielded to it, was to have far-reaching consequences in the future. A place was now for
the first time provided in philosophy for a mythology to be regarded as revelation. The highest
truths which could not otherwise be reached, might be sought for in the oracles of the Deity; for
knowledge resting on itself had learnt by experience its inability to attain to the truth in which
blessedness consists. In this very experience the intellectualism of Greek Ethics was, not indeed
cancelled, but surmounted. The injunction to free oneself from sense and strive upwards by means
of knowledge, remained; but the wings of the thinking mind bore it only to the entrance of the
sanctuary. Only ecstasy produced by God himself was able to lead to the reality above reason. The
great novelties in the system of Philo, though in a certain sense the way had al-ready been prepared
for them, are the introduction of the idea of a philosophy of revelation and the advance beyond the
absolute intellectualism of Greek philosophy, an advance based on scepticism, but also on the
deep-felt needs of life. Only the germs of these are found in Philo, but they are already operative.
They are innovations of world-wide importance: for in them the covenant between the thoughts of
reason on the one hand, and the belief in revelation and mysticism on the other, is already so
completed that neither by itself could permanently maintain the supremacy. Thought about the
world was henceforth dependent, not only on practical motives, it is always that, but on the need
of a blessedness and peace which is higher than all reason. It might, perhaps, be allowable to say
114
So far as the sensible world is a work of the Logos, it is called (quod deus immut. 6. I. 277), or according to
Prov. VIII. 22, an offspring of God and wisdom:
(de ebriet. 8. I. 361 f.). So far as the Logos is High Priest his relation to
the world is symbolically expressed by the garment of the High Priest, to which exegesis the play on the word , as meaning
both ornament and world, lent its aid. This speculation (see Siegfried. Philo. 235) is of special importance, for it shews how
closely the ideas and were connected.
75
Adolf Harnack
that Philo was the first who, as a philosopher, plainly expressed that need, just because he was not
only a Greek, but also a Jew.115
113
Apart from the extremes into which the ethical counsels of Philo run, they contain nothing that had
not been demanded by philosophers before him. The purifying of the affections, the renunciation
of sensuality, the acquisition of the four cardinal virtues, the greatest possible simplicity of life, as
well as a cosmopolitan disposition are enjoined.116 But the attainment of the highest morality by
our own strength is despaired of, and man is directed beyond himself to God's assistance. Redemption
begins with the spirit reflecting on its own condition; it advances by a knowledge of the world and
of the Logos, and it is perfected, after complete asceticism, by mystic ecstatic contemplation in
which a man loses himself, but in return is entirely filled and moved by God.117 In this condition
man has a foretaste of the blessedness which shall be given him when the soul, freed from the body,
will be restored to its true existence as a heavenly being.
This system, notwithstanding its appeal to revelation, has, in the strict sense of the word, no place
for Messianic hopes, of which nothing but very insignificant rudiments are found in Philo. But he
was really animated by the hope of a glorious time to come for Judaism. The synthesis of the
Messiah and the Logos did not lie within his horizon.118
114
3. Neither Philo's philosophy of religion, nor the mode of thought from which it springs, exercised
any appreciable influence on the first generation of believers in Christ.119 But its practical
ground-thoughts, though in different degrees, must have found admission very early into the Jewish
Christian circles of the Diaspora, and through them to Gentile Christian circles also. Philo's
philosophy of religion became operative among Christian teachers from the beginning of the second
century,120 and at a later period actually obtained the significance of a standard of Christian theology,
Philo gaining a place among Christian writers. The systems of Valentinus and Origen presuppose
that of Philo. It can no longer, however, be shewn with certainty how far the direct influence of
Philo reached, as the development of religious ideas in the second century took a direction which
necessarily led to views similar to those which Philo had anticipated (see 6, and the whole following
account).
115
Of all the Greek Philosophers of the second century, Plutarch of Chronea, died c. 125 A.D., and Numenius of Apamea, second
half of the second century, approach nearest to Philo; but the latter of the two was undoubtedly familiar with Jewish philosophy,
specially with Philo, and probably also with Christian writings.
116 As to the way in which Philo (see also 4 Maccab. V. 24) learned to connect the Stoic ethics with the authority of the Torah, as
was also done by the Palestinian Midrash, and represented the Torah as the foundation of the world, and therewith as the law of
nature: see Siegfried, Philo, p. 156.
117 Philo by his exhortations to seek the blessed life, has by no means broken with the intellectualism of the Greek philosophy, he
has only gone beyond it. The way of knowledge and speculation is to him also the way of religion and morality. But his formal
principle is supernatural and leads to a supernatural knowledge which finally passes over into sight.
118 But everything was now ready for this synthesis, so that it could be, and immediately was, completed by Christian philosophers.
119 We cannot discover Philo's influence in the writings of Paul. But here again we must remember that the scripture learning of
Palestinian teachers developed speculations which appear closely related to the Alexandrian, and partly are so, but yet cannot
be deduced from them. The element common to them must, for the present at least, be deduced from the harmony of conditions
in which the different nations of the East were at that time placed, a harmony which we cannot exactly measure.
120 The conception of God's relation to the world as given in the fourth Gospel is not Philonic. The Logos doctrine there is therefore
essentially not that of Philo. (Against Kuenen and others, see p. 93.)
76
115
116
Adolf Harnack
Supplement.The hermeneutic principles (the Biblical-alchemy), above all, became of the utmost
importance for the following period. These were partly invented by Philo himself, partly
traditional,the Haggadic rules of exposition and the hermeneutic principles of the Stoics having
already at an earlier period been united in Alexandria. They fall into two main classes: first, those
according to which the literal sense is excluded, and the allegoric proved to be the only possible
one; and then, those according to which the allegoric sense is discovered as standing beside and
above the literal sense.121 That these rules permitted the discovery of a new sense by minute changes
within a word, was a point of special importance.122 Christian teachers went still further in this
direction, and, as can be proved, altered the text of the Septuagint in order to make more definite
what suggested itself to them as the meaning of a passage, or in order to give a satisfactory meaning
to a sentence which appeared to them unmeaning or offensive.123 Nay, attempts were not wanting
among Christians in the second centurythey were aided by the uncertainty that existed about the
extent of the Septuagint, and by the want of plain predictions about the death upon the crossto
determine the Old Testament canon in accordance with new principles; that is, to alter the text on
the plea that the Jews had corrupted it, and to insert new books into the Old Testament, above all,
Jewish Apocalypses revised in a Christian sense. Tertullian (de cultu fem. 1. 3,) furnishes a good
example of the latter. Scio scripturam Enoch, qu hunc ordinem angelis dedit, non recipi a
quibusdam, quia nec in armorium Judaicum admittitur ... sed cum Enoch eadem scriptura etiam
de domino prdicarit, a nobis quidem nihil omnino reiciendum est quod pertinet ad nos. Et legimus
omnem scripturam dificationi habilem divinitus inspirari. A Judis potest jam videri propterea
reiecta, sicut et cetera fera qu Christum sonant. .... Eo accedit quod Enoch apud Judam apostolum
testimonium possidet. Compare also the history of the Apocalypse of Ezra in the Latin Bible (Old
Testament). Not only the genuine Greek portions of the Septuagint, but also many Apocalypses
were quoted by Christians in the second century as of equal value with the Old Testament. It was
the New Testament that slowly put an end to these tendencies towards the formation of a Christian
Old Testament.
To find the spiritual meaning of the sacred text, partly beside the literal, partly by excluding it,
became the watchword for the scientific Christian theology which was possible only on this basis,
121
Siegfried (Philo. pp. 160197) has presented in detail Philo's allegorical interpretation of scripture, his hermeneutic principles
and their application. Without an exact knowledge of these principles we cannot understand the Scripture expositions of the
Fathers, and therefore also cannot do them justice.
122 See Siegfried, Philo, p. 176. Yet, as a rule, the method of isolating and adapting passages of scripture, and the method of unlimited
combination were sufficient.
123 Numerous examples of this may he found in the epistle of Barnabas (see cc. 49), and in the dialogue of Justin with Trypho
(here they are objects of controversy, see cc. 7173, 120), but also in many other Christian writings, (e.g. 1 Clem. ad Cor. VIII.
3: XVII. 6: XXIII. 3, 4: XXVI. 5: XLVI. 2: 2 Clem. XIII. 2). These Christian additions were long retained in the Latin Bible,
(see also Lactantius and other Latins: Pseudo-Cyprian de aleat. 2 etc.), the most celebrated of them is the addition a ligno to
dominus regnavit in Psalm XCVI., see Credner, Beitrge II. The treatment of the Old Testament in the epistle of Barnabas is
specially instructive, and exhibits the greatest formal agreement with that of Philo. We may close here with the words in which
Siegfried sums up his judgment on Philo: No Jewish writer has contributed so much as Philo to the breaking up of particularism
and the dissolution of Judaism. The history of his people, though he believed in it literally, was in its main points a didactic
allegoric poem for enabling him to inculcate the doctrine that man attains the vision of God by mortification of the flesh. The
law was regarded by him as the best guide to this, but it had lost its exclusive value, as it was admitted to be possible to reach
the goal without it, and it had, besides, its aim outside itself. The God of Philo was no longer the old living God of Israel, but
an imaginary being who, to obtain power over the world, needed a Logos by whom the palladium of Israel, the unity of God,
was taken a prey. So Israel lost everything which had hitherto characterised her.
77
Adolf Harnack
as it endeavoured to reduce the immense and dissimilar material of the Old Testament to unity with
the Gospel, and both with the religious and scientific culture of the Greeks,yet without knowing
a relative standard, the application of which would alone have rendered possible in a loyal way the
solution of the task. Here, Philo was the master; for he first to a great extent poured the new wine
into old bottles. Such a procedure is warranted by its final purpose; for history is a unity. But applied
in a pedantic and stringently dogmatic way it is a source of deception, of untruthfulness, and finally
of total blindness.
Literature.Gefrrer, Das Jahr des Heils, 1838. Parthey, Das Alexandr. Museum, 1838. Matter,
Hist. de lcole dAlex. 1840. Dhne, Gesch. Darstellung der jd.-alex. Religionsphilos. 1834.
Zeller, Die Philosophie der Griechen, III. 2. 3rd Edition. Mommsen, History of Rome, Vol. V.
Siegfried, Philo van Alex. 1875. Massebieau, Le Classement des uvres de Philon. 1889. Hatch,
Essays in Biblical Greek, 1889. Drummond, Philo Judus, 1888. Bigg, The Christian Platonists
of Alexandria, 1886. Schrer, History of the Jewish People. The investigations of Freudenthal
(Hellenistische Studien), and Bernays (Ueber das phokylideische Gedicht; Theophrastos' Schrift
ber Frmmigkeit; Die heraklitischen Briefe). Kuenen, Hibbert Lectures: Christian Theology
could have made and has made much use of Hellenism. But the Christian religion cannot have
sprung from this source. Havet thinks otherwise, though in the fourth volume of his Origines
he has made unexpected admissions.
6. The Religious Dispositions of the Greeks and Romans in the first two centuries, and the current
Grco-Roman Philosophy of Religion.
117
1. After the national religion and the religious sense generally in cultured circles had been all but
lost in the age of Cicero and Augustus, there is noticeable in the Grco-Roman world from the
beginning of the second century a revival of religious feeling which embraced all classes of society,
and appears, especially from the middle of that century, to have increased from decennium to
decennium.124 Parallel with it went the not altogether unsuccessful attempt to restore the old national
worship, religious usages, oracles, etc. In these attempts, however, which were partly superficial
and artificial, the new religious needs found neither vigorous nor clear expression. These needs
rather sought new forms of satisfaction corresponding to the wholly changed conditions or the time,
including intercourse and mixing of the nations; decay of the old republican orders, divisions and
ranks; monarchy and absolutism and social crises; pauperism; influence of philosophy on the domain
of public morality and law; cosmopolitanism and the rights of man; influx of Oriental cults into
the West; knowledge of the world and disgust with it. The decay of the old political cults and
syncretism produced a disposition in favour of monotheism both among the cultured classes who
had been prepared for it by philosophy, and also gradually among the masses. Religion and individual
morality became more closely connected. There was developed a corresponding attempt at
spiritualising the worship alongside of and within the ceremonial forms, and at giving it a direction
towards the moral elevation of man through the ideas of moral personality, conscience, and purity,
The ideas of repentance and of expiation and healing of the soul became of special importance,
and consequently such Oriental cults came to the front as required the former and guaranteed the
124
Proofs in Friedlnder, Sittengeschichte, vol. 3.
78
118
119
Adolf Harnack
latter. But what was sought above all, was to enter into an inner union with the Deity, to be saved
by him and become a partaker in the possession and enjoyment of his life. The worshipper
consequently longed to find a prsens numen and the revelation of him in the cultus, and hoped
to put himself in possession of the Deity by asceticism and mysterious rites. This new piety longed
for health and purity of soul, and elevation above earthly things, and in connection with these a
divine, that is a painless and eternal, life beyond the grave (renatus in ternum taurobolio). A
world beyond was desired, sought for, and viewed with an uncertain eye. By detachment from
earthly things and the healing of its diseases (the passions) the freed, new born soul should return
to its divine nature and existence. It is not a hope of immortality such as the ancients had dreamed
of for their heroes, where they continue, as it were, their earthly existence in blessed enjoyment.
To the more highly pitched self-consciousness this life had become a burden, and in the miseries
of the present, one hoped for a future life in which the pain and vulgarity of the unreal life of earth
would be completely laid aside ( and ). If the new moralistic feature stood out
still more emphatically in the piety of the second century, it vanished more and more behind the
religious feature, the longing after life125 and after a Redeemer God. No one could any longer be a
God who was not also a saviour.126
With all this Polytheism was not suppressed, but only put into a subordinate place. On the contrary,
it was as lively and active as ever. For the idea of a numen supremum did not exclude belief in the
existence and manifestation of sub-ordinate deities. Apotheosis came into currency. The old state
religion first attained its highest and most powerful expression in the worship of the emperor, (the
emperor glorified as dominus ac deus noster,127 as prsens et corporalis deus, the Antinous
cult, etc.), and in many circles an incarnate ideal in the present or the past was sought, which might
be worshipped as revealer of God and as God, and which might be an example of life and an
assurance of religious hope. Apotheosis became less offensive in proportion as, in connection with
the fuller recognition of the spiritual dignity of man, the estimate of the soul, the spirit, as of
supramundane nature, and the hope of its eternal continuance in a form of existence befitting it,
became more general. That was the import of the message preached by the Cynics and the Stoics,
that the truly wise man is Lord, Messenger of God, and God upon the earth. On the other hand, the
popular belief clung to the idea that the gods could appear and be visible in human form, and this
125
See the chapter on belief in immortality in Friedlnder, Sittengesch. Roms Bde. 3. Among the numerous mysteries known to us,
that of Mythras deserves special consideration. From the middle of the second century the Church Fathers saw in it, above all,
the caricature of the Church. The worship of Mithras had its redeemer, its mediator, hierarchy, sacrifice, baptism and sacred
meal. The ideas of expiation, immortality, and the Redeemer God, were very vividly present in this cult, which of course, in
later times, borrowed from Christianity: see the accounts of Marquardt, Rville, and the Essay of Sayous, Le Taurobole in the
Rev. de lHist. des Religions, 1887, where the earliest literature is also utilised. The worship of Mithras in the third century
became the most powerful rival of Christianity. In connection with this should be specially noted the cult of sculapius, the
God who helps the body and the soul; see my essay Medicinisches aus der ltesten Kirchengeschichte, 1892. p. 93 ff.
126 Hence the wide prevalence of the cult of sculapius.
127 Dominus in certain circumstances means more than deus; see Tertull. Apol. It signifies more than Soter: see Irenus I. 1. 3; .
.... , and are almost synonymous. See
Philo. Quis. rer. div. heres. 6: .
79
Adolf Harnack
faith, though mocked by the cultured, gained numerous adherents, even among them, in the age of
the Antonines.128
128
We must give special attention here to the variability and elasticity of the concept , and indeed among the cultured as well
as the uncultured (Orig. prolegg. in Psalm. in Pitra, Anal. T. II. p. 437i according to a Stoic source;

, , ,
). They still regarded the
Gods as passionless, blessed men living for ever. The idea therefore of a , and on the other hand, the idea of the
appearance of the Gods in human form presented no difficulty (see Acts XIV. 11: XXVIII. 6). But philosophic speculationthe
Platonic, as well as in yet greater measure the Stoic, and in the greatest measure of all the Cynichad led to the recognition of
something divine in man's spirit (, ). Marcus Aurelius in his Meditations frequently speaks of the God who dwells
in us. Clement of Alexandria (Strom. VI. 14. 113) says: ,
. In Bernays' Heraclitian Epistles, pp. 37 f. 135 f., will be found a valuable
exposition of the Stoic [Heraclitian] thesis and its history, that men are Gods. See Norden, Beitrage zur Gesch. d. griech. Philos.
Jahrb. f. klass. Philol. XIX. Suppl. Bd. p. 373 ff., about the Cynic Philosopher who, contemplating the life and activity of man
[], becomes its , and further , , . The passages which he adduces
are of importance for the history of dogma in a twofold respect. (1) They present remarkable parallels to Christiology [one even
finds the designations, , , , , associated with the philosophers as with Christ, e.g, in
Justin; nay, the Cynics and Neoplatonics speak of ; cf. also the remarkable narrative in Laertius VI. 102,
concerning the Cynic Menedemus; , , ,
, ,
,
(2) They also explain how the ecclesiastical came to be so highly prized, inasmuch as these also were from a very
early period regarded as mediators between God and man, and considered as ). There where not a few who
in the first and second centuries, appeared with the claim to be regarded as a God or an organ inspired and chosen by God (Simon
Magus [cf. the manner of his treatment in Hippol. Philos. VI. 8: see also Clem. Hom. II. 27], Apollonius of Tyana (?), see further
Tacitus Hist. II. 51: Mariccus .... iamque adsertor Galliarum et deus, nomen id sibi indiderat,; here belongs also the gradually
developing worship of the Emperor: dominus ac deus noster. Cf. Augustus, Inscription of the year 25/24 B.C. in Egypt, [where
the Ptolemies were for long described as Gods]: (Zeitschrift fr gypt. Sprache. XXXI.
Bd. p. 3). Domitian: , Kaibel Inscr. Gr. 829. 1053. , 1061the Antinous cult with its
prophets. See also Josephus on Herod Agrippa. Antiq. XIX. 8. 2. (Euseb. H. E. II. Io). The flatterers said to him,

, .
Herod himself, 7, says to his friends in his sickness; ....
). On the other hand, we must mention the worship of the founder in some philosophic
schools, especially among the Epicureans. Epictetus says (Moral. 15), Diogenes and Heraclitus and those like them are justly
called Gods. Very instructive in this connection are the reproaches of the heathen against the Christians, and of Christian partisans
against one another with regard to the almost divine veneration of their teachers. Lucian (Peregr. II) reproaches the Christians
in Syria for having regarded Peregrinus as a God and a new Socrates. The heathen in Smyrna, after the burning of Polycarp,
feared that the Christians would begin to pay him divine honours (Euseb. H. E. IV. 15. 41). Ccilius in Minucius Felix speaks
of divine honours being paid by Christians to priests. (Octav. IX. 10.) The Antimontanist (Euseb. H. E. V. 18. 6) asserts that the
Montanists worship their prophet and Alexander the Confessor as divine. The opponents of the Roman Adoptians (Euseb. H.
E. V. 28) reproach them with praying to Galen. There are many passages in which the Gnostics are reproached with paying
Divine honours to the heads of their schools, and for many Gnostic schools (the Carpocratians, for example) the reproach seems
to have been just. All this is extremely instructive. The genius, the hero, the founder of a new school who promises to shew the
certain way to the vita beata, the emperor, the philosopher, (numerous Stoic passages might be noted here) finally man, in so
far as he is inhabited by could all somehow be considered as , so elastic was the concept. All these instances of
Apotheosis in no way endangered the Monotheism which had been developed from the mixture of Gods and from philosophy;
for the one supreme Godhead can unfold his inexhaustible essence in a variety of existences, which, while his creatures as to
their origin, are parts of his essence as to their contents. This Monotheism does not yet exactly disclaim its Polytheistic origin.
The Christian, Hermas, says to his Mistress (Vis. I. 1. 7) , and the author of the Epistle of
Diognetus writes (X. 6) (i.e., the rich man) . That the concept
was again used only of one God, was due to the fact that one now started from the definition qui vitam ternam habet,
and again from the definition qui est super omnia et originem nescit. From the latter followed the absolute unity of God, from
the former a plurality of Gods. Both could be so harmonised (see Tertull. adv. Prax. and Novat. de Trinit.) that one could assume
80
120
121
122
Adolf Harnack
The new thing which was here developed, continued to be greatly obscured by the old forms of
worship which reasons of state and pious custom maintained. And the new piety, dispensing with
a fixed foundation, groped uncertainly around, adapting the old rather than rejecting it. The old
religious practices of the Fathers asserted themselves in public life generally, and the reception of
new cults by the state, which was certainly effected, though with many checks, did not disturb
them. The old religious customs stood out especially on state holidays, in the games in honour of
the Gods, frequently degenerating into shameless immorality, but yet protecting the institutions of
the state. The patriot, the wise man, the sceptic, and the pious man compounded with them, for
they had not really at bottom outgrown them, and they knew of nothing better to substitute for the
services they still rendered to society (see the of Celsus).
2. The system of associations, naturalised centuries before among the Greeks, was developed under
the social and political pressure of the empire, and was greatly extended by the change of moral
and religious ideas. The free unions, which, as a rule, had a religious element and were established
for mutual help, support, or edification, balanced to some extent the prevailing social cleavage, by
a free democratic organisation. They gave to many individuals in their small circle the rights which
they did not possess in the great world, and were frequently of service in obtaining admission for
new cults. Even the new piety and cosmopolitan disposition seem to have turned to them in order
to find within them forms of expression. But the time had not come for the greater corporate unions,
and of an organised connection of societies in one city with those of another we know nothing. The
state kept these associations under strict control. It granted them only to the poorest classes (collegia
tenuiorum) and had the strictest laws in readiness for them. These free unions, however, did not in
their historical importance approach the fabric of the Roman state in which they stood. That
represented the union of the greater part of humanity under one head, and also more and more under
one law. Its capital was the capital of the world, and also, from the beginning of the third century,
of religious syncretism. Hither migrated all who desired to exercise an influence on the great scale:
Jew, Chaldean, Syrian priest, and Neoplatonic teacher. Law and Justice radiated from Rome to the
provinces, and in their light nationalities faded away, and a cosmopolitanism was developed which
pointed beyond itself, because the moral spirit can never find its satisfaction in that which is realised.
When that spirit finally turned away from all political life, and after having laboured for the ennobling
of the empire, applied itself, in Neoplatonism, to the idea of a new and free union of men, this
certainly was the result of the felt failure of the great creation, but it nevertheless had that creation
for its presupposition. The Church appropriated piecemeal the great apparatus of the Roman state,
and gave new powers, new significance and respect to every article that had been depreciated. But
what is of greatest importance is that the Church by her preaching would never have gained whole
circles, but only individuals, had not the universal state already produced a neutralising of
nationalities and brought men nearer each other in temper and disposition.
3. Perhaps the most decisive factor in bringing about the revolution of religious and moral convictions
and moods, was philosophy, which in almost all its schools and representatives, had deepened
ethics, and set it more and more in the fore-ground. After Possidonius, Seneca, Epictetus, and
that the God qui est super omnia, might allow his monarchy to be administered by several persons, and might dispense the gift
of immortality and with it a relative divinity.
81
123
124
Adolf Harnack
Marcus Aurelius of the Stoical school, and men like Plutarch of the Platonic, attained to an ethical
view, which, though not very clear in principle (knowledge, resignation, trust in God), is hardly
capable of improvement in details. Common to them all, as distinguished from the early Stoics, is
the value put upon the soul, (not the entire human nature), while in some of them there comes
clearly to the front a religious mood, a longing for divine help, for redemption and a blessed life
beyond the grave, the effort to obtain and communicate a religious philosophical therapeutic of the
soul.129 From the beginning of the second century, however, already announced itself that eclectic
philosophy based on Platonism, which after two or three generations appeared in the form of a
school, and after three generations more was to triumph over all other schools. The several elements
of the Neoplatonic philosophy, as they were already foreshadowed in Philo, are clearly seen in the
second century, viz., the dualistic opposition of the divine and the earthly, the abstract conception
of God, the assertion of the unknowableness of God, scepticism with regard to sensuous experience,
and distrust with regard to the powers of the understanding, with a greater readiness to examine
things and turn to account the result of former scientific labour; further, the demand of emancipation
from sensuality by means of asceticism, the need of authority, belief in a higher revelation, and the
fusion of science and religion. The legitimising of religious fancy in the province of philosophy
was already begun. The myth was no longer merely tolerated and re-interpreted as formerly, but
precisely the mythic form with the meaning imported into it was the precious element.130 There
were, however, in the second century numerous representatives of every possible philosophic view.
To pass over the frivolous writers of the day, the Cynics criticised the traditional mythology in the
interests of morality and religion.131 But there were also men who opposed the ne quid nimis to
every form of practical scepticism, and to religion at the same time, and were above all intent on
preserving the state and society, and on fostering the existing arrangements which appeared to be
threatened far more by an intrusive religious than by a nihilistic philosophy.132 Yet men whose
interest was ultimately practical and political, became ever more rare, especially as from the death
of Marcus Aurelius, the maintenance of the state had to be left more and more to the sword of the
Generals. The general conditions from the end of the second century were favourable to a philosophy
which no longer in any respect took into real consideration the old forms of the state.
129
The longing for redemption and divine help is, for example, clearer in Seneca than in the Christian philosopher, Minucius Felix:
see Khn, Der Octavius des M. F. 1882, and Theol. Lit. Ztg. 1883. No. 6.
130 See the so-called Neopythagorean philosophers and the so-called forerunners of Neoplatonism. (Cf. Bigg, The Platonists of
Alexandria, p. 250, as to Numenius.) Unfortunately, we have as yet no sufficient investigation of the question what influence,
if any, the Jewish Alexandrian Philosophy of religion had on the development of Greek philosophy in the second and third
centuries. The answering of the question would be of the greatest importance. But at present it cannot even be said whether the
Jewish philosophy of religion had any influence on the genesis of Neoplatonism. On the relation of Neoplatonism to Christianity
and their mutual approximation, see the excellent account in Tzschirner, Fall des Heidenthums, pp. 574-618. Cf. also Rville,,
La Religion Rome. 1886.
131 The Christians, that is the Christian preachers, were most in agreement with the Cynics (see Lucian's Peregrinus Proteus), both
on the negative and on the positive side; but for that very reason they were hard on one another (Justin and Tatian against
Crescens)not only because the Christians gave a different basis for the right mode of life from the Cynics, but above all,
because they did not approve of the self-conscious, contemptuous, proud disposition which Cynicism produced in many of its
adherents. Morality frequently underwent change for the worse in the hands of Cynics, and became the morality of a Gentleman,
such as we have also experience of in modern Cynicism.
132 The attitude of Celsus, the opponent of the Christians, is specially instructive here.
82
125
126
Adolf Harnack
The theosophic philosophy which was prepared for in the second century,133 was, from the stand-point
of enlightenment and knowledge of nature, a relapse; but it was the expression of a deeper religious
need, and of a self-knowledge such as had not been in existence at an earlier period. The final
consequences of that revolution in philosophy, which made consideration of the inner life the
starting-point of thought about the world, only now began to be developed. The ideas of a divine,
gracious providence, of the relationship of all men, of universal brotherly love, of a ready forgiveness
of wrong, of forbearing patience, of insight into one's own weaknessaffected no doubt with many
shadowsbecame, for wide circles, a result of the practical philosophy of the Greeks as well as
the conviction of inherent sinfulness, the need of redemption, and the eternal value and dignity of
a human soul which finds rest only in God. These ideas, convictions and rules, had been picked up
in the long journey from Socrates to Ammonius Saccas: at first, and for long afterwards, they
crippled the interest in a rational knowledge of the world; but they deepened and enriched the inner
life, and therewith the source of all knowledge. Those ideas, however, lacked as yet the certain
coherence, but, above all, the authority which could have raised them above the region of wishes,
presentiments, and strivings, and have given them normative authority in a community of men.
There was no sure revelation, and no view of history which could be put in the place of the no
longer prized political history of the nation or state to which one belonged.134 There was, in fact,
no such thing as certainty. In like manner, there was no power which might overturn idolatry and
abolish the old, and therefore one did not get beyond the wavering between self-deification, fear
of God, and deification of nature. The glory is all the greater of those statesmen and jurists who,
in the second and third centuries, introduced human ideas of the Stoics into the legal arrangements
of the empire, and raised them to standards. And we must value all the more the numerous
undertakings and performances in which it appeared that the new view of life was powerful enough
in individuals to beget a corresponding practice even without a sure belief in revelation.135
Supplement.For the correct understanding of the beginning of Christian theology, that is, for the
Apologetic and Gnosis, it is important to note where they are dependent on Stoic and where on
Platonic lines of thought. Platonism and Stoicism, in the second century, appeared in union with
each other: but up to a certain point they may be distinguished in the common channel in which
they flow. Wherever Stoicism prevailed in religious thought and feeling, as, for example, in Marcus
Aurelius, religion gains currency as natural religion in the most comprehensive sense of the word.
The idea of revelation or redemption scarcely emerges. To this rationalism the objects of knowledge
are unvarying, ever the same: even cosmology attracts interest only in a very small degree. Myth
and history are pageantry and masks. Moral ideas (virtues and duties) dominate even the religious
133
For the knowledge of the spread of the idealistic philosophy the statement of Origen (c. Celsum VI. 2) that Epictetus was admired
not only by scholars, but also by ordinary people who felt in themselves the impulse to be raised to something higher, is well
worthy of notice.
134 This point was of importance for the propaganda of Christianity among the cultured. There seemed to be given here a reliable,
because revealed, Cosmology and history of the worldwhich already contained the foundation of everything worth knowing.
Both were needed and both were here set forth in closest union.
135 The universalism as reached by the Stoics is certainly again threatened by the self-righteous and self-complacent distinction
between men of virtue and men of pleasure, who, properly speaking, are not men. Aristotle had already dealt with the virtuous
elite in a notable way. He says (Polit. 3. 13. p. 1284), that men who are distinguished by perfect virtue should not be put on a
level with the ordinary mass, and should not be subjected to the constraints of a law adapted to the average man. There is no
law for these elect, who are a law to themselves.
83
Adolf Harnack
sphere, which in its final basis has no independent authority. The interest in psychology and
apologetic is very pronounced. On the other hand, the emphasis which, in principle, is put on the
contrast of spirit and matter, God and the world, had for results: inability to rest in the actual realities
of the cosmos, efforts to unriddle the history of the universe backwards and forwards, recognition
of this process as the essential task of theoretic philosophy, and a deep, yearning conviction that
the course of the world needs assistance. Here were given the conditions for the ideas of revelation,
redemption, etc., and the restless search for powers from whom help might come, received here
also a scientific justification. The rationalistic apologetic interests thereby fell into the background:
contemplation and historical description predominated.136
127
The stages in the ecclesiastical history of dogma, from the middle of the first to the middle of the
fifth century, correspond to the stages in the history of the ancient religion during the same period.
The Apologists, Irenus, Tertullian, Hippolytus; the Alexandrians; Methodius, and the Cappadocians;
Dionysius, the Areopagite, have their parallels in Seneca, Marcus Aurelius; Plutarch, Epictetus,
Numenius; Plotinus, Porphyry; Iamblichus and Proclus.
But it is not only Greek philosophy that comes into question for the history of Christian dogma.
The whole of Greek culture must be taken into account. In his posthumous work Hatch has shewn
in a masterly way how that is to be done. He describes the Grammar, the Rhetoric, the learned
Profession, the Schools, the Exegesis, the Homilies, etc., of the Greeks, and everywhere shews how
they passed over into the Church, thus exhibiting the Philosophy, the Ethic, the speculative Theology,
the Mysteries, etc., of the Greeks, as the main factors in the process of forming the ecclesiastical
mode of thought.
But, besides the Greek, there is no mistaking the special influence of Romish ideas and customs
upon the Christian Church. The following points specially claim attention: (1) The conception of
the contents of the Gospel and its application as salus legitima, with the results which followed
from the naturalising of this idea. (2) The conception of the word of Revelation, the Bible, etc., as
lex. (3) The idea of tradition in its relation to the Romish idea. (4) The Episcopal constitution of
the Church, including the idea of succession, of the Primateship and universal Episcopate, in their
dependence on Romish ideas and institutions (the Ecclesiastical organisation in its dependence on
the Roman Empire). (5) The separation of the idea of the sacrement from that of the mystery,
and the development of the forensic discipline of penance. The investigation has to proceed in a
historical line, described by the following series of chapters: Rome and Tertullian; Rome and
Cyprian; Rome, Optatus and Augustine; Rome and the Popes of the fifth century. We have to shew
how, by the power of her constitution and the earnestness and consistency of her policy, Rome a
second time, step by step, conquered the world, but this time the Christian world.137
128
136
Notions of pre-existence were readily suggested by the Platonic philosophy; yet this whole philosophy rests on the fact that one
again posits the thing (after stripping it of certain marks as accidental or worthless, or ostensibly foreign to it) in order to express
its value in this form, and hold fast the permanent in the change of the phenomena.
137 See Tzschirn. i. d. Ztschr. f. K.-Gesch. XII. p 215 if. The genesis of the Romish Church in the second century. What he presents
is no doubt partly incomplete, partly overdone and not proved: yet much of what he states is useful.
84
Adolf Harnack
Greek philosophy exercised the greatest influence not only on the Christian mode of thought, but
also through that, on the institutions of the Church. The Church never indeed be-came a philosophic
school: but yet in her was realised in a peculiar way, that which the Stoics and the Cynics had aimed
at. The Stoic (Cynic) Philosopher also belonged to the factors from which the Christian Priests or
Bishops were formed. That the old bearers of the SpiritApostles, Prophets, Teachershave been
changed into a class of professional moralists and preachers, who bridle the people by counsel and
reproof ( ), that this class considers itself and de-sires to be considered as a
mediating Kingly Divine class, that its representatives became Lords and let themselves be called
Lords, all this was prefigured in the Stoic wise man and in the Cynic Missionary. But so far as
these several Kings and Lords are united in the idea and reality of the Church and are subject to
it, the Platonic idea of the republic goes beyond the Stoic and Cynic ideals, and subordinates them
to it. But this Platonic ideal has again obtained its political realisation in the Church through the
very concrete laws of the Roman Empire, which were more and more adopted, or taken possession
of. Consequently, in the completed Church we find again the philosophic schools and the Roman
Empire.
129
Literature.Besides the older works of Tzschirner, Dllinger, Burckhardt, Preller, see Friedlnder,
Darstellungen aus der Sittengesch. Roms in der Zeit von August bis zum Ausgang der Antonine,
3 Bd. Aufl. Boissier, La Religion Romaine d'Auguste aux Antonins, 2 Bd. 1874. Ramsay, The
Church in the Roman Empire before 170. London, 1893. Rville, La Religion Rome sous les
Svres, 1886. Schiller, Geschichte der Rm Kaiserzeit, 1883. Marquardt, Rmische
Staatsverwaltung, 3 Bde. 1878. Foucart, Les Associations Relig. chez les Grecs, 1873. Liebeman,
Z. Gesch. u. Organisation d. Rm. Vereinswesen, 189o. K. J. Neumann, Der Rm. Staat und die
allg. Kirche, Bd. I. 1890. Leopold Schmidt, Die Ethik der alten Griechen, 2 Bd. 1882. Heinrici,
Die Christengemeinde Korinth's und die religisen Genossenschaften der Griechen, in der Ztschr.
f. wissensch. Theol. 1876-77. Hatch, The Influence of Greek Ideas and Usages upon the Christian
Church. Buechner, De neocoria, 1888. Hirschfeld. Z. Gesch. d. rm. Kaisercultus. The Histories
of Philosophy by Zeller, Erdmann, Ueberweg, Strmpell, Windelband, etc. Heinze, Die Lehre vom
Logos in der Griech. Philosophie, 1872. By same Author, Der Eudmonismus in der Griech.
Philosophic, 1883. Hirzel, Untersuchungen zu Cicero's philos. Schriften, 3 Thle. 1877-1883. These
investigations are of special value for the history of dogma, because they set forth with the greatest
accuracy and care, the later developments of the great Greek philosophic schools, especially on
Roman soil. We must refer specially to the discussions on the influence of the Roman on the Greek
Philosophy. Volkmann, Die Rhetorik der Griechen und Rmer, 1872.
SUPPLEMENTARY.
Perhaps the most important fact for the following development of the history of Dogma, the way
for which had already been prepared in the Apostolic age, is the twofold conception of the aim of
Christ's appearing, or of the religious blessing of salvation. The two conceptions were indeed as
yet mutually dependent on each other, and were twined together in the closest way, just as they are
presented in the teaching of Jesus himself; but they began even at this early period to be
85
130
131
Adolf Harnack
differentiated. Salvation, that is to say, was conceived, on the one hand, as sharing in the glorious
kingdom of Christ soon to appear, and everything else was regarded as preparatory to this sure
prospect; on the other hand, however, attention was turned to the conditions and to the provisions
of God wrought by Christ, which first made men capable of attaining that portion, that is, of
becoming sure of it. Forgiveness of sin, righteousness, faith, knowledge, etc., are the things which
come into consideration here, and these blessings themselves, so far as they have as their sure result
life in the kingdom of Christ, or more accurately eternal life, may be regarded as salvation. It is
manifest that these two conceptions need not be exclusive. The first regards the final effect as the
goal and all else as a preparation, the other regards the preparation, the facts already accomplished
by Christ and the inner transformation of men as the main thing, and all else as the natural and
necessary result. Paul, above all, as may be seen especially from the arguments in the epistle to the
Romans, unquestionably favoured the latter conception and gave it vigorous expression. The peculiar
conflicts with which he saw himself confronted, and, above all, the great controversy about the
relation of the Gospel and the new communities to Judaism, necessarily concentrated the attention
on questions as to the arrangements on which the community of those sanctified in Christ should
rest, and the conditions of admission to this community. But the centre of gravity of Christian faith
might also for the moment be removed from the hope of Christ's second advent, and would then
necessarily be found in the first advent, in virtue of which salvation was already prepared for man,
and man for salvation (Rom. III.VIII.). The dual development of the conception of Christianity
which followed from this, rules the whole history of the Gospel to the present day. The eschatological
view is certainly very severely repressed, but it always breaks out here and there, and still guards
the spiritual from the secularisation which threatens it. But the possibility of uniting the two
conceptions in complete harmony with each other, and on the other hand, of expressing them
antithetically, has been the very circumstance that has complicated in an extraordinary degree the
progress of the development of the history of dogma. From this follows the antithesis, that from
that conception which somehow recognises salvation itself in a present spiritual possession, eternal
life in the sense of immortality may be postulated as final result, though not a glorious kingdom of
Christ on earth; while, conversely, the eschatological view must logically depreciate every blessing
which can be possessed in the present life.
It is now evident that the theology, and, further, the Hellenising, of Christianity, could arise and
has arisen in connection, not with the eschatological, but only with the other conception. Just
because the matters here in question were present spiritual blessings, and because, from the nature
of the case, the ideas of forgiveness of sin, righteousness, knowledge, etc., were not so definitely
outlined in the early tradition, as the hopes of the future, conceptions entirely new and very different,
could, as it were, be secretly naturalised. The spiritual view left room especially for the great contrast
of a religious and a moralistic conception, as well as for a frame of mind which was like the
eschatological in so far as, according to it, faith and knowledge were to be only preparatory blessings
in contrast with the peculiar blessing of immortality, which of course was contained in them. In
this frame of mind the illusion might easily arise that this hope of immortality was the very kernel
of those hopes of the future for which old concrete forms of expression were only a temporary
shell. But it might further be assumed that contempt for the transitory and finite as such, was
identical with contempt for the kingdom of the world which the returning Christ would destroy.
86
132
133
Adolf Harnack
The history of dogma has to shew how the old eschatological view was gradually repressed and
transformed in the Gen-tile Christian communities, and how there was finally developed and carried
out a spiritual conception in which a strict moralism counterbalanced a luxurious mysticism, and
wherein the results of Greek practical philosophy could find a place. But we must here refer to the
fact, which is already taught by the development in the Apostolic age, that Christian dogmatic did
not spring from the eschatological, but from the spiritual mode of thought. The former had nothing
but sure hopes and the guarantee of these hopes by the Spirit, by the words of prophecy and by the
apocalyptic writings. One does not think, he lives and dreams, in the eschatological mode of thought;
and such a life was vigorous and powerful till beyond the middle of the second century. There can
be no external authorities here; for one has at every moment the highest authority in living operation
in the Spirit. On the other hand, not only does the ecclesiastical christology essentially spring from
the spiritual way of thinking, but very specially also the system of dogmatic guarantees. The
co-ordination of , , [word of God,
teaching of the Lord, preaching of the twelve Apostles], which lay at the basis of all Gentile Christian
speculation almost from the very beginning, and which was soon directed against the enthusiasts,
originated in a conception which regarded as the essential thing in Christianity, the sure knowledge
which is the condition of immortality. If, however, in the following sections of this historical
presentation, the pervading and continuous opposition of the two conceptions is not everywhere
clearly and definitely brought into prominence, that is due to the conviction that the historian has
no right to place the factors and impelling ideas of a development in a clearer light than they appear
in the development itself. He must respect the obscurities and complications as they come in his
way. A clear discernment of the difference of the two conceptions was very seldom attained to in
ecclesiastical antiquity, because they did not look beyond their points of contact, and because certain
articles of the eschatological conception could never be suppressed or remodelled in the Church.
Goethe (Dichtung und Wahrheit, II. 8,) has seen this very clearly. The Christian religion wavers
between its own historic positive element and a pure Deism, which, based on morality, in its turn
offers itself as the foundation of morality. The difference of character and mode of thought shew
themselves here in infinite gradations, especially as another main distinction co-operates with them,
since the question arises, what share the reason, and what the feelings, can and should have in such
convictions. See, also, what immediately follows.
2. The origin of a series of the most important Christian customs and ideas is involved in an obscurity
which in all probability will never be cleared up. Though one part of those ideas may be pointed
out in the epistles of Paul, yet the question must frequently remain unanswered, whether he found
them in existence or formed them independently, and accordingly the other question, whether they
are exclusively indebted to the activity of Paul for their spread and naturalisation in Christendom.
What was the original conception of baptism? Did Paul develop independently his own conception?
What significance had it in the following period? When and where did baptism in the name of the
Father, Son and Holy Spirit arise, and how did it make its way in Christendom? In what way were
views about the saving value of Christ's death developed alongside of Paul's system? When and
how did belief in the birth of Jesus from a Virgin gain acceptance in Christendom? Who first
distinguished Christendom, as , from Judaism, and how did the concept
become current? How old is the triad: Apostles, Prophets and Teachers? When were Baptism and
87
Adolf Harnack
the Lord's Supper grouped together? How old are our first three Gospels? To all these questions
and many more of equal importance there is no sure answer. But the greatest problem is presented
by Christology, not indeed in its particular features doctrinally expressed, these almost everywhere
may be explained historically, but in its deepest roots as it was preached by Paul as the principle
of a new life (2 Cor. V. 17), and as it was to many besides him the expression of a personal union
with the exalted Christ (Rev. II. 3). But this problem exists only for the historian who considers
things only from the outside, or seeks for objective proofs. Behind and in the Gospel stands the
Person of Jesus Christ who mastered men's hearts, and constrained them to yield themselves to him
as his own, and in whom they found their God. Theology attempted to describe in very uncertain
and feeble outline what the mind and heart had grasped. Yet it testifies of a new life which, like all
higher life, was kindled by a Person, and could only be maintained by connection with that Person.
I can do all things through Christ who strengtheneth me. I live, yet not I, but Christ liveth in
me. These convictions are not dogmas and have no history, and they can only be propagated in
the manner described by Paul, Gal. I. 15, 16.
134
3. It was of the utmost importance for the legitimising of the later development of Christianity as
a system of doctrine. that early Christianity had an Apostle who was a theologian, and that his
Epistles were received into the canon. That the doctrine about Christ has become the main article
in Christianity is not of course the result of Paul's preaching, but is based on the confession that
Jesus is the Christ. The theology of Paul was not even the most prominent ruling factor in the
transformation of the Gospel to the Catholic doctrine of faith, although an earnest study of the
Pauline Epistles by the earliest Gentile Christian theologians, the Gnostics, and their later opponents,
is unmistakable. But the decisive importance of this theology lies in the fact that, as a rule, it formed
the boundary and the foundationjust as the words of the Lord himselffor those who in the
following period endeavoured to ascertain original Christianity, because the Epistles attesting it
stood in the canon of the New Testament. Now, as this theology comprised both speculative and
apologetic elements, as it can be thought of as a system, as it contained a theory of history and a
definite conception of the Old Testament,finally, as it was composed of objective and subjective
ethical considerations and included the realistic elements of a national religion (wrath of God,
sacrifice, reconciliation, Kingdom of glory), as well as profound psychological perceptions and the
highest appreciation of spiritual blessings, the Catholic doctrine of faith as it was formed in the
course of time, seemed, at least in its leading features, to be related to it, nay, demanded by it. For
the ascertaining of the deep-lying distinctions, above all for the perception that the question in the
two cases is about elements quite differently conditioned, that even the method is different,in
short, that the Pauline Gospel is not identical with the original Gospel and much less with any later
doctrine of faith, there is required such historical judgment and such honesty of purpose not to be
led astray in the investigation by the canon of the New Testament,138 that no change in the prevailing
138
What is meant here is the imminent danger of taking the several constituent parts of the canon, even for historical investigation,
as constituent parts, that is, of explaining one writing by the standard of another and so creating an artificial unity. The contents
of any of Paul's epistles, for example, will be presented very differently if it is considered by itself and in the circumstances in
which it was written, or if attention is fixed on it as part of a collection whose unity is presupposed.
88
135
136
Adolf Harnack
ideas can be hoped for for long years to come. Besides, critical theology has made it difficult to
gain an insight into the great difference that lies between the Pauline and the Catholic theology, by
the one-sided prominence it has hitherto given to the antagonism between Paulinism and Judaistic
Christianity. In contrast with this view the remark of Havet, though also very one-sided, is instructive,
Quand on vient de relire Paul, on ne peut mconnatre le caractre lev de son uvre. Je dirai en
un mot, qu'il a agrandi dans une proportion extraordinaire lattrait que le judasme exerait sur le
monde ancien (Le Christianisme, T. IV. p. 216). That, however, was only very gradually the case
and within narrow limits. The deepest and most important writings of the New Testament are
incontestably those in which Judaism is understood as religion, but spiritually overcome and
subordinated to the Gospel as a new religion,the Pauline Epistles, the Epistle to the Hebrews,
and the Gospel and Epistle of John. There is set forth in these writings a new and exalted world of
religious feelings, views and judgments, into which the Christians of succeeding centuries got only
meagre glimpses. Strictly speaking, the opinion that the New Testament in its whole extent
comprehends a unique literature is not tenable; but it is correct to say that between its most important
constituent parts and the literature of the period immediately following there is a great gulf fixed.
But Paulinism especially has had an immeasurable and blessed influence on the whole course of
the history of dogma, an influence it could not have had if the Pauline Epistles had not been received
into the canon. Paulinism is a religious and Christocentric doctrine, more inward and more powerful
than any other which has ever appeared in the Church. It stands in the clearest opposition to all
merely natural moralism, all righteousness of works, all religious ceremonialism, all Christianity
without Christ. It has therefore become the con-science of the Church, until the Catholic Church
in Jansenism killed this her conscience. The Pauline reactions describe the critical epochs of
theology and the Church.139 One might write a history of dogma as a history of the Pauline reactions
in the Church, and in doing so would touch on all the turning-points of the history. Marcion after
the Apostolic Fathers; Irenus, Clement and Origen after the Apologists; Augustine after the Fathers
of the Greek Church;140 the great Reformers of the middle ages from Agobard to Wessel in the
bosom of the medival Church; Luther after the Scholastics; Jansenism after the council of
Trent:everywhere it has been Paul, in these men, who produced the Reformation. Paulinism has
proved to be a ferment in the history of dogma, a basis it has never been.141 Just as it had that
significance in Paul himself, with reference to Jewish Christianity, so it has continued to work
through the history of the Church.
DIVISION I.
137
139
See Bigg, The Christian Platonist of Alexandria, pp. 53, 283 ff.
Reuter (August. Studien, p. 492) has drawn a valuable parallel between Marcion and Augustine with regard to Paul.
141 Marcion of course wished to raise it to the exclusive basis, but he entirely misunderstood it.
140
89
Adolf Harnack
THE GENESIS OF THE ECCLESIASTICAL DOGMA,
OR
THE GENESIS OF
THE CATHOLIC APOSTOLIC DOGMATIC THEOLOGY,
AND
THE FIRST SCIENTIFIC ECCLESIASTICAL

SYSTEM OF DOCTRINE.
BOOK I.
THE PREPARATION.
139
138
1 Cor. IV. 15.

Eine jede Idee tritt als ein fremder Gast in die Erscheinung,
und wie sie sich zu realisiren beginnt, ist sie kaum von
Phantasie und Phantasterei zu unterscheiden.
GOETHE, Sprche in Prosa, 566.
141
140
BOOK I
THE PREPARATION
CHAPTER I
HISTORICAL SURVEY
90
Adolf Harnack
THE first century of the existence of Gentile Christian communities is particularly characterised
by the following features:
I. The rapid disappearance of Jewish Christianity.142
II. The enthusiastic character of the religious temper: the Charismatic teachers and the appeal to
the Spirit.143
III. The strength of the hopes for the future, Chiliasm.144
IV. The rigorous endeavour to fulfil the moral precepts of Christ, and truly represent the holy and
heavenly community of God in abstinence from everything unclean, and in love to God and the
brethren here on earth in these last days.145
142
V. The want of a fixed doctrinal form in relation to the abstract statement of the faith, and the
corresponding variety and freedom of Christian preaching on the basis of clear formul and an
increasingly rich tradition.
VI. The want of a clearly defined external authority in the communities, sure in its application, and
the corresponding independence and freedom of the individual Christian in relation to the expression
of the ideas, beliefs and hopes of faith.146
VII. The want of a fixed political union of the several communities with each otherevery ecclesia
is an image complete in itself, and an embodiment of the whole heavenly Churchwhile the
consciousness of the unity of the holy Church of Christ which has the spirit in its midst, found
strong expression.147
142
This fact must have been apparent as early as the year too. The first direct evidence of it is in Justin (Apol. I. 53).
Every individual was, or at least should have been conscious, as a Christian, of having received the , though that
does not exclude spiritual grades. A special peculiarity of the enthusiastic nature of the religious temper is that it does not allow
reflection as to the authenticity of the faith in which a man lives. As to the Charismatic teaching, see my edition of the Didache
(Texte u. Unters. II. 1. 2. p. 93 ff.).
144 The hope of the approaching end of the world and the glorious kingdom of Christ still determined mens heart; though exhortations
against theoretical and practical scepticism became more and more necessary. On the other hand, after the Epistles to the
Thessalonians, there were not wanting exhortations to continue sober and diligent.
145 There was a strong consciousness that the Christian Church is, above all, a union for a holy life, as well as a consciousness of
the obligation to help one another, and use all the blessings bestowed by God in the service of our neighbours. Justin (2 Apol.
in Euseb. H. E. IV. 17. 10) calls Christianity .
146 The existing authorities (Old Testament, sayings of the Lord, words of Apostles) did not necessarily require to be taken into
account; for the living acting Spirit, partly attesting himself also to the senses, gave new revelations. The validity of these
authorities therefore held good only in theory, and might in practice be completely set aside. (Cf., above all, the Shepherd of
Hermas.)
147 Zahn remarks (Ignatius. v. A. p. VII.): I do not believe it to be the business of that province of historical investigation which
is dependent on the writings of the so-called Apostolic Fathers as main sources, to explain the origin of the universal Church in
any sense of the term; for that Church existed before Clement and Hermas, before Ignatius and Polycarp. But an explanatory
answer is needed for the question: By what means did the consciousness of the universal Church, so little favoured by our
circumstances, maintain itself unbroken in the post-Apostolic communities? This way of stating it obscures, at least, the problem
which here lies before us, for it does not take account of the changes which the idea universal Church underwent up to the
middle of the third centurybesides, we do not find the title before Ignatius. In so far as the universal Church is set forth as
an earthly power recognisable in a doctrine or in political forms, the question as to the origin of the idea is not only allowable,
143
91
Adolf Harnack
VIII. A quite unique literature in which were manufactured facts for the past and for the future,
and which did not submit to the usual literary rules and forms, but came forward with the loftiest
pretensions.148
143
IX. The reproduction of particular sayings and arguments of Apostolic Teachers with an uncertain
understanding of them.149
X. The rise of tendencies which endeavoured to hasten in every respect the inevitable process of
fusing the Gospel with the spiritual and religious interests of the time, viz., the Hellenic, as well as
attempts to separate the Gospel from its origins and provide for it quite foreign presuppositions.
To the latter belongs, above all, the Hellenic idea that knowledge is not a charismatic supplement
to the faith, or an outgrowth of faith alongside of others, but that it coincides with the essence of
faith itself.150
The sources for this period are few, as there was not much written, and the following period did
not lay itself out for preserving a great part of the literary monuments of that epoch. Still we do
possess a considerable number of writings and important fragments,151 and further important
inferences here are rendered possible by the monuments of the following period, since the conditions
of the first century were not changed in a moment, but were partly, at least, long preserved, especially
in certain national Churches and in remote communities.152
144
Supplement.The main features of the message concerning Christ, of the matter of the Evangelic
history, were fixed in the first and second generations of believers, and on Palestinian soil. But yet,
up to the middle of the second century, this matter was in many ways increased in Gentile Christian
regions, revised from new points of view, handed down in very diverse forms, and systematically
allegorised by individual teachers. As a whole, the Evangelic history certainly appears to have been
completed at the beginning of the second century. But in detail, much that was new was produced
at a later periodand not only in Gnostic circlesand the old tradition was recast or rejected.153
but must be regarded as one of the most important. On the earliest conception of the Ecclesia and its realisation, see the fine
investigations of Sohm Kirchenrecht, I. p. 1 ff., which, however, suffer from being a little overdriven.
148 See the important essay of Overbeck: Ueber die Anfnge d. patrist. Litteratur (Hist. Ztschr. N. F. Bd. XII. pp. 417-472). Early
Christian literature, as a rule, claims to be inspired writing. One can see, for example, in the history of the resurrection in the
recently discovered Gospel of Peter (fragment) how facts were remodelled or created.
149 The writings of men of the Apostolic period, and that immediately succeeding, attained in part a wide circulation, and in some
portions of them, often of course incorrectly understood, very great influence. How rapidly this literature was diffused, even the
letters, may be studied in the history of the Epistles of Paul, the first Epistle of Clement, and other writings.
150 That which is here mentioned is of the greatest importance; it is not a mere reference to the so-called Gnostics. The foundations
for the Hellenising of the Gospel in the Church were already laid in the first century (50-150).
151 We should not over-estimate the extent of early Christian literature. It is very probable that we know, so far as the titles of hooks
are concerned, nearly all that was effective, and the greater part, by very diverse means, has also been preserved to us. We except,
of course, the so-called Gnostic literature of which we have only a few fragments. Only from the time of Commodus, as Eusebius
H. E. V. 21. 27, has remarked, did the great Church preserve an extensive literature.
152 It is therefore important to note the locality in which a document orginates, and the more so the earlier the document is. In the
earliest period, in which the history of the Church was more uniform, and the influence from without relatively less, the differences
are still in the background. Yet the spirit of Rome already announces itself in the Epistle of Clement, that of Alexandria in the
Epistle of Barnabas, that of the East in the Epistles of Ignatius.
153 The history of the genesis of the four Canonical Gospels, or the comparison of them, is instructive on this point. Then we must
bear in mind the old Apocryphal Gospels, and the way in which the so-called Apostolic Fathers and Justin attest the Evangelic
92
145
Adolf Harnack
CHAPTER II.
THE ELEMENT COMMON TO ALL CHRISTIANS AND THE BREACH WITH JUDAISM
ON account of the great differences among those who, in the first century, reckoned themselves in
the Church of God, and called themselves by the name of Christ,154 it seems at first sight scarcely
possible to set up marks which would hold good for all, or even for nearly all, the groups. Yet the
great majority had one thing in common, as is proved, among other things, by the gradual expulsion
of Gnosticism. The conviction that they knew the supreme God, the consciousness of being
responsible to him (Heaven and Hell), reliance on Jesus Christ, the hope of an eternal life, the
vigorous elevation above the worldthese are the elements that formed the fundamental mood.
The author of the Acts of Thecla expresses the general view when he (c. 5.7) co-ordinates
, with , . The following particulars may
here be specified.155
I. The Gospel, because it rests on revelation, is the sure manifestation of the supreme God, and its
believing acceptance guarantees salvation ().
II. The essential content of this manifestation (besides the revelation and the verification of the
oneness and spirituality of God),156 is, first of all, the message of the resurrection and eternal life
(, ), then the preaching of moral purity and continence (), on the
basis of repentance toward God (), and of an expiation once assured by baptism, with eye
ever fixed on the requital of good and evil.157
146
III. This manifestation is mediated by Jesus Christ, who is the Saviour () sent by God in
these last days, and who stands with God himself in a union special and unique, (cf. the ambiguous
, which was much used in the earliest period). He has brought the true and full knowledge
history, and in part reproduce it independently; the Gospels of Peter, of the Egyptians, and of Marcion; the Diatesseron of Tatian;
the Gnostic Gospels and Acts of the Apostles, etc. The greatest gap in our knowledge consists in the fact, that we know so little
about the course of things from about the year 61 to the beginning of the reign of Trajan. The consolidating and remodelling
process must, for the most part, have taken place in this period. We possess probably not a few writings which belong to that
period; but how are we to prove this? how are they to be arranged? Here lies the cause of most of the differences, combinations
and uncertainties; many scholars, therefore, actually leave these 40 years out of account, and seek to place everything in the first
three decennia of the second century.
154 See, as to this, Celsus in Orig. III. 10 ff. and V. 59 ff.
155 The marks adduced in the text do not certainly hold good for some comparatively unimportant Gnostic groups, but they do apply
to the great majority of them, and in the main to Marcion also.
156 Most of the Gnostic schools know only one God, and put all emphasis on he knowledge of the oneness, supramundaneness, and
spirituality of this God. The ons, the Demiurgus, the God of matter, do not come near this God though they are called Gods.
See the testimony of Hippolytus c. Noet. II;
,
.
. ,
,
.
157 Continence was regarded as the condition laid down by God for the resurrection and eternal life. The sure hope of this was for
many, if not for the majority, the whole sum of religion, in connection with the idea of the requital of good and evil which was
now firmly established. See the testimony of the heathen Lucian, in Peregrinus Proteus.
93
Adolf Harnack
of God, as well as the gift of immortality ( , or , as an expression

for the sum of the Gospel. See the supper prayer in the Didache, c. IX. and X.; ,
), and is for
that very reason the redeemer ( and victor over the demons) on whom we are to place believing
trust. But he is, further, in word and walk the highest example of all moral virtue, and therefore in
his own person the law for the perfect life, and at the same time the God-appointed lawgiver and
judge.158
IV. Virtue, as continence, embraces as its highest task, renunciation of temporal goods and separation
from the common world; for the Christian is not a citizen, but a stranger on the earth, and expects
its approaching destruction.159
147
V. Christ has committed to chosen men, the Apostles (or to one Apostle), the proclamation of the
message he received from God; consequently, their preaching represents that of Christ himself.
But, besides, the Spirit of God rules in Christians, the Saints. He bestows upon them special gifts,
and, above all, continually raises up among them Prophets and spiritual Teachers who receive
revelations and communications for the edification of others, and whose injunctions are to be
obeyed.
VI. Christian Worship is a service of God in spirit and in truth (a spiritual sacrifice), and therefore
has no legal ceremonial and statutory rules. The value of the sacred acts and consecrations which
are connected with the cultus, consists in the communication of spiritual blessings. (Didache X.,
, , ).
VII. Everything that Jesus Christ brought with him, may be summed up in , or in
the knowledge of immortal life.160 To possess the perfect knowledge was, in wide circles, an
expression for the sum total of the Gospel.161
158
Even where the judicial attributes were separated from God (Christ) as not suitable, Christ was still comprehended as the critical
appearance by which every man is placed in the condition which belongs to him. The Apocalypse of Peter expects that God
himself will come as Judge. See the Messianic expectations of Judaism, in which it was always uncertain whether God or the
Messiah would hold the judgment.
159 Celsus (Orig. c. Celsum, V. 59) after referring to the many Christian parties mutually provoking and fighting with each other,
remarks (V. 64) that though they differ much from each other, and quarrel with each other, you can yet hear from them all the
protestation, The world is crucified to me and I to the world. In the earliest Gentile Christian communities brotherly love for
reflective thought falls into the background behind ascetic exercises of virtue, in unquestionable deviation from the sayings of
Christ, but in fact it was powerful. See the testimony of Pliny and Lucian, Aristides, Apol. 15, Tertull. Apol. 39.
160 The word life comes into consideration in a double sense, viz., as soundness of the soul and as immortality. Neither, of course,
is to be separated from the other. But I have attempted to shew in my essay, Medicinisches aus der ltesten Kirchengesch.
(1892), the extent to which the Gospel in the earliest Christendom was preached as medicine and Jesus as a Physician, and how
the Christian Message was really comprehended by the Gentiles as a medicinal religion. Even the Stoic philosophy gave itself
out as a soul therapeutic, and sculapius was worshipped as a Saviour-God; but Christianity alone was a religion of healing.
161 Heinrici, in his commentary on the epistles to the Corinthians, has dealt very clearly with this matter; see especially (Bd. II. p.
557 ff.) the description of the Christianity of the Corinthians: On what did the community base its Christian character? It believed
in one God who had revealed himself to it through Christ, without denying the reality of the hosts of gods in the heathen world
(I. VIII. 6). It hoped in immortality without being clear as to the nature of the Christian belief in the resurrection (I. XV.) It had
no doubt as to the requital of good and evil (I. IV. 5: 2 V. so: XI. 15: Rom. II. 4), without understanding the value of self-denial,
claiming no merit, for the sake of important ends. It was striving to make use of the Gospel as a new doctrine of wisdom about
earthly and super-earthly things, which led to the perfect and best established knowledge (1 I. 21: VIII. 1). It boasted of special
94
148
Adolf Harnack
VIII. Christians, as such, no longer take into account the distinctions of race, age, rank, nationality
and worldly culture, but the Christian community must be conceived as a communion resting on a
divine election. Opinions were divided about the ground of that election.
IX. As Christianity is the only true religion, and as it is no national religion, but somehow concerns
the whole of humanity, or its best part, it follows that it can have nothing in common with the
Jewish nation and its contemporary cultus. The Jewish nation in which Jesus Christ appeared, has,
for the time at least, no special relation to the God whom Jesus revealed. Whether it had such a
relation at an earlier period is doubtful (cf. here, e.g., the attitude of Marcion, Ptolemus the disciple
of Valentinus, the author of the Epistle of Barnabas, Aristides and Justin); but certain it is that God
has now cast it off, and that all revelations of God, so far as they took place at all before Christ,
(the majority assumed that there had been such revelations and considered the Old Testament as a
holy record), must have aimed solely at the call of the new people, and in some way prepared
for the revelation of God through his Son.162
150
149
CHAPTER III.
THE COMMON FAITH AND THE BEGINNINGS OF KNOWLEDGE
IN GENTILE CHRISTIANITY AS IT WAS BEING
DEVELOPED INTO CATHOLICISM163
operations of the Divine Spirit, which in themselves remained obscure and non-transparent, and therefore unfruitful (1. XIV),
while it was prompt to put aside as obscure, the word of the Cross as preached by Paul (2. IV. 1 f.). The hope of the near Parousia,
however, and the completion of all things, evinced no power to effect a moral transformation of society. We herewith obtain the
outline of a conviction that was spread over the widest circles of the Roman Empire. Naturam si expellas furca, tamen usque
recurret.
162 Nearly all Gentile Christian groups that we know, are at one in the detachment of Christianity from empiric Judaism; the
Gnostics, however, included the Old Testament in Judaism, while the greater part of Christians did not. That detachment
seemed to be demanded by the claims of Christianity to be the one, true, absolute and therefore oldest religion, foreseen from
the beginning. The different estimates of the Old Testament in Gnostic circles have their exact parallels in the different estimates
of Judaism among the other Christians; cf. for example, in this respect, the conception stated in the Epistle of Barnabas with the
views of Marcion, and Justin with Valentinus. The particulars about the detachment of the Gentile Christians from the Synagogue,
which was prepared for by the inner development of Judaism itself, and was required by the fundamental fact that the Messiah,
crucified and rejected by his own people, was recognised as Saviour by those who were not Jews, cannot be given in the
frame-work of a history of dogma; though, see Chaps. III. IV. VI. On the other hand, the turning away from Judaism is also the
result of the mass of things which were held in common with it, even in Gnostic circles. Christianity made its appearance in the
Empire in the Jewish propaganda. By the preaching of Jesus Christ who brought the gift of eternal life, mediated the full knowledge
of God, and assembled round him in these last days a community, the imperfect and hybrid creations of the Jewish propaganda
in the empire were converted into independent formations. These formations were far superior to the synagogue in power of
attraction, and from the nature of the case would very soon be directed with the utmost vigour against the synagogue.
163 The statements made in this chapter need special forbearance, especially as the selection from the rich and motley materialcf.
only the so-called Apostolic Fathersthe emphasising of this, the throwing into the background of that element, cannot here be
vindicated. It is not possible, in the compass of a brief account, to give expression to that elasticity and those oscillations of ideas
and thoughts which were peculiar to the Christians of the earliest period. There was indeed, as will be shewn, a complex of
tradition in many respects fixed, but this complex was still under the dominance of an enthusiastic fancy, so that what at one
moment seemed fixed, in the next had disappeared. Finally, attention must be given to the fact that when we speak of the
95
Adolf Harnack
1. The Communities and the Church.
151
THE confessors of the Gospels, belonging to organised communities who recognised the Old
Testament as the Divine record of revelation, and prized the Evangelic tradition as a public message
for all, to which, in its undiluted form, they wished to adhere truly and sincerely, formed the stem
of Christendom both as to extent and importance.164 The communities stood to each other in an
outwardly loose, but inwardly firm connection, and every community by the vigour of its faith, the
certainty of its hope, the holy character of its life, as well as by unfeigned love, unity and peace,
was to be an image of the holy Church of God which is in heaven, and whose members are scattered
over the earth. They were, further, by the purity of their walk and an active brotherly disposition,
to prove to those without, that is to the world, the excellence and truth of the Christian faith.165 The
beginnings of knowledge, the members of the Christian community in their totality are no longer in question, but only individuals
who of course were the leaders of the others. If we had no other writings from the times of the Apostolic Fathers than the first
Epistle of Clement and the Epistle of Polycarp, it would he comparatively easy to sketch a clear history of the development
connecting Paulinism with the Old-Catholic Theology as represented by Irneus, and so to justify the traditional ideas. But
besides these two Epistles which are the classic monuments of the mediating tradition, we have a great number of documents
which shew us how manifold and complicated the development was. They also teach us how carefnl we should be in the
interpretation of the post-Apostolic documents that immediately followed the Pauline Epistles, and that we must give special
heed to the paragraphs and ideas in them, which distinguish them from Paulinism. Besides, it is of the greatest importance that
those two Epistles originated in Rome and Asia Minor, as these are the places where we must seek the embryonic stage of
old-Catholic doctrine. Numerous fine threads, in the form of fundamental ideas and particular views, pass over from the Asia
Minor theology of the post-Apostolic period into the old-Catholic theology.
164 The Epistle to the Hebrews (X. 25), the Epistle of Barnabas (IV. 10), the Shepherd of Hermas (Sim. IX. 26. 3), but especially
the Epistle of Ignatius and still later documents, shew that up to the middle of the second century, and even later, there were
Christians who, for various reasons, stood outside the union of communities, or wished to have only a loose and temporary
relation to them. The exhortation: (see my note on Didache
XVI. 2, and cf. for the expression the interesting State Inscription which was found at Magnesia on the Meander. Bull, Corresp.
Hellen. 1883 p. 506: .
... or the exhortation: ,
(1 Clem. 46. 2, introduced as ) runs through most of the writings of the post-Apostolic and
pre-catholic period. New doctrines were imported by wandering Christians who, in many cases, may not themselves have
belonged to a community, and did not respect the arrangements of those they found in existence, but sought to form conventicles.
If we remember how the Greeks and Romans were wont to get themselves initiated into a mystery cult, and took part for a long
time in the religious exercises, and then, when they thought they had got the good of it, for the most part or wholly to give up
attending, we shall not wonder that the demand to become a permanent member of a Christian community was opposed by many.
The statements of Hermas are specially instructive here.
165 Corpus sumus, says Tertullian, at a time when this description had already become an anachronism, de conscientia religionis
et disciplin unitate et spei foedere. (Apol. 39: cf. Ep. Petri ad Jacob. I.; , , ). The description was
applicable to the earlier period, when there was no such thing as a federation with political forms, but when the consciousness
of belonging to a community and of forming a brotherhood () was all the more deeply felt: See, above all, 1 Clem.
and Corinth., the Didache (9-15), Aristides, Apol 15: and when they have become Christians they call them (the slaves) brethren
without hesitation . . . . for they do not call them brethren according to the flesh, but according to the spirit and in God; cf. also
the statements on brotherhood in Tertullian and Minucius Felix (also Lucian). We have in 1 Clem. 1. 2. the delineation of a
perfect Christian Church. The Epistles of Ignatius are specially instructive as to the independence of each individual community:
1 Clem. and Didache, as to the obligation to assist stranger communities by counsel and action, and to support the travelling
brethren. As every Christian is a , so every community is a , but it is under obligation to give an
example to the world, and must watch that the name be not blasphemed. The importance of the social element in the oldest
Christian communities, has been very justly brought into prominence in the latest works on the subject (Renan, Heinrici, Hatch).
The historian of dogma must also emphasise it, and put the fluid notions of the faith in contrast with the definite consciousness
of moral tasks. See 1. Clem. 47-50; Polyc. Ep. 3; Didache 1 ff.; Ignat. ad Eph. 14, on as the main requirement. Love
demands that everyone: (1. Clem. 48. 6. with parallels; Didache 16. 3; Barn. 4.
10; Ignatius).
96
152
153
Adolf Harnack
hope that the Lord would speedily appear to gather into his Kingdom the believers who were
scattered abroad, punishing the evil and rewarding the good, guided these communities in faith and
life. In the recently discovered Teaching of the Apostles we are confronted very distinctly with
ideas and aspirations of communities that are not influenced by Philosophy.
The Church, that is the totality of all believers destined to be received into the kingdom of God
(Didache, 9. 10), is the holy Church, (Hermas) because it is brought together and preserved by the
Holy Spirit. It is the one Church, not because it presents this unity outwardly, on earth the members
of the Church are rather scattered abroad, but because it will be brought to unity in the kingdom of
Christ, because it is ruled by the same spirit and inwardly united in a common relation to a common
hope and ideal. The Church, considered in its origin, is the number of those chosen by God,166 the
true Israel,167 nay, still more, the final purpose of God, for the world was created for its sake.168
There were in connection with these doctrines in the earliest period, various speculations about the
Church: it is a heavenly on, is older than the world, was created by God at the beginning of things
as a companion of the heavenly Christ;169 its members form the new nation which is really the oldest
nation,170 it is the ,171 the people whom
God has prepared in the Beloved,172 etc. The creation of God, the Church, as it is of an antemundane
and heavenly nature, will also attain its true existence only in the on of the future, the on of
the Kingdom of Christ. The idea of a heavenly origin, and of a heavenly goal of the Church, was
therefore an essential one, various and fluctuating as these speculations were. Accordingly, the
exhortations, so far as they have in view the Church, are always dominated by the idea of the
contrast of the kingdom of Christ with the kingdom of the world. On the other hand, he who
communicated knowledge for the present time, prescribed rules of life, endeavoured to remove
conflicts, did not appeal to the peculiar character of the Church. The mere fact, however, that from
nearly the beginning of Christendom, there were reflections and speculations not only about God
and Christ, but also about the Church, teaches us how profoundly the Christian consciousness was
impressed with being a new people, viz., the people of God.173 These speculations of the earliest
Gentile Christian time about Christ and the Church, as inseparable correlative ideas, are of the
greatest importance, for they have absolutely nothing Hellenic in them, but rather have their origin
in the Apostolic tradition. But for that very reason the combination very soon, comparatively
speaking, be-came obsolete or lost its power to influence. Even the Apologists made no use of it,
166
1 Clem. 59. 2, in the church prayer;

.
167 See 1 Clem., 2 Clem., Ignatius (on the basis of the Pauline view; but see also Rev. II. 9).
168 See Hermas (the passage is given above, p. 103, note.)
169 See Hermas. Vis. I.-III. Papias. Fragm. VI. and VII. of my edition, 2 Clem. 14:
, . . . .
. , .
170 See Barn. 13 (2 Clem. 2).
171 See Valentinus in Clem. Strom. VI. 6. 52. Holy Church, perhaps also in Marcion, if his text (Zahn. Gesch. des N. T. lichen
Kanons, II p. 502) in Gal. IV. 21, read; , .
172 Barn. 3. 6.
173 We are also reminded here of the tertium genus. The nickname of the heathen corresponded to the self-consciousness of the
Christians, (see Aristides, Apol.).
97
Adolf Harnack
though Clement of Alexandria and other Greeks held it fast, and the Gnostics by their on Church
brought it into discredit. Augustine was the first to return to it.
154
155
The importance attached to morality is shewn in Didache cc. 1-6, with parallels.174 But this section
and the statements so closely related to it in the pseudo-phocylidean poem which is probably of
Christian origin, as well as in Sibyl, II. v. 56-148, which is likewise to be regarded as Christian,
and in many other Gnomic paragraphs, shews at the same time, that in the memorable expression
and summary statement of higher moral commandments, the Christian propaganda had been preceded
by the Judaism of the Diaspora, and had entered into its labours. These statements are throughout
de-pendent on the Old Testament wisdom, and have the closest relationship with the genuine Greek
parts of the Alexandrian Canon, as well as with Philonic exhortations. Consequently, these moral
rules, the two ways, so aptly compiled and filled with such an elevated spirit, represent the ripest
fruit of Jewish as well as of Greek development. The Christian spirit found here a disposition which
it could recognise as its own. It was of the utmost importance, however, that this disposition was
already expressed in fixed forms suitable for didactic purposes. The young Christianity therewith
received a gift of first importance. It was spared a labour in a region, the moral, which experience
shews can only be performed in generations, viz., the creation of simple fixed impressive rules, the
labour of the Catechist. The sayings of the Sermon on the Mount were not of themselves sufficient
here. Those who in the second century attempted to rest in these alone, and turned aside from the
Judheo-Greek inheritance, landed in Marcionite or Encratite doctrines.175 We can see, especially
from the Apologies of Aristides (c. 15), Justin and Tatian (see also Lucian), that the earnest men
of the Grco-Roman world were won by the morality and active love of the Christians.
2. The Foundations of the Faith.
174
See also the letter of Pliny, the paragraphs about Christian morality in the first third-part of Justins apology, and especially the
apology of Aristides, c. 15. Aristides portrays Christianity by portraying Christian morality. The Christians know and believe
in God, the creator of heaven and of earth, the God by whom all things consist, i.e., in him from whom they have received the
commandments which they have written in their hearts, commandments which they observe in faith and in the expectation of
the world to come. For this reason they do not commit adultery, nor practise unchastity, nor bear false witness, nor covet that
with which they are entrusted, or what does not belong to them, etc. Compare how in the Apocalypse of Peter definite penalties
in hell are portrayed for the several forms of immorality.
175 An investigation of the Grco-Jewish, Christian literature of gnomes and moral rules, commencing with the Old Testament
doctrine of wisdom on the one hand, and the Stoic collections on the other, then passing beyond the Alexandrian and Evangelic
gnomes up to the Didache, the Pauline tables of domestic duties, the Sibylline sayings, Phocylides, the Neopythagorean rules,
and to the gnomes of the enigmatic Sextus, is still an unfulfilled task. The moral rules of the Pharisaic Rabbis should also be
included.
98
156
Adolf Harnack
The foundations of the faithwhose abridged form was, on the one hand, the confession of the
one true God, ,176 and of Jesus, the Lord, the Son of God, the Saviour,177 and also
of the Holy Spirit; and on the other hand, the confident hope of Christs kingdom and the
resurrectionwere laid on the Old Testament interpreted in a Christian sense together with the
Apocalypses,178 and the progressively enriched traditions about Jesus Christ. (
or
, or
).179 The Old Testament revelations and oracles were regarded as pointing to Christ; the
Old Testament itself, the words of God spoken by the Prophets, as the primitive Gospel of salvation,
having in view the new people, which is, however, the oldest, and belonging to it alone.180 The
exposition of the Old Testament, which, as a rule, was of course read in the Alexandrian Canon of
the Bible, turned it into a Christian book. A historical view of it, which no born Jew could in some
measure fail to take, did not come into fashion, and the freedom that was used in interpreting the
Old Testament,so far as there was a method, it was the Alexandrian Jewishwent the length of
even correcting the letter and enriching the contents.181
The traditions concerning Christ on which the communities were based, were of a twofold character.
First, there were words of the Lord, mostly ethical, but also of eschatological content, which were
regarded as rules, though their expression was uncertain, ever changing, and only gradually assuming
176
Herm. Mand. I. has merely fixed the Monotheistic confession: , ,

, ... See Praed. Petri in Clem. Strom. VI. 6. 48: VI. 5. 39: Aristides gives in c. 2. of his Apology the preaching
of Jesus Christ: but where he wishes to give a short expression of Christianity he is satisfied with saying that Christians are those
who have found the one true God. See, e. g., c. 15 Christians have . . . . found the truth .... They know and believe in God, the
creator of heaven and of earth, by whom all things consist, and from whom all things come, who has no other god beside him,
and from whom they have received commandments which they have written in their hearts, commandments which they observe
in faith and in expectation of the world to come. It is interesting to note how Origen, Comm. in Joh. XXXII 9, has brought the
Christological Confession into approximate harmony with that of Hermas First, Mand. I. is verbally repeated and then it is said:
,
, ,
.
177 Very instructive here is 2 Clem. ad Corinth. 20. 5: , ,
, , . On the
Holy Spirit see previous note.
178 They were quoted as , , or with the formula () . Also Law and Prophets, Law Prophets
and Psalms. See the original of the first six books of the Apostolic Constitutions.
179 See the collection of passages in Patr. App. Opp. edit. Gebhardt. I. 2 p. 133, and the formula, Diogn. 11:
, . Besides the Old Testament
and the traditions about Jesus (Gospels), the Apocalyptic writings of the Jews, which were regarded as writings of the Spirit,
were also drawn upon. Moreover, Christian letters and manifestoes proceeding from Apostles, prophets, or teachers, were read.
The Epistles of Paul were early collected and obtained wide circulation in the first half of the second century but they were not
Holy Scripture in the specific sense, and therefore their authority was not unqualified.
180 Barn. 5. 6, , , . Ignat. ad Magn. 8. 2: cf. also Clem. Paedag.
I. 7. 59: ,
. , ,
, ,
.
181 See above 5, p. 114 f.
99
157
Adolf Harnack
a fixed form. The are often just the moral commandments.182 Second, the
foundation of the faith, that is, the assurance of the blessing of salvation, was formed by a
proclamation of the history of Jesus concisely expressed, and composed with reference to prophecy.183
The confession of God the Father Almighty, of Christ as the Lord and Son of God, and of the Holy
Spirit,184 was, at a very early period in the communities, united with the short proclamation of the
history of Jesus, and at the same time, in certain cases, referred expressly to the revelation of God
(the Spirit) through the prophets.185 The confession thus conceived had not everywhere obtained a
fixed definite expression in the first century (cc. 50-150). It would rather seem that, in most of the
communities, there was no exact formulation beyond a confession of Father, Son and Spirit,
accompanied in a free way by the historical proclamation.186 It is highly probable, however, that a
short confession was strictly formulated in the Roman community before the middle of the second
century,187 expressing belief in the Father, Son and Spirit, embracing also the most important facts
in the history of Jesus, and mentioning the Holy Church, as well as the two great blessings of
Christianity, the forgiveness of sin, and the resurrection of the dead ( , 188).
182
See my edition of the Didache, Prolegg. p. 32 ff.; Rothe, De disciplina arcani origine, 1841.
The earliest example is 1. Cor. XI. 1 f. It is different in 1 Tim. III. 16 where already the question is about
: See Patr. App. Opp. I. 2. p. 134.
184 Father, son, and spirit: Paul; Matt. XXVIII. 19; 1 Clem. ad. Cor. 58. 2, (see 2. 1. f.: 42. 3: 46. 6); Didache 7; Ignat. Eph. 9. 1;
Magn. 13. 1. 2.; Philad. inscr.; Mart. Polyc. 14. I. 2; Ascens. Isai. 8. 18: 9. 27: 10. 4: 11. 32 ff.; Justin passim; Montan. ap.
Didym. de trinit. 411; Excerpta ex Theodot. 80; Pseudo Clem. de virg. 1. 13. Yet the omission of the Holy Spirit is frequent, as
in Paul; or the Holy Spirit is identified with the Spirit of Christ. The latter takes place even with such writers as are familiar with
the baptismal formula, Ignat. ad Magn. 15; , .
185 The formul run: God who has spoken through the Prophets, or the Prophetic Spirit, etc.
186 That should be assumed as certain in the case of the Egyptian Church, yet Caspari thinks he can shew that already Clement of
Alexandria presupposes a symbol.
187 Also in the communities of Asia Minor (Smyrna); for a combination of Polyc. Ep. c. 2 with c. 7, proves that in Smyrna the
must have been something like the Roman Symbol, see Lightfoot on the passage; it cannot be proved that it
was identical with it. See, further, how in the case of Polycarp the moral element is joined on to the dogmatic. This reminds us
of the Didache and has its parallel even in the first homily of Aphraates.
188 See Caspari, Quellen z. Gesch. des Taufsymbols, III. p. 3. ff., and Patr. App. Opp. 1. 2. pp. 115-142. The old Roman Symbol
reads: () , (on this word see Westcotts
Excursus in his commentary on 1st John) ,
; , ,
, , ,
, . To estimate this very important article aright we must note the following: (1) It is not a formula of doctrine,
but of confession. (2) It has a liturgical form which is shewn in the rhythm and in the disconnected succession of its several
members, and is free from everything of the nature polemic. (3) It tapers off into the three blessings, Holy Church, forgiveness
of sin, resurrection of the body, and in this as well as in the fact that there is no mention of () ,
is revealed an early Christian untheological attitude. (4) It is worthy of note, on the other hand, that the birth from the Virgin
occupies the first place, and all reference to the baptism of Jesus, also to the Davidic Sonship, is wanting. (5) It is further worthy
of note, that there is no express mention of the death of Jesus, and that the Ascension already forms a special member (that is
also found elsewhere, Ascens. Isaiah, c. 3. 13. ed. Dillmann. p. 13. Murator. Fragment, etc.). Finally, we should consider the
want of the earthly Kingdom of Christ and the mission of the twelve Apostles, as well as, on the other hand, the purely religious
attitude, no notice being taken of the new law. Zahn (Das Apostol. Symbolum, 1893) assumes, That in all essential respects
the identical baptismal confession which Justin learned in Ephesus about 130, and Marcion confessed in Rome about 145,
originated at latest somewhere about 120. In some unpretending notes (p. 37 ff.) he traces this confession back to a baptismal
confession of the Pauline period (it had already assumed a more or less stereotyped form in the earlier Apostolic period),
which, however, was somewhat revised, so far as it contained, for example, of the house of David, with reference to Christ.
The original formula, reminding us of the Jewish soil of Christianity, was thus remodelled, perhaps about 70-120, with retention
of the fundamental features so that it might appear to answer better to the need of candidates for baptism, proceeding more and
183
100
158
159
160
Adolf Harnack
But, however the proclamation might be handed down, in a form somehow fixed, or in a free form,
the disciples of Jesus, the (twelve) Apostles, were regarded as the authorities who mediated and
guaranteed it. To them was traced back in the same way everything that was narrated of the history
of Jesus, and everything that was inculcated from his sayings.189 Consequently, it may be said, that
beside the Old Testament, the chief court of appeal in the communities was formed by an aggregate
of words and deeds of the Lord ;for the history and the suffering of Jesus are his deed:
, ...,fixed in certain fundamental features, though constantly enriched, and
traced back to apostolic testimony.190
more from the Gentiles. . . . This changed formula soon spread on all sides. It lies at the basis of all the later baptismal confessions
of the Church, even of the East. The first article was slightly changed in Rome about 200-220. While up till then, in Rome as
everywhere else, it had read
, it was now changed in .
This hypothesis, with regard to the early history of the Roman Symbol, presupposes that the history of the formation of the
baptismal confession in the Church, in east and west, was originally a uniform one. This cannot be proved; besides, it is refuted
by the facts of the following period. It presupposes secondly, that there was a strictly formulated baptismal confession outside
Rome before the middle of the second century, which likewise cannot he proved; (the converse rather is probable, that the fixed
formulation proceeded from Rome). Moreover, Zahn himself retracts everything again by the expression more or less stereotyped
form; for what is of decisive interest here is the question, when and where the fixed sacred form was produced. Zahn here has
set up the radical thesis that it can only have taken place in Rome between 200 and 220. But neither his negative nor his positive
proof for a change of the Symbol in Rome at so late a period is sufficient. No sure conclusion as to the Symbol can be drawn
from the wavering regul fidei of Irenus and Tertullian, which contain the unum; further, the unum is not found in the
western provincial Symbols, which, however, are in part earlier than the year 200. The Romish correction must therefore have
been subsequently taken over in the provinces (Africa?). Finally, the formula beside the more
frequent , is attested by Irenus, I. 10. 1, a decisive passage. With our present means we cannot attain to
any direct knowledge of Symbol formation before the Romish Symbol. But the following hypotheses, which I am not able to
establish here, appear to me to correspond to the facts of the case and to be fruitful: (1) There were, even in the earliest period,
separate Kerygmata about God and Christ: see the Apostolic writings, Hermas, Ignatius, etc. (2) The Kerygma about God was
the confession of the one God of creation, the almighty God. (3) The Kerygma about Christ had essentially the same historical
contents everywhere, but was expressed in diverse forms: (a) in the form of the fulfilment of prophecy, (b) in the form
, , (c) in the form of the first and second advent, (d) in the form, -; these forms were also
partly combined. (4) The designations Christ, Son of God and Lord; further, the birth from the Holy Spirit, or ,
the sufferings (the practice of exorcism contributed also to the fixing and naturalising of the formula crucified under Pontius
Pilate), the death, the resurrection, the coming again to judgment, formed the stereotyped content of the Kerygma about Jesus.
The mention of the Davidic Sonship, of the Virgin Mary, of the baptism by John, of the third day, of the descent into Hades, of
the demonstratio ver carnis post resurrectionem , of the ascension into heaven and the sending out of the disciples, were
additional articles which appeared here and there. The , and the like, were very early developed out of the forms
(b) and (d). All this was already in existence at the transition of the first century to the second. (5) The proper contribution of
the Roman community consisted in this, that it inserted the Kerygma about God and that about Jesus into the baptismal formula;
widened the clause referring to the Holy Spirit, into one embracing Holy Church, forgiveness of sin, resurrection of the body;
excluded theological theories in other respects; undertook a reduction all round, and accurately defined everything up to the last
world. (6) The western regul fide do not fall back exclusively on the old Roman Symbol, but also on the earlier freer Kerygmata
about God and about Jesus which were common to the east and west; not otherwise can the regul fide of Irenus and Tertullian,
for example, be explained. But the symbol became more and more the support of the regula. (7) The eastern confessions (baptismal
symbols) do not fall back directly on the Roman Symbol, but were probably on the model of this symbol, made up from the
provincial Kerygmata, rich in contents and growing ever richer, hardly, however, before the third century. (8) It cannot be proved,
and it is not probable, that the Roman Symbol was in existence before Hermas, that is, about 135.
189 See the fragment in Euseb. H. E. III. 39, from the work of Papias.
190 (. inscr.) is the most accurate expression (similarly 2. Pet. III. 2). Instead of this might
be said simply (Hegesipp.). Hegesippus (Euseb. H. E., IV. 22. 3: See also Steph. Gob.) comprehends the ultimate
authorities under the formula: ; just as even Pseudo Clem. de Virg. I. 2: Sicut
ex lege ac prophetis et a domino nostro Jesu Christo didicimus. Polycarp (6. 3) says:
. In the second Epistle of
Clement (14. 2) we read: (O. T.) ; may also stand for (Ignat., Didache. 2
101
Adolf Harnack
The authority which the Apostles in this way enjoyed, did not, in any great measure, rest on the
remembrance of direct services which the twelve had rendered to the Gentile Churches: for, as the
want of reliable concrete traditions proves, no such services had been rendered, at least not by the
twelve.
161
On the contrary, there was a theory operative here regarding the special authority which the twelve
enjoyed in the Church at Jerusalem, a theory which was spread by the early missionaries, including
Paul, and sprang from the a priori consideration that the tradition about Christ, just because it grew
up so quickly,191 must have been entrusted to eye-witnesses who were commissioned to proclaim
the Gospel to the whole world, and who fulfilled that commission. The a priori character of this
assumption is shewn by the fact thatwith the exception of reminiscences of an activity of Peter
and John among the , not sufficiently clear to us192the twelve, as a rule, are regarded as a
college, to which the mission and the tradition are traced back.193 That such a theory, based on a
dogmatic construction of history, could have at all arisen, proves that either the Gentile Churches
never had a living relation to the twelve, or that they had very soon lost it in the rapid disappearance
of Jewish Christianity, while they had been referred to the twelve from the beginning. But even in
the communities which Paul had founded and for a long time guided, the remembrance of the
controversies of the Apostolic age must have been very soon effaced, and the vacuum thus produced
filled by a theory which directly traced back the status quo of the Gentile Christian communities
to a tradition of the twelve as its foundation. This fact is extremely paradoxical, and is not altogether
explained by the assumptions that the Pauline-Judaistic controversy had not made a great impression
on the Gentile Christians, that the way in which Paul, while fully recognising the twelve, had insisted
Clem. etc.). The Gospel, so far as it is described, is quoted as . (Justin, Tatian), or on the
other hand, as , (Dionys. Cor. in Euseb. H. E. IV. 23. 12: at a later period in Tertull. and Clem. Alex.). The
words of the Lord, in the same way as the words of God, are called simply (). The declaration of Serapion at
the beginning of the third century (Euseb., H. E. VI. 12. 3):
, is an innovation in so far as it puts the words of the Apostles fixed in writing and as distinct from the words of the
Lord, on a level with the latter. That is, while differentiating the one from the other, Serapion ascribes to the words of the apostles
and those of the Lord equal authority. But the development which led to this position, had already begun in the first century. At
a very early period there were read in the communities, beside the Old Testament, Gospels, that is collections of words of the
Lord, which at the same time contained the main facts of the history of Jesus. Such notes were a necessity (Luke 1. 4:
), and though still indefinite and in many ways unlike, they formed the germ for the
genesis of the New Testament. (See Weiss. Lehrb. d. Einleit in d. N. T. p. 21 ff.) Further, there were read Epistles and Manifestoes
by apostles, prophets and teachers, but, above all, Epistles of Paul. The Gospels at first stood in no connection with these Epistles,
however high they might be prized. But there did exist a connection between the Gospels and the
, so far as these mediated the tradition of the Evangelic material, and on their testimony rests the Kerygma
of the Church about the Lord as the Teacher, the crucified and risen One. Here lies the germ for the genesis of a canon which
will comprehend the Lord and the Apostles, and will also draw in the Pauline Epistles. Finally, Apocalypses were read as Holy
Scriptures.
191 Read, apart from all others, the canonical Gospels, the remains of the so-called Apocryphal Gospels, and perhaps the Shepherd
of Hermas: see also the statements of Papias.
192 That Peter was in Antioch follows from Gal. II.; that he laboured in Corinth, perhaps before the composition of the first epistle
to the Corinthians, is not so improbable as is usually maintained (1 Cor.; Dionys. of Corinth); that he was at Rome even is very
credible. The sojourn of John in Asia Minor cannot, I think, be contested.
193 See how in the three early writings of Peter (Gospel, Apocalypse, Kerygma) the twelve are embraced in a perfect unity. Peter
is the head and spokesman for them all.
102
162
Adolf Harnack
on his own independent importance, had long ceased to be really understood, and that Peter and
John had also really been missionaries to the Gentiles. The guarantee that was needed for the
teaching of the Lord must finally be given not by Paul, but only by chosen eye-witnesses. The
less that was known about them, the easier it was to claim them. The conviction as to the unanimity
of the twelve, and as to their activity in founding the Gentile Churches, appeared in these Churches
as early as the urgent need of protection against the serious consequences of unfettered religious
enthusiasm and unrestrained religious fancy. This urgency cannot be dated too far back. In
correspondence therewith, the principle of tradition in the Church (Christ, the twelve Apostles) in
the case of those who were intent on the unity and completeness of Christendom, is also very old.
But one passed logically from the Apostles to the disciples of the Apostles, the Elders, without
at first claiming for them any other significance than that of reliable hearers (Apostoli et discentes
ipsorum). In coming down to them, one here and there betook oneself again to real historical ground,
disciples of Paul, of Peter, of John.194 Yet even here legends with a tendency speedily got mixed
with facts, and because, in consequence of this theory of tradition, the Apostle Paul must needs fall
into the background, his disciples also were more or less forgotten. The attempt which we have in
the Pastoral Epistles remained without effect, as regards those to whom these epistles were addressed.
Timothy and Titus obtained no authority outside these epistles. But so far as the epistles of Paul
were collected, diffused, and read, there was created a complex of writings which at first stood
beside the Teaching of the Lord by the twelve Apostles, without being connected with it, and
only obtained such connection by the creation of the New Testament, that is, by the interpolation
of the Acts of the Apostles, between Gospels and Epistles.195
194
195
See Papias and the Reliq. Presbyter. ap. Iren., collecta in Parr. Opp. I. 2, p. 105: see also Zahn, Forschungen. III., p. 156 f.
The Gentile-Christian conception of the significance of the twelvea fact to be specially notedwas all but unanimous (see
above Chap. II.): the only one who broke through it was Marcion. The writers of Asia Minor, Rome and Egypt, coincide in this
point. Beside the Acts of the Apostles, which is specially instructive see 1 Clem. 42; Barn. 5. 9. 8. 3: Didache inscr.; Hermas.
Vis. III. 5, 11; Sim. IX. 15, 16, 17, 25; Petrusev-Petrusapok. Prd. Petr. ap. Clem. Strom. VI. 6, 48; Ignat. ad Trall. 3; ad Rom.
4; ad Philad. 5; Papias; Polyc.; Aristides; Justin passim; inferences from the great work of Irenus, the works of Tertull. and
Clem. Alex.; the Valentinians. The inference that follows from the eschatological hope, that the Gospel has already been preached
to the world, and the growling need of having a tradition mediated by eye-witnesses co-operated here, and out of the twelve who
were in great part obscure, but who had once been authoritative in Jerusalem and Palestine, and highly esteemed in the Christian
Diaspora from the beginning, though unknown, created a court of appeal which presented itself as not only taking a second rank
after the Lord himself, but as the medium through which alone the words of the Lord became the possession of Christendom,
as he neither preached to the nations nor left writings. The importance of the twelve in the main body of the Church may at any
rate be measured by the facts, that the personal activity of Jesus was confined to Palestine, that he left behind him neither a
confession nor a doctrine, and that in this respect the tradition tolerated no more corrections. Attempts which were made in this
direction, the fiction of a semi-Gentile origin of Christ, the denial of the Davidic Sonship, the invention of a correspondence
between Jesus and Abgarus, meeting of Jesus with Greeks, and much else, belong only in part to the earliest period, and remained
as really inoperative as they were uncertain (according to Clem. Alex., Jesus himself is the Apostle to the Jews; the twelve are
the Apostles to the Gentiles in Euseb. H. E. VI. 14). The notion about the helve Apostles evangelising the world in accordance
with the commission of Jesus, is consequently to be considered as the means by which the Gentile Christians got rid of the
inconvenient fact of the merely local activity of Jesus. (Compare how Justin expresses himself about the Apostles: their going
out into all the world is to him one of the main articles predicted in the Old Testament, Apol. 1. 39; compare also the Apology
of Aristides, c. 2, and the passage of similar tenor in the Ascension of Isaiah, where the adventus XII. discipulorum is regarded
as one of the fundamental facts of salvation, c. 3. 13, ed. Dillmann, p. 13, and a passage such as Iren. fragm. XXIX. in Harvey
II., p. 494, where the parable about the grain of mustard seed is applied to the , and the twelve Apostles; the
Apostles are the branches
Hippol., de Antichr. 61. Orig c. Cels. III. 28.) This means, as it was empty of
contents, was very soon to prove the very most convenient instrument for establishing ever new historical connections, and
legitimising the status quo in the communities. Finally, the whole catholic idea of tradition was rooted in that statement which
103
Adolf Harnack
was already, at the close of the first century, formulated by Clement of Rome (c. 42):
, . ,
... Here, as in all similar statements which elevate the Apostles
into the history of revelation, the unanimity of all the Apostles is always presupposed, so that the statement of Clem. Alex.
(Strom. VII., 17, 108: ; see Tertull., de
prscr. 32: Apostoli non diversa inter se docuerent, Iren. alii), contains no innovation, but gives expression to an old idea.
That the twelve unitedly proclaimed one and the same message, that they proclaimed it to the world, that they were chosen to
this vocation by Christ, that the communities possess the witness of the Apostles as their rule of conduct (Excerp. ex Theod. 25.
, are authoritative theses which can be
traced back as far as we have any remains of Gentile-Christian literature. It was thereby presupposed that the unanimous kerygma
of the twelve Apostles, which the communities possess as (1 Clem. 7), was public and accessible to all.
Yet the idea does not seem to have been everywhere kept at a distance, that besides the kerygma a still deeper knowledge was
transmitted by the Apostles, or by certain Apostles, to particular Christians who were specially gifted. Of course we have no
direct evidence of this; but the connection in which certain Gnostic unions stood at the beginning with the communities developing
themselves to Catholicism, and inferences from utterances of later writers (Clem. Alex. Tertull.), make it probable that this
conception was present in the communities here and there even in the age of the so-called Apostolic Fathers. It may be definitely
said that the peculiar idea of tradition ( ) in the Gentile Churches is very old,
but that it was still limited in its significance at the beginning, and was threatened (1) by a wider conception of the idea Apostle
(besides, the fact is important, that Asia Minor and Rome were the very places where a stricter idea of Apostle made its
appearance: See my Edition of the Didache, p. 117); (2) by free prophets and teachers moved by the Spirit, who introduced new
conceptions and rules, and whose word was regarded as the word of God; (3) by the assumption, not always definitely rejected,
that besides the public tradition of the kerygma there was a secret tradition. That Paul, as a rule, was not included in this high
estimate of the Apostles is shewn by this fact, among others, that the earlier Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles are much less
occupied with his person than with the rest of the Apostles. The features of the old legends which make the Apostles in their
deeds, their fate, nay, even in appearance as far as possible equal to the person of Jesus himself, deserve special consideration,
(see, for example, the descent of the Apostles into hell in Herm. Sim. IX. 16); for it is just here that the fact above established,
that the activity of the Apostles was to make up for the want of the activity of Jesus himself among the nations, stands clearly
out. (See Acta Johannis ed. Zahn, p. 246: , ,
, also the remarkable declaration of Origen about the Chronicle [Hadrian], that what holds
good of Christ, is in that Chronicle transferred to Peter; finally we may recall to mind the visions in which an Apostolic suddenly
appears as Christ.) Between the judgment of value: , and those creations of
fancy in which the Apostles appear as gods and demigods, there is certainly a great interval; but it can be proved that there are
stages lying between the extreme points. It is therefore permissible to call to mind here the oldest Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles,
although they may have originated almost completely in Gnostic circles (see also the Pistis Sophia which brings a metaphysical
theory to the establishment of the authority of the Apostles, p. 11, 14, see Texte u. Unters. VII. 2. p. 61 ff.). Gnosticism here, as
frequently elsewhere, is related to common Christianity, as excess progressing to the invention of a myth with a tendency, to a
historical theorem determined by the effort to maintain ones own position, (cf. the article from the kerygma of Peter in Clem.
Strom. VI. 6, 48: , ..., the introduction to the basal writing of the first 6 books of the
Apostolic Constitutions, and the introduction to the Egyptian ritual, , ...). Besides, it must
be admitted that the origin of the idea of tradition and its connection with the twelve, is obscure: what is historically reliable
here has still to be investigated; even the work of Seufert (Der Urspr. u. d. Bedeutung des Apostolats in der christl. Kirche der
ersten zwei Jahrhunderte, 1887) has not cleared up the dark points. We will, perhaps, get more light by following the important
hint given by Weizcker (Apost. Age, p. 13 ff.) that Peter was the first witness of the resurrection, and was called such in the
kerygma of the communities (see 1 Cor. XV. 5: Luke XXIV. 34). The twelve Apostles are also further called
(Mrc. fin. in L. Ign. ad Smyrn. 3; cf. Luke VIII. 45; Acts. II. 14; Gal. I. 18 f; 1 Cor. XV. 5), and it is a correct historical
reminiscence when Chrysostom says (Hom. in Joh. 88),
. Now, as Peter was really in personal relation with important Gentile-Christian communities, that which held
good of him, the recognized head and spokesman of the twelve, was perhaps transferred to these. One has finally to remember
that besides the appeal to the twelve there was in the Gentile Churches an appeal to Peter and Paul (but not for the evangelic
kerygma), which has a certain historical justification; cf. Gal. II. 8; 1 Cor. I. 12 f., IX. 5; I Clem. Ign. ad Rom. 4, and the numerous
later passages. Paul in claiming equality with Peter, though Peter was the head and mouth of the twelve and had himself been
active in mission work, has perhaps contributed most towards spreading the authority of the twelve. It is notable how rarely we
find any special appeal to John in the tradition of the main body of the Church. For the middle of the 2nd century, the authority
of the twelve Apostles may be expressed in the following statements: (1) They were missionaries for the world; (2) They ruled
the Church and established Church Offices; (3) They guaranteed the true doctrine, (a) by the tradition going back to them, (b)
104
Adolf Harnack
3. The Main Articles of Christianity and the Conceptions of Salvation. Eschatology.

163
164
165
166
167
1. The main articles of Christianity were (1) belief in God the , and in the Son in virtue
of proofs from prophecy, and the teaching of the Lord as attested by the Apostles; (2) discipline
according to the standard of the words of the Lord; (3) baptism; (4) the common offering of prayer,
culminating in the Lords Supper and the holy meal; (5) the sure hope of the nearness of Christs
glorious kingdom. In these appears the unity of Christendom, that is, of the Church which possesses
the Holy Spirit.196 On the basis of this unity Christian knowledge was free and manifold. It was
distinguished as , , , ( ), from the
, and the , and the (Barn. 16, 9, similarly
Hermas). Perception and knowledge of Divine things was a Charism, possessed only by individuals;
but, like all Charisms, it was to be used for the good of the whole. In so far as every actual perception
was a perception produced by the Spirit, it was regarded as important and indubitable truth, even
though some Christians were unable to understand it. While attention was given to the firm
inculcation and observance of the moral precepts of Christ, as well as to the awakening of sure
faith in Christ, and while all waverings and differences were excluded in respect of these, there
was absolutely no current doctrine of faith in the communities, in the sense of a completed theory;
and the theological speculations of even closely related Christian writers of this epoch, exhibit, the
greatest differences.197 The productions of fancy, the terrible or consoling pictures of the future
pass for sacred knowledge, just as much as intelligent and sober reflections, and edifying
interpretation of Old Testament sayings. Even that which was afterwards separated as Dogmatic
and Ethics was then in no way distinguished.198 The communities gave expression in the cultus,
chiefly in the hymns and prayers, to what they possessed in their God and their Christ; here sacred
formul were fashioned and delivered to the members.199 The problem of surrendering the world
in the hope of a life beyond was regarded as the practical side of the faith, and the unity in temper
and disposition resting on faith in the saving revelation of God in Christ, permitted the highest
degree of freedom in knowledge, the results of which were absolutely without control as soon as
the preacher or the writer was recognised as a true teacher, that is inspired by the Spirit of God.200
There was also in wide circles a conviction that the Christian faith, after the night of error, included
by writings; (4) They are the ideals of Christian life; (5) They are also directly mediators of salvationthough this point is
uncertain.
196 See , c. 1-10, with parallel passages.
197 Cf., for example, the first epistle of Clement to the Corinthians with the Shepherd of Hermas. Both documents originated in
Rome.
198 Compare how dogmatic and ethical elements are inseparably united in the Shepherd, in first and second Clement, as well as in
Polycarp and Justin.
199 Note the hymnal parts of the Revelation of John, the great prayer with which the first epistle of Clement closes, the carmen
dicere Christo quasi deo reported by Pliny, the eucharist prayer in the , the hymn 1 Tim. III. 16, the fragments from the
prayers which Justin quotes, and compare with these the declaration of the anonymous writer in Euseb. H. E. V. 28. 5, that the
belief of the earliest Christians in the Deity of Christ might be proved from the old Christian hymns and odes. In the epistles of
Ignatius the theology frequently consists of an aimless stringing together of articles manifestly originating in hymns and the
cultus.
200 The prophet and teacher express what the Spirit of God suggest to them. Their word is therefore Gods word, and their writings,
in so far as they apply to the whole of Christendom, are inspired, holy writings. Further, not only does Acts XV. 22 f. exhibit
the formula; (see similar passages in the Acts), but the Roman writings also appeal to the
105
Adolf Harnack
the full knowledge of everything worth knowing, that precisely in its most important articles it is
accessible to men of every degree of culture, and that in it, in the now attained truth, is contained
one of the most essential blessings of Christianity. When it is said in the Epistle of Barnabas (II.
2. 3); ,
, , ,
, , knowledge appears in this classic formula to be an essential element in
Christianity, conditioned by faith and the practical virtues, and dependent on them. Faith takes the
lead, knowledge follows it: but of course in concrete cases it could not always be decided what was
, which implicitly contained the highest knowledge, and what the special ;
for in the last resort the nature of the two was regarded as identical, both being represented as
produced by the Spirit of God.
2. The conceptions of Christian salvation, or of redemption, were grouped around two ideas, which
were themselves but loosely connected with each other, and of which the one influenced more the
temper and the imagination, the other the intellectual faculty. On the one hand, salvation, in
accordance with the earliest preaching, was regarded as the glorious kingdom which was soon to
appear on earth with the visible return of Christ, which will bring the present course of the world
to an end, and introduce for a definite series of centuries, before the final judgment, a new order
of all things to the joy and blessedness of the saints.201 In connection with this the hope of the
168
Holy Spirit (1 Clem. 63. 2): likewise Barnabas, Ignatius, etc. Even in the controversy about the baptism of heretics a Bishop
gave his vote with the formula secundum motum animi mei et spiritus sancti (Cypr. Opp. ed. Hartel. I. p. 457).
201 The so-called Chiliasmthe designation is unsuitable and misleadingis found wherever the Gospel is not yet Hellenised (see,
for example, Barn. 4. 15; Hermas; 2 Clem.; Papias [Euseb. III. 39]; , 10. 16; Apoc. Petri; Justin, Dial. 32, 51, 80, 82, 110,
139; Cerinthus), and must be regarded as a main element of the Christian preaching (see my article Millenium in the Encycl.
Brit.). In it lay not the least of the power of Christianity in the first century, and the means whereby it entered the Jewish
propaganda in the Empire and surpassed it. The hopes springing out of Judaism were at first but little modified, that is, only so
far as the substitution of the Christian communities for the nation of Israel made modification necessary. In all else, even the
details of the Jewish hopes of the future were retained, and the extra-canonical Jewish Apocalypses (Esra, Enoch, Baruch, Moses,
etc.) were diligently read alongside of Daniel. Their contents were in part joined on to sayings of Jesus, and they served as models
for similar productions (here, therefore, an enduring connection with the Jewish religion is very plain). In the Christian hopes
of the future, as in the Jewish eschatology, may be distinguished essential and accidental, fixed and fluid elements To the former
belong (1) the notion of a final fearful conflict with the powers of the world which is just about to break out ,
(2) belief in the speedy return of Christ, (3) the conviction that after conquering the secular power (this was variously conceived,
as Gods Ministers, as that which restrains2 Thess. II. 6, as a pure kingdom of Satan; see the various estimates in Justin,
Melito, Irenus and Hyppolytus), Christ will establish a glorious kingdom on the earth, and will raise the saints to share in that
kingdom, and (4) that he will finally judge all men. To the fluid elements belong the notions of the Antichrist, or of the secular
power culminating in the Antichrist, as well as notions about the place, the extent, and the duration of Christs glorious kingdom.
But it is worthy of special note, that Justin regarded the belief that Christ will set up his kingdom in Jerusalem, and that it will
endure for 1000 years, as a necessary element of orthodoxy, though he confesses he knew Christians who did not share this
belief, while they did not, like the pseudo-Christians, reject also the resurrection of the body (the promise of Montanus that
Christs kingdom would be let down at Pepuza and Tymion is a thing by itself, and answers to the other promises and pretensions
of Montanus). The resurrection of the body is expressed in the Roman Symbol, while, very notably, the hope of Christs earthly
kingdom is not there mentioned, (see above, p. 157). The great inheritance which the Gentile Christian communities received
from Judaism, is the eschatological hopes, along with the Monotheism assured by revelation and belief in providence. The law
as a national law was abolished. The Old Testament became a new book in the hands of the Gentile Christians. On the contrary,
the eschatological hopes in all their details, and with all the deep shadows which they threw on the state and public life, were at
106
169
170
Adolf Harnack
resurrection of the body occupied the foreground.202 On the other hand, salvation appeared to be
given in the truth, that is, in the complete and certain knowledge of God, as contrasted with the
error of heathendom and the night of sin, and this truth included the certainty of the gift of eternal
life, and all conceivable spiritual blessings.203 Of these the community, so far as it is a community
of saints, that is, so far as it is ruled by the Spirit of God, already possesses forgiveness of sins and
first received, and maintained themselves in wide circles pretty much unchanged, and only succumbed in some of their details
just as in Judaismto the changes which resulted from the constant change of the political situation. But these hopes were also
destined in great measure to pass away after the settlement of Christianity on Grco-Roman soil. We may set aside the fact that
they did not occupy the foreground in Paul, for we do not know whether this was of importance for the period that followed.
But that Christ would set up the kingdom in Jerusalem, and that it would be an earthly kingdom with sensuous enjoymentsthese
and other notions contend, on the one hand, with the vigorous antijudaism of the communities, and on the other, with the moralistic
spiritualism, in the pure carrying out of which the Gentile Christians, in the East at least, increasingly recognised the essence of
Christianity. Only the vigorous world-renouncing enthusiasm which did not permit the rise of moralistic spiritualism and
mysticism, and the longing for a time of joy and dominion that was born of it, protected for a long time a series of ideas which
corresponded to the spiritual disposition of the great multitude of converts, only at times of special oppression. Moreover, the
Christians, in opposition to Judaism, were, as a rule, instructed to obey magistrates, whose establishment directly contradicted
the judgment of the state contained in the Apocalypses. In such a conflict, however, that judgment necessarily conquers at last,
which makes as little change as possible in the existing forms of life. A history of the gradual attenuation and subsidence of
eschatological hopes in the II.-IV. centuries can only be written in fragments. They have rarelyat best, by fits and startsmarked
out the course. On the contrary, if I may say so, they only gave the smoke: for the course was pointed out by the abiding elements
of the Gospel, trust in God and the Lord Christ, the resolution to a holy life, and a firm bond of brotherhood. The quiet, gradual
change in which the eschatological hopes passed away, fell into the background, or lost important parts, was, on the other hand,
a result of deep-reaching changes in the faith and life of Christendom. Chiliasm as a power was broken up by speculative
mysticism, and on that account very much later in the West than in the East. But speculative mysticism has its centre in christology.
In the earliest period, this, as a theory, belonged more to the defence of religion than to religion itself. Ignatius alone was able
to reflect on that transference of power from Christ which Paul had experienced. The disguises in which the apocalyptic
eschatological prophecies were set forth, belonged in part to the form of this literature, (in so far as one could easily be given
the lie if he became too plain, or in so far as the prophet really saw the future only in large outline), partly it had to be chosen in
order not to give political offence. See Hippol., comm. in Daniel (Georgiades, p. 49, 51:
); by above all, Constantine, orat. ad. s. ctum 19, on some verses of Virgil which are interpreted in a Christian sense, but
that none of the rulers in the capital might be able to accuse their author of violating the laws of the state with his poetry, or of
destroying the traditional ideas of the procedure about the gods, he concealed the truth under a veil. That holds good also of
the Apocalyptists and the poets of the Christian Sibylline sayings.
202 The hope of the resurrection of the body (1 Clem. 26. 3: . Herm. Sim. V. 7. 2:
. Barn. 5. 6 f.: 21. 1: 2 Clem. 1:
. Polyc. Ep. 7. 2: Justin, Dial. 80 etc.,) finds its place originally in the hope of a share
in the glorious kingdom of Christ. It therefore disappears or is modified wherever that hope itself falls into the background. But
it finally asserted itself throughout and became of independent importance, in a new structure of eschatological expectations, in
which it attained the significance of becoming the specific conviction of Christian faith. With the hope of the resurrection of the
body was originally connected the hope of a happy life in easy blessedness, under green trees in magnificent fields with joyous
feeding flocks, and flying angels clothed in white. One must read the Revelation of Peter, the Shepherd, or the Acts of Perpetua
and Felicitas, in order to see how entirely the fancy of many Christians, and not merely of those who were uncultured, dwelt in
a fairyland in which they caught sight now of the Ancient of Days, and now of the Youthful Shepherd, Christ. The most fearful
delineations of the torments of Hell formed the reverse side to this. We now know, through the Apocalypse of Peter, how old
these delineations are.
203 The perfect knowledge of the truth and eternal life are connected in the closest way (see p. 144, note 1), because the Father of
truth is also Prince of life (see Diognet. 12:
, see also what follows). The classification is a Hellenic one, which has certainly penetrated also into
Palestinian Jewish theology. It may be reckoned among the great intuitions, which in the fulness of the times, united the religious
and reflective minds of all nations. The Pauline formula, Where there is forgiveness of sin, there also is life and salvation, had
for centuries no distinct history. But the formula, Where there is truth, perfect knowledge, there also is eternal life, has had
the richest history in Christendom from the beginning. Quite apart from John, it is older than the theology of the Apologists (see,
for example, the Supper prayer in the Didache, 9. 10, where there is no mention of the forgiveness of sin, but thanks are given,
107
171
172
Adolf Harnack
righteousness. But, as a rule, neither blessing was understood in a strictly religious sense, that is to
say, the effect of their religious sense was narrowed. The moralistic view, in which eternal life is
the wages and reward of a perfect moral life wrought out essentially by ones own power, took the
place of first importance at a very early period. On this view, according to which the righteousness
of God is revealed in punishment and reward alike, the forgiveness of sin only meant a single
remission of sin in connection with entrance into the Church by baptism,204 and righteousness
became identical with virtue. The idea is indeed still operative, especially in the oldest
Gentile-Christian writings known to us, that sinlessness rests upon a new creation (regeneration)
which is effected in baptism;205 but, so far as dissimilar eschatological hopes do not operate, it is
everywhere in danger of being supplanted by the other idea, which maintains that there is no other
blessing in the Gospel than the perfect truth and eternal life. All else is but a sum of obligations in
which the Gospel is presented as a new law. The christianising of the Old Testament supported this
conception. There was indeed an opinion that the Gospel, even so far as it is a law, comprehends
a gift of salvation which is to be grasped by faith ( ,206 .
,207 Christ himself the law);208 but this notion, as it is obscure in itself, was also an
uncertain one and was gradually lost. Further, by the law was frequently meant in the first place,
, or , and 1 Clem.
36. 2: ). It is capable of a very manifold content, and
has never made its way in the Church without reservations, but so far as it has we may speak of a hellenising of Christianity.
This is shewn most clearly in the fact that the , identical with and , as is proved by their being
often interchanged, gradually supplanted the () and thrust it out of the sphere of religious intuition
and hope into that of religious speech. It should also be noted at the same time, that in the hope of eternal life which is bestowed
with the knowledge of the truth, the resurrection of the body is by no means with certainty included. It is rather added to it (see
above) from another series of ideas. Conversely, the words were first added to the words in
the western Symbols at a comparatively late period, while in the prayers they are certainly very old.
204 Even the assumption of such a remission is fundamentally in contradiction with moralism; but that solitary remission of sin was
not called in question, was rather regarded as distinctive of the new religion, and was established by an appeal to the omnipotence
and special goodness of God, which appears just in the calling of sinners. In this calling, grace as grace is exhausted (Barn. 5.
9; 2 Clem. 2. 4-7). But this grace itself seems to be annulled, inasmuch as the sins committed before baptism were regarded as
having been committed in a state of ignorance (Tertull. de bapt. I.: delicta pristin ccitatis), ou account of which it seemed
worthy of God to forgive them, that is, to accept the repentance which followed on the ground of the new knowledge. So
considered, everything, in point of fact, amounts to the gracious gift of knowledge, and the memory of the saying, Jesus receiveth
sinners, is completely obscured. But the tradition of this saying and many like it, and above all, the religious instinct, where it
was more powerfully stirred, did not permit a consistent development of that moralistic conception. See for this, Hermas. Sim.
V. 7. 3: . Prd. Petri ap.
Clem. Strom. VI. 6. 48: , ,
. Aristides, Apol. 17: The Christians offer prayers (for the unconverted Greeks) that they may be
converted from their error. But when one of them is converted he is ashamed before the Christians of the works which he has
done. And he confesses to God, saying: I have done these things in ignorance. And he cleanses his heart, and his sins are
forgiven him, because he had done them in ignorance, in the earlier period when he mocked and jeered at the true knowledge
of the Christians. Exactly the same in Tertull. de pudic. 10. init. The statement of this same writer (1. c. fin), Cessatio delicti
radix est veni, ut venia sit pnitenti fructus, is a pregnant expression of the conviction of the earliest Gentile Christians.
205 This idea appears with special prominence in the Epistle of Barnabas (see 6. II. 14); the new formation () results
through the forgiveness of sin. In the moralistic view the forgiveness of sin is the result of the renewal that is spontaneously
brought about on the ground of knowledge shewing itself in penitent feeling.
206 Barn. 2. 6, and my notes on the passage.
207 James I. 25.
208 Hermas. Sim. VIII. 3. 2; Justin Dial. II. 43; Praed. Petri in Clem., Strom. I. 29. 182; II. 15. 68.
108
Adolf Harnack
not the law of love, but the commandments of ascetic holiness, or an explanation and a turn were
given to the law of love, according to which it is to verify itself above all in asceticism.209
The expression of the contents of the Gospel in the concepts ( )
() (), seemed quite as plain as it was exhaustive, and the importance of
faith which was regarded as the basis of hope and knowledge and obedience in a holy life, was at
the same time in every respect perceived.210
173
Supplement 1.The moralistic view of sin, forgiveness of sin, and righteousness, in Clement,
Barnabas, Polycarp and Ignatius, gives place to Pauline formul; but the uncertainty with which
these are reproduced, shews that the Pauline idea has not been clearly seen.211 In Hermas, however,
and in the second Epistle of Clement, the consciousness of being under grace, even after baptism,
almost completely disappears behind the demand to fulfil the tasks which baptiser imposes.212 The
idea that serious sins, in the case of the baptised, no longer should or can be forgiven, except under
special circumstances, appears to have prevailed in wide circles, if not everywhere.213 It reveals the
earnestness of those early Christians and their elevated sense of freedom and power; but it might
be united either with the highest moral intensity, or with a lax judgment on the little sins of the day.
The latter, in point of fact, threatened to become more and more the presupposition and result of
that ideafor there exists here a fatal reciprocal action.
Supplement 2.The realisation of salvationas and as being
expected from the future, the whole present possession of salvation might be comprehended under
the title of vocation (): see, for example, the second Epistle of Clement. In this sense gnosis
itself was regarded as something only preparatory.
Supplement 3.In some circles the Pauline formula about righteousness and salvation by faith
alone, must, it would appear, not infrequently (as already in the Apostolic age itself) have been
partly misconstrued, and partly taken advantage of as a cloak for laxity. Those who resisted such
a disposition, and therefore also the formula in the post-Apostolic age, shew indeed by their
opposition how little they have hit upon or understood the Pauline idea of faith: for they not only
issued the watchword faith and works (though the Jewish ceremonial law was not thereby meant),
209
Didache, c I., and my notes on the passage (Prolegg. p. 45 f.).

The concepts , , , form the Triad on which the later catholic conception of Christianity is based, though
it can he proved to have been in existence at an earlier period. That must everywhere take the lead was undoubted, though
we must not think of the Pauline idea of . When the Apostolic Fathers reflect upon faith, which, however, happens only
incidentally, they mean a holding for true of a sum of holy traditions, and obedience to them, along with the hope that their
consoling contents will yet be fully revealed. But Ignatius speaks like a Christian who knows what he possesses in faith in Christ,
that is, in confidence in him. In Barn. I.: Polyc. Ep. 2, we find faith, hope love; in Ignatius, faith and love. Tertullian, in an
excellent exposition, has shewn how far patience is a temper corresponding to Christian faith (see besides the Epistle of James).
211 See Lipsius De Clementis. R. ep ad. Cor. priore disquis. 1855. It would be in point of method inadmissible to conclude from the
fact that in 1 Clem. Pauline formul are relatively most faithfully produced, that Gentile Christianity generally understood
Pauline theology at first, but gradually lost this understanding in the course of two generations.
212 Formally: (2 Clem. 8. 6.)
213 Hermas (Mand. IV. 3) and Justin presuppose it. Hermas of course sought and found a way of meeting the results of that idea
which were threatening the Church with decimation; but he did not question the idea itself. Because Christendom is a community
of saints which has in its midst the sure salvation, all its membersthis is the necessary inferencemust lead a sinless life.
210
109
174
175
Adolf Harnack
but they admitted, and not only hypothetically, that one might have the true faith even though in
his case that faith remained dead or united with immorality. See, above all, the Epistle of James
and the Shepherd of Hermas; though the first Epistle of John comes also into consideration (III. 7:
He that doeth righteousness is righteous).214
Supplement 4.However similar the eschatological expectations of the Jewish Apocalyptists and
the Christians may seem, there is yet in one respect an important difference between them. The
uncertainty about the final consummation was first set aside by the Gospel. It should be noted as
highly characteristic of the Jewish hopes of the future, even of the most definite, how the beginning
of the end, that is, the overthrow of the world-powers and the setting up of the earthly kingdom of
God, was much more certainly expressed than the goal and the final end. Neither the general
judgment, nor what we, according to Christian tradition, call heaven and hell, should be described
as a sure possession of Jewish faith in the primitive Christian period. It is only in the Gospel of
Christ, where everything is subordinated to the idea of a higher righteousness and the union of the
individual with God, that the general judgment and the final condition after it are the clear, firmly
grasped goal of all meditation. No doctrine has been more surely preserved in the convictions and
preaching of believers in Christ than this. Fancy might roam ever so much and, under the direction
of the tradition, thrust bright and precious images between the present condition and the final end,
the main thing continued to be the great judgment of the world, and the certainty that the saints
would go to God in heaven, the wicked to hell. But while the judgment, as a rule, was connected
with the Person of Jesus himself (see the Romish Symbol: the words ,
were very frequently applied to Christ in the earliest writings), the moral condition of the individual,
and the believing recognition of the Person of Christ were put in the closest relation. The Gentile
Christians held firmly to this. Open the Shepherd, or the second Epistle of Clement, or any other
early Christian writing, and you will find that the judgment, heaven and hell, are the decisive objects.
But that shews that the moral character of Christianity as a religion is seen and adhered to. The
fearful idea of hell, far from signifying a backward step in the history of the religious spirit, is rather
a proof of its having rejected the morally indifferent point of view, and of its having become
sovereign in union with the ethical spirit.
4. The Old Testament as Source of the Knowledge of Faith.215
The sayings of the Old Testament, the word of God, were believed to furnish inexhaustible material
for deeper knowledge. The Christian prophets were nurtured on the Old Testament, the teachers
gathered from it the revelation of the past, present and future (Barn. 1. 7), and were therefore able
as prophets to edify the Churches; from it was further drawn the confirmation of the answers to all
214
The formula, righteousness by faith alone, was really repressed in the second century; but it could not he entirely destroyed:
see my Essay, Gesch. d. Seligkeit allein durch den Glauben in der alten K. Ztsch. f. Theol, u. Kirche. I. pp. 82-105.
215 The only thorough discussion of the use of the Old Testament by an Apostolic Father, and of its authority, that we possess, is
Wredes Untersuchungen zum 1 Clementsbrief (1891). Excellent preliminary investigations, which, however, are not everywhere
quite reliable, may be found in Hatchs Essays in Biblical Greek, 1889. Hatch has taken up again the hypothesis of earlier
scholars, that there were very probably in the first and second centuries systematised extracts from the Old Testament (see pp.
203-214). The hypothesis is not yet quite establised (see Wrede, above work, p. 65), but yet it is hardly to be rejected. The Jewish
catechetical and missionary instruction in the Diaspora needed such collections, and their existence seem to be proved by the
Christian Apologies and the Sybilline books.
110
176
177
Adolf Harnack
emergent questions, as one could always find in the Old Testament what he was in search of. The
different writers laid the holy book under contribution in very much the same way; for they were
all dominated by the presupposition that this book is a Christian book, and contains the explanations
that are necessary for the occasion. There were several teachers,e.g., Barnabas,who at a very
early period boasted of finding in it ideas of special profundity and valuethese were always an
expression of the difficulties that were being felt. The plain words of the Lord as generally known,
did not seem sufficient to satisfy the craving for knowledge, or to solve the problems that were
emerging;216 their origin and form also opposed difficulties at first to the attempt to obtain from
them new disclosures by re-interpretation. But the Old Testament sayings and histories were in
part unintelligible, or in their literal sense offensive; they were at the same time regarded as
fundamental words of God. This furnished the conditions for turning them to account in the way
we have stated. The following are the most important points of view under which the Old Testament
was used. (1) The Monotheistic cosmology and view of nature were borrowed from it (see, for
example, 1 Clem.). (2) It was used to prove that the appearance and entire history of Jesus had been
foretold centuries, nay, thousands of years beforehand, and that the founding of a new people
gathered out of all nations had been predicted and prepared for from the very beginning.217 (3) It
was used as a means of verifying all principles and institutions of the Christian Church,the
spiritual worship of God without images, the abolition of all ceremonial legal precepts, baptism,
etc. (4) The Old Testament was used for purposes of exhortation according to the formula a minori
ad majus ; if God then punished and rewarded this or that in such a way, how much more may we
expect, who now stand in the last days, and have received the . (5) It was
proved from the Old Testament that the Jewish nation is in error, and either never had a covenant
with God or has lost it, that it has a false apprehension of Gods revelations, and therefore has, now
at least, no longer any claim to their possession. But beyond all this, (6) there were in the Old
Testament books, above all, in the Prophets and in the Psalms, a great number of
sayingsconfessions of trust in God and of help received from God, of humility and holy courage,
216
It is an extremely important fact that the words of the Lord were quoted and applied in their literal sense (that is chiefly for the
statement of Christian morality) by Ecclesiastical authors, almost without exception. up to and inclusive of Justin. It was different
with the theologians of the age, that is the Gnostics, and the Fathers from Irenus.
217 Justin was not the first to do so, for it had already been done by the so-called Barnabas (see especially c. 13) and others. On the
proofs from prophecy see my Texte und Unters. Bd. I. 3. pp. 56-74. The passage in the Praed. Petri (Clem. Strom. VI. 15. 128)
is very complete: ,
; ,
, ,
,
. With the help of the Old Testament the teachers dated back the Christian
religion to the beginning of the human race, and joined the preparations for the founding of the Christian community with the
creation of the world. The Apologists were not the first to do so, for Barnabas and Hermas, and before these, Paul, the author
of the Epistle to the Hebrews, and others had already done the same. This was undoubtedly to the cultured classes one of the
most impressive articles in the missionary preaching. The Christian religion in this way got a hold which the otherswith the
exception of the Jewishlacked. But for that very reason, we must guard against turning it into a formula, that the Gentile
Christians had comprehended the Old Testament essentially through the scheme of prediction and fulfilment. The Old Testament
is certainly the book of predictions, but for that very reason the complete revelation of God which needs no additions and excludes
subsequent changes. The historical fulfilment only proves to the world the truth of those revelations. Even the scheme of shadow
and reality is yet entirely out of sight. In such circumstances the question necessarily arises, as to what independent meaning
and significance Christs appearance could have, apart from that confirmation of the Old Testament. But, apart from the Gnostics,
a surprisingly long time passed before this question was raised, that is to say, it was not raised till the time of Irenus.
111
Adolf Harnack
testimonies of a world-overcoming faith and words of comfort, love and communionwhich were
too exalted for any cavilling, and intelligible to every spiritually awakened mind. Out of this treasure
which was handed down to the Greeks and Romans, the Church edified herself, and in the perception
of its riches was largely rooted the conviction that the holy book must in every line contain the
highest truth.
178
179
The point mentioned under (5) needs, however, further explanation. The self-consciousness of the
Christian community of being the people of God, must have been, above all, expressed in its position
towards Judaism, whose mere existenceeven apart from actual assaultsthreatened that
consciousness most seriously. A certain antipathy of the Greeks and Romans towards Judaism
co-operated here with a law of self-preservation. On all hands, therefore, Judaism as it then existed
was abandoned as a sect judged and rejected by God, as a society of hypocrites,218 as a synagogue
of Satan,219 as a people seduced by an evil angel,220 and the Jews were declared to have no further
right to the possession of the Old Testament. Opinions differed, however, as to the earlier history
of the nation and its relation to the true God. While some denied that there ever had been a covenant
of salvation between God and this nation, and in this respect recognised only an intention of God,221
which was never carried out because of the idolatry of the people, others admitted in a hazy way
that a relation did exist; but even they referred all the promises of the Old Testament to the Christian
people.222 While the former saw in the observance of the letter of the law, in the case of circumcision,
sabbath, precepts as to food, etc., a proof of the special devilish temptation to which the Jewish
people succumbed,223 the latter saw in circumcision a sign224 given by God, and in virtue of certain
considerations acknowledged that the literal observance of the law was for the time Gods intention
and command, though righteousness never came from such observance. Yet even they saw in the
spiritual the alone true sense, which the Jews had denied, and were of opinion that the burden of
ceremonies was a pdagogic necessity with reference to a people stiff-necked and prone to idolatry,
218
See , 8.
See the Revelation of John II. 9: III. 9; but see also the Jews in the Gospels of John and Peter. The latter exonerates Pilate
almost completely, and makes the Jews and Herod responsible for the crucifixion.
220 See Barn. 9. 4. In the second epistle of Clement the Jews are called: , cf. Prd. Petri in Clem. Strom.
VI. 5. 41: ,
, , , ,
, , , . (Cf. Diognet. 34.) Even Justin does not judge the Jews
more favourably than the Gentiles, but less favourably; see Apol. I. 37, 39, 43, 44, 47, 53, 60. On the other hand, Aristides (Apol.
c. 14, especially in the Syrian text) is much more friendly disposed to the Jews and recognises them more. The words of Pionius
against and about the Jews in the Acta Pionii, c. 4, are very instructive.
221 Barn. 4. 6. f.: 14. 1. f. The author of Prd. Petri must have had a similar view of the matter.
222 Justin in the Dialogue with Trypho.
223 Barn. 9. f. It is a thorough misunderstanding of Barnabas position towards the Old Testament to suppose it possible to pass over
his expositions, c. 6-10, as oddities and caprices, and put them aside as indifferent or unmethodical. There is nothing here
unmethodical, and therefore nothing arbitrary. Barnabas strictly spiritual idea of God, and the conviction that all (Jewish)
ceremonies are of the devil, compel his explanations. These are so little ingenious conceits to Barnabas that, but for them, he
would have been forced to give up the Old Testament altogether. The account, for example, of Abraham having circumcised his
slaves would have forced Barnabas to annul the whole authority of the Old Testament if he had not succeeded in giving it a
particular interpretation. He does this by combining other passages of Genesis with the narrative, and then finding in it no longer
circumcision, but a prediction of the crucified Christ.
224 Barn 9. 6: .
219
112
Adolf Harnack
i.e., a defence of monotheism, and gave an interpretation to the sign of circumcision which made
it no longer a blessing, but rather the mark for the execution of judgment on Israel.225
Israel was thus at all times the pseudo-Church. The older people does not in reality precede the
younger people, the Christians, even in point of time; for though the Church appeared only in the
last days, it was foreseen and created by God from the beginning. The younger people is therefore
really the older, and the new law rather the original law.226 The Patriarchs, Prophets, and men of
God, however, who were favoured with the communication of Gods words, have nothing inwardly
in common with the Jewish people. They are Gods elect who were distinguished by a holy walk,
and must be regarded as the forerunners and fathers of the Christian people.227 To the question how
such holy men appeared exclusively, or almost exclusively, among the Jewish people, the documents
preserved to us yield no answer.
5. The Knowledge of God and of the World. Estimate of the World.
180
The knowledge of faith was, above all, the knowledge of God as one, supramundane, spiritual,228
and almighty (); God is creator and governor of the world and therefore the Lord.229
But as he created the world a beautiful ordered whole (monotheistic view of nature)230 for the sake
225
See the expositions of Justin in the Dial. (especially, 16, 18, 20, 30, 40-46); Von Engelhardt, Christenthum Justins, p. 429.
ff. Justin has the three estimates side by side. (1) That the ceremonial law was a pdagogic measure of God with reference to a
stiff-necked people prone to idolatry. (2) That itlike circumcisionwas to make the people conspicuous for the execution of
judgment, according to the Divine appointment. (3) That in the ceremonial legal worship of the Jews is exhibited the special
depravity and wickedness of the nation. But Justin conceived the Decalogue as the natural law of reason, and therefore definitely
distinguished it from the ceremonial law.
226 See Ztschr. fr K. G, I., p. 330 f.
227 This is the unanimous opinion of all writers of the post-Apostolic age. Christians are the true Israel; and therefore all Israels
predicates of honour belong to them. They are the twelve tribes, and therefore Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, are the Fathers of the
Christians. This idea, about which there was no wavering, cannot everywhere be traced back to the Apostle Paul. The Old
Testament men of God were in certain measure Christians. See Ignat. Magn. 8. 2: .
228 God was naturally conceived and represented as corporeal by uncultured Christians, though not by these alone, as the later
controversies prove (e.g., Orig. contra Melito; see also Tertull. De anima). In the case of the cultured, the idea of a corporeality
of God may be traced back to Stoic influences; in the case of the uncultured, popular ideas co-operated with the sayings of the
Old Testament literally understood, and the impression of the Apocalyptic images.
229 See Joh. IV. 22; . I Clem. 59. 3. 4; Herm. Mand. I.; Prd. Petri in Clem. Strom. VI. 5. 9.:
, . Aristides Apol. 15 (Syr.): The Christians
know and believe in God, the creator of heaven and of earth. Chap. 16: Christians as men who know God, pray to him for
things which it becomes him to give and them to receive. (Similarly Justin.) From very many old Gentile Christian writings
we hear it as a cry of joy. We know God the Almighty; the night of blindness is past (see, e.g., 2 Clem. c. 1). God is ,
a designation which is very frequently used (it is rare in the New Testament). Still more frequently do we find . As the
Lord and Creator, God is also called the Father (of the world) so 1 Clem. 19. 2: .
35. 3: . This use of the name Father for the supreme God was, as is well known, familiar to
the Greeks, but the Christians alone were in earnest with the name. The creation out of nothing was made decidedly prominent
by Hermas, see Vis. I. 1. 6, and my notes on the passage. In the Christian Apocrypha, in spite of the vividness of the idea of
God, the angels play the same rle as in the Jewish, and as in the current Jewish speculations. According to Hermas, e.g., all
Gods actions are mediated by special angels, nay, the Son of God himself is represented by a special angel, viz., Michael, and
works by him. But outside the Apocalypses there seems to have been little interest in the good angels.
230 See, for example, 1 Clem. 20.
113
181
Adolf Harnack
of man,231 he is at the same time the God of goodness and redemption ( ), and the true
faith in God and knowledge of him as the Father,232 is made perfect only in the knowledge of the
identity of the God of creation and the God of redemption. Redemption, however, was necessary,
because at the beginning humanity and the world alike fell under the dominion of evil demons,233
231
This is frequent in the Apologists; see also Diogn. 10. 2: but Hermas, Vis. II. 4. I (see also Cels. ap. Orig. IV. 23) says:
(cf. I. 1. 6. and my notes on the passage). Aristides (Apol. 16) declares it as his conviction that
the beautiful things, that is, the world, are maintained only for the sake of Christians; see, besides, the words (I. c.); I have
no doubt, that the earth continues to exist (only) on account of the prayers of the Christians. Even the Jewish Apocalyptists
wavered between the formul, that the world was created for the sake of man, and for the sake of the Jewish nation. The two
are not mutually exclusive. The statement in the Eucharistic prayer of Didache, 9. 3,
, is singular.
232 God is named the Father, (1) in relation to the Son (very frequent), (2) as Father of the world (see above), (3) as the merciful
one who has proved his goodness, declared his will, and called Christians to be his sons (1 Clem. 23. 1; 29, 1; 2 Clem. 1. 4; 8.
4; 10. 1; 14. 1; see the index to Zahns edition of the Ignatian Epistles; Didache. 1. 5; 9. 2. 3; 10. 2.) The latter usage is not very
common; it is entirely wanting, for example, in the Epistle of Barnabas. Moreover, God is also called , as
the source of all truth (2 Clem. 3. 1: 20, 5: . ). The identity of the Almighty God of creation with the merciful
God of redemption is the tacit presupposition of all declarations about God, in the case of both the cultured and the uncultured.
It is also frequently expressed (see, above all, the Pastoral Epistles), most frequently by Hermas (Vis. I. 3. 4), so far as the
declaration about the creation of the world is there united in the closest way with that about the creation of the Holy Church. As
to the designation of God in the Roman Symbol, as the Father Almighty, that threefold exposition just given may perhaps
allow it.
233 The present dominion of evil demons, or of one evil demon, was just as generally presupposed as mans need of redemption,
which was regarded as a result of that dominion. The conviction that the worlds course (the : the Latins
afterwards used the word Sculum) is determined by the devil, and that the dark one (Barnabas) has dominion, comes out most
prominently where eschatological hopes obtain expression. But where salvation is thought of as knowledge and immortality, it
is ignorance and frailty from which men are to be delivered. We may here also assume with certainty that these, in the last
instance, were traced back by the writers to the action of demons. But it makes a very great difference whether the judgment
was ruled by fancy which saw a real devil everywhere active, or whether, in consequence of theoretic reflection, it based the
impression of universal ignorance and mortality on the assumption of demons who have produced them. Here again we must
note the two series of ideas which intertwine and struggle with each other in the creeds of the earliest period; the traditional
religious series, resting on a fanciful view of historyit is essentially identical with the Jewish Apocalyptic: see, for example,
Barn. 4and the empiric moralistic (see 2 Clem. 1. 2-7, as a specially valuable discussion, or Prd. Petri in Clem. Strom. VI.
5, 39, 40), which abides by the fact that men have fallen into ignorance, weakness and death (2 Clem. 1. 6:
). But, perhaps, in no other point, with the exception of the , has the religious
conception remained so tenacious as in this, and it decidedly prevailed, especially in the epoch with which we are now dealing.
Its tenacity may be explained, among other things, by the living impression of the polytheism that surrounded the communities
on every side. Even where the national gods were looked upon as dead idolsand that was perhaps the rule, see Prd. Petri, I.
c.; 2 Clem. 3. 1; Didache, 6one could not help assuming that there were mighty demons operative behind them, as otherwise
the frightful power of idolatry could not be explained. But, on the other hand, even a calm reflection and a temper unfriendly to
all religious excess must have welcomed the assumption of demons who sought to rule the world and man. For by means of this
assumption, which was wide-spread even among the Greeks, humanity seemed to be unburdened, and the presupposed capacity
for redemption could therefore be justified in its widest range. From the assumption that the need of redemption was altogether
due to ignorance and mortality, there was but one step, or little more than one step, to the assumption that the need of redemption
was grounded in a condition of man for which he was not responsible, that is, in the flesh. But this step, which would have led
either to dualism (heretical Gnosis) or to the abolition of the distinction between natural and moral, was not taken within the
main body of the Church. The eschatological series of ideas with its thesis that death, evil and sin entered into humanity at a
definite historical moment, when the demons took possession of the world, drew a limit which was indeed overstepped at
particular points, but was in the end respected. We have therefore the remarkable fact that, on the one hand, early Christian
(Jewish) eschatology called forth and maintained a disposition in which the Kingdom of God and that of the world (Kingdom
of the devil) were felt to be absolutely opposed (practical dualism), while, on the other hand, it rejected theoretic dualism.
Redemption through Christ, however, was conceived in the eschatological Apocalyptic series of ideas as essentially something
entirely in the future, for the power of the devil was not broken, but rather increased (or it was virtually broken in believers and
increased in unbelievers) by the first advent of Christ, and therefore the period between the first and second advent of Christ
belongs to (see Barn. 2. 4; Herm. Sim. I; 2. Clem. 6. 3:
114
182
183
Adolf Harnack
of the evil one. There was no universally accepted theory as to the origin of this dominion; but the
sure and universal conviction was that the present condition and course of the world is not of God,
but is of the devil. Those, however, who believed in God, the almighty creator, and were expecting
the transformation of the earth, as well as the visible dominion of Christ upon it, could not be
seduced into accepting a dualism in principle (God and devil: spirit and matter). Belief in God, the
creator, and eschatological hopes preserved the communities from the theoretic dualism that so
readily suggested itself, which they slightly touched in many particular opinions, and which
threatened to dominate their feelings. The belief that the world is of God and therefore good,
remained in force. A distinction was made between the present constitution of the world, which is
destined for destruction, and the future order of the world which will be a glorious restitutio in
integrum, The theory of the world as an articulated whole which had already been proclaimed by
the Stoics, and which was strengthened by Christian monotheism, would not, even if it had been
known to the uncultured, have been vigorous enough to cope with the impression of the wickedness
of the course of this world, and the vulgarity of all things material. But the firm belief in the
omnipotence of God, and the hope of the worlds transformation grounded on the Old Testament,
conquered the mood of absolute despair of all things visible and sensuous, and did not allow a
theoretic conclusion, in the sense of dualism in principle, to be drawn from the practical obligation
to renounce the world, or from the deep distrust with regard to the flesh.
6. Faith in Jesus Christ.
184
1. As surely as redemption was traced back to God himself, so surely was Jesus ( )
held to be the mediator of it. Faith in Jesus was therefore, even for Gentile Christians, a compendium
of Christianity. Jesus is mostly designated with the same name as God,234 (), for we
must remember the ancient use of this title. All that has taken place or will take place with reference
to salvation, is traced back to the Lord. The carelessness of the early Christian writers about the
bearing of the word in particular cases,235 shews that in a religious relation, so far as there was
reflection on the gift of salvation, Jesus could directly take the place of God. The invisible God is
the author, Jesus the revealer and mediator, of all saving blessings. The final subject is presented
in the nearest subject, and there is frequently no occasion for expressly distinguishing them, as the
range and contents of the revelation of salvation in Jesus coincide with the range and contents of
, ; Ignat. Magn. 5. 2). For that very
reason, the second coming of Christ must, as a matter of course, be at hand, for only through it could the first advent get its full
value. The painful impression that nothing had been outwardly changed by Christs first advent (the heathen, moreover, pointed
this out in mockery to the suffering Christians), must be destroyed by the hope of his speedy coming again. But the first advent
had its independent significance in the series of ideas which regarded Christ as redeeming man from ignorance and mortality;
for the knowledge was already given and the gift of immortality could only of course be dispensed after this life was ended, but
then immediately. The hope of Christs return was therefore a superfluity, but was not felt or set aside as such, because there
was still a lively expectation of Christs earthly Kingdom.
234 No other name adhered to Christ so firmly as that of : see a specially clear evidence of this, Novatian de trinit. 30, who
argues against the Adoptian and Modalistic heretics thus: Et in primis illud retorquendum in istos, qui duorum nobis deorum
controversiam facere prsumunt. Scriptum est, quod negare non possunt: Quoniam unus est dominus. De Christo ergo quid
sentiunt? Dominum esse, aut ilium omnino non esse? Sed dominum illum omnino non dubitant. Ergo si vera est illorum ratiocinatio,
jam duo sunt domini. On = , see above, p. 119, note.
235 Specially instructive examples of this are found in the Epistle of Barnabas and the second Epistle of Clement. Clement (Ep. 1)
speaks only of faith in God.
115
Adolf Harnack
the will of salvation in God himself. Yet prayers, as a rule, were addressed to God: at least, there
are but few examples of direct prayers to Jesus belonging to the first century (apart from the prayers
in the Act. Joh. of the so-called Leucius). The usual formula rather reads:
. . . .236
185
2. As the Gentile Christians did not understand the significance of the idea that Jesus is the Christ
(Messiah), the designation had either to be given up in their communities, or to subside
into a mere name.237 But even where, through the Old Testament, one was reminded of the meaning
of the word, and allowed a value to it, he was far from finding in the statement that Jesus is the
Lords anointed, a clear expression of the dignity peculiar to him. That dignity had therefore to be
expressed by other means. Nevertheless the eschatological series of ideas connected the Gentile
Christians very closely with the early Christian ideas of faith, and therefore also with the earliest
ideas about Jesus. In the confession that God chose238 and prepared239 Jesus, that Jesus is the Angel240
236
See 1 Clem. 5961. , c. 9. 10. Yet Novatian (de trinit. 14) exactly reproduces the old idea, Si homo tantummodo
Christus, cur homo in orationibus mediator invocatur, cum invocatio hominis ad prstandam salutem inefficax judicetur. As
the Mediator, High Priest, etc., Christ is of course always and every-where invoked by the Christians, but such invocations are
one thing and formal prayer another. The idea of the congruence of Gods will of salvation with the revelation of salvation which
took place through Christ, was further continued in the idea of the congruence of this revelation of salvation with the universal
preaching of the twelve chosen Apostles (see above, p. 162 ff.), the root of the Catholic principle of tradition. But the Apostles
never became , though the concepts , () , () were just as
interchangeable as and . The full formula would be .
But as the subjects introduced by ara are chosen and perfect media, religious usage permitted the abbreviation.
237 In the epistle of Barnabas Jesus Christ and Christ appear each once, but Jesus twelve times: in the Didache Jesus Christ
once, Jesus three times. Only in the second half of the second century, if I am not mistaken, did the designation Jesus Christ,
or Christ, become the current one, more and more crowding out the simple Jesus. Yet the latter designationand this is not
surprisingappears to have continued longest in the regular prayers. It is worthy of note that in the Shepherd there is no mention
either of the name Jesus or of Christ. The Gospel of Peter also says where the other Gospels use these names.
238 See 1 Clem. 64: , . ... (It is
instructive to note that wherever the idea of election is expressed, the community is immediately thought of, for in point of fact
the election of the Messiah has no other aim than to elect or call the community; Barn. 3. 6:

.) Herm. Sim. V. 2: . V. 6. 5. Justin, Dial. 48:
, .
239 See Barn. 14. 5: , . . . . .
The same word concerning the Church, 1. c. 3. 6. and 5. 7: . 14. 6.
240 Angel is a very old designation for Christ (see Justins Dial.) which maintained itself up to the Nicean controversy, and is
expressly claimed for him in Novatians treatise de trinit. 11. 25 ff. (the word was taken from Old Testament passages which
were applied to Christ). As a rule, however, it is not to be understood as a designation of the nature, but of the office of Christ
as such, though the matter was never very clear. There were Christians who used it as a designation of the nature, and from the
earliest times we find this idea contradicted. (See the Apoc. Sophoni, ed Stern, 1886, IV. fragment, p. 10: He appointed no
Angel to come to us, nor Archangel, nor any power, but he transformed himself into a man that he might come to us for our
deliverance. Cf. the remarkable parallel, ep. ad. Diagn. 7. 2: . . . . ,

,
,
, ...) Yet it never got the length of a great controversy, and as the Logos doctrine gradually
made way, the designation Angel became harmless and then vanished.
116
186
187
Adolf Harnack
and the servant of God,241 that he will judge the living and the dead,242 etc., expression is given to
ideas about Jesus, in the Gentile Christian communities, which are borrowed from the thought that
he is the Christ called of God and entrusted with an office.243 Besides, there was a very old
designation handed down from the circle of the disciples, and specially intelligible to Gentile
Christians, though not frequent and gradually disappearing, viz., the Master.244
3. But the earliest tradition not only spoke of Jesus as , , and , but as
, and this name was firmly adhered to in the Gentile Christian communities.245 It
followed immediately from this that Jesus belongs to the sphere of God, and that, as is said in the
earliest preaching known to us,246 one must think of him . This formula describes
in a classic manner the indirect theologia Christi which we find unanimously expressed in all
witnesses of the earliest epoch.247 We must think about Christ as we think about God, because, on
241
(after Isaiah): this designation, frequently united with and with the adjectives and (see Barn. 3.
6: 4. 3: 4. 8: Valent. ap. Clem. Alex, Strom. VI. 6. 52, and the Ascensio Isai), seems to have been at the beginning a usual one.
It sprang undoubtedly from the Messianic circle of ideas, and at its basis lies the idea of election. It is very interesting to observe
how it was gradually put into the background and finally abolished. It was kept longest in the liturgical prayers: see 1 Clem. 59.
2; Barn. 61: 9. 2; Acts iii. 13. 26; iv. 27. 30; Didache, 9. 2. 3; Mart. Polyc. 14. 20; Act. Pauli et Thecl, 17. 24; Sibyl. I. v. 324,
331, 364; Diogn. 8, 9, 10: , 9. I; also Ep. Orig. ad Afric. init; Clem. Strom. VII. 1. 4: , and my
note on Barn. 6. 1. In the Didache (9. 2) Jesus as well as David is in one statement called Servant of God. Barnabas, who calls
Christ the Beloved, uses the same expression for the Church (4. 1. 9); see also Ignat. ad Smyrn. inscr.
242 See the old Roman Symbol and Acts X. 42; 2 Tim. IV. 1; Barn. 7. 2; Polyc. Ep. 2. 1; 2 Clem. 2. 1; Hegesipp. in Euseb., H. E.
III. 20 6: Justin Dial. 118.
243 There could of course be no doubt that Christ meant the anointed (even Aristides Apol. 2 fin., if Nestles correction is right,
Justins Apol. 1. 4 and similar passages do not justify doubt on that point). But the meaning and the effect of this anointing was
very obscure. Justin says (Apol. II. 6): , and
therefore (see Dial. 76 fin.) finds in this designation an expression of the cosmic significance of Christ.
244 See the Apologists Apost. K. O. (Texte v. Unters. II. 5. p. 25), , ibid., p. 28:
, ibid. p. 30: , . Apost. Constit. (original writing) III. 6:
. III. 7: . III. 19: III. 20: V. 12: 1 Clem. 13. 1 . . . .
, . Polyc. Ep. 2: . Ptolem. ad Floram. 5:
.
245 The baptismal formula, which had been naturalised everywhere in the communities at this period, preserved it above all. The
addition of , is worthy of notice. (= the only begotten and also the beloved) is not common; it is
found only in John, in Justin, in the Symbol of the Romish Church, and in Mart. Polyc. (Diogn. 10. 3).
246 The so-called second Epistle of Clement begins with the words: , , ,
, (this order in which the Judge appears as the higher is also found in Barn. 7. 2),
, . This
argumentation (see also the following verses up to II. 7) is very instructive; for it shews the grounds on which the
was based. H. Schultz, (L. v. d. Gottheit Christi, p. 25 f.) very correctly remarks: In the second Epistle of
Clement, and in the Shepherd, the Christological interest of the writer ends in obtaining the assurance, through faith in Christ
as the world-ruling King and Judge, that the community of Christ will receive a glory corresponding to its moral and ascetic
works.
247 Pliny in his celebrated letter (96), speaks of a Carmen dicere Christo quasi deo on the part of the Christians. Hermas has no
doubt that the Chosen Servant, after finishing his work, will be adopted as Gods Son, and therefore has been destined from the
beginning, (Sim. V. 6. 1). But that simply means that he is now in a Divine sphere, and
that one must think of him as of God. But there was no unanimity beyond that. The formula says nothing about the nature or
constitution of Jesus. It might indeed appear from Justins dialogue that the direct designation of Jesus as (not as )
was common in the communities; but not only are there some passages in Justin him-self to be urged against this, but also the
testimony of other writers. , even without the article, was in no case a usual designation for Jesus. On the contrary, it was
always quite definite occasions which led them to speak of Christ as of a God. In the first place there were Old Testament
117
Adolf Harnack
passages such as Ps. XLV. 8: CX. 1 f., etc., which, as soon as they were interpreted in relation to Christ, led to his getting the
predicate . These passages, with many others taken from the Old Testament, were used in this way by Justin. Yet it is very
well worth noting, that the author of the Epistle of Barnabas avoided this expression, in a passage which must have suggested
it. (12, 10, 11 on Ps. CX. 4.) The author of the Didache calls him on the basis of the above psalm. It is manifestly
therefore in liturgical formul of exalted paradox, or living utterances of religious feeling that Christ is called God. See Ignat.
ad Rom. 6. 3; (the here should be observed); ad Eph. 1. 1:
: Tatian Orat. 13: . As to the celebrated passage 1 Clem. ad
Cor. 2, 10: , (the refers to ) we may perhaps observe that that stands far apart. However,
such a consideration is hardly in place. The passages just adduced shew that precisely the union of suffering (blood, death) with
the concept Godand only this unionmust have been in Christendom from a very early period; see Acts XX. 28 . . .
, and from a later period, Melito, Fragm. (in Routh Rel., Sacra
I. 122): , Anonym. ap. Euseb. H. E. V. 28. 11;
; Test. XII. Patriarch. (Levi 4):
; Tertull. de carne 5; passiones dei, ad Uxor II. 3: sanguine dei. Tertullian also speaks frequently of the crucifying
of God, the flesh of God, the death of God. (See Lightfoot, Clem. of Rome, p. 400 sq.) These formul were first subjected to
examination in the Patripassian controversy. They were rejected by Athanasius, for example, in the fourth century (cf. Apollin.
II. 13. 14. Opp. I. p. 758); , . . . .
. They continued in use in the west and became of the
utmost significance in the christological controversies of the fifth century. It is not quite certain whether there is a theologia
Christi in such passages as Tit. II. 13: 2 Pet. I. 1 (see the controversies on Rom. IX. 5). Finally, and Christus were often
interchanged in religious discourse (see above). In the so-called second Epistle of Clement (c. 1. 4) the dispensing of light,
knowledge, is traced back to Christ. It is said of him that, like a Father, he has called us children, he has delivered us, he has
called us into existence out of non-existence, and in this God himself is not thought of. Indeed he is called (2. 2. 3) the hearer
of prayer and controller of history; but immediately thereon a saying of the Lord is introduced as a saying of God (Matt. IX. 13).
On the contrary, Isaiah XXIX. 13, is quoted 3. 5) as a declaration of Jesus, and again (13. 4) a saying of the Lord with the formula:
. It is Christ who pitied us (3. 1: 16. 2); he is described simply as the Lord who hath called and redeemed us (5. 1:
8. 2: 9. 5: etc.). Not only is there frequent mention of the () of Christ, but 6, 7 (see 14. 1) speak directly of a
. Above all, in the entire first division (up to 9. 5) the religious situation is for the most part treated
as if it were something essentially between the believer and Christ. On the other hand, (10. 1) the Father is he who calls (see
also 16. 1), who brings salvation (9. 7), who accepts us as sons (9. 10: 16. 1); he has given us promises (11. 1. 6. 7); we expect
his kingdom, nay, the day of his appearing (12. 1 f.: 6. 9: 9. 6: 11. 7: 12. 1). He will judge the world, etc.; while in 17. 4 we read
of the day of Christs appearing, of his kingdom and of his function of Judge, etc. Where the preacher treats of the relation of
the community to God, where he describes the religious situation according to its establishment or its consummation, where he
desires to rule the religious and moral conduct, he introduces, without any apparent distinction, now God himself, and now
Christ. But this religious view, in which acts of God coincide with acts of Christ, did not, as will be shewn later on, influence
the theological speculations of the preacher. We have also to observe that the interchanging of God and Christ is not always an
expression of the high dignity of Christ, but, on the contrary, frequently proves that the personal significance of Christ is
misunderstood, and that he is regarded only as the dependent revealer of God. All this shews that there cannot have been many
passages in the earliest literature where Christ was roundly designated . It is one thing to speak of the blood (death, suffering)
of God, and to describe the gifts of salvation brought by Christ as gifts of God, and another thing to set up the proposition that
Christ is a God (or God). When, from the end of the second century, one began to look about in the earlier writings for passages
, because the matter had become a subject of controversy, one could, besides the Old Testament,
point only to the writings of authors from the time of Justin, (to apologists and controversialists) as well as to Psalms and odes
(see the Anonymn. in Euseb. H. E. V. 28. 46). In the following passages of the Ignatian Epistles appears as a designation
of Christ; he is called in Ephes. inscript; Rom. inscr. bis 3. 2; Polyc. 8. 3; Eph. 1. 1, ; Rom. 6. 3,
; Eph. 7. 2, 99 , in another reading, , Smyrn. I. 1., . .
. The latter passage, in which the relative clause must he closely united with ,; seems to form the transition
to the three passages (Trail. 7. I; Smyrn. 6. 1; 10. 1), in which Jesus is called without addition. But these passages are
critically suspicious, see Lightfoot in loco. In the same way the deus Jesus Christus in Polyc. Ep. 12. 2, is suspicious, and
indeed in both parts of the verse. In the first, all Latin codd. have dei filius, and in the Greek codd. of the Epistle, Christ is
nowhere called . We have a keen polemic against the designation of Christ as in Clem. Rom. Homil. XVI. 15 sq.;
,

118
188
189
190
Adolf Harnack
the one hand, God had exalted him, and committed to him as Lord, judgment over the living and
the dead, and because, on the other hand, he has brought the knowledge of the truth, called sinful
men, delivered them from the dominion of demons, and hath led, or will lead them, out of the night
of death and corruption to eternal life. Jesus Christ is our faith, our hope, our life, and in this
sense our God. The religious assurance that he is this, for we find no wavering on this point, is
the root of the theologia Christi; but we must also remember that the formula was inserted
beside , that the dominus ac deus was very common at that time,248 and that a Saviour
() could only be represented somehow as a Divine being.249 Yet Christ never was, as ,
placed on an equality with the Father,250monotheism guarded against that. Whether he was
intentionally and deliberately identified with Him the following paragraph will shew.
4. The common confession did not go beyond the statements that Jesus is the Lord, the Saviour,
the Son of God, that one must think of him as of God, that dwelling now with God in heaven, he
is to be adored as , and as
[as guardian and helper of the weak and as High Priest of our oblations], to be feared as the future
Judge, to be esteemed most highly as the bestower of immortality, that he is our hope and our faith.
There are found rather, on the basis of that confession, very diverse conceptions of the Person, that
is, of the nature of Jesus, beside each other,251 which collectively exhibit a certain analogy with the
Greek theologies, the naive and the philosophic.252 There was as yet no such thing here as
; , ,
.
248 On the further use of the word in antiquity, see above, 8, p. 120 f.; the formula for Augustus, even 24
years before Christs birth; on the formula dominus ac deus, see John XX. 28; the interchange of these concepts in many
passages beside one another in the anonymous writer (Euseb. II. E. V. 28. 11.) Domitian first allowed himself to be called
dominus ac deus. Tertullian Apol. 10. 11, is very instructive as to the general situation in the second century. Here are brought
forward the different causes which then moved men, the cultured and the uncultured, to give to this or that personality the
predicate of Divinity. In the third century the designation of domus ac deus noster for Christ was very common, especially in
the west. (See Cyprian, Pseudo-Cyprian, Novatian; in the Latin Martyrology a Greek is also frequently so translated.)
But only at this time had the designation come to be in actual use even for the Emperor. It seems at first sight to follow from the
statements of Celsus (in Orig. c. Cels. III. 22-43) that this Greek had and required a very strict conception of the Godhead; but
his whole work shews how little that was really the case. The reference to these facts of the history of the time is not made with
the view of discovering the theologia Christi itself in its ultimate rootsthese roots lie elsewhere, in the person of Christ and
Christian experience; but that this experience, before any technical reflection, had so easily and so surely substituted the new
formula instead of the idea of Messiah, can hardly be explained without reference to the general religious ideas of the time.
249 The combination of and in the Pastoral Epistles is very important. The two passages in the New Testament in which
perhaps a direct theologia Christi may be recognised, contain likewise the concept ; see Tit. II. 13;
(cf. Abbot, Journal of the
Society of Bibl. Lit., and Exeg. 1881. June. p. 3 sq.): 2 Pet. I. 1: . . . In both cases
the should be specially noted., Besides, is also an ancient formula.
250 A very ancient formula ran , see Cels. ap. Orig II. 30; Justin, frequently: Alterc. Sim. et Theoph. 4, etc. The
formula is equivalent to (see Joh. I. 18).
251 Such conceptions are found side by side in the same writer. See, for example, the second Epistle of Clement, and even the first.
252 See 6, p. 120. The idea of a was as common as that of the appearances of the gods. In wide circles, however,
philosophy had long ago naturalised the idea of the . But now there is no mistaking a new element everywhere.
In the case of the Christologies which include a kind of , it is found in the fact that the deified Jesus was to be recognised
not as a Demigod or Hero, but as Lord of the world, equal in power and honour to the Deity. In the case of those Christologies
which start with Christ as the heavenly spiritual being, it is found in the belief in an actual incarnation. These two articles, as
was to be expected, presented difficulties to the Gentile Christians and the latter more than the former.
119
191
Adolf Harnack
ecclesiastical doctrines in the strict sense of the word, but rather conceptions more or less fluid,
which were not seldom fashioned ad hoc.253 These may be reduced collectively to two.254 Jesus was
either regarded as the man whom God hath chosen, in whom the Deity or the Spirit of God dwelt,
and who, after being tested, was adopted by God and invested with dominion, (Adoptian
Christology);255 or Jesus was regarded as a heavenly spiritual being (the highest after God) who
253
This is usually overlooked. Christological doctrinal conceptions are frequently constructed by a combination of particular
passages, the nature of which does not permit of combination. But the fact that there was no universally recognised theory about
the nature of Jesus till beyond the middle of the second century, should not lead us to suppose that the different theories were
anywhere declared to be of equal value, etc., therefore more or less equally valid; on the contrary, everyone, so far as he had a
theory at all, included his own in the revealed truth. That they had not yet come into conflict is accounted for, on the one hand,
by the fact that the different theories ran up into like formul, and could even frequently be directly carried over into one another;
and on the other hand, by the fact that their representatives appealed to the same authorities. But we must, above all, remember
that conflict could only arise after the enthusiastic element, which also had a share in the formation of Christology, had been
suppressed, and problems were felt to be such, that is, after the struggle with Gnosticism, or even during that struggle.
254 Both were clearly in existence in the Apostolic age.
255 Only one work has been preserved entire which gives clear expression to the Adoptian Christology, viz., the Shepherd of Hermas
(see Sim. V. and IX. 1. 12). According to it, the Holy Spiritit is not certain whether he is identified with the chief Archangelis
regarded as the pre-existent Son of God, who is older than creation, nay, was Gods counsellor at creation. The Redeemer is the
virtuous man () chosen by God, with whom that Spirit of God was united. As he did not defile the Spirit, but kept him
constantly as his companion, and carried out the work to which the Deity had called him, nay, did more than he was commanded,
he was in virtue of a Divine decree adopted as a son and exalted to . That this Christology is set
forth in a book which enjoyed the highest honour and sprang from the Romish community, is of great significance. The
representatives of this Christology, who in the third century were declared to be heretics, expressly maintained that it was at one
time the ruling Christology at Rome and had been handed down by the Apostles. (Anonym. H. E. V. 28. 3, concerning the
Artemonites: ,
, . . .
.) This assertion, though exaggerated, is not incredible after what we find in Hermas.
It cannot, certainly, be verified by a superficial examination of the literary monuments preserved to us, but a closer investigation
shews that the Adoptian Christology must at one time have been very widespread, that it continued here and there undisturbed
up to the middle of the third century (see the Christology in the Acta Archelai. 49. 50), and that it continued to exercise great
influence even in the fourth and fifth centuries (see Book II. c. 7). Something similar is found even in some Gnostics, e.g.,
Valentinus himself (see Iren. I. 11. 1: ,
, , . ,
, , . The same in the Exc. ex Theodot 22, 23, 32,
33), and the Christology of Basilides presupposes that of the Adoptians. Here also belongs the conception which traces back the
genealogy of Jesus to Joseph. The way in which Justin (Dialogues 48, 49, 87 ff.) treats the history of the baptism of Jesus, against
the objection of Trypho that a pre-existent Christ would not have needed to be filled with the Spirit of God. is instructive. It is
here evident that Justin deals with objections which were raised within the communities themselves to the pre-existence of Christ,
on the ground of the account of the baptism In point of fact, this account (it had, according to very old witnesses, see Resch,
Agrapha Christi, p. 307, according to Justin; for example, Dial. 88, 103, the wording:
, , ; see the Cod. D. of Luke. Clem. Alex.
etc.) forms the strongest foundation of the Adoptian Christology, and hence it is exceedingly interesting to see how one compounds
with it from the second to the fifth century, an investigation which deserves a special monograph. But, of course, the edge was
taken off the report by the assumption of the miraculous birth of Jesus from the Holy Spirit, so that the Adoptians in recognising
this, already stood with one foot in the camp of their opponents. It is now instructive to see here how the history of the baptism,
which originally formed the beginning of the proclamation of Jesus history, is suppressed in the earliest formul, and therefore
also in the Romish Symbol, while the birth from the Holy Spirit is expressly stated. Only in Ignatius (ad Smyrn. I: cf. ad Eph.
18. 2) is the baptism taken into account in the confession; but even he has given the event a turn by which it has no longer any
significance for Jesus himself (just as in the case of Justin, who concludes from the resting of the Spirit in his fulness upon Jesus,
that there will be no more prophets among the Jews, spiritual gifts being rather communicated to Christians; compare also the
way in which the baptism of Jesus is treated in John I.). Finally, we must point out that in the Adoptian Christology the parallel
between Jesus and all believers who have the Spirit and are Sons of God, stands out very clearly. (Cf. Herm. Sim. V. with Maud.
III. V. 1: X. 2: most important is Sim. V. 6. 7.) But this was the very thing that endangered the whole view. Celsus, I. 57,
120
192
193
Adolf Harnack
took flesh, and again returned to heaven after the completion of his work on earth (pneumatic
Christology).256 These two Christologies which are, strictly speaking, mutually exclusivethe man
who has become a God, and the Divine being who has appeared in human formyet came very
near each other when the Spirit of God implanted in the man Jesus was conceived as the pre-existent
194
addressing Jesus, asks; If thou sayest that every man whom Divine Providence allows to be born (this is of course a formulation
for which Celsus alone is responsible) is a son of God, what advantage hast thou then over others? We can see already in the
Dialogue of Justin the approach of the later great controversy, whether Christ is Son of God or , that
is, had a pre-existence: , he says, ,
, (c. 48).
256 This Christology, which may be traced back to the Pauline, but which can hardly have its point of departure in Paul alone, is
found also in the Epistle to the Hebrews and in the writings of John, including the Apocalypse, and is represented by Barnabas,
I and 2 Clem., Ignatius, Polycarp, the author of the Pastoral Epistles, the Authors of Prd. Petri, and the Altercatio Jasonis et
Papisci, etc. The Classic formulation is in 2 Clem. 9. 5:
. According to Barnabas (5. 3), the pre-existent Christ is ; to him God said,
, Let us make man, etc. He is (5. 6) the subject and goal of all Old Testament revelation. He is
: , (12. 10); the flesh is merely the veil of the Godhead, without
which man could not have endured the light (5. 10). According to 1 Clement, Christ is
(16. 2), who, if he had wished, could have appeared on earth ; he is exalted far above the angels (32), as
he is the Son of God ( , 2. 1); he hath spoken through the Holy Spirit in the Old Testament (22. 1). It is not
certain whether Clement understood Christ under the (27. 4). According to 2 Clem., Christ and
the Church are heavenly spiritual existences which have appeared in the last times. Gen. 1. 27 refers to their creation (c. 14; see
my note on the passage: We learn from Origen that a very old Theologoumenon identified Jesus with the ideal of Adam, the
Church with that of Eve. Similar ideas about Christ are found in Gnostic Jewish Christians); one must think about Christ as about
God (I. 1). Ignatius writes (Eph. 7. 2): , , ,
, , , .
As the human predicates stand here first, it might appear as though, according to Ignatius, the man Jesus became God (
, Cf. Eph. inscr.: 18. 2). In point of fact, he regards Jesus as Son of God only by his birth from the Spirit; but on the other
hand, Jesus is (Magn. 7. 2), is (Magn. 8. 2), and when Ignatius so often emphasises the
truth of Jesus history against Docetism (Trall. 9. for example), we must assume that he shares the thesis with the Gnostics that
Jesus is by nature a spiritual being. But it is well worthy of notice that Ignatius, as distinguished from Barnabas and Clement,
really gives the central place to the historical Jesus Christ, the Son of God and the Son of Mary, and his work. The like is found
only in Irenus. The pre-existence of Christ is presupposed by Polycarp. (Ep. 7. 1); but, like Paul, he strongly emphasises a real
exaltation of Christ (2. 1). The author of Prd. Petri calls Christ the (Clem. Strom. I. 29, 182). As Ignatius calls him this
also, as the same designation is found in the Gospel, Epistles, and Apocalypse of John (the latter a Christian adaptation of a
Jewish writing), in the Act. Joh. (see Zahn, Acta Joh. p. 220), finally, as Celsus (II. 31) says quite generally, The Christians
maintain that the Son of God is at the same time his incarnate Word, we plainly perceive that this designation for Christ was
not first started by professional philosophers (see the Apologists, for example, Tatian, Orat. 5, and Melito Apolog. fragm. in the
Chron. pasch. p. 483, ed. Dindorf: ). We do not find in the Johannine writings such a Logos
speculation as in the Apologists, but the current expression is taken up in order to shew that it has its truth in the appearing of
Jesus Christ. The ideas about the existence of a Divine Logos were very widely spread; they were driven out of philosophy into
wide circles. The Author of the Alterc. Jas. et Papisci conceived the phrase in Gen. I. 1, , as equivalent to ()
Jerome, Qust. hebr. in Gen. p. 3; see Tatian Orat. 5: . Ignatius
(Eph. 3) also called Christ (Eph. 17: ); that is a more fitting expression than . The
subordination of Christ as a heavenly being to the Godhead is seldom or never carefully emphasised, though it frequently comes
plainly into prominence. Yet the author of the second Epistle of Clement does not hesitate to place the pre-existent Christ and
the pre-existent Church on one level, and to declare of both that God created them (c. 14). The formul ,
or , are characteristic of this Christology. It is worthy of special notice that the latter is found in all those New
Testament writers who have put Christianity in contrast with the Old Testament religions, and proclaimed the conquest of that
religion by the Christian, viz., Paul, John, and the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews.
121
195
Adolf Harnack
Son of God,257 and when, on the other hand, the title, Son of God, for that pneumatic being was
derived only from the miraculous generation in the flesh; yet both these seem to have been the
rule.258 Yet, in spite of all transitional forms, the two Christologies may be clearly distinguished.
Characteristic of the one is the development through which Jesus is first to become a Godlike
Ruler,259 and connected therewith, the value put on the miraculous event at the baptism; of the other,
a naive docetism.260 For no one as yet thought of affirming two natures in Jesus:261 the Divine dignity
appeared rather, either as a gift,262 or the human nature () as a veil assumed for a time, or as
the metamorphosis of the Spirit.263 The formula that Jesus was a mere man ( ), was
196
257
Hermas, for example, does this (therefore Link; Christologie des Hermas, and Weizscker, Gott. Gel. Anz. 1886, p. 830, declare
his Christology to be directly pneumatic): Christ is then identified with this Holy Spirit (see Acta Archel. 50), similarly Ignatius
(ad Magn. 15): , , This formed the transition to Gnostic conceptions on
the one hand, to pneumatic Christology on the other. But in Hermas the real substantial thing in Jesus is the .
258 Passages may indeed be found in the earliest Gentile Christian literature in which Jesus is designated Son of God, independently
of his human birth and before it (so in Barnabas, against Zahn), but they are not numerous. Ignatius very clearly deduces the
predicate Son from the birth in the flesh. Zahn, Marcellus, p. 216 ff.
259 The distinct designation is not found, though that may be an accident. Hermas has the thing itself quite distinctly,
(see Epiph. c. Alog. H. 51. 18: ,
, ). The stages of the were undoubtedly
the birth, baptism and resurrection. Even the adherents of the pneumatic Christology could not at first help recognising that
Jesus, through his exaltation, got more than he originally possessed. Yet in their case this conception was bound to become
rudimentary, and it really did so.
260 The settlement with Gnosticism prepared a still always uncertain end for this naive Docetism. Apart from Barn 5. 12, where it
plainly appears, we have to collect laboriously the evidences of it which have not accidentally either perished or been concealed.
In the communities of the second century there was frequently no offence taken at Gnostic docetism (see the Gospel of Peter,
Clem. Alex., Adumbrat. in Joh. Ep. I. c. 1. [Zahn, Forsch. z. Gesch. des N. T.-lichen Kanons, III p. 87]; Fertur ergo in traditionibus,
quoniam Johannes ipsum corpus, quod erat extrinsecus, tangens manum suam in profunda misisse et duritiam carnis nullo modo
reluctatam esse, sed locum manui prbuisse discipuli. Also Acta Joh. p. 209, ed. Zahn). In spite of all his polemic against
proper, one can still perceive a moderate docetism in Clem. Alex., to which indeed certain narratives in the Canonical
Gospels could not but lead. The so-called Apocryphal literature (Apocryphal Gospels and Acts of Apostles), lying on the boundary
between heretical and common Christianity, and preserved only in scanty fragments and extensive alterations, was, it appears,
throughout favourable to Docetism. But the later recensions attest that it was read in wide circles.
261 Even such a formulation as we find in Paul (e.g., Rom. I. 3 f. ) does not seem to have been often
repeated (yet see 1 Clem. 32. 2). It is of value to Ignatius only, who has before his mind the full Gnostic contrast. But even to
him we cannot ascribe any doctrine of two natures: for this requires as its presupposition, the perception that the divinity and
humanity are equally essential and important for the personality of the Redeemer Christ. Such insight, however, presupposes a
measure and a direction of reflection which the earliest period did not possess. The expression first appears
in a fragment of Melito, whose genuineness is not, however, generally recognised (see my Texte u. Unters. I. 1. 2. p. 257). Even
the definite expression for Christ, , was fixed only in consequence of the Gnostic controversy.
262 Hermas (Sim. V. 6. 7) describes the exaltation of Jesus thus: , ,
, . The point in question is a reward of
grace which consists in a position of rank (see Sim. V. 6. 1). The same thing is manifest from the statements of the later Adoptians.
(Cf. the teaching of Paul Samosata.)
263 Barnabas, e.g., conceives it as a veil (5. 10: ,
). The formulation of the
Christian idea in Celsus is instructive (c. Cels. VI. 69): Since God is great and not easily accessible to the view, he put his spirit
in a body which is like our own, and sent it down in order that we might be instructed by it. To this conception corresponds the
formula: () (Barnabas, frequently; Polyc. Ep. 7. 1). But some kind of transformation must also
have been thought of (see 2 Clem. 9. 5, and Celsus IV. 18: Either God, as these suppose, is really transformed into a mortal
body ... Apoc. Sophon. ed Stern. 4 fragm. p. 10; He has transformed himself into a man who comes to us to redeem us). This
122
197
Adolf Harnack
undoubtedly always and from the first regarded as offensive.264 But the converse formul, which
identified the person of Jesus in its essence with the Godhead itself, do not seem to have been
rejected with the same decision.265 Yet such formul may have been very rare, and even objects of
suspicion, in the leading ecclesiastical circles, at least until after the middle of the second century
we can point to them only in documents which hardly found approbation in wide circles. The
assumption of the existence of at least one heavenly and eternal spiritual being beside God was
plainly demanded by the Old Testament writings, as they were understood; so that even those whose
conception might grow out of the formula (Ignat. ad Eph. 7. 2 is of special importance here). One is almost
throughout here satisfied with the of Christ, that is the , against the heretics (so Ignatius, who was
already antignostic in his attitude). There is very seldom any mention of the humanity of Jesus. Barnabas (12), the author of the
Didache (c. 10. 6. See my note on the passage), and Tatian questioned the Davidic Sonship of Jesus, which was strongly
emphasised by Ignatius; nay, Barnabas even expressly rejects the designation Son of Man (12. 10; ,
, ). A docetic thought, however, lies in the assertion that the spiritual
being Christ only assumed human flesh, however, much the reality of the flesh may be emphasised. The passage 1 Clem. 49.
6, is quite unique: . . .
. One would fain believe this an interpolation; the same idea is first found in Irenus. (V. 1. 1).
264 Even Hermas does not speak of Jesus as (see Link). This designation was used by the representatives of the Adoptian
Christology only after they had expressed their doctrine antithetically and developed it to a theory, and always with a certain
reservation. The in 1 Tim. II. 5 is used in a special sense. The expression for Christ
appears twice in the Ignatian Epistles (the third passage Smyrn. 4. 2: ,
apart from the , is critically suspicious, as well as the fourth, Eph. 7. 2; see above), in both passages, however, in
connections which seem to modify the humanity; see Eph. 20. 1: ; Eph.
20. 2: .
265 See above p. 185, note; p. 189, note. We have no sure evidence that the later so-called Modalism (Monarchianism) had
representatives before the last third of the second century; yet the polemic of Justin, Dial. 128. seems to favour the idea, (the
passage already presupposes controversies about the personal independence of the pre-existent pneumatic being of Christ beside
God; but one need not necessarily think of such controversies within the communities; Jewish notions might be meant, and this,
according to Apol. 1. 63, is the more probable). The judgment is therefore so difficult, because there were numerous formul
in practical use which could be so understood, as if Christ was to be completely identified with the God-head itself (see Ignat.
ad Eph. 7. 2, besides Melito in Otto. Corp. Apol. IX. p. 419, and Notus in the Philos. IX. 10, p. 448). These formula may, in
point of fact, have been so understood, here and there, by the rude and uncultivated. The strongest again is presented in writings
whose authority was always doubtful: see the Gospel of the Egyptians (Epiph. H. 62. 2), in which must have stood a statement
somewhat to this effect: , , , and the Acta Joh. (ed.
Zahn, p. 220 f., 240 f.: , , , , , , ,
, , , ,
). In the Act. Joh. are found also prayers with the address (pp. 242, 247). Even
Marcion and in part the Montanistsboth bear witness to old traditionsput no value on the distinction between God and Christ;
cf. the Apoc. Sophon. A witness to a naive Modalism is found also in the Acta Pionii 9: Quem deum colis? Respondit: Christum.
Polemon (judex): Quid ergo? iste alter est? [the co-defendant Christians had immediately before confessed God the Creator].
Respondit: Non; sed ipse quem et ipsi paullo ante confessi sunt; cf. c. 16. Yet a reasoned Modalism may perhaps he assumed
here. See also the Martyr Acts; e.g., Acta Petri, Andrae, Pauli et Dionysi 1 (Ruinart, p. 205):
, . Oportet me magis deo vivo et vero, regi sculorum
omnium Christo, sacrificium offerre. Act. Nicephor. 3 (p. 285). I take no note of the Testament of the twelve Patriarchs, out of
which one can, of course, beautifully verify the strict Modalistic, and even the Adoptian Christology. But the Testamenta are
not a primitive or Jewish Christian writing which Gentile Christians have revised, but a Jewish writing christianised at the end
of the second century by a Catholic of Modalistic views. But he has given us a very imperfect work, the Christology of which
exhibits many contradictions. It is instructive to find Modalism in the theology of the Simonians, which was partly formed
according to Christian ideas; see Irenus I. 23, 1: hic igitur a multis quasi deus glorificatus est, et docuit semetipsunr esse qui
inter Judos quidem quasi filius apparuerit, in Samaria autem quasi pater descenderit in reliquis vero gentibus quasi Spiritus
Sanctus adventaverit.
123
198
199
Adolf Harnack
Christology did not require them to reflect on that heavenly being were forced to recognise it.266
The pneumatic Christology accordingly meets us wherever there is an earnest occupation with the
Old Testament, and wherever faith in Christ as the perfect revealer of God occupies the foreground,
therefore not in Hermas, but Certainly in Barnabas, Clement, etc. The future belonged to this
Christology because the current exposition of the Old Testament seemed directly to require it,
because it alone permitted the close connection between creation and redemption, because it
furnished the proof that the world and religion rest upon the same Divine basis, because it was
represented in the most valuable writings of the early period of Christianity, and finally, because
it had room for the speculations about the Logos. On the other hand, no direct and natural relation
to the world and to universal history could be given to the Adoptian Christology, which was
originally determined eschatologically. If such a relation, however, were added to it, there resulted
formul such as that of two Sons of God, one natural and eternal, and one adopted, which
corresponded neither to the letter of the Holy Scriptures, nor to the Christian preaching. Moreover,
the revelations of God in the Old Testament made by Theophanies must have seemed, because of
this their form, much more exalted than the revelations made through a man raised to power and
glory, which Jesus constantly seemed to be in the Adoptian Christology. Nay, even the mysterious
personality of Melchisedec, without father or mother, might appear more impressive than the Chosen
Servant, Jesus, who was born of Mary, to a mode of thought which, in order to make no mistake,
desired to verify the Divine by outer marks. The Adoptian Christology, that is the Christology
which is most in keeping with the self-witness of Jesus (the Son as the chosen Servant of God), is
here shewn to be unable to assure to the Gentile Christians those conceptions of Christianity which
they regarded as of highest value. It proved itself insufficient when confronted by any reflection
on the relation of religion to the cosmos, to humanity, and to its history. It might, perhaps, still have
seemed doubtful about the middle of the second century as to which of the two opposing formul,
Jesus is a man exalted to a Godlike dignity and Jesus is a divine spiritual being incarnate, would
succeed in the Church. But one only needs to read the pieces of writing which represent the latter
thesis, and to compare them, say, with the Shepherd of Hermas, in order to see to which view the
future must belong. In saying this, however, we are anticipating; for the Christological reflections
were not yet vigorous enough to overcome enthusiasm and the expectation of the speedy end of all
266
That is a very important fact which clearly follows from the Shepherd, Even the later school of the Adoptians in Rome, and the
later Adoptians in general, were forced to assume a divine hypostasis beside the Godhead, which of course sensibly threatened
their Christology. The adherents of the pneumatic Christology partly made a definite distinction between the pre-existent Christ
and the Holy Spirit (see, e.g., 1 Clem. 22. 1), and partly made use of formul from which one could infer an identity of the two.
The conceptions about the Holy Spirit were still quite fluctuating: whether he is a power of God, or personal; whether he is
identical with the pre-existent Christ, or is to be distinguished from him; whether he is the servant of Christ (Tatian Orat. 13);
whether he is only a gift of God to believers, or the eternal Son of God, was quite uncertain. Hermas assumed the latter, and
even Origen (de princip. prf. c. 4) acknowledges that it is not yet decided whether or not the Holy Spirit is likewise to be
regarded as Gods Son. The baptismal formula prevented the identification of the Holy Spirit with the pre-existent Christ, which
so readily suggested itself. But so far as Christ was regarded as a , his further demarcation from the angel powers was
quite uncertain, as the Shepherd of Hermas proves (though see 1 Clem. 36). For even Justin, in a passage, no doubt, in which
his sole purpose was to shew that the Christians were not , could venture to thrust in between God, the on and the Spirit,
the good angels as beings who were worshipped and adored by the Christians (Apol I. 6 [if the text be genuine and not an
interpolation]; see also the Suppl. of Athanagoras). Justin, and certainly most of those who accepted a pre-existence of Christ,
conceived of it as a real pre-existence. Justin was quite well acquainted with the controversy about the independent quality of
the power which proceeded from God. To him it is not merely, Sensus, motus, affectus dei, but a personalis substantia (Dial.
128).
124
Adolf Harnack
things; and the mighty practical tendency of the new religion to a holy life did not allow any theory
to become the central object of attention. But, still, it is necessary to refer here to the controversies
which broke out at a later period; for the pneumatic Christology forms an essential article which
cannot be dispensed with, in the expositions of Barnabas, Clement and Ignatius; and Justin shews
that he cannot conceive of a Christianity without the belief in a real pre-existence of Christ. On the
other hand, the liturgical formul, the prayers, etc., which have been preserved, scarcely ever take
notice of the pre-existence of Christ; they either comprise statements which are borrowed from the
Adoptian Christology, or they testify in an unreflective way to the Dominion and Deity of Christ.
200
5. The ideas of Christs work which were influential in the communitiesChrist as Teacher: creation
of knowledge, setting up of the new law; Christ as Saviour: creation of life, overcoming of the
demons, forgiveness of sins committed in the time of error,were by some, in conformity with
Apostolic tradition and following the Pauline Epistles, positively connected with the death and
resurrection of Christ, while others maintained them without any connection with these events. But
one nowhere finds independent thorough reflections on the connection of Christs saving work
with the facts proclaimed in the preaching, above all, with the death on the cross and the resurrection
as presented by Paul. The reason of this undoubtedly is that in the conception of the work of
salvation, the procuring of forgiveness fell into the background, as this could only be connected
by means of the notion of sacrifice, with a definite act of Jesus, viz., with the surrender of his life.
Consequently, the facts of the destiny of Jesus combined in the preaching formed only for the
religious fancy, not for reflection, the basis of the conception of the work of Christ, and were
therefore by many writers, Hermas, for example, taken no notice of. Yet the idea of suffering freely
accepted, of the cross and of the blood of Christ, operated in wide circles as a holy mystery in which
the deepest wisdom and power of the Gospel must somehow lie concealed.267 The peculiarity and
uniqueness of the work of the historical Christ seemed, however, to be prejudiced by the assumption
that Christ, essentially as the same person, was already in the Old Testament the Revealer of God.
All emphasis must therefore fall on thiswithout a technical reflection which cannot be provedthat
the Divine revelation has now, through the historical Christ, become accessible and intelligible to
all, and that the life which was promised will shortly be made manifest.268
267
268
See the remarkable narrative about the cross in the fragment of the Gospel of Peter, and in Justin, Apol. I. 55.
We must, above all things, be on our guard here against attributing dogmas to the churches, that is to say, to the writers of this
period. The difference in the answers to the question, How far and by what means Jesus procured salvation? was very great, and
the majority undoubtedly never at all raised the question, being satisfied with recognising Jesus as the revealer of Gods saving
will (Didache, 10. 2: , , ,
, ), without reflecting on the fact that
this saving will was already revealed in the Old Testament. There is nowhere any mention of saving work of Christ in the whole
Didachenay, even the Kerygma about him is not taken notice of. The extensive writing of Hermas shews that this is not an
accident. There is absolutely no mention here of the birth, death, resurrection, etc., of Jesus, although the author in Sim. V. had
an occasion for mentioning them. He describes the work of Jesus as (1) preserving the people whom God had chosen, (2) purifying
the people from sin, (3) pointing out the path of life and promulgating the Divine law (cc. 5. 6). This work however, seems to
have been performed by the whole life and activity of Jesus; even to the purifyng of sin the author has only added the words;
( ) (Sim. V. 6. 2). But we must further
note that Hermas held the proper and obligatory work of Jesus to be only the preservation of the chosen people (from demons
in the last days, and at the end), while in the other two articles he saw a performance in excess of his duty, and wished undoubtedly
to declare therewith, that the purifying from sin and the giving of the law are not, strictly speaking, integral parts of the Divine
plan of salvation, but are due to the special goodness of Jesus (this idea is explained by Moralism). Now, as Hermas and others
125
Adolf Harnack
saw the saving activity of Jesus in his whole labours, others saw salvation given and assured in the moment of Jesus entrance
into the world, and in his personality as a spiritual being become flesh. This mystic conception, which attained such wide-spread
recognition later on, has a representative in Ignatius, if one can at all attribute clearly conceived doctrines to this emotional
confessor. That something can be declared of Jesus, and this is the mystery on which the significance
of Jesus seems to Ignatius essentially to rest, but how far is not made clear. But the (, ) and of
Jesus are to the same writer of great significance, and by forming paradoxical formul of worship, and turning to account
reminiscences of Apostolic sayings, he seems to wish to base the whole salvation brought by Christ on his suffering and
resurrection (see Lightfoot on Eph. inscr. Vol. II, p. 25). In this connection also, he here and there regards all articles of the
Kerygma as of fundamental significance. At all events, we have in the Ignatian Epistles the first attempt in the post-Apostolic
literature to connect all the theses of the Kerygma about Jesus as closely as possible with the benefits which he brought. But
only the will of the writer is plain here, all else is confused, and what is mainly felt is that the attempt to conceive the blessings
of salvation as the fruit of the sufferings and resurrection, has deprived them of their definiteness and clearness. In proof we may
adduce the following: If we leave out of account the passages in which Ignatius speaks of the necessity of repentance for the
Heretics, or the Heathen, and the possibility that their sins may be forgiven (Philad. 3. 2: 8. 1; Smyrn. 4. 1: 5. 3; Eph. 10. 1),
there remains only one passage in which the forgiveness of sin is mentioned, and that only contains a traditional formula (Smyrn.
7. 1: , ). The same writer, who is constantly speaking of the and
of Christ, has nothing to say to the communities to which he writes, about the forgiveness of sin. Even the concept
sin, apart from the passages just quoted, appears only once, viz., Eph. 14. 2: . Ignatius
has only once spoken to a community about repentance (Smyrn. 9. 1). It is characteristic that the summons to repentance runs
exactly as in Hermas and 2 Clem., the conclusion only being peculiarly Ignatian. It is different with Barnabas, Clement and
Polycarp. They (see 1 Clem. 7. 4: 12. 7: 21. 6: 49. 6: Barn. 5. 1 ff.) place the forgiveness of sin procured by Jesus in the foreground,
connect it most definitely with the death of Christ, and in some passages seem to have a conception of that connection, which
reminds us of Paul. But this just shews that they are dependent here on Paul (or on 1st Peter), and on a closer examination we
perceive that they very imperfectly understand Paul, and have no independent insight into the series of ideas which they reproduce.
That is specially plain in Clement. For, in the first place, he everywhere passes over the resurrection (he mentions it only twice,
once as a guarantee of our own resurrection, along with the Phnix and other guarantees, 24. 1; and then as a means whereby
the Apostles were convinced that the kingdom of God will come, 42. 3). In the second place, he in one passage declares that the
was communicated to the world through the shedding of Christs blood (7. 4.). But this transformation of the
into plainly shews that Clement had merely taken over from tradition the special estimate of
the death of Christ as procuring salvation; for it is meaningless to deduce the from the blood of Christ. Barnabas
testifies more plainly that Christ behoved to offer the vessel of his spirit as a sacrifice for our sins (4. 3: 5. 1), nay, the chief aim
of his letter is to harmonise the correct understanding of the cross, the blood, and death of Christ in connection with baptism,
the forgiveness of sin, and sanctification (application of the idea of sacrifice). He also unites the death and resurrection of Jesus
(5. 6:
, , ,
, , ,
): but the significance of the death of Christ is for him, at bottom, the fact that it is the fulfilment
of prophecy. But the prophecy is related, above all, to the significance of the tree, and so Barnabas on one occasion says with
admirable clearness (5, 13); . The notion which Barnabas entertains
of the of Christ suggests the supposition that he could have given up all reference to the death of Christ, if it had not been
transmitted as a fact and predicted in the Old Testament. Justin shews still less certainty. To him also, as to Ignatius, the. cross
(the death) of Christ is a greatnay, the greatest mystery, and he sees all things possible in it (see Apol. 1. 35, 55). He knows,
further, as a man acquainted with the Old Testament, how to borrow from it very many points of view for the significance of
Christs death, (Christ the sacrifice, the Paschal lamb; the death of Christ the means of redeeming men; death as the enduring
of the curse for us; death as the victory over the devil; see Dial. 44, 90, 91, 111, 134). But in the discussions which set forth in
a more intelligible way the significance of Christ, definite facts from the history have no place at all, and Justin nowhere gives
any indication of seeing in the death of Christ more than the mystery of the Old Testament, and the confirmation of its
trustworthiness. On the other hand, it cannot be mistaken that the idea of an individual righteous man being able effectively to
sacrifice himself for the whole, in order through his voluntary death to deliver them from evil, was not unknown to antiquity.
Origen (c. Celsum 1. 31) has expressed himself on this point in a very instructive way. The purity and voluntariness of him who
sacrifices himself are here the main things. Finally, we must be on our guard against supposing that the expressions ,
and the like, were as a rule related to the deliverance from sin. In the superscription of the Epistle from Lyons, for
example, (Euseb. H E. V. I. 3: ) the future redemption is manifestly
to be understood by .
126
201
202
203
204
Adolf Harnack
As to the facts of the history of Jesus, the real and the supposed, the circumstance that they formed
the ever repeated proclamation about Christ gave them an extraordinary significance. In addition
to the birth from the Holy Spirit and the Virgin, the death, the resurrection, the exaltation to the
right hand of God, and the coming again, there now appeared more definitely the ascension to
heaven, and also, though more uncertainly, the descent into the kingdom of the dead. The belief
that Jesus ascended into heaven forty days after the resurrection, gradually made way against the
older conception, according to which resurrection and ascension really coincided, and against other
ideas which maintained a longer period between the two events. That probably is the result of a
reflection which sought to distinguish the first from the later manifestations of the exalted Christ,
and it is of the utmost importance as the beginning of a demarcation of the times. It is also very
probable that the acceptance of an actual ascensus in clum, not a mere assumptio, was favourable
to the idea of an actual descent of Christ de clo, therefore to the pneumatic Christology and vice
versa. But there is also closely connected with the ascensus in clum, the notion of a descensus ad
inferna, which commended itself on the ground of Old Testament prediction. In the first century,
however, it still remained uncertain, lying on the borders of those productions of religious fancy
which were not able at once to acquire a right of citizenship in the communities.269
One can plainly see that the articles contained in the Kerygma were guarded and defended in their
reality ( ) by the professional teachers of the Church, against sweeping attempts at
explaining them away, or open attacks on them.270 But they did not yet possess the value of dogmas,
for they were neither put in an indissoluble union with the idea of salvation, nor were they stereotyped
in their extent, nor were fixed limits set to the imagination in the concrete delineation and conception
of them.271
269
On the Ascension, see my edition of the Apost. Fathers I. 2, p. 138. Paul knows nothing of an Ascension, nor is it mentioned by
Clement, Ignatius, Hermas, or Polycarp. In no case did it belong to the earliest preaching. Resurrection and sitting at the right
hand of God are frequently united in the formul (Eph. I. 20: Acts. II. 32 ff.) According to Luke XXIV. 51, and Barn. 15. 9,
the ascension into heaven took place on the day of the resurrection (probably also according to Joh. XX. 17; see also the fragment
of the Gosp. of Peter), and is hardly to he thought of as happening but once. (Joh. III. 13: VI. 62; see also Rom. X. 6 f.; Eph.
IV. 9 f.; I Pet. III. 19 f.; very instructive for the origin of the notion), According to the Valentinians and Ophites, Christ ascended
into heaven 18 months after the resurrection (Iren. I. 3. 2: 30. 14); according to the Ascension of Isaiah, 545 days (ed. Dillmann,
pp. 43, 57 etc.); according to Pistis Sophia 11 years after the resurrection. The statement that the Ascension took place 40 days
after the resurrection is first found in the Acts of the Apostles. The position of the , in the fragment of an
old Hymn, 1 Tim. III. 16, is worthy of note, in so far as it follows the . , .
Justin speaks very frequently of the Ascension into heaven (see also Aristides). It is to him a necessary part of the preaching
about Christ. On the descent into hell, see the collection of passages in my edition of the Apost. Fathers, III. p. 232. It is important
to note that it is found already in the Gospel of Peter ( ; ), and that even Marcion recognised it (in
Iren. I. 27. 3), as well as the Presbyter of Irenus (IV. 27. 2), and Ignatius (ad Magn. 9. 3); see also Celsus in Orig. II. 43. The
witnesses to it are very numerous; sec Huidekoper, The belief of the first three centuries concerning Christs mission to the
under-world. New York, 1876.
270 See the Pastoral Epistles, and the Epistles of Ignatius and Polycarp.
271 The facts of the history of Jesus were handed down to the following period as mysteries predicted in the Old Testament, but
the idea of sacrifice was specially attached to the death of Christ, certainly without any closer definition. It is very noteworthy
that in the Romish baptismal confession, the Davidic Sonship of Jesus, the baptism, the descent into the under-world, and the
setting up of a glorious Kingdom on the earth, are not mentioned. These articles do not appear even in the parallel confessions
which began to be formed. The hesitancy that yet prevailed here with regard to details is manifest from the fact, for example,
that instead of the formula Jesus was born of () Mary, is found the other, He was born through () Mary, (see Justin,
Apol. I. 22, 31-33, 54, 63; Dial. 23, 43, 45, 48, 54, 57, 63, 66, 75, 85, 87, l00, 105, 120, 127). Iren. (I. 7. 2) and Tertull. (de carne
20) first contested the against the Valentinians.
127
Adolf Harnack
7. The Worship, the Sacred Ordinances, and the Organisation of the Churches.
It is necessary to examine the original forms of the worship and constitution, because of the
importance which they acquired in the following period even for the development of doctrine.
205
206
1. In accordance with the purely spiritual idea of God, it was a fixed principle that only a spiritual
worship is well pleasing to Him, and that all ceremonies are abolished,
.272 But as the Old Testament
and the Apostolic tradition made it equally certain that the worship of God is a sacrifice, the Christian
worship of God was set forth under the aspect of the spiritual sacrifice. In the most general sense
it was conceived as the offering of the heart and of obedience, as well as the consecration of the
whole personality, body and soul (Rom. XIII. 1) to God.273 Here, with a change of the figure, the
individual Christian and the whole community were described as a temple of God.274 In a more
special sense, prayer as thanksgiving and intercession275 was regarded as the sacrifice which was
to be accompanied, without constraint or ceremony, by fasts and acts of compassionate love.276
Finally, prayers offered by the worshipper in the public worship of the community, and the gifts
brought by them, out of which were taken the elements for the Lords supper, and which were used
partly in the common meal, and partly in support of the poor, were regarded as sacrifice in the most
special sense (, ).277 For the following period, however, it became of the utmost
importance, (1) that the idea of sacrifice ruled the whole worship, (2) that it appeared in a special
272
This was strongly emphasised; see my remarks on Barn. 2. 3. The Jewish cultus is often brought very close to the heathen by
Gentile Christian writers. Prd. Petri (Clem. Strom. VI. 5. 41): . The statement in
Joh. IV. 24: , , was for long the guiding
principle for the Christian worship of God.
273 Ps. LI. 19 is thus opposed to the ceremonial system (Barn. 2. 10). Polycarp consumed by fire is (Mart. 14. 1) compared to a
, .
274 See Barn. 6. 15: 16. 7-9; Tatian Orat. 15; Ignat. ad Eph. 9. 15; Herm. Mand. V. etc. The designation of Christians as priests is
not often found.
275 Justin, Apol. 1. 9: Dial. 117: , ,
, ; see also still the later Fathers; Clem. Strom. VII. 6. 31: ,
, ; Iren. III. 18. 3. Ptolem. ad Floram.
3: ,
.
276 The Jewish regulations about fastings, together with the Jewish system of sacrifice were rejected; but on the other hand, in virtue
of words of the Lord, fasts were looked upon as a necessary accompaniment of prayer, and definite arrangements were already
made for them (see Barn. 3; Didache 8; Herm. Sim. V. 1. ff. The fast is to have a special value from the fact that whatever one
saved by means of it, is to be given to the poor (see Hermas and Aristides, Apol. 15; And if any one among the Christians is
poor and in want, and they have not overmuch of the means of life, they fast two or three days, in order that they may provide
those in need with the food they require). The statement of James I. 27:
, , was again and again inculcated in diverse phraseology
(Polycarp. Ep. 4, called the Widows of the community). Where moralistic views preponderated, as in Hermas and
2 Clement, good works were already valued in detail; prayers, fasts, alms appeared separately, and there was already introduced,
especially under the influence of the so-called deutero-canonical writings of the Old Testament, the idea of a special meritoriousness
of certain performances in fasts and alms (see 2 Clem. 16. 4). Still, the idea of the Christian moral life as a whole occupied the
foreground (see Didache, cc. 1-5), and the exhortations to love God and ones neighbour, which, as exhortations to a moral life,
were brought forward in every conceivable relation, supplemented the general summons to renounce the world, just as the official
diaconate of the churches originating in the cultus prevented the decomposition of them into a society of ascetics.
277 For details, see below in the case of the Lords Supper. It is specially important that even charity, through its union with the
cultus, appeared as sacrificial worship (see e.g., Polyc. Ep. 4. 3).
128
207
208
Adolf Harnack
manner in the celebration of the Lords supper, and consequently invested that ordinance with a
new meaning, (3) that the support of the poor, alms, especially such alms as had been gained by
prayer and fasting, was placed under the category of sacrifice (Heb. XIII. 16); for this furnished
the occasion for giving the widest application to ,the idea of sacrifice, and thereby substituting for
the original Semitic Old Testament idea of sacrifice with its spiritual interpretation, the Greek idea
with its interpretation.278 It may, however, be maintained that the changes imposed on the Christian
religion by Catholicism, are at no point so obvious and far-reaching, as in that of sacrifice, and
especially in the solemn ordinance of the Lords supper, which was placed in such close connection
with the idea of sacrifice.
2. When in the Teaching of the Apostles, which may be regarded here as a classic document, the
discipline of life in accordance with the words of the Lord, Baptism, the order of fasting and prayer,
especially the regular use of the Lords prayer, and the Eucharist are reckoned the articles on which
the Christian community rests, and when the common Sunday offering of a sacrifice made pure by
a brotherly disposition, and the mutual exercise of discipline are represented as decisive for the
stability of the individual community,279 we perceive that the general idea of a pure spiritual worship
of God has nevertheless been realised in definite institutions, and that, above all, it has included
the traditional sacred ordinances, and adjusted itself to them as far as that was possible.280 This
could only take effect under the idea of the symbolical, and therefore this idea was most firmly
attached to these ordinances. But the symbolical of that time is not to be considered as the opposite
of the objectively real, but as the mysterious, the God produced (), as contrasted with
the natural, the profanely clear. As to Baptism, which was administered in the name of the Father,
Son and Spirit, though Cyprian, Ep. 73. 16-18, felt compelled to oppose the custom of baptising
in the name of Jesus, we noted above (Chap. III. p. 161 f.) that it was regarded as the bath of
regeneration, and as renewal of life, inasmuch as it was assumed that by it the sins of the past state
of blindness were blotted out.281 But as faith was looked upon as the necessary condition,282 and as
on the other hand, the forgiveness of the sins of the past was in itself deemed worthy of God,283 the
asserted specific result of baptism remained still very uncertain, and the hard tasks which it imposed,
might seem more important than the merely retrospective gifts which it proffered.284 Under such
circumstances the rite could not fail to lead believers about to be baptized to attribute value here
278
The idea of sacrifice adopted by the Gentile Christian communities was that which was expressed in individual prophetic sayings
and in the Psalms, a spiritualising of the Semitic Jewish sacrificial ritual, which, however, had not altogether lost its original
features. The entrance of Greek ideas of sacrifice cannot be traced before Justin. Neither was there as yet any reflection as to
the connection of the sacrifice of the Church with the sacrifice of Christ upon the cross.
279 See my Texte und Unters. z. Gesch. d. Altchristl. Lit .II. 1. 2, p. 88 ff., p. 137 ff.
280 There neither was a doctrine of Baptism and the Lords Supper, nor was there any inner connection presupposed between
these holy actions. They were here and there placed together as actions by the Lord.
281 Melito, Fragm. XII. (Otto. Corp. Apol. IX. p. 418). ,
.
282 There is no sure trace of infant baptism in this epoch; personal faith is a necessary condition (see Hermas, Vis. III. 7. 3; Justin,
Apol. 1. 61). Prius est prdicare posterius tinguere (Tertull. de bapt. 14).
283 On the basis of repentance. See Prd. Petri in Clem. Strom. VI. 5. 43, 48.
284 See especially the second Epistle of Clement; Tertull. de bapt. 15: Felix aqua qu semel abluit, qum ludibrio pecatoribus
non est.
129
209
Adolf Harnack
to the mysterious as such.285 But that always creates a state of things which not only facilitates, but
positively prepares for the introduction of new and strange ideas. For neither fancy nor reflection
can long continue in the vacuum of mystery. The names and , which at that
period came into fashion for baptism, are instructive, inasmuch as neither of them is a direct
designation of the presupposed effect of baptism, the forgiveness of sin, and as, besides, both of
them evince a Hellenic conception. Baptism in being called the seal,286 is regarded as the guarantee
of a blessing, not as the blessing itself, at least the relation to it remains obscure; in being called
enlightenment,287 it is placed directly under an aspect that is foreign to it. It would be different if
we had to think of as a gift of the Holy Spirit, which is given to the baptised as real
principle of a new life and miraculous powers. But the idea of a necessary union of baptism with
a miraculous communication of the Spirit seems to have been lost very early, or to have become
uncertain, the actual state of things being no longer favourable to it;288 at any rate, it does not explain
the designation of baptism as .
210
285
The sinking and rising in baptism, and the immersion, were regarded as significant but not indispensable symbols (see Didache.
7). The most important passages for baptism are Didache 7: Barn. 6. 11: 11. 1. 11 (the connection in which the cross of Christ
is here placed to the water is important; the tertium comp. is that forgiveness of sin is the result of both); Herm. Vis. III. 3, Sim.
IX. 16, Mand. IV. 3 ( ,
); 2 Clem. 6. 9: 7. 6: 8. 6. Peculiar is Ignat. ad. Polyc. 6. 2: . Specially important
is Justin, Apol I. 61. 65. To this also belong many passages from Tertullians treatise de bapt.; a Gnostic baptismal hymn in
the third pseudo-Solomonic ode in the Pistis Sophia, p. 131, ed. Schwartze; Marcions baptismal formula in Irenus I. 21. 3. It
clearly follows from the seventh chapter of the Didache that its author held that the pronouncing of the sacred names over the
baptised and over the water was essential, but that immersion was not; see the thorough examination of this passage by Schaff.
The oldest church manual called the teaching of the twelve Apostles pp. 29-57. The controversy about the nature of Johns
baptism in its relation to Christian baptism is very old in Christendom; see also Tertull. de bapt. 10. Tertullian sees in Johns
baptism only a baptism to repentance, not to forgiveness.
286 In Hermas and 2 Clement. The expression probably arose from the language of the mysteries: see Appuleius, de Magia, 55:
Sacrorum pleraque initia in Grcia participavi. Eorum qudam signa et monumenta tradita mihi a sacerdotibus sedulo conservo.
Ever since the Gentile Christians conceived baptism (and the Lords Supper) according to the mysteries, they were of course
always surprised by the parallel with the mysteries themselves. That begins with Justin. Tertullian, de bapt. 5, says: Sed enim
nationes extrane, ab omni intellectu spiritalium potestatum eadem efficacia idolis suis subministrant. Sed viduis aquis sibi
mentiuntur. Nam et sacris quibusdam per lavacrum initiantur, Isidis alicujus aut Mithr; ipsos etiam deos suos lavationibus
efferunt. Ceterum villas, domos, templa totasque urbes aspergine circumlat aqua expiant passim. Certe ludis Apollinaribus et
Eleusiniis tinguuntur, idque se in regenerationem et impunitatem periuriorum suorum agere prsumunt. Item penes veteres,
quisquis se homicidio infecerat, purgatrices aquas explorabat. De praescr., 40: Diabolus ipsas quoque res sacramentorum
divinorum idolorum mysteriis mulatur. Tingit et ipse quosdam, utique credentes et fideles suos; expositionem delictorum de
lavacro repromittit, et si adhuc memini, Mithras signat illic in frontibus milites suos, celebrat et panis oblationem et imaginem
resurrectionis inducit .... summum pontificem in unius nuptiis statuit, habet et virgines, habet et continentes. The ancient
notion that matter has a mysterious influence on spirit came very early into vogue in connection with baptism. We see that from
Tertullians treatise on baptism and his speculations about the power of the water (c. 1 ff.). The water must, of course have been
first consecrated for this purpose (that is, the demons must be driven out of it). But then it is holy water with which the Holy
Spirit is united, and which is able really to cleanse the soul. See Hatch, The influence of Greek ideas, etc., p. 19. The consecration
of the water is certainly very old: though we have no definite witnesses from the earliest period. Even for the exorcism of the
baptised before baptism I know of no earlier witness than the Sentent. LXXXVII. episcoporum (Hartel. Opp. Cypr. I. p. 450,
No. 37: primo per mantis impositionem in exorcismo, secundo per baptismi regenerationem).
287 Justin is the first who does so (I. 61). The word comes from the Greek mysteries. On Justins theory of baptism, see also I. 62.
and Von Engelhardt, Christenthum Justins, p. 102 f.
288 Paul unites baptism and the communication of the Spirit: but they were very soon represented apart, see the accounts in the Acts
of the Apostles, which are certainly very obscure because the author has evidently never himself observed the descent of the
130
211
Adolf Harnack
As regards the Lords Supper, the most important point is that its celebration became more and
more the central point, not only for the worship of the Church, but for its very life as a Church. The
form of this celebration, the common meal, made it appear to be a fitting expression of the brotherly
unity of the community (on the public confession before the meal, see Didache, 14, and my notes
on the passage). The prayers which it included presented themselves as vehicles for bringing before
God, in thanksgiving and intercession, every thing that affected the community; and the presentation
of the elements for the holy ordinance was naturally extended to the offering of gifts for the poor
brethren, who in this way received them from the hand of God himself. In all these respects, however,
the holy ordinance appeared as a sacrifice of the community, and indeed, as it was also named
, a sacrifice of thanksgiving.289 As an act of sacrifice, all the termini technici which the
Old Testament applied to sacrifice could be applied to it, and all the wealth of ideas which the Old
Testament connects with sacrifice could be transferred to it. One cannot say that anything absolutely
foreign was therewith introduced into the ordinance, however doubtful it may be whether in the
idea of its founder the meal was thought of as a sacrificial meal. But it must have been of the most
wide-reaching significance, that a wealth of ideas was in this way connected with the ordinance,
which had nothing whatever in common either with the purpose of the meal as a memorial of
Christs death,290 or with the mysterious symbols of the body and blood of Christ. The result was
that the one transaction obtained a double value. At one time it appeared as the and
of the Church,291 as the pure sacrifice which is presented to the great king by Christians scattered
over the world, as they offer to him their prayers and place before him again what he has bestowed
in order to receive it back with thanks and praise. But there is no reference in this to the mysterious
Spirit, or anything like it. The ceasing of special manifestations of the Spirit in and after baptism, and the enforced renunciation
of seeing baptism accompanied by special shocks, must be regarded as the first stage in the sobering of the churches.
289 The idea of the whole transaction of the Supper as a sacrifice is plainly found in the Didache, (c. 14), in Ignatius, and above all
in Justin (I. 65 f.). But even Clement of Rome presupposes it, when (in cc. 4044) he draws a parallel between bishops and
deacons and the Priests and Levites of the Old Testament, describing as the chief function of the former (44. 4)
. This is not the place to enquire whether the first celebration had, in the mind of its founder, the character of a sacrificial
meal; but, certainly, the idea, as it was already developed at the time of Justin, had been created by the churches. Various reasons
tended towards seeing in the Supper a sacrifice. In the first place, Malachi I. 11, demanded a solemn Christian sacrifice: see my
notes on Didache, 14. 3. In the second place, all prayers were regarded as sacrifice, and therefore the solemn prayers at the
Supper must be specially considered as such. In the third place, the words of institution , contained a command
with regard to a definite religious action. Such an action, however, could only be represented as a sacrifice, and this the more
that the Gentile Christians might suppose that they had to understand in the sense of . In the fourth place, payments
in kind were necessary for the agap connected with the Supper, out of which were taken the bread and wine for the Holy
celebration; in what other aspect could these offerings in the worship be regarded than as for the purpose of a sacrifice?
Yet the spiritual idea so prevailed that only the prayers were regarded as the proper, even in the case of Justin (Dial. 117).
The elements are only , , which obtain their value from the prayers in which thanks are given for the gifts of
creation and redemption as well as for the holy meal, and entreaty is made for the introduction of the community into the Kingdom
of God (see Didache, 9. 10). Therefore, even the sacred meal itself is called (Justin, Apol. I. 66:
. Didache 9. 1: Ignat., because it is . It is a mistake to suppose that Justin
already understood the body of Christ to be the object of , and therefore thought of a sacrifice of this body (I. 66). The
real sacrificial act in the Supper consists rather, according to Justin, only in the , whereby the
becomes the . The sacrifice of the Supper in its essence, apart from the offering of alms, which in the
practice of the Church was closely united with it, is nothing but a sacrifice of prayer: the sacrificial act of the Christian here also
is nothing else than an act of prayer (see Apol. I. 13, 6567; Dial. 28, 29, 41, 70, 116118).
290 Justin lays special stress on this purpose. On the other hand, it is wanting in the Supper prayers of the Didache, unless c. 9. 2 be
regarded as an allusion to it.
291 The designation is first found in the Didache, c. 14.
131
212
Adolf Harnack
words, that the bread and wine are the body of Christ broken and the blood of Christ shed for the
forgiveness of sin. These words, in and of themselves, must have challenged a special consideration.
They called forth the recognition in the sacramental action, or rather in the consecrated elements,
of a mysterious communication of God, a gift of salvation, and this is the second aspect. But on a
purely spiritual conception of the Divine gift of salvation, the blessings mediated through the Holy
Supper could only be thought of as spiritual (faith, knowledge, or eternal life), and the consecrated
elements could only be recognised as the mysterious vehicles of these blessings. There was yet no
reflection on the distinction between symbol and vehicle; the symbol was rather regarded as the
vehicle, and vice versa. We shall search in vain for any special relation of the partaking of the
consecrated elements to the forgiveness of sin. That was made impossible by the whole current
notions of sin and forgiveness. That on which value was put was the strengthening of faith and
knowledge, as well as the guarantee of eternal life; and a meal in which there was appropriated not
merely common bread and wine, but a , seemed to have a bearing upon these.
There was as yet little reflection; but there can be no doubt that thought here moved in a region
bounded, on the one hand, by the intention of doing justice to the wonderful words of institution
which had been handed down, and on the other hand, by the fundamental conviction that spiritual
things can only be got by means of the Spirit.292 There was thus attached to the Supper the idea of
sacrifice, and of a sacred gift guaranteed by God. The two things were held apart, for there is as
213
292
The Supper was regarded as a Sacrament in so far as a blessing was represented in its holy food. The conception of the nature
of this blessing as set forth in John VI. 27-58, appears to have been the most common. It may be traced back to Ignatius, ad Eph.
20. 2: , .
Cf. Didache, 10. 3: ; also 10. 21:
. Justin Apol. I. 66:
( , that is, the holy food, like all nourishment, is completely transformed into our flesh; but what Justin
has in view here is most probably the body of the resurrection. The expression, as the context shews, is chosen for the sake of
the parallel to the incarnation). Iren. IV. 18. 5: V. 2. 2 f. As to how the elements are related to the body and blood of Christ,
Ignatius seems to have expressed himself in a strictly realistic way in several passages, especially ad. Smyr. 7. 1:
, ,
. But many passages shew that Ignatius was far from such a conception, and rather thought as John
did. In Trall. 8, faith is described as the flesh, and love as the blood of Christ; in Rom. 7, in one breath the flesh of Christ is
called the bread of God, and the blood
. In Philad. 1, we read: .
.
In Philad. 5, the Gospel is called the flesh of Christ, etc. Hofling is therefore right in saying (Lehre v. Opfer, p. 39): The Eucharist
is to Ignatius of Christ, as a visible Gospel, a kind of Divine institution attesting the content of , viz., belief in the
, an institution which is at the same time, to the community, a means of representing and preserving its unity in
this belief. On the other hand, it cannot be mistaken that Justin (Apol. I. 66) presupposed the identity, miraculously produced
by the Logos, of the consecrated bread and the body he had assumed. In this we have probably to recognise an influence on the
conception of the Supper, of the miracle represented in the Greek Mysteries:
,
, ,
, (See Von Otto on the passage).
In the Texte u. Unters. VII. 2. p. 117 ff., I have shewn that in the different Christian circles of the second century, water and
only water was often used in the Supper instead of wine, and that in many regions this custom was maintained up to the middle
of the third century (see Cypr. Ep. 63). I have endeavoured to make it further probable that even Justin in his Apology describes
a celebration of the Lords Supper with bread and water. The latter has been contested by Zahn, Bread and wine in the Lords
Supper, in the early Church, 1892, and Jlicher, Zur Gesch. der Abendmahisfeier in der aeltesten Kirche (Abhandl. f. Weiszcker,
1892, p. 217 ff.).
132
Adolf Harnack
yet no trace of that conception according to which the body of Christ represented in the bread293 is
the sacrifice offered by the community. But one feels almost called upon here to construe from the
premises the later development of the idea, with due regard to the ancient Hellenic ideas of sacrifice.
214
215
3. The natural distinctions among men, and the differences of position and vocation which these
involve, were not to be abolished in the Church, notwithstanding the independence and equality of
every individual Christian, but were to be consecrated: above all, every relation of natural piety
was to be respected. Therefore the elders also acquired a special authority, and were to receive the
utmost deference and due obedience. But, however important the organisation that was based on
the distinction between and , it ought not to be considered as characteristic
of the Churches, not even where there appeared at the head of the community a college of chosen
elders, as was the case in the greater communities and, perhaps, soon everywhere. On the contrary,
only an organisation founded on the gifts of the Spirit () bestowed on the Church by
God,294 corresponded to the original peculiarity of the Christian community. The Apostolic age
therefore transmitted a twofold organi sation to the communities. The one was based on the
, and was regarded as established directly by God; the other stood in the closest connection
with the economy of the Church, above all with the offering of gifts, and so with the sacrificial
service. In the first were men speaking the word of God, commissioned and endowed by God, and
bestowed on Christendom, not on a particular community, who as , , and
had to spread the Gospel, that is to edify the Church of Christ. The were regarded as
the real in the communities, whose words given them by the Spirit all were to accept in
faith. In the second were , and , appointed by the individual congregation and
endowed with the charisms of leading and helping, who had to receive and administer the gifts, to
perform the sacrificial service (if there were no prophets present), and take charge of the affairs of
the community.295 It lay in the nature of the case that as a rule the , as independent officials,
were chosen from among the elders, and might thus coincide with the chosen . But a
very important development takes place in the second half of our epoch. The prophets and
teachersas the result of causes which followed the naturalising of the Churches in the worldfell
more and more into the background, and their function, the solemn service of the word, began to
293
Ignatius calls the thank-offering the flesh of Christ, but the concept flesh of Christ is for him itself a spiritual one. On the
contrary, Justin sees in the bread the actual flesh of Christ, but does not connect it with the idea of sacrifice. They are thus both
as yet far from the later conception. The numerous allegories which are already attached to the Supper (one bread, equivalent
to one community; many scattered grains bound up in the one bread, equivalent to the Christians scattered abroad in the world,
who are to be gathered together into the Kingdom of God; one altar, equivalent to one assembly of the community, excluding
private worship, etc.), cannot as a group be adduced here.
294 Cf. for the following my arguments in the larger edition of the Teaching of the Apostles Chap. 5, (Texte u. Unters. II. 1. 2).
The numerous recent enquiries (Loening, Loofs, Rville etc.) will be found referred to in Sohms Kirchenrecht. Vol. I. 1892,
where the most exhaustive discussions are given.
295 That the bishops and deacons were, primarily, officials connected with the cultus is most clearly seen from 1 Clem. 40-44, but
also from the connection in which the 14th Chap. of the Didache stands with the 15th (see the 15.1), to which Hatch in
conversation called my attention. The and the intercourse with other communities (the fostering of the unitas)
belonged, above all, to the affairs of the Church. Here, undoubtedly, from the beginning lay an important part of the bishops
duties. Ramsay (The Church in the Roman Empire, p. 361 ff.) has emphasised this point exclusively, and therefore one-sidedly.
According to him, the monarchical Episcopate sprang from the officials who were appointed ad hoc and for a time, for the
purpose of promoting intercourse with other churches.
133
216
217
Adolf Harnack
pass over to the officials of the community, the bishops, who already played a great role in the
public worship. At the same time, however, it appeared more and more fitting to entrust one official,
as chief leader (superintendent of public worship), with the reception of gifts and their administration,
together with the care of the unity of public worship; that is, to appoint one bishop instead of a
number of bishops, leaving, however, as before, the college of presbyters, as
, a kind of senate of the community.296 Moreover, the idea of the chosen bishops and
deacons as the antitypes of the Priests and Levites, had been formed at an early period in connection
with the idea of the new sacrifice. But we find also the idea, which is probably the earlier of the
two, that the prophets and teachers, as the commissioned preachers of the word, are the priests. The
hesitancy in applying this important allegory must have been brought to an end by the disappearance
of the latter view. But it must have been still more important that the bishops, or bishop, in taking
over the functions of the old , who were not Church officials, took over also
the profound veneration with which they were regarded as the special organs of the Spirit. But the
condition of the organisation in the communities about the year 140, seems to have been a very
diverse one. Here and there, no doubt, the convenient arrangement of appointing only one bishop
was carried out, while his functions had not perhaps been essentially increased, and the prophets
and teachers were still the great spokesmen. Conversely, there may still have been in other
communities a number of bishops, while the prophets and teachers no longer played regularly an
important role. A fixed organisation was reached, and the Apostolic episcopal constitution
established, only in consequence of the so-called Gnostic crisis, which was epoch-making in every
respect. One of its most important presuppositions, and one that has struck very deep into the
development of doctrine must, however, be borne in mind here. As the Churches traced back all
the laws according to which they lived, and all the blessings they held sacred, to the tradition of
the twelve Apostles, because they regarded them as Christian only on that presupposition, they also
in like manner, as far as we can discover, traced back their organisation of presbyters, i.e., of bishops
and deacons, to Apostolic appointment. The notion which followed quite naturally, was that the
Apostles themselves had appointed the first church officials.297 That idea may have found support
in some actual cases of the kind, but this does not need to be considered here; for these cases would
not have led to the setting up of a theory. But the point in question here is a theory, which is nothing
else than an integral part of the general theory, that the twelve Apostles were in every respect the
middle term between Jesus and the present Churches (see above, p. 158). This conception is earlier
than the great Gnostic crisis, for the Gnostics also shared it. But no special qualities of the officials,
but only of the Church itself, were derived from it, and it was believed that the independence and
sovereignty of the Churches were in no way endangered by it, because an institution by Apostles
was considered equivalent to an institution by the Holy Spirit, whom they possessed and whom
296
Sohm (in the work mentioned above) seeks to prove that the monarchical Episcopate originated in Rome and is already presupposed
by Hermas. I hold that the proof for this has not been adduced, and I must also in great part reject the bold statements which are
fastened on to the first Epistle of Clement. They may be comprehended in the proposition which Sohm, p. 158, has placed at the
head of his discussion of the Epistle. The first Epistle of Clement makes an epoch in the history of the organisation of the
Church. It was destined to put an end to the early Christian constitution of the Church. According to Sohm (p. 165), another
immediate result of the Epistle was a change of constitution in the Romish Church, the introduction of the monarchical Episcopate.
That, however, can only be asserted, not proved; for the proof which Sohm has endeavoured to bring from Ignatius Epistle to
the Romans and the Shepherd of Hermas, is not convincing.
297 See, above all, 1 Clem. 42, 44, Acts of the Apostles, Pastoral Epistles, etc.
134
Adolf Harnack
they followed. The independence of the Churches rested precisely on the fact that they had the
Spirit in their midst. The conception here briefly sketched was completely transformed in the
following period by the addition of another ideathat of Apostolic succession,298 and then became,
together with the idea of the specific priesthood of the leader of the Church, the most important
means of exalting the office above the community.299
SUPPLEMENTARY.
218
This review of the common faith and the beginnings of knowledge, worship and organisation in
the earliest Gentile Christianity will have shewn that the essential premises for the development of
Catholicism were already in existence before the middle of the second century, and before the
burning conflict with Gnosticism. We may see this, whether we look at the peculiar form of the
Kerygma, or at the expression of the idea of tradition, or at the theology with its moral and
philosophic attitude. We may therefore conclude that the struggle with Gnosticism hastened the
development, but did not give it a new direction. For the Greek spirit, the element which was most
operative in Gnosticism, was already concealed in the earliest Gentile Christianity itself; it was the
atmosphere which one breathed; but the elements peculiar to Gnosticism were for the most part
rejected.300 We may even go back a step further (see above, pp. 41, 76). The great Apostle to the
Gentiles himself, in his epistle to the Romans and in those to the Corinthians, transplanted the
Gospel into Greek modes of thought. He attempted to expound it with Greek ideas, and not only
called the Greeks to the Old Testament and the Gospel, but also introduced the Gospel as a leaven
into the religious and philosophic world of Greek ideas. Moreover, in his pneumatico-cosmic
Christology he gave the Greeks an impulse towards a theologoumenon, at whose service they could
place their whole philosophy and mysticism. He preached the foolishness of Christ crucified, and
yet in doing so proclaimed the wisdom of the nature-vanquishing Spirit, the heavenly Christ. From
this moment was established a development which might indeed assume very different forms, but
in which all the forces and ideas of Hellenism must gradually pass over to the Gospel. But even
with this the last word has not been said; on the contrary, we must remember that the Gospel itself
298
This idea is Romish. See Book II. chap 11. C.

We must remember here that besides the teachers, elders and deacons, the ascetics (virgins, widows, celibates, abstinentes) and
the martyrs (confessors) enjoyed a special respect in the Churches, and frequently laid hold of the government and leading of
them. Hermas enjoins plainly enough the duty of esteeming the confessors higher than the presbyters (Vis. III. 1. 2). The widows
were soon entrusted with diaconal tasks connected with the worship, and received a corresponding respect. As to the limits of
this, there was, as we can gather from different passages, much disagreement. One statement in Tertullian shews that the confessors
had special claims to be considered in the choice of a bishop (adv. Valent. 4: Speraverat Episcopatum Valentinus, quia et ingenio
poterat et eloquio. Sed alium ex martyrii prrogativa loci potitum indignatus de ecclesia authentic regul abrupit). This
statement is strengthened by other passages; see Tertull. de fuga; 11: Hoc sentire et facere omnem servum dei oportet, etiam
minors loci, ut maioris fieri possit, si quern gradum in persecutionis tolerantia ascenderit; see Hippol. in the Arab. canons, and
also Achelis, Texte u. Unters. VI. 4. pp. 67, 220: Cypr. Epp. 38. 39. The way in which confessors and ascetics, from the end of
the second century, attempted to have their say in the leading of the Churches, and the respectful way in which it was sought to
set their claims aside, shew that a special relation to the Lord, and therefore a special right with regard to the community, was
early acknowledged to these people, on account of their archievements. On the transition of the old prophets and teachers into
wandering ascetics, later into monks, see the Syriac Pseudo-Clementine Epistles, de virginitate, and my Abhandl. i. d.
Sitzungsberichten d. K. Pr. Akad. d. Wissensch. 1891, p. 361 ff.
300 See Weizscker. Gtt. Gel. Anz. 1886, No. 21, whose statements I can almost entirely make my own.
299
135
Adolf Harnack
belonged to the fulness of the times, which is indicated by the inter-action of the Old Testament
and the Hellenic religions (see above, pp. 41, 56).
219
220
The documents which have been preserved from the first century of the Gentile Church are, in their
relation to the history of Dogma, very diverse. In the Didache we have a Catechism for Christian
life dependent on a Jewish Greek Catechism, and giving expression to what was specifically
Christian in the prayers and in the order of the Church. The Epistle of Barnabas, probably of
Alexandrian origin, teaches the correct, Christian, interpretation of the Old Testament, rejects the
literal interpretation and Judaism as of the devil, and in Christology essentially follows Paul. The
Romish first Epistle of Clement, which also contains other Pauline reminiscences (reconciliation
and justification), represents the same Christology, but it set it in a moralistic mode of thought.
This is a most typical writing in which the spirit of tradition, order, stability, and the universal
ecclesiastical guardianship of Rome is already expressed. The moralistic mode of thought is
classically represented by the Shepherd of Hermas and the second Epistle of Clement, in which,
besides, the eschatological element is very prominent. We have in the Shepherd the most important
document for the Church Christianity of the age, reflected in the mirror of a prophet who, however,
takes into account the concrete relations. The theology of Ignatius is the most advanced, in so far
as he, opposing the Gnostics, brings the facts of salvation into the foreground, and directs his Gnosis
not so much to the Old Testament as to the history of Christ. He attempts to make Christ
and the central point of Christianity. In this sense his theology and speech is
Christocentric, related to that of Paul and the fourth Evangelist, (specially striking is the relationship
with Ephesians,) and is strongly contrasted with that of his contemporaries. Of kindred spirit with
him are Melito and Irenus, whose forerunner he is. He is related to them as Methodius at a later
period was related to the classical orthodox theology of the fourth and fifth centuries. This parallel
is appropriate not merely in point of form: it is rather one and the same tendency of mind which
passes over from Ignatius to Melito, Irenus, Methodius, Athanasius, Gregory of Nyssa (here,
however, mixed with Origenic elements), and to Cyril of Alexandria. Its characteristic is that not
only does the person of Christ as the God-man form the central point and sphere of theology, but
also that all the main points of his history are mysteries of the worlds redemption. (Ephes. 19).
But Ignatius is also distinguished by the fact that behind all that is enthusiastic, pathetic, abrupt,
and again all that pertains to liturgical form, we find in his epistles a true devotion to Christ (
). He is laid hold of by Christ: Cf. Ad. Rom. 6: , ,
, ; Rom. 7:
. As a sample of his theological speech and his rule of faith, see ad Smyrn. I:
,
,
, ,
, , ,
,
,

. The Epistle of Polycarp is
136
Adolf Harnack
characterised by its dependence on earlier Christian writings (Epistles of Paul, I Peter, I John),
consequently by its conservative attitude with regard to the most valuable traditions of the Apostolic
period. The Kerygma of Peter exhibits the transition from the early Christian literature to the
apologetic (Christ as and as ).
221
222
It is manifest that the lineage, Ignatius, Polycarp, Melito, Irenus, is in characteristic contrast
with all others, has deep roots in the Apostolic age, as in Paul and in the Johannine writings, and
contains in germ important factors of the future formation of dogma, as it appeared in Methodius,
Athanasius, Marcellus, Cyril of Jerusalem. It is very doubtful, therefore, whether we are justified
in speaking of an Asia Minor theology. (Ignatius does not belong to Asia Minor.) At any rate, the
expression, Asia Minor-Romish Theology, has no justification. But it has its truth in the correct
observation, that the standards by which Christianity and Church matters were measured and defined
must have been similar in Rome and Asia Minor during the second century. We lack all knowledge
of the closer connections. We can only again refer to the journey of Polycarp to Rome, to that of
Irenus by Rome to Gaul, to the journey of Abercius and others. (Cf. also the application of the
Montanist communities in Asia Minor for recognition by the Roman bishop.) In all probability,
Asia Minor, along with Rome, was the spiritual centre of Christendom from about 60-200; but we
have but few means for describing how this centre was brought to bear on the circumference. What
we do know belongs more to the history of the Church than to the special history of dogma.
Literature.The writings of the so-called Apostolic Fathers. See the edition of v. Gebhardt, Harnack,
Zahn, 1876. Hilgenfeld, Nov. Test. extra Can. recept. fasc. IV. 2 edit. 1884, has collected further
remains of early Christian literature. The Teaching of the twelve Apostles. Fragments of the Gospel
and Apocalypse of Peter (my edition, 1893). Also the writings of Justin and other apologists, in so
far as they give disclosures about the faith of the communities of his time, as well as statements in
Celsus , in Irenus, Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian. Even Gnostic fragments
may be cautiously turned to profit. Ritschl, Entstehung der altkath. Kirche, 2 Aufl. 1857. Pfleiderer,
Das Urchristenthum, 1887. Renan, Origins of Christianity, vol. V. V. Engelhardt, Das Christenthum
Justins, d. M. 1878, p. 375 ff. Schenkel, Das Christusbild der Apostel, etc., 1879. Zahn, Gesch.
des N.-Tlichen Kanons, 2 Bde. 1888. Behm, Das Christliche Gesetzthum der Apostolischen Vter
(Zeitschr. f. kirchl. Wissensch. 1886). Dorner, History of the doctrine of the Person of Christ, 1845.
Schultz, Die Lehre von der Gottheit Christi, 1881, p. 22 ff: Hfling, Die Lehre der ltesten Kirche
vom Opfer, 1851, Hfling, Das Sacrament d. Taufe, 1848. Kahnis, Die Lehre vom Abendmahl,
1851. Th. Harnack, Der Christliche Gemeindegottedienst im Apost. u. Altkath. Zeitalter, 1854.
Hatch, Organisation of the Early Church, 1883. My Prolegomena to the Didache (Texte u. Unters.
II. Bd. H. 1, 2). Diestel, Gesch. des A. T. in der Christl. Kirche, 1869. Sohm, Kirchenrecht, 1892.
Monographs on the Apostolic Fathers: on 1 Clem.: Lipsius, Lightfoot (most accurate commentary),
Wrede; on 2 Clem.: A. Harnack (Ztschr. f. K. Gesch. 1887); on Barnabas: J. Mller; on Hermas:
Zahn, Hckstdt, Link; on Papias: Weiffenbach, Leimbach, Zahn, Lightfoot; on Ignatius and
Polycarp: Lightfoot (accurate commentary) and Zahn; on the Gospel and Apocalypse of Peter: A.
Harnack; on the Kerygma of Peter: von Dobschtz; on Acts of Thecla: Schlau.
223
137
Adolf Harnack
CHAPTER IV
THE ATTEMPTS OF THE GNOSTICS TO CREATE AN APOSTOLIC DOGMATIC, AND
A CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY; OR, THE ACUTE SECULARISING OF CHRISTIANITY.
I. The Conditions for the Rise of Gnosticism.
224
THE Christian communities were originally unions for a holy life on the ground of a common hope,
which rested on the belief that the God who has spoken by the Prophets has sent his Son Jesus
Christ, and through him revealed eternal life, and will shortly make it manifest. Christianity had
its roots in certain facts and utterances, and the foundation of the Christian union was the common
hope, the holy life in the Spirit according to the law of God, and the holding fast to those facts and
utterances. There was, as the foregoing chapter will have shewn, no fixed Didache beyond that.301
There was abundance of fancies, ideas, and knowledge, but these had not yet the value of being
the religion itself. Yet the belief that Christianity guarantees the perfect knowledge, and leads from
one degree of clearness to another, was in operation from the very beginning. This conviction had
to be immediately tested by the Old Testament, that is, the task was imposed on the majority of
thinking Christians, by the circumstances in which the Gospel had been proclaimed to them, of
making the Old Testament intelligible to themselves, in other words, of using this book as a Christian
book, and of finding the means by which they might be able to repel the Jewish claim to it, and
refute the Jewish interpretation of it. This task would not have been imposed, far less solved, if the
Christian communities in the Empire had not entered into the inheritance of the Jewish propaganda,
which had al-ready been greatly influenced by foreign religions (Babylonian and Persian, see the
Jewish Apocalypses), and in which an extensive spiritualising of the Old Testament religion had
already taken place. This spiritualising was the result of a philosophic view of religion, and this
philosophic view was the outcome of a lasting influence of Greek philosophy and of the Greek
spirit generally on Judaism. In consequence of this view, all facts and sayings of the Old Testament
in which one could not find his way were allegorised. Nothing was what it seemed, but was only
the symbol of something invisible. The history of the Old Testament was here sublimated to a
history of the emancipation of reason from passion. It describes, however, the beginning of the
historical development of Christianity, that as soon as it wished to give account of itself, or to turn
to advantage the documents of revelations which were in its possession, it had to adopt the methods
of that fantastic syncretism. We have seen above that those writers who made a diligent use of the
Old Testament had no hesitation in making use of the allegorical method. That was required not
only by the inability to understand the verbal sense of the Old Testament, presenting diverging
moral and religious opinions, but, above all, by the conviction that on every page of that book Christ
and the Christian Church must be found. How could this conviction have been maintained unless
the definite concrete meaning of the documents had been already obliterated by the Jewish
philosophic view of the Old Testament?
301
We may consider here once more the articles which are embraced in the first ten chapters of the recently discovered
, after enumerating and describing which, the author continues (11. 1):
, .
138
225
226
Adolf Harnack
This necessary allegorical interpretation, however, brought into the communities an intellectual
philosophic element, , which was perfectly distinct from the Apocalyptic dreams, in which
were beheld angel hosts on white horses, Christ with eyes as a flame of fire, hellish beasts, conflict
and victory.302 In this , which attached itself to the Old Testament, many began to see the
specific blessing which was promised to mature faith, and through which it was to attain perfection.
What a wealth of relations, hints, and intuitions seemed to disclose itself, as soon as the Old
Testament was considered allegorically, and to what extent had the way been prepared here by the
Jewish philosophic teachers! From the simple narratives of the Old Testament had already been
developed a theosophy, in which the most abstract ideas had acquired reality, and from which
sounded forth the Hellenic canticle of the power of the Spirit over matter and sensuality, and of the
true home of the soul. Whatever in this great adaptation still remained obscure and unnoticed, was
now lighted up by the history of Jesus, his birth, his life, his sufferings and triumph. The view of
the Old Testament as a document of the deepest wisdom, transmitted to those who knew how to
read it as such, unfettered the intellectual interest which would not rest until it had entirely transferred
the new religion from the world of feelings, actions and hopes, into the world of Hellenic
conceptions, and transformed it into a metaphysic. In that exposition of the Old Testament which
we find, for example, in the so-called Barnabas, there is already concealed an important philosophic,
Hellenic element, and in that sermon which bears the name of Clement (the so-called second Epistle
of Clement), conceptions such as that of the Church, have already assumed a bodily form and been
joined in marvellous connections, while, on the contrary, things concrete have been transformed
into things invisible.
But once the intellectual interest was unfettered, and the new religion had approximated to the
Hellenic spirit by means of a philosophic view of the Old Testament, how could that spirit be
prevented from taking complete and immediate possession of it, and where, in the first instance,
could the power be found that was able to decide whether this or that opinion was incompatible
with Christianity? This Christianity, as it was, unequivocally excluded all polytheism, and all
national religions existing in the Empire. It opposed to them the one God, the Saviour Jesus, and
a spiritual worship of God. But at the same time it summoned all thoughtful men to knowledge by
declaring itself to be the only true religion, while it appeared to be only a variety of Judaism. It
seemed to put no limits to the character and extent of the knowledge, least of all to such knowledge
as was able to allow all that was transmitted to remain, and at the same time abolish it by
transforming it into mysterious symbols. That really was the method which every one must and
did apply who wished to get from Christianity more than practical motives and super earthly hopes.
But where was the limit of the application? Was not the next step to see in the Evangelic records
also new material for spiritual interpretations, and to illustrate from the narratives there, as from
the Old Testament, the conflict of the spirit with matter, of reason with sensuality? Was not the
302
It is a good tradition which designates the so-called Gnosticism simply as Gnosis, and yet uses this word also for the speculations
of non Gnostic teachers of antiquity (e.g., of Barnabas). But the inferences which follow have not been drawn. Origen says truly
(c. Celsus III. 12): As men, not only the labouring and serving classes, but also many from the cultured classes of Greece, came
to see something honourable in Christianity, sects could not fail to arise, not simply from the desire for controversy and
contradiction, but because several scholars endeavoured to penetrate deeper into the truth of Christianity. In this way sects arose
which received their names from men who indeed admired Christianity in its essence, but from many different causes had arrived
at different conceptions of it.
139
227
Adolf Harnack
conception, that the traditional deeds of Christ were really the last act in the struggle of those mighty
spiritual powers whose conflict is delineated in the Old Testament, at least as evident as the other,
that those deeds were the fulfilment of mysterious promises? Was it not in keeping with the
consciousness possessed by the new religion of being the universal religion, that one should not
be satisfied with mere beginnings of a new knowledge, or with fragments of it, but should seek to
set up such knowledge in a complete and systematic form, and so to exhibit the best and universal
system of life as also the best and universal system of knowledge of the world? Finally, did not the
free and yet so rigid forms in which the Christian communities were organised, the union of the
mysterious with a wonderful publicity, of the spiritual with significant rites (baptism and the Lords
Supper), invite men to find here the realisation of the ideal which the Hellenic religious spirit was
at that time seeking, viz., a communion which, in virtue of a Divine revelation, is in possession of
the highest knowledge, and therefore leads the holiest life; a communion which does not
communicate the knowledge by discourse, but by mysterious efficacious consecrations and by
revealed dogmas? These questions are thrown out here in accordance with the direction which the
historical progress of Christianity took. The phenomenon called Gnosticism gives the answer to
them.303
2. The Nature of Gnosticism.
228
The Catholic Church afterwards claimed as her own those writers of the first century (60-160) who
were content with turning speculation to account only as a means of spiritualising the Old Testament,
without, however, attempting a systematic reconstruction of tradition. But all those who in the first
century undertook to furnish Christian practice with the foundation of a complete systematic
knowledge, she declared false Christians, Christians only in name. Historical enquiry cannot accept
this judgment. On the contrary, it sees in Gnosticism a series of undertakings, which in a certain
way is analogous to the Catholic embodiment of Christianity, in doctrine, morals, and worship.
The great distinction here consists essentially in the fact that the Gnostic systems represent the
acute secularising or hellenising of Christianity, with the rejection of the Old Testament;304 while
the Catholic system, on the other hand, represents a gradual process of the same kind with the
conservation of the Old Testament. The traditional religion on being, as it were, suddenly required
to recognise itself in a picture foreign to it, was yet vigorous enough to reject that picture; but to
the gradual, and one might say indulgent remodelling to which it was subjected, it offered but little
resistance, nay, as a rule, it was never conscious of it. It is therefore no paradox to say that
Gnosticism, which is just Hellenism, has in Catholicism obtained half a victory. We have, at Ieast,
the same justification for that assertionthe parallel may be permittedas we have for recognising
303
The majority of Christians in the second century belonged no doubt to the uncultured classes and did not seek abstract knowledge,
nay, were distrustful of it; see the of Celsus, especially III. 44, and the writings of the Apologists. Yet we may
infer from the treatise of Origen against Celsus, that the number of Christiani rudes who cut themselves off from theological
and philosophic knowledge, was about the year 240 a very large one; and Tertullian says (Adv. Prax. 3): Simplices quique, ne
dixerim imprudentes et idiot, qu major semper credentium pars est, cf. de jejun. 11: Major pars imperitorum apud
gloriosissimam multitudinem psychicorum.
304 Overbeck (Stud. z. Gesch. d. alten Kirche. p. 184) has the merit of having first given convincing expression to this view of
Gnosticism.
140
Adolf Harnack
a triumph of 18th century ideas in the first Empire, and a continuance, though with reservations,
of the old regime.
229
From this point of view the position to be assigned to the Gnostics in the history of dogma, which
has hitherto been always misunderstood, is obvious. They were, in short, the Theologians of the
first century.305 They were the first to transform Christianity into a system of doctrines (dogmas).
They were the first to work up tradition systematically. They undertook to present Christianity as
the absolute religion, and therefore placed it in definite opposition to the other religions, even to
Judaism. But to them the absolute religion, viewed in its contents, was identical with the result of
the philosophy of religion for which the support of a revelation was to be sought. They are therefore
those Christians who, in a swift advance, attempted to capture Christianity for Hellenic culture,
and Hellenic culture for Christianity, and who gave up the Old Testament in order to facilitate the
conclusion of the covenant between the two powers, and make it possible to assert the absoluteness
of Christianity.But the significance of the Old Testament in the religious history of the world
lies just in this, that, in order to be maintained at all, it required the application of the allegoric
method, that is, a definite proportion of Greek ideas, and that, on the other hand, it opposed the
strongest barrier to the complete hellenising of Christianity. Neither the sayings of Jesus, nor
Christian hopes, were at first capable of forming such a barrier. If, now, the majority of Gnostics
could make the attempt to disregard the Old Testament, that is a proof that, in wide circles of
Christendom, people were at first satisfied with an abbreviated form of the Gospel, containing the
preaching of the one God, of the resurrection and of continence,a law and an ideal of practical
life.306 In this form, as it was realised in life, the Christianity which dispensed with doctrines
seemed capable of union with every form of thoughtful and earnest philosophy, because the Jewish
foundation did not make its appearance here at all. But the majority of Gnostic undertakings may
also be viewed as attempts to transform Christianity into a theosophy, that is, into a revealed
metaphysic and philosophy of history, with a complete disregard of the Jewish Old Testament soil
on which it originated, through the use of Pauline ideas,307 and under the influence of the Platonic
spirit. Moreover, comparison is possible between writers such as Barnabas and Ignatius, and the
so-called Gnostics, to the effect of making the latter appear in possession of a completed theory,
to which fragmentary ideas in the former exhibit a striking affinity.
We have hitherto tacitly presupposed that in Gnosticism the Hellenic spirit desired to make itself
master of Christianity, or more correctly of the Christian communities. This conception may be,
and really is still contested. For according to the accounts of later opponents, and on these we are
almost exclusively dependent here, the main thing with the Gnostics seems to have been the
305
The ability of the prominent Gnostic teachers has been recognised by the Church Fathers: see Hieron. Comm. in Osee. II. to,
Opp. VI. 1: Nullus potest hresim struere, nisi qui ardens ingenii est et habet dona natur qu a deo artifice sunt creata: talis
fait Valentinus, talis Marcion, quos doctissimos legimus, talis Bardesanes, cujus etiam philosophi admirantur ingenium. It is
still more important to see how the Alexandrian theologians (Clement and Origen) estimated the exegetic labours of the Gnostics
and took account of them. Origen undoubtedly recognised Herakleon as a prominent exegete, and treats him most respectfully
even where he feels compelled to differ from him. All Gnostics cannot, of course, be regarded as theologians. In their totality
they form the Greek society with a Christian name.
306 Otherwise the rise of Gnosticism cannot at all be explained.
307 Cf. Bigg, The Christian Platonists of Alexandria, p. 83: Gnosticism was in one respect distorted Paulinism
141
230
231
Adolf Harnack
reproduction of Asiatic Mythologoumena of all kinds, so that we should rather have to see in
Gnosticism a union of Christianity with the most remote Oriental cults and their wisdom. But with
regard to the most important Gnostic systems the words hold true, The hands are the hands of
Esau, but the voice is the voice of Jacob. There can be no doubt of the fact, that the Gnosticism
which has become a factor in the movement of the history of dogma, was ruled in the main by the
Greek spirit, and determined by the interests and doctrines of the Greek philosophy of religion,308
which doubtless had already assumed a syncretistic character. This fact is certainly concealed by
the circumstance that the material of the speculations was taken now from this, and now from that
Oriental religious philosophy, from astrology and the Semitic cosmologies. But that is only in
keeping with the stage which the religious development had reached among the Greeks and Romans
of that time.309 The cultured, and these primarily come into consideration here, no longer had a
religion in the sense of a national religion, but a philosophy of religion. They were, however, in
search of a religion, that is, a firm basis for the results of their speculations, and they hoped to
obtain it by turning themselves towards the very old Oriental cults, and seeking to fill them with
the religious and moral knowledge which had been gained by the Schools of Plato and of Zeno.
The union of the traditions and rites of the Oriental religions, viewed as mysteries, with the spirit
of Greek philosophy is the characteristic of the epoch. The needs, which asserted themselves with
equal strength, of a complete knowledge of the All, of a spiritual God, a sure and therefore very
old revelation, atonement and immortality, were thus to be satisfied at one and the same time. The
most sublimated spiritualism enters here into the strangest union with a crass superstition based on
Oriental cults. This superstition was supposed to insure and communicate the spiritual blessings.
These complicated tendencies now entered into Christianity.
We have accordingly to ascertain and distinguish in the prominent Gnostic schools, which, in the
second century on Greek soil, became an important factor in the history of the Church, the
Semitic-cosmological foundations, the Hellenic philosophic mode of thought, and the recognition
of the redemption of the world by Jesus Christ. Further, we have to take note of the three elements
of Gnosticism, viz., the speculative and philosophical, the mystic element connection with worship,
and the practical, ascetic. The close connection in which these three elements appear,310 the total
308
Joel, Blick in die Religionsgesch. Vol I. pp. 101-170, has justly emphasised the Greek character of Gnosis, and insisted on
the significance of Platonism for it. The Oriental element did not always in the case of the Gnostics originate at first hand, but
had already passed through a Greek channel.
309 The age of the Antonines was the flourishing period of Gnosticism. Marquardt (Rmische Staatsverwaltung, vol. 3, p. 81) says
of this age: With the Antonines begins the last period of the Roman religious development, in which two new elements enter
into it. These are the Syrian and Persian deities, whose worship at this time was prevalent not only in the city of Rome, but in
the whole empire, and at the same time Christianity, which entered into conflict with all ancient tradition, and in this conflict
exercised a certain influence even on the Oriental forms of worship.
310 It is a special merit of Weingarten (Histor. Ztschr. Bd. 45. 1881. p. 441 f.) and Koffmane (De Gnosis nach ihrer Tendenz und
Organisation, 1881) to have strongly emphasised the mystery character of Gnosis, and in connection with that, its practical aims.
Koffmane, especially, has collected abundant material for proving that the tendency of the Gnostics was the same as that of the
ancient mysteries, and that they thence borrowed their organisation and discipline. This fact proves the proposition that Gnosticism
was an acute hellenising of Christianity. Koffmane has, however, undervalued the union of the practical and speculative tendency
in the Gnostics, and, in the effort to obtain recognition for the mystery character of the Gnostic communities, has overlooked
the fact that they were also schools. The union of mystery-cultus and school is just, however, their characteristic. In this also
they prove themselves the forerunners of Neoplatonism and the Catholic Church. Moehler in his programme of 1831 (Urspr. d.
Gnosticismus Tbingen), vigorously emphasised the practical tendency of Gnosticism, though not in a convincing way.
Hackenschmidt (Anfnge des katholischen Kirchenbegriffs, p. 83 f.) has judged correctly.
142
232
233
Adolf Harnack
transformation of all ethical into cosmological problems, the upbuilding of a philosophy of God
and the world on the basis of a combination of popular Mythologies, physical observations belonging
to the Oriental (Babylonian) religious philosophy, and historical events, as well as the idea that the
history of religion is the last act in the drama-like history of the Cosmosall this is not peculiar
to Gnosticism, but rather corresponds to a definite stage of the general development. It may, however,
be asserted that Gnosticism anticipated the general development, and that not only with regard to
Catholicism, but also with regard to Neoplatonism, which represents the last stage in the inner
history of Hellenism.311 The Valentinians have already got as far as Jamblichus. The name Gnosis,
Gnostics, describes excellently the aims of Gnosticism, in so far as its adherents boasted of the
absolute knowledge, and faith in the Gospel was transformed into a knowledge of God, nature and
history. This knowledge, however, was not regarded as natural, but in the view of the Gnostics was
based on revelation, was communicated and guaranteed by holy consecrations, and was accordingly
cultivated by reflection supported by fancy. A mythology of ideas was created out of the sensuous
mythology of any Oriental religion, by the conversion of concrete forms into speculative and moral
ideas, such as Abyss, Silence, Logos, Wisdom, Life, while the mutual relation and
number of these abstract ideas were determined by the data supplied by the corresponding concretes.
Thus arose a philosophic dramatic poem similar to the Platonic, but much more complicated, and
therefore more fantastic, in which mighty powers, the spiritual and good, appear in an unholy union
with the material and wicked, but from which the spiritual is finally delivered by the aid of those
kindred powers which are too exalted to be ever drawn down into the common. The good and
heavenly which has been drawn down into the material, and therefore really non-existing, is the
human spirit, and the exalted power who delivers it is Christ. The Evangelic history as handed
down is not the history of Christ, but a collection of allegoric representations of the great history
of God and the world. Christ has really no history. His appearance in this world of mixture and
confusion is his deed, and the enlightenment of the spirit about itself is the result which springs out
of that deed. This enlightenment itself is life. But the enlightenment is dependent on revelation,
asceticism and surrender to those mysteries which Christ founded, in which one enters into prsens
numen and which in mysterious ways promote the process of raising the spirit above the sensual.
This rising above the sensual is, however, to be actively practised. Abstinence therefore, as a rule,
is the watchword. Christianity thus appears here as a speculative philosophy which redeems the
spirit by enlightening it, consecrating it, and instructing it in the right conduct of life. The Gnosis
is free from the rationalistic interest in the sense of natural religion. Because the riddles about the
world which it desires to solve are not properly intellectual, but practical, because it desires to be
in the end , it removes into the region of the supra-rational the powers which are
supposed to confer vigour and life on the human spirit. Only a , however, united with
resting on revelation leads thither, not an exact philosophy. Gnosis starts from the
great problem of this world, but occupies itself with a higher world, and does not wish to be an
exact philosophy, but a philosophy of religion. Its fundamental philosophic doctrines are the
311
We have also evidence of the methods by which ecstatic visions were obtained among the Gnostics: see the Pistis Sophia, and
the important role which prophets and Apocalypses played in several important Gnostic communities (Barcoph and Barcabbas,
prophets of the Basilideans; Martiades and Marsanes among the Ophites; Philumene in the case of Apelles; Valentinian prophecies;
Apocalypses of Zostrian, Zoroaster, etc.). Apocalypses were also used by some under the names of Old Testament men of God
and Apostles.
143
234
235
Adolf Harnack
following: (1) The indefinable, infinite nature of the Divine primeval Being exalted above all
thought. (2) Matter as opposed to the Divine Being, and therefore having no real being, the ground
of evil. (3) The fulness of divine potencies, sons, which are thought of partly as powers, partly as
real ideas, partly as relatively independent beings, presenting in gradation the unfolding and
revelation of the Godhead, but at the same time rendering possible the transition of the higher to
the lower. (4) The Cosmos as a mixture of matter with divine sparks, which has arisen from a
descent of the latter into the former, or, as some say, from the perverse, or at least merely permitted
undertaking of a subordinate spirit. The Demiurge, therefore, is an evil, intermediate, or weak, but
penitent being; the best thing therefore in the world is aspiration. (5) The deliverance of the spiritual
element from its union with matter, or the separation of the good from the world of sensuality by
the Spirit of Christ which operates through knowledge, asceticism, and holy consecration: thus
originates the perfect Gnostic, the man who is free from the world, and master of himself, who
lives in God and prepares himself for eternity. All these are ideas for which we find the way prepared
in the philosophy of the time, anticipated by Philo, and represented in Neoplatonism as the great
final result of Greek philosophy. It lies in the nature of the case that only some men are able to
appropriate the Christianity that is comprehended in these ideas, viz., just as many as are capable
of entering into this kind of Christianity, those who are spiritual. The others must be considered as
non-partakers of the Spirit from the beginning, and therefore excluded from knowledge as the
profanum vulgus. Yet somethe Valentinians, for examplemade a distinction in this vulgus,
which can only be discussed later on, because it is connected with the position of the Gnostics
towards Jewish Christian tradition.
The later opponents of Gnosticism preferred to bring out the fantastic details of the Gnostic systems,
and thereby created the prejudice that the essence of the matter lay in these. They have thus
occasioned modern expounders to speculate about the Gnostic speculations in a manner that is
marked by still greater strangeness. Four observations shew how unhistorical and unjust such a
view is, at least with regard to the chief systems. (1) The great Gnostic schools, wherever they
could, sought to spread their opinions. But it is simply incredible that they should have expected
of all their disciples, male and female, an accurate knowledge of the details of their system. On the
contrary, it may be shewn that they often contented themselves with imparting consecration, with
regulating the practical life of their adherents, and instructing them in the general features of their
system.312 (2) We see how in one and the same schoolfor example, the Valentinianthe details
of the religious metaphysic were very various and changing. (3) We hear but little of conflicts
between the various schools. On the contrary, we learn that the books of doctrine and edification
passed from one school to another.313 (4) The fragments of Gnostic writings which have been
preserved, and this is the most important consideration of the four, shew that the Gnostics devoted
their main strength to the working out of those religious, moral, philosophical and historical problems
312
313
See Koffmane, beforementioned work, p. 5 f.

See Fragm. Murat. V. 81 f.; Clem. Strom. VII. 17. 108; Orig. Hom. 34. The Marcionite Antitheses were probably spread among
other Gnostic sects. The Fathers frequently emphasise the fact that the Gnostics were united against the Church: Tertullian de
prscr. 42: Et hoc est, quod schismata apud hreticos fere non sunt, quia cum Sint, non parent. Schisma est enim unitas ipsa.
They certainly also delight in emphasising the contradictions of the different schools; but they cannot point to any earnest conflict
144
236
237
Adolf Harnack
which must engage the thoughtful of all times.314 We only need to read some actual Gnostic
document, such as the Epistle of Ptolemus to Flora, or certain paragraphs of the Pistis Sophia, in
order to see that the fantastic details of the philosophic poem can only, in the case of the Gnostics
themselves, have had the value of liturgical apparatus, the construction of which was not of course
matter of indifference, but hardly formed the principle interest. The things to be proved and to be
confirmed by the aid of this or that very old religious philosophy, were certain religious and moral
fundamental convictions, and a correct conception of God, of the sensible, of the creator of the
world, of Christ, of the Old Testament, and the evangelic tradition. Here were actual dogmas. But
how the grand fantastic union of all the factors was to be brought about, was, as the Valentinian
school shews, a problem whose solution was ever and again subjected to new attempts.315 No one
to-day can in all respects distinguish what to those thinkers was image and what reality, or in what
degree they were at all able to distinguish image from reality, and in how far the magic formul
of their mysteries were really objects of their meditation. But the final aim of their endeavours, the
faith and knowledge of their own hearts which they instilled into their disciples, the practical rules
which they wished to give them, and the view of Christ which they wished to confirm them in,
stand out with perfect clearness. Like Plato, they made their explanation of the world start from
the contradiction between sense and reason, which the thoughtful man observes in himself. The
cheerful asceticism, the powers of the spiritual and the good which were seen in the Christian
communities, attracted them and seemed to require the addition of theory to practice. Theory without
being followed by practice had long been in existence, but here was the as yet rare phenomenon
of a moral practice which seemed to dispense with that which was regarded as indispensable, viz.,
theory. The philosophic life was already there; how could the philosophic doctrine be wanting, and
after what other model could the latent doctrine be reproduced than that of the Greek religious
philosophy?316 That the Hellenic spirit in Gnosticism turned with such eagerness to the Christian
communities and was ready even to believe in Christ in order to appropriate the moral powers
which it saw operative in them, is a convincing proof of the extraordinary impression which these
of these schools with each other. We know definitely that Bardasanes argued against the earlier Gnostics, and Ptolemus against
Marcion.
314 See the collection, certainly not complete, of Gnostic fragments by Grabe (Spicileg.) and Hilgenfeld (Ketzergeschichte). Our
books on the history of Gnosticism take far too little notice of these fragments as presented to us, above all, by Clement and
Origen, and prefer to keep to the doleful accounts of the Fathers about the Systems, (better in Heinrici: Valent. Gnosis, 1871).
The vigorous efforts of the Gnostics to understand the Pauline and Johannine ideas, and their in part surprisingly rational and
ingenious solutions of intellectual problems, have never yet been systematically estimated. Who would guess, for example, from
what is currently known of the system of Basilides, that, according to Clement, the following proceeds from him, (Strom. IV.
12. 18): , , .
, ? and where do we
find, in the period before Clement of Alexandria, faith in Christ united with such spiritual maturity and inner freedom as in
Valentinus, Ptolemus and Heracleon?
315 Testament of Tertullian (adv. Valent. 4) shews the difference between the solution of Valentinus, for example, and his disciple
Ptolemus. Ptolemus nomina et numeros onum distinxit in personales substantias, sed extra deum determinatas, quas
Valentinus in ipsa summa divinitatis ut sensus et affectus motus incluserat. It is, moreover, important that Tertullian himself
should distinguish this so clearly.
316 There is nothing here more instructive than to hear the judgments of the cultured Greeks and Romans about Christianity, as soon
as they have given up the current gross prejudices. They shew with admirable clearness the way in which Gnosticism originated.
Galen says (quoted by Gieseler, Church Hist. 1. 1. 4): Hominum plerique orationem demonstrativam continuam mente assequi
nequeunt, quare indigent, ut instituantur parabolis. Veluti nostro tempore videmus, homines illos, qui Christiani vocantur, fidem
145
238
Adolf Harnack
communities made. For what other peculiarities and attractions had they to offer to that spirit than
the certainty of their conviction (of eternal life), and the purity of their life? We hear of no similar
edifice being erected in the second century on the basis of any other Oriental culteven the Mithras
cult is scarcely to be mentioned hereas the Gnostic was on the foundation of the Christian.317 The
Christian communities, however, together with their worship of Christ, formed the real solid basis
of the greater number and the most important of the Gnostic systems, and in this fact we have, on
the very threshold of the great conflict, a triumph of Christianity over Hellenism. The triumph lay
in the recognition of what Christianity had already performed as a moral and social power. This
recognition found expression in bringing the highest that one possessed as a gift to be consecrated
by the new religion, a philosophy of religion whose end was plain and simple, but whose means
were mysterious and complicated.
3. History of Gnosticism and the forms in which it appeared.
In the previous section we have been contemplating Gnosticism as it reached its prime in the great
schools of Basilides and Valentinus, and those related to them,318 at the close of the period we are
now considering, and became an important factor in the history of dogma. But this Gnosticism had
(1) preliminary stages, and (2) was always accompanied by a great number of sects, schools and
undertakings which were only in part related to it, and yet, reasonably enough, were grouped
together with it.
suam e parabolis petiisse. Hi tamen interdum talia faciunt, qualia qui vere philosophantur. Nam quod mortem contemnunt, id
quidem omnes ante oculos habemus; item quod verecundia quadam ducti ab usu rerum venerearam abhorrent. Sunt enim inter
eos feminas et viri, qui per totam vitam a concubitu abstinuerint; sunt etiam qui in animis regendis corcendisque et in accerrimo
honestatis studio eo progressi sint, ut nihil cedant vere philosophantibus. Christians, therefore, are philosophers without
philosophy. What a challenge for them to produce such, that is to seek out the latent philosophy! Even Celsus could not but
admit a certain relationship between Christians and philosophers. But as he was convinced that the miserable religion of the
Christians could neither include nor endure a philosophy, he declared that the moral doctrines of the Christians were borrowed
from the philosophers (I. 4). In course of his presentation (V. 65: VI. 12, 15-19, 42: VII. 27-35) he deduces the most decided
marks of Christianity, as well as the most important sayings of Jesus from (misunderstood) statements of Plato and other Greek
philosophers. This is not the place to shew the contradictions in which Celsus was involved by this. But it is of the greatest
significance that even this intelligent man could only see philosophy where he saw something precious. The whole of Christianity
from its very origin appeared to Celsus (in one respect) precisely as the Gnostic systems appear to us, that is, these really are
what Christianity as such seemed to Celsus to be. Besides, it was constantly asserted up to the fifth century that Christ had drawn
from Platos writings. Against those who made this assertion, Ambrosius (according to Augustine, Ep. 31. C. 8) wrote a treatise,
which unfortunately is no longer in existence.
317 The Simonian system at most might be named, on the basis of the syncretistic religion founded by Simon Magus. But we know
little about it, and that little is uncertain. Parallel attempts are demonstrable in the third century on the basis of various revealed
fundamental ideas ( ).
318 Among these I reckon those Gnostics whom Irenus (I. 29-31) has portrayed, as well as part of the so-called Ophites, Perat,
Sethites and the school of the Gnostic Justin (Hippol. Philosoph. V. 6-28). There is no reason for regarding them as earlier or
more Oriental than the Valentinians, as is done by Hilgenfeld against Baur, Mller, and Gruber (the Ophites, 1864). See also
Lipsius, Ophit. Systeme, i. d. Ztschr. f. wiss. Theol. 1863. IV. 1864, I. These schools claimed for themselves the name Gnostic
(Hippol. Philosoph V. 6). A part of them, as is specially apparent from Orig. c. Celsus. VI., is not to be reckoned Christian. This
motley group is but badly known to us through Epiphanius, much better through the original Gnostic writings preserved in the
Coptic language. (Pistis Sophia and the works published by Carl Schmidt. Texte u. Unters. Bd. VIII.) Yet these original writings
belong, for the most part, to the second half of the third century (see also the important statements of Porphyry in the Vita Plotini.
c. 16), and shew a Gnosticism burdened with an abundance of wild speculations, formul, mysteries, and ceremonial. However,
from these very monuments it becomes plain that Gnosticism anticipated Catholicism as a ritual system (see below).
146
239
240
Adolf Harnack
To begin with the second point, the great Gnostic schools were flanked on the right and left by a
motley series of groups which at their extremities can hardly be distinguished from popular
Christianity on the one hand, and from the Hellenic and the common world on the other.319 On the
right were communities such as the Encratites, which put all stress on a strict asceticism, in support
of which they urged the example of Christ, but which here and there fell into dualistic ideas.320
There were, further, whole communities which, for decennia, drew their views of Christ from books
which represented him as a heavenly spirit who had merely assumed an apparent body.321 There
were also individual teachers who brought forward peculiar opinions without thereby causing any
immediate stir in the Churches.322 On the left there were schools such as the Carpocratians, in which
the philosophy and communism of Plato were taught, the son of the founder and second teacher
Epiphanes honoured as a God (at Cephallenia), as Epicurus was in his school, and the image of
Jesus crowned along with those of Pythagoras, Plato and Aristotle.323 On this left flank are, further,
swindlers who take their own way, like Alexander of Abonoteichus, magicians, soothsayers, sharpers
319
On Marcion, see the following Chapter.

We know that from the earliest period (perhaps we might refer even to the Epistle to the Romans) there were circles of ascetics
in the Christian communities who required of all, as an inviolable law, under the name of Christian perfection, complete abstinence
from marriage, renunciation of possessions, and a vegetarian diet. (Clem. Strom. III. 6. 49:
, ,

Here then, already, imitation of the poor life of Jesus, the Evangelic
life, was the watchword. Tatian wrote a book, , that is, on perfection according to the
Redeemer: in which he set forth the irreconcilability of the worldly life with the Gospel). No doubt now existed in tht; Churches
that abstinence from marriage, from wine and flesh, and from possessions, was the perfect fulfilling of the law of Christ (
). But in wide circles strict abstinence was deduced from a special charism, all boastfulness was
forbidden, and the watchword given out: , which may be understood as a compromise with the worldly
life as well as a reminiscence of a freer morality (see my notes on Didache, c. 6: 11, 11 and Prolegg. p. 42 ff.). Still, the position
towards asceticism yielded a hard problem, the solution of which was more and more found in distinguishing a higher and a
lower though sufficient morality, yet repudiating the higher morality as soon as it claimed to be the alone authoritative one. On
the other hand, there were societies of Christian ascetics who persisted in applying literally to all Christians the highest demands
of Christ, and thus arose, by secession, the communities of the Encratites and Severians. But in the circumstances of the time
even they could not but be touched by the Hellenic mode of thought, to the effect of associating a speculative theory with
asceticism, and thus approximating to Gnosticism. This is specially plain in Tatian, who connected himself with the Encratites,
and in consequence of the severe asceticism which he prescribed, could no longer maintain the identity of the supreme God and
the creator of the world (see the fragments of his later writings in the Corp. Apol. ed. Otto. T. VI.). As the Pauline Epistles could
furnish arguments to either side, we see some Gnostics, such as Tatian himself, making diligent use of them, while others, such
as the Severians, rejected them. (Euseb. H. E. IV. 29, 5, and Orig. c. Cels. V. 65). The Encratite controversy was, on the one
hand, swallowed up by the Gnostic, and on the other hand, replaced by the Montanistic. The treatise written in the days of Marcus
Aurelius by a certain Musanus (where?) which contains warnings against joining the Encratites (Euseb. H. E. VI. 28) we
unfortunately no longer possess.
321 See Eusebius, H. E. VI. 12. Docetic elements are apparent even in the fragment of the Gospel of Peter recently discovered.
322 Here, above all, we have to remember Tatian, who in his highly praised Apology had already rejected altogether the eating of
flesh (c. 23) and set up very peculiar doctrines about the spirit, matter, and the nature of man (c. 12 ff.). The fragments of the
Hypotyposes of Clem. of Alex. show how much one had to bear in some rural Churches at the end of the second century.
323 See Clem. Strom. III. 2. 5; , ,
, , , , , ,
, .
Clements quotations from the writings of Epiphanes shew him to be a pure Platonist: the proposition that property is theft is
found in him. Epiphanes and his father, Carpocrates, were the first who attempted to amalgamate Platos State with the Christian
ideal of the union of men with each other. Christ was to them, therefore, a philosophic Genius like Plato, see Irenus. I. 25. 5:
Gnosticos autem se vocant, etiam imagines, quasdam quidem depictas, quasdam autem et de reliqua materia fabricatas habent
et eas coronant, et proponent eas cum imaginibus mundi philosophorum, videlicet cum imagine Pythagor et Platonis et Aristotelis
et reliquorum, et reliquam observationem circa eas similiter ut gentes faciunt.
320
147
241
242
Adolf Harnack
and jugglers, under the sign-board of Christianity, deceivers and hypocrites who appear using
mighty words with a host of unintelligible formul, and take up with scandalous ceremonies in
order to rob men of their money and women of their honour.324 All this was afterwards called
Heresy and Gnosticism, and is still so called.325 And these names may be retained, if we will
understand by them nothing else than the world taken into Christianity, all the manifold formations
which resulted from the first contact of the new religion with the society into which it entered. To
prove the existence of that left wing of Gnosticism is of the greatest interest for the history of
dogma, but the details are of no consequence. On the other hand, in the aims and undertakings of
the Gnostic right, it is just the details that are of greatest significance, because they shew that there
was no fixed boundary between what one may call common Christian and Gnostic Christian. But
as Gnosticism, in its contents, extended itself from the Encratites and the philosophic interpretation
of certain articles of the Christian proclamation as brought forward without offence by individual
teachers in the communities, to the complete dissolution of the Christian element by philosophy,
or the religious charlatanry of the age, so it exhibits itself formally also in a long series of groups
which comprised all imaginable forms of unions. There were churches, ascetic associations, mystery
cults, strictly private philosophic schools,326 free unions for edification, entertainments by Christian
charlatans and deceived deceivers, who appeared as magicians and prophets, attempts at founding
new religions after the model and under the influence of the Christian, etc. But, finally, the thesis
that Gnosticism is identical with an acute secularising of Christianity in the widest sense of the
word, is confirmed by the study of its own literature. The early Christian production of Gospel and
Apocalypses was indeed continued in Gnosticism, yet so that the class of Acts of the Apostles
was added to them, and that didactic, biographic and belles lettres elements were received into
them, and claimed a very important place. If this makes the Gnostic literature approximate to the
profane, that is much more the case with the scientific theological literature which Gnosticism first
produced. Dogmatico-philosophic tracts, theologico-critical treatises, historical investigations and
scientific commentaries on the sacred books, were, for the first time in Christendom, composed by
324
See the Gnostics of Hermas, especially the false prophet whom he portrays, Maud XI., Lucians Peregrinus, and the Marcus,
of whose doings Irenus (I. 13 ff.) gives such an abominable picture. To understand how such people were able to obtain a
following so quickly in the Churches, we must remember the respect in which the prophets were held (see Didache XI.). If
one had once given the impression that he had the Spirit, he could win belief for the strangest things, and could allow himself
all things possible (see the delineations of Celsus in Orig. c. Cels. VII. 9. 11). We hear frequently of Gnostic prophets and
prophetesses: see my notes on Herm. Mand. XI. 1. and Didache XI. 7. If an early Christian element is here preserved by the
Gnostic schools, it has undoubtedly been hellenised and secularised as the reports shew. But that the prophets altogether were
in danger of being secularised is shewn in Didache XI. In the case of the Gnostics the process is again only hastened.
325 The name Gnostic originally attached to schools which had so named themselves. To these belonged above all, the so-called
Ophites, but not the Valentinians or Basilideans.
326 Special attention should be given to this form, as it became in later times of the very greatest importance for the general
development of doctrine in the Church. The sect of Carpocrates was a school. Of Tatian, Irenus says (I. 28. 1):
. . . . , . . . .
. Rhodon (in Euseb. H. E. V. 13. 4) speaks of a Marcionite . Other
names were: Collegium (Tertull. ad Valent. 1); Secta, the word had not always a bad meaning; , (Clem.
Strom. VII. 16. 98; on the other hand, VII. 15. 92: Tertull. de prscr. 42: plerique nec Ecclesias habent); (Iren. I. 13, 4,
for the Marcosians), , , , , factiuncula, congregatio, conciliabulum,
conventiculum. The mystery-organisation most clearly appears in the Naassenes of Hippolytus, the Marcosians of Irenus, and
the Elkasites of Hippolytus, as well as the Coptic-Gnostic documents that have been preserved. (See Koffmane, above work,
pp. 6-22).
148
243
Adolf Harnack
the Gnostics, who in part occupied the foremost place in the scientific knowledge, religious
earnestness and ardour of the age. They form in every respect the counterpart to the scientific works
which proceeded from the contemporary philosophic schools. Moreover, we possess sufficient
knowledge of Gnostic hymns and odes, songs for public worship, didactic poems, magic formul,
magic books, etc., to assure us that Christian Gnosticism took possession of a whole region of the
secular life in its full breadth, and thereby often transformed the original forms of Christian literature
into secular.327 If, however, we bear in mind how all this at a later period was gradually legitimised
in the Catholic Church, philosophy, the science of the sacred books, criticism and exegesis, the
ascetic associations, the theological schools, the mysteries, the sacred formul, the superstition,
the charlatanism, all kinds of profane literature, etc., it seems to prove the thesis that the victorious
epoch of the gradual hellenising of Christianity followed the abortive attempts at an acute hellenising.
The traditional question as to the origin and development of Gnosticism, as well as that about the
classification of the Gnostic systems, will have to be modified in accordance with the foregoing
discussion. As the different Gnostic systems might be contemporary, and in part were undoubtedly
contemporary, and as a graduated relation holds good only between some few groups, we must, in
the classification, limit ourselves essentially to the features which have been specified in the
foregoing paragraph, and which coincide with the position of the different groups to the early
Christian tradition in its connection with the Old Testament religion, both as a rule of practical life,
and of the common cultus.328
327
The particulars here belong to church history. Overbeck (Ueber die Anfnge der patristischen Litteratur in d. hist. Ztschr. N.
F. Bd. XII. p. 417 ff.) has the merit of being the first to point out the importance, for the history of the Church, of the forms of
literature as they were gradually received in Christendom. Scientific, theological literature has undoubtedly its origin in Gnosticism.
The Old Testament was here, for the first time, systematically and also in part historically criticised; a selection was here made
from the primitive Christian literature; scientific commentaries were here written on the sacred hooks (Basilides and especially
the Valentinians, see Heracleons comm. on the Gospel of John [in Origen]; the Pauline Epistles were also technically expounded;
tracts were here composed on dogmatico-philosophic problems (for example,
), and systematic doctrinal systems already constructed (as the Basilidean and
Valentinian); the original form of the Gospel was here first transmuted into the Greek form of sacred novel and biography (see,
above all, the Gospel of Thomas, which was used by the Marcosians and Naassenes, and which contained miraculous stories
from the childhood of Jesus); here, finally, psalms, odes and hymns were first composed (see the Acts of Lucius, the psalms of
Valentinus, the psalms of Alexander the disciple of Valentinus, the poems of Bardesanes). Irenus, Tertullian and Hippolytus
have indeed noted that the scientific method of interpretation followed by the Gnostics, was the same as that of the philosophers
(e.g., of Philo). Valentinus, as is recognised even by the Church Fathers, stands out prominent for his mental vigour and religious
imagination; Heracleon for his exegetic theological ability; Ptolemy for his ingenious criticism of the Old Testament and his
keen perception of the stages of religious development (see his Epistle to Flora in Epiphanius, hr. 33. c. 7). As a specimen of
the language of Valentinus one extract from a homily may suffice (in Clem. Strom. IV. 13. 89).
, ,
,
, , ,
. Basilides falls into the background behind Valentinus and his school. Yet the Church Fathers, when they wish to
summarise the most important Gnostics, usually mention Simon Magus, Basilides, Valentinus, Marcion (even Apelles). On the
relation of the Gnostics to the New Testament writings and to the New Testament, see Zahn, Gesch. des N. T.-lichen Kanons.
I. 2. p. 718.
328 Baurs classification of the Gnostic systems, which rests on the observation of how they severally realised the idea of Christianity
as the absolute religion in contrast to Judaism and Heathenism, is very ingenious and contains a great element of truth. But it is
insufficient with reference to the whole phenomenon of Gnosticism, and has been carried out by Baur by violent abstractions.
149
244
245
Adolf Harnack
As to the origin of Gnosticism, we see how, even in the earliest period, all possible ideas and
principles foreign to Christianity force their way into it, that is, are brought in under Christian rules,
and find entrance, especially in the consideration of the Old Testament.329 We might be satisfied
with the observation that the manifold Gnostic systems were produced by the increase of this
tendency. In point of fact we must admit that in the present state of our sources, we can reach no
sure knowledge beyond that. These sources, however, give certain indications which should not
be left unnoticed. If we leave out of account the two assertions of opponents, that Gnosticism was
produced by demons330 andthis, however, was said at a comparatively late periodthat it originated
in ambition and resistance to the ecclesiastical office, the episcopate, we find in Hegesippus, one
of the earliest writers on the subject, the statement that the whole of the heretical schools sprang
out of Judaism or the Jewish sects; in the later writers, Irenus, Tertullian and Hippolytus, that
these schools owe most to the doctrines of Pythagoras, Plato, Aristotle, Zeno, etc.331 But they all
agree in this, that a definite personality, viz., Simon the Magician, must be regarded as the original
source of the heresy. If we try it by these statements of the Church Fathers, we must see at once
that the problem in this case is limitedcertainly in a proper way. For after Gnosticism is seen to
be the acute secularising of Christianity the only question that remains is, how are we to account
for the origin of the great Gnostic schools, that is, whether it is possible to indicate their preliminary
stages. The following may be asserted here with some confidence: Long before the appearance of
Christianity, combinations of religion had taken place in Syria and Palestine,332 especially in Samaria,
in so far, on the one hand, as the Assyrian and Babylonian religious philosophy, together with its
myths, as well as the Greek popular religion with its manifold interpretations, had penetrated as
far as the eastern shore of the Mediterranean, and been accepted even by the Jews; and, on the other
hand, the Jewish Messianic idea had spread and called forth various movements.333 The result of
every mixing of national religions, however, is to break through the traditional, legal and particular
forms.334 For the Jewish religion syncretism signified the shaking of the authority of the Old
Testament by a qualitative distinction of its different parts, as also doubt as to the identity of the
supreme God with the national God. These ferments were once more set in motion by Christianity.
329
The question, therefore, as to the time of the origin of Gnosticism as a complete phenomenon cannot be answered. The remarks
of Hegesippus (Euseb. H. E. IV. 22) refer to the Jerusalem Church, and have not even for that the value of a fixed datum. The
only important question here is the point of time at which the expulsion or secession of the schools and unions took place in the
different national churches.
330 Justin Apol. 1. 26.
331 Hegesippus in Euseb. H. E. IV. 22, Iren. II. 14. 1 f., Tertull. de prscr. 7, Hippol. Philosoph. The Church Fathers have also noted
the likeness of the cultus of Mithras and other deities.
332 We must leave the Essenes entirely out of account here, as their teaching, in all probability, is not to be considered syncretistic
in the strict sense of the word, (see Lucius, Der Essenismus, 1881,) and as we know absolutely nothing of a greater diffusion
of it. But we need no names here, as a syncretistic, ascetic Judaism could and did arise everywhere in Palestine and the Diaspora.
333 Freudenthals a Hellenistische Studien informs us as to the Samaritan syncretism; see also Hilgenfelds Ketzergeschichte, p.
149 ff. As to the Babylonian mythology in Gnosticism, see the statements in the elaborate article, Manichismus, by Kessler
(Real-Encycl. fr protest. Theol., 2 Aufl.).
334 Wherever traditional religions are united under the badge of philosophy a conservative syncretism is the result, because the
allegoric method, that is, the criticism of all religion, veiled and unconscious of itself, is able to blast rocks and bridge over
abysses. All forms may remain here under certain circumstances, but a new spirit enters into them. On the other hand, where
philosophy is still weak, and the traditional religion is already shaken by another, there arises the critical syncretism in which
either the gods of one religion are subordinated to those of another, or the elements of the traditional religion are partly eliminated
and replaced by others. Here, also, the soil is prepared for new religious formations, for the appearance of religious founders.
150
246
247
Adolf Harnack
We know that in the Apostolic age there were attempts in Samaria to found new religions, which
were in all probability influenced by the tradition and preaching concerning Jesus. Dositheus, Simon
Magus, Cleobius, and Menander appeared as Messiahs or bearers of the God-head, and proclaimed
a doctrine in which the Jewish faith was strangely and grotesquely mixed with Babylonian myths,
together with some Greek additions. The mysterious worship, the breaking up of Jewish
particularism, the criticism of the Old Testament,which for long had had great difficulty in
retaining its authority in many circles, in consequence of the widened horizon and the deepening
of religious feeling,finally, the wild syncretism, whose aim, however, was a universal religion,
all contributed to gain adherents for Simon.335 His enterprise appeared to the Christians as a diabolical
caricature of their own religion, and the impression made by the success which Simonianism gained
by a vigorous propaganda even beyond Palestine into the West, supported this idea.336 We can
therefore understand how, afterwards, all heresies were traced back to Simon. To this must be added
that we can actually trace in many Gnostic systems the same elements which were prominent in
the religion proclaimed by Simon (the Babylonian and Syrian), and that the new religion of the
Simonians, just like Christianity, had afterwards to submit to be transformed into a philosophic,
scholastic doctrine.337 The formal parallel to the Gnostic doctrines was therewith established. But
even apart from these attempts at founding new religions, Christianity in Syria, under the influence
of foreign religions and speculation on the philosophy of religion, gave a powerful impulse to the
criticism of the law and the prophets which had already been awakened. In consequence of this,
there appeared, about the transition of the first century to the second, a series of teachers who, under
the impression of the Gospel, sought to make the Old Testament capable of furthering the tendency
to a universal religion, not by allegorical interpretation, but by a sifting criticism. These attempts
were of very different kinds. Teachers such as Cerinthus clung to the notion that the universal
religion revealed by Christ was identical with undefiled Mosaism, and therefore maintained even
such articles as circumcision and the Sabbath commandment, as well as the earthly kingdom of the
future. But they rejected certain parts of the law, especially, as a rule, the sacrificial precepts, which
were no longer in keeping with the spiritual conception of religion. They conceived the creator of
the world as a subordinate being distinct from the supreme God, which is always the mark of a
syncretism with a dualistic tendency; introduced speculations about ons and angelic powers,
among whom they placed Christ, and recommended a strict asceticism. When, in their Christology,
335
It was a serious mistake of the critics to regard Simon Magus as a fiction, which, moreover, has been given up by Hilgenfeld
(Ketzergeschichte, p. 163 ff.), and Lipsius (Apocr. Apostelgesch. II. 1),the latter, however, not decidedly. The whole figure
as well as the doctrines attributed to Simon (see Acts of the Apostles, Justin, Irenus, Hippolytus) not only have nothing
improbable in them, but suit very well the religious circumstances which we must assume for Samaria. The main point in Simon
is his endeavour to create a universal religion of the supreme God. This explains his success among the Samaritans and Greeks.
He is really a counterpart to Jesus, whose activity can just as little have been unknown to him as that of Paul. At the same time
it cannot be denied that the later tradition about Simon was the most confused and biassed imaginable, or that certain Jewish
Christians at a later period may have attempted to endow the magician with the features of Paul in order to discredit the personality
and teaching of the Apostle. But this last assumption requires a fresh investigation.
336 Justin. Apol. 1 26: ,
, ,
(besides the account in the Philos. and Orig. c. Cels. 1. 57: VI. II). The positive statement of Justin
that Simon came even to Rome (under Claudius) can hardly be refuted from the account of the Apologist himself, and therefore
not at all. (See Renan, Antichrist.)
337 We have it as such in the which Hippolytus (Philosoph. VI. 19. 20) made use of. This Simonianism may
perhaps have related to the original, as the doctrines of the Christian Gnostics to the Apostolic preaching.
151
248
Adolf Harnack
they denied the miraculous birth, and saw in Jesus a chosen man on whom the Christ, that is, the
Holy Spirit, descended at the baptism, they were not creating any innovation, but only following
the earliest Palestinian tradition. Their rejection of the authority of Paul is explained by their efforts
to secure the Old Testament as far as possible for the universal religion.338 There were others who
rejected all ceremonial commandments as proceeding from the devil, or from some intermediate
being, but yet always held firmly that the God of the Jews was the supreme God. But alongside of
these stood also decidedly anti-Jewish groups, who seem to have been influenced in part by the
preaching of Paul. They advanced much further in the criticism of the Old Testament, and perceived
the impossibility of saving it for the Christian universal religion. They rather connected this religion
with the cultus-wisdom of Babylon and Syria, which seemed more adapted for allegorical
interpretations, and opposed this formation to the Old Testament religion. The God of the Old
Testament appears here at best as a subordinate Angel of limited power, wisdom and goodness. In
so far as he was identified with the creator of the world, and the creation of the world itself was
regarded as an imperfect or an abortive undertaking, expression was given both to the anti-Judaism
and to that religious temper of the time which could only value spiritual blessing in contrast with
the world and the sensuous. These systems appeared more or less strictly dualistic, in proportion
as they did or did not accept a slight co-operation of the supreme God in the creation of man; and
the way in which the character and power of the world-creating God of the Jews was conceived,
serves as a measure of how far the several schools were from the Jewish religion and the Monism
that ruled it. All possible conceptions of the God of the Jews, from the assumption that he is a being
supported in his undertakings by the supreme God, to his identification with Satan, seem to have
been exhausted in these schools. Accordingly, in the former case, the Old Testament was regarded
as the revelation of a subordinate God, in the latter as the manifestation of Satan, and therefore the
ethicwith occasional use of Pauline formulalways assumed an antinomian form compared
with the Jewish law, in some cases antinomian even in the sense of libertinism. Correspondingly,
the anthropology exhibits man as bipartite, or even tripartite, and the Christology is strictly docetic
and anti-Jewish. The redemption by Christ is always, as a matter of course, related only to that
element in humanity which has an affinity with the Godhead.339
338
The Heretics opposed in the Epistle to the Colossians may belong to these. On Cerinthus, see Polycarp in Iren. III. 3. 2, Irenus
(I. 26. 1: III. 11. I), Hippolytus and the redactions of the Syntagma, Cajus in Euseb. III. 28. 2, Hilgenfeld, Ketzergeschichte, p.
411 ff. To this category belong also the Ebionites and Elkasites of Epiphanius. (See Chap. 6.)
339 The two Syrian teachers, Saturninus and Cerdo, must in particular be mentioned here. The first (See Iren. I. 24. 1. 2, Hippolyt.
and the redactions of the Syntagma) was not strictly speaking a dualist, and therefore allowed the God of the Old Testament to
be regarded as an Angel of the supreme God, while at the same time he distinguished him from Satan. Accordingly, he assumed
that the supreme God co-operated in the creation of man by angel powerssending a ray of light, an image of light, that should
be imitated as an example and enjoined as an ideal. But all men have not received the ray of light. Consequently, two classes of
men stand in abrupt contrast with each other. History is the conflict of the two. Satan stands at the head of the one, the God of
the Jews at the head of the other. The Old Testament is a collection of prophecies out of both camps. The truly good first appears
in the on Christ, who assumed nothing cosmic, did not even submit to birth. He destroys the works of Satan (generation, eating
of flesh), and delivers the men who have within them a spark of light. The Gnosis of Cerdo was much coarser. (Iren. I. 27. 1,
Hippolyt. and the redactions.) He contrasted the good God and the God of the Old Testament as two primary beings. The latter
he identified with the creator of the world. Consequently, he completely rejected the Old Testament and everything cosmic and
taught that the good God was first revealed in Christ. Like Saturninus he preached a strict docetism; Christ had no body, was
not born, and suffered in an unreal body. All else that the Fathers report of Cerdos teaching has probably been transferred to
him from Marcion, and is therefore very doubtful.
152
249
250
Adolf Harnack
It is uncertain whether we should think of the spread of these doctrines in Syria in the form of a
school, or of a cultus; probably it was both. From the great Gnostic systems as formed by Basilides
and Valentinus they are distinguished by the fact that they lack the peculiar philosophic, that is
Hellenic, element, the speculative conversion of angels and /Eons into real ideas, etc. We have
almost no knowledge of their effect. This Gnosticism has never directly been a historical factor of
striking importance, and the great question is whether it was so indirectly.340 That is to say, we do
not know whether this Syrian Gnosticism was, in the strict sense, the preparatory stage of the great
Gnostic schools, so that the schools should be regarded as an actual reconstruction of it. But there
can be no doubt that the appearance of the great Gnostic schools in the Empire, from Egypt to Gaul,
is contemporaneous with the vigorous projection of Syrian cults westwards, and therefore the
assumption is suggested, that the Syrian Christian syncretism was also spread in connection with
that projection, and underwent a change corresponding to the new conditions. We know definitely
that the Syrian Gnostic, Cerdo, came to Rome, wrought there, and exercised an influence on Marcion.
But no less probable is the assumption that the great Hellenic Gnostic schools arose spontaneously,
in the sense of having been independently developed out of the elements to which undoubtedly the
Asiatic cults also belonged, without being influenced in any way by Syrian syncretistic efforts. The
conditions for the growth of such formations were nearly the same in all parts of the Empire. The
great advance lies in the fact that the religious material as contained in the Gospel, the Old Testament,
and the wisdom connected with the old cults, was philosophically, that is scientifically, manipulated
by means of allegory, and the aggregate of mythological powers translated into an aggregate of
ideas. The Pythagorean and Platonic, more rarely the Stoic philosophy, were compelled to do service
here. Great Gnostic schools, which were at the same time unions for worship, first enter into the
clear light of history in this form, (see previous section), and on the conflict with these, surrounded
as they were by a multitude of dissimilar and related formations, depends the progress of the
development.341
We are no longer able to form a perfectly clear picture of how these schools came into being, or
how they were related to the Churches. It lay in the nature of the case that the heads of the schools,
like the early itinerant heretical teachers, devoted attention chiefly, if not exclusively, to those who
340
This question might perhaps be answered if we had the Justinian Syntagma against all heresies; but in the present condition of
our sources it remains wrapped in obscurity. What may be gathered from the fragments of Hegesippus, the Epistles of Ignatius,
the Pastoral Epistles and other documents, such as, for example, the Epistle of Jude, is in itself so obscure, so detached and so
ambiguous that it is of no value for historical construction.
341 There are, above all, the schools of the Basilideans, Valentinians and Ophites. To describe the systems in their full development
lies, in my opinion, outside the business of the history of dogma and might easily lead to the mistake that the systems as such
were controverted, and that their construction was peculiar to Christian Gnosticism. The construction, as remarked above, is
rather that of the later Greek philosophy, though it cannot be mistaken that, for us, the full parallel to the Gnostic systems first
appears in those of the Neoplatonists. But only particular doctrines and principles of the Gnostics were really called in question
their critique of the world, of providence, of the resurrection, etc.; these therefore are to be adduced in the next section. The
fundamental features of an inner development can only be exhibited in the case of the most important, viz., the Valentinian
school. But even here we must distinguish an Eastern and a Western branch. (Tertull. adv. Valent. I.: Valentiniani frequentissimum
plane collegium inter hreticos. Iren. 1. I.; Hippol. Philos. VI. 35; Orig. Hom. II. 5 in Ezech. Lomm. XIV. p. 40: Valentini
robustissima secta.)
153
251
252
Adolf Harnack
were already Christian, that is, to the Christian communities.342 From the Ignatian Epistles, the
Shepherd of Hermas (Vis. III. 7. 1: Sim. VIII. 6. 5: IX. 19. and especially 22), and the Didache (XI.
I. 2) we see that those teachers who boasted of a special knowledge and sought to introduce strange
doctrines, aimed at gaining the entire churches. The beginning, as a rule, was necessarily the
formation of conventicles. In the first period therefore, when there was no really fixed standard for
warding off the foreign doctrinesHermas is unable even to characterise the false doctrinesthe
warnings were commonly exhausted in the exhortation: ,
, [connect yourselves with the saints, because those who are connected with
them shall be sanctified]. As a rule, the doctrines may really have crept in unobserved, and those
gained over to them may for long have taken part in a two-fold worship, the public worship of the
churches, and the new consecration. Those teachers must of course have assumed a more aggressive
attitude who rejected the Old Testament. The attitude of the Church, when it enjoyed competent
guidance, was one of decided opposition towards unmasked or recognised false teachers. Yet
Irenus account of Cerdo in Rome shews us how difficult it was at the beginning to get rid of a
false teacher.343 For Justin, about the year 150, the Marcionites, Valentinians, Basilideans and
Saturninians are groups outside the communities, and undeserving of the name Christians.344
There must therefore have been at that time, in Rome and Asia Minor at least, a really perfect
separation of those schools from the Churches (it was different in Alexandria). Notwithstanding,
this continued to be the region from which those schools obtained their adherents. For the
Valentinians recognised that the common Christians were much better than the heathen, that they
occupied a middle position between the pneumatic and the hylic, and might look forward to a
kind of salvation. This admission, as well as their conforming to the common Christian tradition,
enabled them to spread their views in a remarkable way, and they may not have had any objection
in many cases, to their converts remaining in the great Church. But can this community have
perceived, everywhere and at once, that the Valentinian distinction of psychic and pneumatic
is not identical with the scriptural distinction of children and men in understanding? Where the
organisation of the school (the union for worship) required a long time of probation, where degrees
of connection with it were distinguished, and a strict asceticism demanded of the perfect, it followed
of course that those on the lower stage should not be urged to a speedy break with the Church.345
342
Tertull. de prscr. 42: De verbi autem administratione quid dicam, cum hoc sit negotium illis, non ethnicos convertendi, sed
nostros evertendi? Hanc magis gloriam captant, si stantibus ruinam, non si jacentibus elevationem operentur. Quoniam et ipsum
opus eorum non de suo proprio dificio venit, sed de veritatis destructione; nostra suffodiunt, ut sua dificent. Adime illis legem
Moysis et prophetas et creatorem deum, accusationem eloqui non habent. (See adv. Valent. I. init.) This is hardly a malevolent
accusation. The philosophic interpretation of a religion will always impress those only on whom the religion itself has already
made an impression.
343 Iren. III. 4. 2: , ,
, , ; see besides
the valuable account of Tertull. de prscr. 30. The account of Irenus (I. 13) is very instructive as to the kind of propaganda of
Marcus, and the relation of the women he deluded to the Church. Against actually recognised false teachers the fixed rule was
to renounce all intercourse with them (2 Joh. 10. 11; Iren. ep. ad Florin on Polycarps procedure, in Euseb. H. E. V. 20. 7; Iren.
III. 3. 4). But how were the heretics to be surely known?
344 Among those who justly bore this name he distinguishes those of (Dial. 80).
345 Very important is the description which Irenus (III. 15. 2) and Tertullian have given of the conduct of the Valentinians as
observed by themselves (adv. Valent. 1). Valentiniani nihil magis curant quam occultare, quod prdicant; si tamen prdicant
qui occultant. Custodi officium conscienti officium est (a comparison with the Eleusinian mysteries follows). Si bona fide
quras, concreto vultu, suspenso supercilio, Altum est, aiunt. Si subtiliter temptes per ambiguitates bilingues communem fidem
154
253
Adolf Harnack
But after the creation of the catholic confederation of churches, existence was made more and more
difficult for these schools. Some of them lived on somewhat like our freemason-unions; some, as
in the East, became actual sects (confessions), in which the wise and the simple now found a place,
as they were propagated by families. In both cases they ceased to be what they had been at the
beginning. From about 210 they ceased to be a factor of the historical development, though the
Church of Constantine and Theodosius was alone really able to suppress them.
4. The most important Gnostic Doctrines.
We have still to measure and compare with the earliest tradition those Gnostic doctrines which,
partly at once and partly in the following period, became important. Once more, however, we must
expressly refer to the fact that the epoch-making significance of Gnosticism for the history of dogma
must not be sought chiefly in the particular doctrines, but rather in the whole way in which
Christianity is here conceived and transformed. The decisive thing is the conversion of the Gospel
into a doctrine, into an absolute philosophy of religion, the transforming of the disciplina Evangelii
into an asceticism based on a dualistic conception, and into a practice of mysteries.346 We have now
briefly to shew, with due regard to the earliest tradition, how far this transformation was of positive
or negative significance for the following period, that is, in what respects the following development
was anticipated by Gnosticism, and in what respects Gnosticism was disavowed by this
development.347
254
adfirmant. Si scire to subostendas negant quidquid agnoscunt. Si cominus certes, tuam simplicitatem sua cde dispergunt. Ne
discipulis quidem propriis ante committunt quam suos fecerint. Habent artificium quo prius persuadeant quam edoceant. At a
later period Dionysius of Alex. in Euseb. H. E. VII. 7, speaks of Christians who maintain an apparent communion with the
brethren, but resort to one of the false teachers (cf. as to this Euseb. H. E. VI. 2. 13). The teaching of Bardesanes influenced by
Valentinus, who, moreover, was hostile to Marcionitism, was tolerated for a long time in Edessa (by the Christian kings), nay,
was recognised. The Bardesanites and the Palutians (catholics) were differentiated only after the beginning of the third century.
346 There can be no doubt that the Gnostic propaganda was seriously hindered by the inability to organise and discipline Churches,
which is characteristic of all philosophic systems of religion. The Gnostic organisation of schools and mysteries was not able to
contend with the episcopal organisation of the Churches; see Ignat. ad Smyr. 6. 2; Tertull. de prscr. 41. Attempts at actual
formation of Churches were not altogether wanting in the earliest period; at a later period they were forced on some schools.
We have only to read Iren. III. 15. 2 in order to see that these associations could only exist by finding support in a Church.
Irenus expressly remarks that the Valentinians designated the Common Christians (communes) ,
but that they, on the other hand, complained that we kept away from their fellowship without cause, as they thought like
ourselves.
347 The differences between the Gnostic Christianity and that of the Church, that is, the later ecclesiastical theology, were fluid, if
we observe the following points. (1) That even in the main body of the Church the element of knowledge was increasingly
emphasised, and the Gospel began to be converted into a perfect knowledge of the world (increasing reception of Greek philosophy,
development of to . (2) That the dramatic eschatology began to fade away. (3) That room was made for docetic
views, and value put upon a strict asceticism. On the other hand we must note: (i) That all this existed only in germ or fragments
within the great Church during the flourishing period of Gnosticism. (2) That the great Church held fast to the facts fixed in the
baptismal formula (in the Kerygma) and to the eschatological expectations, further, to the creator of the world as the supreme
God, to the unity of Jesus Christ, and to the Old Testament, and therefore rejected dualism. (3) That the great Church defended
the unity and equality of the human race, and therefore the uniformity and universal aim of the Christian salvation. (4) That it
rejected every introduction of new, especially of Oriental, Mythologies, guided in this by the early Christian consciousness and
a sure intelligence. A deeper, more thorough distinction between the Church and the Gnostic parties hardly dawned on the
consciousness of either. The Church developed herself instinctively into an imperial Church, in which office was to play the
chief role. The Gnostics sought to establish or conserve associations in which the genius should rule, the genius in the way of
155
Adolf Harnack
(1) Christianity, which is the only true and absolute religion, embraces a revealed system of doctrine
(positive).
(2) This doctrine contains mysterious powers, which are communicated to men by initiation
(mysteries).
(3) The revealer is Christ (positive), but Christ alone, and only in his historical appearanceno
Old Testament Christ (negative); this appearance is itself redemption: the doctrine is the
announcement of it and of its presuppositions (positive).348
255
(4) Christian doctrine is to be drawn from the Apostolic tradition, critically examined. This tradition
lies before us in a series of Apostolic writings, and in a secret doctrine derived from the Apostles
(positive).349
the old prophets or in the sense of Plato, or in the sense of a union of prophecy and philosophy. In the Gnostic conflict, at least
at its close, the judicial priest fought with the virtuoso and overcame him.
348 The absolute significance of the person of Christ was very plainly expressed in Gnosticism (Christ is not only the teacher of the
truth, but the manifestation of the truth), more plainly than where he was regarded as the subject of Old Testament revelation.
The pre-existent Christ has significance in some Gnostic schools, but always a comparatively subordinate one. The isolating of
the person of Christ, and quite as much the explaining away of his humanity, is manifestly out of harmony with the earliest
tradition. But, on the other hand, it must not be denied that the Gnostics recognised redemption in the historical Christ: Christ
personally procured it (see under 6. h.).
349 In this thesis, which may be directly corroborated by the most important Gnostic teachers, Gnosticism shews that it desires in
thesi (in a way similar to Philo) to continue on the soil of Christianity as a positive religion. Conscious of being bound to tradition,
it first definitely raised the question, What is Christianity? and criticised and sifted the sources for an answer to the question.
The rejection of the Old Testament led it to that question and to this sifting. It may be maintained with the greatest probability,
that the idea of a canonical collection of Christian writings first emerged among the Gnostics (see also Marcion). They really
needed such a collection, while all those who recognised the Old Testament as a document of revelation, and gave it a Christian
interpretation, did not at first need a new document, but simply joined on the new to the old, the Gospel to the Old Testament.
From the numerous fragments of Gnostic commentaries on New Testament writings which have been preserved, we see that
these writings then enjoyed canonical authority, while at the same period we hear nothing of such an authority nor of commentaries
in the main body of Christendom (see Heinrici, Die Valentinianische Gnosis, u. d. h. Schrift, 1871). Undoubtedly sacred
writings were selected according to the principle of apostolic origin. This is proved by the inclusion of the Pauline Epistles in
the collections of books. There is evidence of such having been made by the Naassenes, Perat, Valentinians, Marcion, Tatian
and the Gnostic Justin. The collection of the Valentinians and the Canon of Tatian must have really coincided with the main
parts of the later Ecclesiastical Canon. The later Valentinians accommodated themselves to this Canon, that is, recognised the
books that had been added (Tertull. de prscr. 38). The question as to who first conceived and realised the idea of a Canon of
Christian writings, Basilides, or Valentinus, or Marcion, or whether this was done by several at the same time, will always remain
obscure, though many things favour Marcion. If it should even be proved that Basilides (see Euseb. H. E. IV. 7. 7) and Valentinus
himself regarded the Gospels only as authoritative, yet the full idea of the Canon lies already in the fact of their making these
the foundation and interpreting them allegorically. The question as to the extent of the Canon afterwards became the subject of
an important controversy between the Gnostics and the Catholic Church. The Catholics throughout took up the position that
their Canon was the earlier, and the Gnostic collection the corrupt revision of it (they were unable to adduce proof, as is attested
by Tertullians de prscr.). But the aim of the Gnostics to establish themselves on the uncorrupted apostolic tradition gathered
from writings, was crossed by three tendencies, which, moreover, were all jointly operative in the Christian communities, and
are therefore not peculiar to Gnosticism. (1) By faith in the continuance of prophecy, in which new things are always revealed
by the Holy Spirit (the Basilidean and Marcionite prophets). (2) By the assumption of an esoteric secret tradition of the Apostles
(see Clem. Strom. VII. 17. 106. 108; Hipp. Philos. VII. 20; Iren. I. 25. 5: III. 2. 1; Tertull. de prscr. 25. Cf. the Gnostic book,
, which in great part is based on doctrines said to be imparted by Jesus to his disciples after his resurrection). (3)
By the inability to oppose the continuous production of Evangelic writings, in other words, by the continuance of this kind of
literature and the addition of Acts of the Apostles (Gospel of the Egyptians (?), other Gospels, Acts of John, Thomas, Philip,
etc. We know absolutely nothing about the conditions under which these writings originated, the measure of authority which
they enjoyed, or the way in which they gained that authority). In all these points which in Gnosticism hindered the development
156
256
257
Adolf Harnack
As exoteric it is comprehended in the regula fidei350 (positive), as esoteric it is propagated by chosen

teachers.351
(5) The documents of revelation (Apostolic writings), just because they are such, must be interpreted
by means of allegory, that is, their deeper meaning must be extracted in this way (positive).352
(6) The following may be noted as the main points in the Gnostic conception of the several parts
of the regula fide:
of Christianity to the religion of a new book, the Gnostic schools shew that they stood precisely under the same conditions as
the Christian communities in general (see above Chap. 3. 2). If all things do not deceive us, the same inner development may
be observed even in the Valentinian school as in the great Church, viz., the production of sacred Evangelic and Apostolic writings,
prophecy and secret gnosis falling more and more into the background, and the completed Canon becoming the most important
basis of the doctrine of religion. The later Valentinians (see Tertull. de prscr. and adv. Valent.) seem to have appealed chiefly
to this Canon, and Tatian no less (about whose Canon, see my Texte u. Unters. I. 1. 2. pp. 213-218). But finally we must refer
to the fact that it was the highest concern of the Gnostics to furnish the historical proof of the Apostolic origin of their doctrine
by an exact reference to the links of the tradition (see Ritschl, Entstehung der altkath. Kirche. 2nd ed. p. 338 f.). Here again it
appears that Gnosticism shared with Christendom the universal presupposition that the valuable thing is the Apostolic origin
(see above p. 160 f.), but that it first created artificial chains of tradition, and that this is the first point in which it was followed
by the Church: (see the appeals to the Apostolic Matthew, to Peter and Paul, through the mediation of Glaukias and Theodas,
to James and the favourite disciples of the Lord, in the case of the Naassenes, Ophites, Basilideans and Valentinians, etc.; see,
further, the close of the Epistle of Ptolemy to Flora in Epistle H. 33. 7: ,
, , [sic]
, as well as the passages adduced under 2). From this it further follows that the Gnostics may
have compiled their Canon solely according to the principle of Apostolic origin. Upon the whole we may see here how foolish
it is to seek to dispose of Gnosticism with the phrase, lawless fancies. On the contrary, the Gnostics purposely took their stand
on the traditionnay, they were the first in Christendom who determined the range, contents and manner of propagating the
tradition. They are thus the first Christian theologians.
350 Here also we have a point of unusual historical importance. As we first find a new Canon among the Gnostics, so also among
them (and in Marcion) we first meet with the traditional complex of the Christian Kerygma as a doctrinal confession (regula
fide), that is, as a confession which, because it is fundamental, needs a speculative exposition, but is set forth by this exposition
as the summary of all wisdom. The hesitancy about the details of the Kerygma only shews the general uncertainty which at that
time prevailed. But again we see that the later Valentinians completely accommodated themselves to the later development in
the Church (Tertull. adv. Valent. I.: communem fidem adfirmant), that is, attached themselves, probably even from the first,
to the existing forms; while in the Marcionite Church a peculiar regula was set up by a criticism of the tradition. The regula, as
a matter of course, was regarded as Apostolic. On Gnostic regul, see Iren. I. 21. 5, 31. 3: II. prf.: II. 19. 8: III. 11. 3: III. 16.
1. 5: Ptolem. ap. Epiph. h. 33. 7; Tertull. adv. Valent. 1. 4: de prscr. 42: adv. Marc. I. 1: IV. 5. 17; Ep. Petri ad Jacob in Clem.
Hom. c. 1. We still possess, in great part verbatim, the regula of Apelles, in Epiphan. h. 44. 2. Irenus (I. 7. 2) and Tertull. (de
carne, 20) state that the Valentinian regula contained the formula, ; see on this, p. 205. In noting that
the two points so decisive for Catholicism, the Canon of the New Testament and the Apostolic regula, were first, in the strict
sense, set up by the Gnostics on the basis of a definite fixing and systematising of the oldest tradition, we may see that the
weakness of Gnosticism here consisted in its inability to exhibit the publicity of tradition and to place its propagation in close
connection with the organisation of the churches.
351 We do not know the relation in which the Valentinians placed the public Apostolic regula fide to the secret doctrine derived
from one Apostle. The Church, in opposition to the Gnostics, strongly emphasised the publicity of all tradition. Yet afterwards,
though with reservations, she gave a wide scope to the assumption of a secret tradition.
352 The Gnostics transferred to the Evangelic writings, and demanded as simply necessary, the methods which Barnabas and others
used in expounding the Old Testament (see the samples of their exposition in Irenus and Clement. Heinrici, l.c.). In this way,
of course, all the specialities of the system may be found in the documents. The Church at first condemned this method (Tertull.
de prcr. 17-19. 39; Iren. I. 8. 9), but applied it herself from the moment in which she had adopted a New Testament Canon of
equal authority with that of the Old Testament. However, the distinction always remained, that in the confrontation of the two
Testaments with the views of getting proofs from prophecy, the history of Jesus described in the Gospels was not at first
allegorised. Yet afterwards the Christological dogmas of the third and following centuries demanded a docetic explanation of
many points in that history.
157
Adolf Harnack
(a) The difference between the supreme God and the creator of the world, and therewith the opposing
of redemption and creation, and therefore the separation of the Mediator of revelation from the
Mediator of creation.353
258
(b) The separation of the supreme God from the God of the Old Testament, and therewith the
rejection of the Old Testament, or the assertion that the Old Testament contains no revelations of
the supreme God, or at least only in certain parts.354
(c) The doctrine of the independence and eternity of matter.
(d) The assertion that the present world sprang from a fall of man, or from an undertaking hostile
to God, and is therefore the product of an evil or intermediate being.355
(e) The doctrine that evil is inherent in matter and therefore is a physical potence.356
259
(f) The assumption of ons, that is, real powers and heavenly persons in whom is unfolded the
absoluteness of the Godhead.357
353
In the Valentinian, as well as in all systems not coarsely dualistic, the Redeemer Christ has no doubt a certain share in the
constitution of the highest class of men, but only through complicated mediations. The significance which is attributed to Christ
in many systems for the production or organisation of the upper world may be mentioned. In the Valentinian system there are
several mediators. It may be noted that the abstract conception of the divine primitive Being seldom called forth a real controversy.
As a rule, offence was taken only at the expression.
354 The Epistle of Ptolemy to Flora is very instructive here. If we leave out of account the peculiar Gnostic conception, we have
represented in Ptolemys criticism the later Catholic view of the Old Testament, as well as also the beginning of a historical
conception of it. The Gnostics were the first critics of the Old Testament in Christendom. Their allegorical exposition of the
Evangelic writings should be taken along with their attempts at interpreting the Old Testament literally and historically. It may
be noted, for example, that the Gnostics were the first to call attention to the significance of the change of name for God in the
Old Testament; see Iren. II. 35. 3. The early Christian tradition led to a procedure directly the opposite. Apelles, in particular,
the disciple of Marcion, exercised an intelligent criticism on the Old Testament; see my treatise, de Apellis gnosi, p. 71 sq.,
and also Texte u. Unters. VI. 3, p. 111 ff. Marcion himself recognised the historical contents of the Old Testament as reliable
and the criticism of most Gnostics only called in question its religious value.
355 Ecclesiastical opponents rightly put no value on the fact that some Gnostics advanced to Pan-Satanism with regard to the
conception of the world, while others beheld a certain justitia civilis ruling in the world. For the standpoint which the Christian
tradition had marked out, this distinction is just as much a matter of indifference as the other, whether the Old Testament proceeded
from an evil, or from an intermediate being. The Gnostics attempted to correct the judgment of faith about the world and its
relation to God, by an empiric view of the world. Here again they are by no means visionaries, however fantastic the means
by which they have expressed their judgment about the condition of the world, and attempted to explain that condition. Those,
rather, are visionaries who give themselves up to the belief that the world is the work of a good and omnipotent Deity, however
apparently reasonable the arguments they adduce. The Gnostic (Hellenistic) philosophy of religion at this point comes into the
sharpest opposition to the central point of the Old Testament Christian belief, and all else really depends on this. Gnosticism is
antichristian so far as it takes away from Christianity its Old Testament foundation, and belief in the identity of the creator of
the world with the supreme God. That was immediately felt and noted by its opponents.
356 The ecclesiastical opposition was long uncertain on this point. It is interesting to note that Basilides portrayed the sin inherent
in the child from birth in a way that makes one feel as though he were listening to Augustine (see the fragment from the 23rd
book of the , in Clem., Strom. VI. 12. 83). But it is of great importance to note how even very special later terminologies,
dogmas, etc., of the Church, were in a certain way anticipated by the Gnostics. Some samples will be given below; but meanwhile
we may here refer to a fragment from Apelles Syllogisms in Ambrosius (de Parad. V. 28): Si hominem non perfectum fecit
deus, unusquisque autem per industriam propriam perfectionem sibi virtutis adsciscit: non ne videtur plus sibi homo adquirere,
quam ei deus contulit? One seems here to be transferred into the fifth century.
357 The Gnostic teaching did not meet with a vigorous resistance even on this point, and could also appeal to the oldest tradition.
The arbitrariness in the number, derivation and designation of the ons was contested. The aversion to barbarism also co-operated
here, in so far as Gnosticism delighted in mysterious words borrowed from the Semites. But the Semitic element attracted as
well as repelled the Greeks and Romans of the second century. The Gnostic terminologies within the on speculations were
158
Adolf Harnack
(g) The assertion that Christ revealed a God hitherto unknown.
260
261
(h) The doctrine that in the person of Jesus Christthe Gnostics saw in it redemption, but they
reduced the person to the physical naturethe heavenly on, Christ, and the human appearance
of that on must be clearly distinguished, and a distincte agere ascribed to each. Accordingly,
there were some, such as Basilides, who acknowledged no real union between Christ and the man
Jesus, whom, besides, they regarded as an earthly man. Others, e.g., part of the Valentinians, among
whom the greatest differences prevailed,see Tertull. adv. Valent. 39taught that the body of
Jesus was a heavenly psychical formation, and sprang from the womb of Mary only in appearance.
Finally, a third party, such as Saturninus, declared that the whole visible appearance of Christ was
a phantom, and therefore denied the birth of Christ.358 Christ separates that which is unnaturally
united, and thus leads everything back again to himself; in this redemption consists (full contrast
to the notion of the .
partly reproduced among the Catholic theologians of the third century; most important is it that the Gnostics have already made
use of the concept ; see Iren., I. 5. I: ,
(said of the Sophia): L. 5. 4,
, , . I. 5. 5:
, . In all these cases the word means of one substance. It is found in the same sense
in Clem., Hom. 20. 7: see also Philos. VII. 22; Clem., Exc. Theod. 42. Other terms also which have acquired great significance
in the Church since the days of Origen (e.g., ) are found among the Gnostics, see Ep. Ptol. ad Floram, 5; and Bigg.
(1. c. p. 58, note 3) calls attention to the appearance of in Excerpt. ex. Theod. 80, perhaps the earliest passage.
358 The characteristic of the Gnostic Christology is not Docetism in the strict sense, but the doctrine of the two natures, that is, the
distinction between Jesus and Christ, or the doctrine that the Redeemer as Redeemer was not a man. The Gnostics based this
view on the inherent sinfulness of human nature, and it was shared by many teachers of the age without being based on any
principle (see above, p. 196 f.). The most popular of the three Christologies briefly characterised above was undoubtedly that
of the Valentinians. It is found, with great variety of details, in most of the nameless fragments of Gnostic literature that have
been preserved, as well as in Apelles. This Christology might be accommodated to the accounts of the Gospels and the baptismal
confession; (how far is shewn by the regula of Apelles, and that of the Valentinians may have run in similar terms). It was taught
here that Christ had passed through Mary as a channel; from this doctrine followed very easily the notion of the Virginity of
Mary, uninjured even after the birthit was already known to Clem. Alex. (Strom. VII. 16. 93). The Church also, later on,
accepted this view. It is very difficult to get a clear idea of the Christology of Basilides, as very diverse doctrines were afterwards
set up in his school as is shewn by the accounts. Among them is the doctrine, likewise held by others, that Christ in descending
from the highest heaven took to himself something from every sphere through which he passed. Something similar is found
among the Valentinians, some of whose prominent leaders made a very complicated phenomenon of Christ, and gave him also
a direct relation to the demiurge. There is further found here the doctrine of the heavenly humanity, which was afterwards
accepted by ecclesiastical theologians. Along with the fragments of Basilides the account of Clem. Alex. seems to me the most
reliable. According to this, Basilides taught that Christ descended on the man Jesus at the baptism. Some of the Valentinians
taught something similar: the Christology of Ptolemy is characterised by the union of all conceivable Christology theories. The
different early Christian conceptions may be found in him. Basilides did not admit a real union between Christ and Jesus; but it
is interesting to see how the Pauline Epistles caused the theologians to view the sufferings of Christ as necessarily based on the
assumption of sinful flesh, that is, to deduce from the sufferings that Christ has assumed sinful flesh. The Basilidean Christology
will prove to be a peculiar preliminary stage of the later ecclesiastical Christology. The anniversary of the baptism of Christ was
to the Basilideans as the day of the , a high festival day (see Clem., Strom. I. 21. 146): they fixed it for the 6th (2nd)
January. And in this also the Catholic Church has followed the Gnosis. The real docetic Christology as represented by Saturninus
(and Marcion) was radically opposed to the tradition, and struck out the birth of Jesus, as well as the first 30 years of his life.
An accurate exposition of the Gnostic Christologies, which would carry us too far here, (see especially Tertull., de carne Christi,)
would shew that a great part of the questions which occupy Church theologians till the present day were already raised by the
Gnostics; for example, what happened to the body of Christ after the resurrection? (see the doctrines of Apelles and Hermogenes);
what significance the appearance of Christ had for the heavenly and Satanic powers? what meaning belongs to his sufferings,
although there was no real suffering for the heavenly Christ, but only for Jesus? etc. In no other point do the anticipations in the
Gnostic dogmatic stand out so plainly; (see the system of Origen; many passages bearing on the subject will be found in the
159
262
Adolf Harnack
(i) The conversion of the (it was no innovation to regard the heavenly Church as an on)
into the college of the pneumatic, who alone, in virtue of their psychological endowment, are
capable of Gnosis and the divine life, while the others, likewise in virtue of their constitution, as
hylic perish. The Valentinians, and probably many other Gnostics also, distinguished between
pneumatic, psychic and hylic. They regarded the psychic as capable of a certain blessedness, and
of a corresponding certain knowledge of the supersensible, the latter being obtained through Pistis,
that is, through Christian faith.359
(k) The rejection of the entire early christian eschatology, especially the second coming of Christ,
the resurrection of the body, and Christs Kingdom of glory on the earth; and, in connection with
this, the assertion that the deliverance of the spirit from the sensuous can be expected only from
the future, while the spirit enlightened about itself already possesses immortality, and only awaits
its introduction into the pneumatic pleroma.360
third and fourth volumes of this work, to which readers are referred). The Catholic Church has learned but little from the Gnostics,
that is, from the earliest theologians in Christendom, in the doctrine of God and the world, but very much in Christology; and
who can maintain that she has ever completely overcome the Gnostic doctrine of the two natures, nay, even Docetism? Redemption
viewed in the historical person of Jesus, that is, in the appearance of a Divine being on the earth, but the person divided and the
real history of Jesus explained away and made inoperative, is the signature of the Gnostic Christologythis, however, is also
the danger of the system of Origen and those systems that are dependent on him (Docetism) as well as, in another way, the danger
of the view of Tertullian and the Westerns (doctrine of two natures). Finally, it should be noted that the Gnosis always made a
distinction between the supreme God and Christ, but that, from the religious position, it had no reason for emphasising that
distinction. For to many Gnostics, Christ was in a certain way the manifestation of the supreme God himself, and therefore in
the more popular writings of the Gnostics (see the Acta Johannis) expressions are applied to Christ which seem to identify him
with God. The same thing is true of Marcion and also of Valentinus (see his Epistle in Clem., Strom. II. 20. 114:
, ). This Gnostic estimate of Christ has undoubtedly had a mighty influence on
the later Church development of Christology. We might say without hesitation that to most Gnostics Christ was a ,
. The details of the life, sufferings and resurrection of Jesus are found in many Gnostics transformed,
complemented and arranged in the way in which Celsus (Orig., c. Cels. I. II.) required for an impressive and credible history.
Celsus indicates how everything must have taken place if Christ had been a God in human form. The Gnostics in part actually
narrate it so. What an instructive coincidence! How strongly the docetic view itself was expressed in the case of Valentinus, and
how the exaltation of Jesus above the earthly was thereby to be traced hack to his moral struggle, is shewn in the remarkable
fragment of a letter (in Clem., Strom. III. 7. 59): .
, ,
. In this notion, however, there is more sense and historical meaning than in that of the later
ecclesiastical aphtharto-docetism.
359 The Gnostic distinction of classes of men was connected with the old distinction of stages in spiritual understanding, but has its
basis in a law of nature. There were again empirical and psychological viewsthey must have been regarded as very important,
had not the Gnostics taken them from the traditions of the philosophic schoolswhich made the universalism of the Christian
preaching of salvation appear unacceptable to the Gnostics. Moreover, the transformation of religion into a doctrine of the school,
or into a mystery cult, always resulted in the distinction of the knowing from the profanum vulgus. But in the Valentinian
assumption that the common Christians as psychical occupy an intermediate stage, and that they are saved by faith, we have a
compromise which completely lowered the Gnosis to a scholastic doctrine within Christendom. Whether and in what way the
Catholic Church maintained the significance of Pistis as contrasted with Gnosis, and in what way the distinction between the
knowing (priests) and the laity was there reached will be examined in its proper place. It should be noted, however, that the
Valentinian, Ptolemy, ascribes freedom of will to the psychic (which the pneumatic and hylic lack), and therefore has sketched
by way of by-work a theology for the psychical beside that for the pneumatic, which exhibits striking harmonies with the exoteric
system of Origen. The denial by Gnosticism of free will, and therewith of moral responsibility, called forth very decided
contradiction. Gnosticism, that is, the acute hellenising of Christianity, was wrecked in the Church on free will, the Old Testament
and eschatology.
360 The greatest deviation of Gnosticism from tradition appears in eschatology, along with the rejection of the Old Testament and
the separation of the creator of the world from the supreme God. Upon the whole our sources say very little about the Gnostic
160
263
264
Adolf Harnack
In addition to what has been mentioned here, we must finally fix our attention on the ethics of
Gnosticism. Like the ethics of all systems which are based on the contrast between the sensuous
and spiritual elements of human nature, that of the Gnostics took a twofold direction. On the one
hand, it sought to suppress and uproot the sensuous, and thus became strictly ascetic (imitation of
Christ as motive of asceticism;361 Christ and the Apostles represented as ascetics);362 on the other
hand, it treated the sensuous element as indifferent, and so became libertine, that is, conformed to
the world. The former was undoubtedly the more common, though there are credible witnesses to
the latter; the frequentissimum collegium in particular, the Valentinians, in the days of Irenus and
Tertullian, did not vigorously enough prohibit a lax and world-conforming morality;363 and among
the Syrian and Egyptian Gnostics there were associations which celebrated the most revolting
orgies.364 As the early Christian tradition summoned to a strict renunciation of the world and to
self-control, the Gnostic asceticism could not but make an impression at the first; but the dualistic
basis on which it rested could not fail to excite suspicion as soon as one was capable of examining
it.365
eschatology. This, however, is not astonishing; for the Gnostics had not much to say on the matter, or what they had to say found
expression in their doctrine of the genesis of the world, and that of redemption through Christ. We learn that the regula of Apelles
closed with the words: , instead of . We know that
Marcion, who may already he mentioned here, referred the whole eschatological expectations of early Christian times to the
province of the god of the Jews, and we hear that Gnostics (Valentinians) retained the words , but interpreted
them to mean that one must rise in this life, that is perceive the truth (thus the resurrectio a mortuis, that is, exaltation above
the earthly, took the place of the resurrectio mortuorum; see Iren. II. 31. 2: Tertull., de resurr. carnis, 19). While the Christian
tradition placed a great drama at the close of history, the Gnostics regard the history itself as the drama, which virtually closes
with the (first) appearing of Christ. It may not have been the opinion of all Gnostics that the resurrection has already taken place,
yet for most of them the expectations of the future seem to have been quite faint, and above all without significance. The life is
so much included in knowledge, that we nowhere in our sources find a strong expression of hope in a life beyond (it is different
in the earliest Gnostic documents preserved in the Coptic language), and the introduction of the spirits into the Pleroma appears
very vague and uncertain. But it is of great significance that those Gnostics who, according to their premises, required a real
redemption from the world as the highest good, remained finally in the same uncertainty and religious despondency with regard
to this redemption, as characterised the Greek philosophers. A religion which is a philosophy of religion remains at all times
fixed to this life, however strongly it may emphasise the contrast between the spirit and its surroundings, and however ardently
it may desire redemption. The desire for redemption is unconsciously replaced by the thinkers joy in his knowledge, which
allays the desire (Iren., III. 15. 2: Inflatus est iste [scil. the Valentinian proud of knowledge] neque in clo, neque in terra putat
se esse, sed intra Pleroma introisse et complexum jam angelum suum, cum institorio et supercilio incedit gallinacei elationem
habens .... Plurimi, quasi jam perfecti, semetipsos spiritales vocant, et se nosse jam dicunt eum qui sit intra Pleroma ipsorum
refrigerii locum). As in every philosophy of religion, an element of free thinking appears very plainly here also. The eschatological
hopes can only have been maintained in vigour by the conviction that the world is of God. But we must finally refer to the fact
that, even in eschatology, Gnosticism only drew the inferences from views which were pressing into Christendom from all sides,
and were in an increasing measure endangering its hopes of the future. Besides, in some Valentinian circles, the future life was
viewed as a condition of education, as a progress through the series of the (seven) heavens; i.e., purgatorial experiences in the
future were postulated. Both afterwards, from the time of Origen, forced their way into the doctrine of the Church (purgatory,
different ranks in heaven). Clement and Origen being throughout strongly influenced by the Valentinian eschatology.
361 See the passage Clem., Strom. III. 6, 49, which is given above, p. 239.
362 Cf. the Apocryphal Acts of Apostles and diverse legends of Apostles (e.g., in Clem. Alex.).
363 More can hardly be said: the heads of schools were themselves earnest men. No doubt statements such as that of Heracleon seem
to have led to laxity in the lower sections of the collegium: ,
, ,
.
364 See Epiph. h. 26, and the statements in the Coptic Gnostic works. (Schmidt, Texte u. Unters. VIII, I. 2, p. 566 ff.)
365 There arose in this way an extremely difficult theoretical problem, but practically a convenient occasion for throwing asceticism
altogether overboard, with the Gnostic asceticism, or restricting it to easy exercises. This is not the place for entering into the
details. Shibboleths, such as , may have soon appeared. It may be noted
161
265
Adolf Harnack
Literature.The writings of Justin (his syntagma against heresies has not been preserved), Irenus,
Tertullian, Hippolytus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Epiphanius, Philastrius and Theodoret; cf.
Volkmar, Die Quellen der Ketzergeschichte, 1885.
Lipsius, Zur Quellenkritik des Epiphanios, 1875; also Die Quellen der altesten Ketzergeschichte,
1875.
266
Harnack, Zur Quellenkritik d. Gesch. Gnostic, 1873 (continued i. D. Ztschr. f. d. hist. Theol. 1874,
and in Der Schrift de Apellis gnosi monarch. 1874).
Of Gnostic writings we possess the book Pistis Sophia, the writings contained in the Coptic Cod.
Brucianus, and the Epistle of Ptolemy to Flora; also numerous fragments, in connection with which
Hilgenfeld especially deserves thanks, but which still require a more complete selecting and a more
thorough discussion (see Grabe, Spicilegium T. I. II. 1700. Heinrici, Die Valentin. Gnosis, u. d. H.
Schrift, 1871).
here, that the asceticism with gained the victory in Monasticism was not really that which sprang from early Christian, but from
Greek impulses, without, of course, being based on the same principle. Gnosticism anticipated the future even here. That could
be much more clearly proved in the history of the worship. A few points which are of importance for the history of dogma may
be mentioned here: (1) The Gnostics viewed the traditional sacred actions (Baptism and the Lords Supper) entirely as mysteries,
and applied to them the terminology of the mysteries (some Gnostics set them aside as psychic); but in doing so they were only
drawing the inference from changes which were then in process throughout Christendom. To what extent the later Gnosticism
in particular was interested in sacraments may he studied especially in the Pistis Sophia and the other Coptic works of the
Gnostics, which Carl Schmidt has edited; see, for example, Pistis Sophia, p. 233. Dixit Jesus ad suos : , dixi vobis,
haud adduxi quidquam in veniens nisi hunc ignem et hanc aquam et hoc vinum et hunc sanguinem. (2) They increased
the holy actions by the addition of new ones, repeated baptisms (expiations), anointing with oil, sacrament of confirmation
(); see, on Gnostic sacraments, Iren. I. 20, and Lipsius, Apokr. Apostelgesch. I. pp. 336343, and cf. the
in the delineation of the Shepherd of Hermas. Mand XI. (3) Marcus represented the wine in the Lords Supper as
actual blood in consequence of the act of blessing: see Iren., I. 13. 2: .
, ,
,
9; , . Marcus was
indeed a charlatan; but religious charlatanry afterwards became very earnest, and was certainly taken earnestly by many adherents
of Marcus. The transubstantiation idea in reference to the elements in the mysteries is also plainly expressed in the Excerpt. ex.
Theodot. 82: ,
(that is, not into a new super-terrestrial material, not into the real body
of Christ, but into a spiritual power)
, . Irenus possessed a liturgical handbook of the Marcionites, and communicates many
sacramental formul from it (I. c. 13 sq.). In my treatise on the Pistis Sophia (Texte u. Unters. VII. 2. pp. 5994) I think I have
shewn (The common Christian and the Catholic elements of the Pistis Sophia) to what extent Gnosticism anticipated Catholicism
as a system of doctrine and an institute of worship. These results have been strengthened by Carl Schmidt (Texte u. Unters. VIII.
I. 2). Even purgatory, prayers for the dead, and many other things raised in speculative questions and definitely answered, are
found in those Coptic Gnostic writings and are then met with again in Catholicism. One general remark may be permitted in
conclusion. The Gnostics were not interested in apologetics, and that is a very significant fact. The in man was regarded
by them as a supernatural principle, and on that account they are free from all rationalism and moralistic dogmatism. For that
very reason they are in earnest with the idea of revelation, and do not attempt to prove it or convert its contests into natural truths.
They did endeavour to prove that their doctrines were Christian, but renounced all proof that revelation is the truth (proofs from
antiquity). One will not easily find in the case of the Gnostics themselves the revealed truth described as philosophy, or morality
as the philosophic life. If we compare, therefore, the first and fundamental system of Catholic doctrine, that of Origen, with the
system of the Gnostics, we shall find that Origen, like Basilides and Valentinus, was a philosopher of revelation, but that he had
besides a second element which had its origin in apologetics.
162
Adolf Harnack
On the (Gnostic) Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles, see Zahn, Acta Job. 1880, and the great work
of Lipsius, Die apokryphen Apostelgeschichten, I. Vol., 1883; II. Vol., 1887. (See also Lipsius,
Quellen d. rm. Petrussage, 1872.)
Neander, Genet. Entw. d. vornehmsten gnostischen Systeme, 1818.
Matter, Hist. crit. du gnosticisme, 2 Vols., 1828.
Baur, Die Christl. Gnosis, 1835.
Lipsius, Der Gnosticismus, in Ersch. und Grubers Allg. Encykl. 71 Bd. 1860.
Moeller, Geschichte d. Kosmologie i. d. Griech. K. bis auf Origenes. 1860.
King, The Gnostics and their remains, 1873.
Mansel, The Gnostic heresies, 1875.
Jacobi, Art. Gnosis in Herzogs Real Encykl. 2nd Edit.
Hilgenfeld, Die Ketzergeschichte des Urchristenthums, 1884, where the more recent special literature
concerning individual Gnostics is quoted.
Lipsius, Art. Valentinus in Smiths Dictionary of Christian Biography.
Harnack, Art. Valentinus in the Encykl. Brit.
Harnack, Pistis Sophia in the Texte und Unters. VII. 2. Carl Schmidt, Gnostische Schriften in
koptischer Sprache aus dem Codex Brucianus (Texte und Unters. VIII. 1. 2).
Jol, Blicke in die Religionsgeschichte zu Anfang des 2 Christl. Jahrhunderts, 2 parts, 188o, 1883.
Renan, History of the Origins of Christianity. Vols. V. VI. VII.
270
CHAPTER V
MARCIONS ATTEMPT TO SET ASIDE THE OLD TESTAMENT FOUNDATION OF
CHRISTIANITY, TO PURIFY TRADITION, AND TO REFORM CHRISTENDOM ON
THE BASIS OF THE PAULINE GOSPEL.
163
268
Adolf Harnack
MARCION cannot be numbered among the Gnostics in the strict sense of the word.366 For (1) he was
not guided by any speculatively scientific, or even by an apologetic, but by a soteriological interest.367
(2) He therefore put all emphasis on faith, not on Gnosis.368 (3) In the exposition of his ideas he
neither applied the elements of any Semitic religious wisdom, nor the methods of the Greek
philosophy of religion.369 (4) He never made the distinction between an esoteric and an exoteric
form of religion. He rather clung to the publicity of the preaching, and endeavoured to reform
366
He belonged to Pontus and was a rich shipowner: about 139 he came to Rome already a Christian, and for a short time belonged
to the church there. As he could not succeed in his attempt to reform it, he broke away from it about 144. He founded a church
of his own and developed a very great activity. He spread his views by numerous journeys, and communities bearing his name
very soon arose in every province of the Empire (Adamantius, de recta in deum fide, Origen, Opp. ed. Delarue I. p. 809: Epiph.
h. 42. p. 668. ed. Oehler). They were ecclesiastically organised (Tertull., de prscr. 41, and adv. Marc. IV. 5) and possessed
bishops, presbyters, etc. (Euseb. H. E. IV. 15. 46: de Mart. Palst. X. 2: Les Bas and Waddington, Inscript. Grecq. et Latines
rec. en Grce et en Asie Min. Vol. III. No. 2558). Justin (Apol. 1. 26) about 150 tells us that Marcions preaching had spread
, and by the year 155, the Marcionites were already numerous in Rome (Iren. III. 34). Up to his death,
however, Marcion did not give up the purpose of winning the whole of Christendom, and therefore again and again sought
connection with it (Iren. I. c.; Tertull., de prscr. 30), likewise his disciples (see the conversation of Apelles with Rhodon in
Euseb. H. E. V. 13. 5, and the dialogue of the Marcionites with Adamantius). It is very probable that Marcion had fixed the
ground features of his doctrine, and had laboured for its propagation, even before he came to Rome. In Rome the Syrian Gnostic
Cerdo had a great influence on him, so that we can even yet perceive, and clearly distinguish the Gnostic element in the form
of the Marcionite doctrine transmitted to us.
367 Sufficit, said the Marcionites, unicum opsus deo nostro, quod hominem liberavit summa et prcipua bonitate sua (Tertull.
adv. Marc. I. 17).
368 Apelles, the disciple of Marcion, declared (Euseb. H. E. V. 13. 5) ,
.
369 This is an extremely important point. Marcion rejected all allegories. (See Tertull., adv. Marc. II. 19. 21. 22: III. 5. 6. 14. 19:
IV. 15. 20: V. 1; Orig., Comment. in Matth. T. XV. 3 Opp. III. p. 655: in. ep. ad. Rom. Opp. IV. p. 494 sq.: Adamant., Sect. I,
Orig. Opp. I. pp. 808. 817; Ephr. Syrus. hymn. 36 Edit. Benedict, p. 520 sq.) and describes this method as an arbitrary one. But
that simply means that he perceived and avoided the transformation of the Gospel into Hellenic philosophy. No philosophic
formul are found in any of his statements that have been handed down to us. But what is still more important, none-of his early
opponents have attributed to Marcion a system, as they did to Basilides and Valentinus. There can be no doubt that Marcion did
not set up any system (the Armenian, Esnik, first gives a Marcionite system, but that is a late production, see my essay in the
Ztschr. f. wiss. Theol. 1896. p. 80 f.). He was just as far from having any apologetic or rationalistic interest. Justin (Apol. I. 58)
says of the Marcionites; , .
Tertullian again and again casts in the teeth of Marcion that he has adduced no proof. See I. 11 sq.: III. 2. 3. 4: IV. 11: Subito
Christus, subito et Johannes. Sic sunt omnia apud Marcionem, qu suum et plenum habent ordinem apud creatorem. Rhodon
(Euseb., H. E. V. 13. 4) says of two prominent genuine disciples of Marcion: ,
, . Of Apelles, the most important of Marcions disciples who
laid aside the Gnostic, borrows of his master, we have the words (l. c.): , ,
, . ,
.... , , ....
, . It was Marcions purpose therefore to give all value to faith alone, to make it dependent
on its own convincing power, and avoid all philosophic paraphrase and argument. The contrast in which he placed the Christian
blessing of salvation, has in principle nothing in common with the contract in which Greek philosophy viewed the summum
bonum. Finally, it may he pointed out that Marcion introduced no new elements ons, Matter, etc.) into his evangelic views,
and leant on no Oriental religious science. The later Marcionite speculations about matter (see the account of Esnik) should not
be charged upon the master himself, as is manifest from the second book of Tertullian against Marcion. The assumption that the
creator of the world created it out of a materia subjacens is certainly found in Marcion (see Tertull., 1. 15; Hippol., Philos. X.
19); but he speculated no further about it, and that assumption itself was not rejected, for example, by Clem. Alex. (Strom. II.
16. 74: Photius on Clements Hypotyposes). Marcion did not really speculate even about the good God; yet see Tertull., adv.
Marc. I. 14. 15: IV. 7: Mundus ille superiorclum tertium.
164
269
270
Adolf Harnack
Christendom, in opposition to the attempts at founding schools for those who knew and mystery
cults for such as were in quest of initiation. It was only after the failure of his attempts at reform
that he founded churches of his own, in which brotherly equality, freedom from all ceremonies,
and strict evangelical discipline were to rule.370 Completely carried away with the novelty, uniqueness
and grandeur of the Pauline Gospel of the grace of God in Christ, Marcion felt that all other
conceptions of the Gospel, and especially its union with the Old Testament religion, was opposed
to, and a backsliding from, the truth.371 He accordingly supposed that it was necessary to make the
sharp antitheses of Paul, law and gospel, wrath and grace, works and faith, flesh and spirit, sin and
righteousness, death and life, that is the Pauline criticism of the Old Testament religion, the
foundation of his religious views, and to refer them to two principles, the righteous and wrathful
god of the Old Testament, who is at the same time identical with the creator of the world, and the
God of the Gospel, quite unknown before Christ, who is only love and mercy.372 This Paulinism in
its religious strength, but without dialectic, without the Jewish Christian view of history, and
detached from the soil of the Old Testament, was to him the true Christianity. Marcion, like Paul,
felt that the religious value of a statutory law with commandments and ceremonies, was very
different from that of a uniform law of love.373 Accordingly, he had a capacity for appreciating the
Pauline idea of faith; it is to him reliance on the unmerited grace of God which is revealed in Christ.
But Marcion shewed himself to be a Greek influenced by the religious spirit of the time, by changing
the ethical contrast of the good and legal into the contrast between the infinitely exalted spiritual
and the sensible which is subject to the law of nature, by despairing of the triumph of good in the
world and, consequently, correcting the traditional faith that the world and history belong to God,
by an empirical view of the world and the course of events in it,374 a view to which he was no doubt
also led by the severity of the early Christian estimate of the world. Yet to him systematic speculation
about the final causes of the contrast actually observed, was by no means the main thing. So far as
he himself ventured on such a speculation he seems to have been influenced by the Syrian Cerdo.
The numerous contradictions which arise as soon as one attempts to reduce Marcions propositions
to a system, and the fact that his disciples tried all possible conceptions of the doctrine of principles,
and defined the relation of the two Gods very differently, are the clearest proof that Marcion was
a religious character, that he had in general nothing to do with principles, but with living beings
whose power he felt, and that what he ultimately saw in the Gospel was not an explanation of the
world, but redemption from the world,375redemption from a world which even in the best that it
370
Tertull., de prscr. 41. sq.; the delineation refers chiefly to the Marcionites (see Epiph. h. 42. c. 3. 4, and Esniks account) on
the Church system of Marcion, see also Tertull., adv. Marc. I. 14, 21, 23, 24, 28, 29: III. 1, 22: IV. 5, 34: V. 7, 10, 15, 18.
371 Marcion himself originally belonged to the main body of the Church, as is expressly declared by Tertullian and Epiphanius, and
attested by one of his own letters.
372 Tertull., adv. Marc. I. 2. 19: Separatio legis et evangelii proprium et principale opus est Marcionis ... ex diversitate sententiarum
utriusque instrumenti diversitatem quoque argumentatur deorum. II. 28, 29: IV. 1. 1. 6: Dispares deos, alterum, judicem, ferum,
bellipotentem; alterum mitem, placidum et tantummodo bonum atque optimum. Iren. I. 27. 2.
373 Marcion maintained that the good God is not to be feared. Tertull., adv. Marc. I. 27: Atque adeo pr se ferunt Marcionit:
quod deum suum omnino non timeant. Malus autem, inquiunt, timebitur; bonus autem diligitur. To the question why they did
not sin if they did not fear their God, the Marcionites answered in the words of Rom. VI. 1. 2. (l. c.).
374 Tertull., adv. Marc. I. 2: II. 5.
375 See the passage adduced, p. 267, note 2, and Tertull., I. 19: Immo inquiunt Marcionit, deus poster, etsi non ab initio, etsi non
per conditionem, sed per semetipsum revelatus est in Christi Jesu. The very fact that different theological tendencies (schools)
appeared within Marcionite Christianity and were mutually tolerant, proves that the Marcionite Church itself was not based on
165
Adolf Harnack
can offer has nothing that can reach the height of the blessing bestowed in Christ.376 Special attention
may be called to the following particulars.
271
272
1. Marcion explained the Old Testament in its literal sense and rejected every allegorical
interpretation. He recognised it as the revelation of the creator of the world and the god of the Jews,
but placed it, just on that account, in sharpest contrast to the Gospel. He demonstrated the
contradictions between the Old Testament and the Gospel in a voluminous work (the ).377
In the god of the former book he saw a being whose character was stern justice, and therefore anger,
contentiousness and unmercifulness. The law which rules nature and man appeared to him to accord
with the characteristics of this god and the kind of law revealed by him, and therefore it seemed
credible to him that this god is the creator and lord of the world (). As the law which
governs the world is inflexible and yet, on the other hand, full of contradictions, just and again
brutal, and as the law of the Old Testament exhibits the same features, so the god of creation was
to Marcion a being who united in himself the whole gradations of attributes from justice to
malevolence, from obstinacy to inconsistency.378 Into this conception of the creator of the world,
the characteristic of which is that it cannot be systematised, could easily be fitted the Syrian Gnostic
theory which regards him as an evil being, because he belongs to this world and to matter. Marcion
did not accept it in principle,379 but touched it lightly and adopted certain inferences.380 On the basis
of the Old Testament and of empirical observation, Marcion divided men into two classes, good
and evil, though he regarded them all, body and soul, as creatures of the demiurge. The good are
those who strive to fulfil the law of the demiurge. These are outwardly better than those who refuse
him obedience. But the distinction found here is not the decisive one. To yield to the promptings
of Divine grace is the only decisive distinction, and those just men will shew themselves less
susceptible to the manifestation of the truly good than sinners. As Marcion held the Old Testament
to be a book worthy of belief, though his disciple, Apelles, thought otherwise, he referred all its
predictions to a Messiah whom the creator of the world is yet to send, and who, as a war-like hero,
is to set up the earthly kingdom of the just God.381
a formulated system of faith. Apelles expressly conceded different forms of doctrine in Christendom, on the basis of faith in the
Crucified and a common holy ideal of life (see p. 268).
376 Tertull. I. 13. Narem contrahentes impudentissimi Marcionit convertuntur ad destructionem operum creatoris. Nimirum,
inquiunt, grande opus et dignum deo mundus? The Marcionites (Iren. IV. 34. 1) put the question to their ecclesiastical opponents:
Quid novi attulit dominus veniens? and therewith caused them no small embarrassment.
377 On these see Tertull. I. 19: II. 28. 29: IV. I. 4. 6: Epiph.; Hippol. Philos. VII. 30; the book was used by other Gnostics also (it is
very probable that 1 Tim. VI. 20, an addition to the Epistlerefers to Marcions Antitheses). Apelles, Marcions disciple,
composed a similar work under the title of Syllogismi. Marcions Antitheses, which may still in part be reconstructed from
Tertullian, Epiphanius, Adamantius, Ephraem, etc., possessed canonical authority in the Marcionite church, and therefore took
the place of the Old Testament. That is quite clear from Tertull., I. 19 (cf. IV. 1): Separatio legis et Evangelii proprium et
principale opus est Marcionis, nec poterunt negare discipuli ejus, quod in summo (suo) instrumento habent, quo denique initiantur
et indurantur in hanc hresim.
378 Tertullian has frequently pointed to the contradictions in the Marcionite conception of the god of creation. These contradictions,
however, vanish as soon as we regard Marcions god from the point of view that he is like his revelation in the Old Testament.
379 The creator of the world is indeed to Marcion malignus, but not malus.
380 Marcion touched on it when he taught that the visibilia belonged to the god of creation, but the invisibilia to the good God
(I. 16). He adopted the consequences, inasmuch as he taught docetically about Christ, and only assumed a deliverance of the
human soul.
381 See especially the third book of Tertull. adv. Marcion.
166
273
274
Adolf Harnack
2. Marcion placed the good God of love in opposition to the creator of the world.382 This God has
only been revealed in Christ. He was absolutely unknown before Christ,Deus incognitus was
likewise a standing expression. They maintained against all attacks the religious position that, from
the nature of the case, believers only can know God, and that this is quite sufficient (Tertull., I. 11.)
and men were in every respect strange to him.383 Out of pure goodness and mercy, for these are the
essential attributes of this God who judges not and is not wrathful, he espoused the cause of those
beings who were foreign to him, as he could not bear to have them any longer tormented by their
just and yet malevolent lord.384 The God of love appeared in Christ and proclaimed a new kingdom
(Tertull., adv. Marc. III. 24. fin.). Christ called to himself the weary and heavy laden,385 and
proclaimed to them that he would deliver them from the fetters of their lord and from the world.
He shewed mercy to all while he sojourned on the earth, and did in every respect the opposite of
what the creator of the world had done to men. They who believed in the creator of the world nailed
him to the cross. But in doing so they were unconsciously serving his purpose, for his death was
the price by which the God of love purchased men from the creator of the world.386 He who places
his hope in the Crucified can now be sure of escaping from the power of the creator of the world,
and of being translated into the kingdom of the good God. But experience shews that, like the Jews,
men who are virtuous according to the law of the creator of the world, do not allow themselves to
be converted by Christ; it is rather sinners who accept his message of redemption. Christ, therefore,
rescued from the under-world, not the righteous men of the Old Testament (Iren. I. 27. 3), but the
sinners who were disobedient to the creator of the world. If the determining thought of Marcions
view of Christianity is here again very clearly shewn, the Gnostic woof cannot fail to be seen in
the proposition that the good God delivers only the souls, not the bodies of believers. The antithesis
of spirit and matter, appears here as the decisive one, and the good God of love becomes the God
of the spirit, the Old Testament god the god of the flesh. In point of fact, Marcion seems to have
given such a turn to the good Gods attributes of love and incapability of wrath, as to make Him
the apathetic, infinitely exalted Being, free from all affections. The contradiction in which Marcion
is here involved is evident, because he taught expressly that the spirit of man is in itself just as
foreign to the good God as his body. But the strict asceticism which Marcion demanded as a
Christian, could have had no motive without the Greek assumption of a metaphysical contrast of
flesh and Spirit, which in fact was also apparently the doctrine of Paul.
382
Solius bonitatis, deus melior, were Marcions standing expressions for him.
Marcion firmly emphasised this and appealed to passages in Paul; see Tertull. I. 11. 19. 23: Scio dicturos, atqui hanc esse
principalem et perfectam bonitatem, cum sine ullo debito familiaritatis in extraneos voluntaria et libera effunditur, secundum
quam inimicos quoque nostros et hoc nomine jam extraneos deligere jubeamur. The Church Fathers therefore declared that
Marcions good God was a thief and a robber. See also Celsus, in Orig. VI. 53.
384 See Esniks account, which, however, is to be used cautiously.
385 Marcion has strongly emphasised the respective passages in Lukes Gospel: see his Antitheses, and his comments on the Gospel
as presented by Tertullian (1. IV).
386 That can be plainly read in Esnik, and must have been thought by Marcion himself, as he followed Paul (see Tertull., 1. V. and
I. 11). Apelles also emphasised the death upon the cross. Marcions conception of the purchase can indeed no longer be ascertained
in its details. But see Adamant., de recta in deum fide, sect. I. It is one of his theoretic contradictions that the good God who is
exalted above righteousness should yet purchase men.
383
167
275
Adolf Harnack
3. The relation in which Marcion placed the two Gods, appears at first sight to be one of equal
rank.387 Marcion himself, according to the most reliable witnesses, expressly asserted that both were
uncreated, eternal, etc. But if we look more closely we shall see that in Marcions mind there can
be no thought of equality. Not only did he himself expressly declare that the creator of the world
is a self-contradictory being of limited knowledge and power, but the whole doctrine of redemption
shews that he is a power subordinate to the good God. We need not stop to enquire about the details,
but it is certain that the creator of the world formerly knew nothing of the existence of the good
God, that he is in the end completely powerless against him, that he is overcome by him, and that
history in its issue with regard to man is determined solely by its relation to the good God. The just
god appears at the end of history, not as an independent being hostile to the good God, but as one
subordinate to him,388 so that some scholars, such as Neander, have attempted to claim for Marcion
a doctrine of one principle, and to deny that he ever held the complete independence of the creator
of the world, the creator of the world being simply an angel of the good God. This inference may
certainly be drawn with little trouble, as the result of various considerations, but it is forbidden by
reliable testimony. The characteristic of Marcions teaching is just this, that as soon as we seek to
raise his ideas from the sphere of practical considerations to that of a consistent theory, we come
upon a tangled knot of contradictions. The theoretic contradictions are explained by the different
interests which here cross each other in Marcion. In the first place, he was consciously dependent
on the Pauline theology, and was resolved to defend everything which he held to be Pauline.
Secondly, he was influenced by the contrast in which he saw the ethical powers involved. This
contrast seemed to demand a metaphysical basis, and its actual solution seemed to forbid such a
foundation. Finally, the theories of Gnosticism, the paradoxes of Paul, the recognition of the duty
of strictly mortifying the flesh, suggested to Marcion the idea that the good God was the exalted
God of the spirit, and the just god the god of the sensuous, of the flesh. This view, which involved
the principle of a metaphysical dualism, had something very specious about it, and to its influence
we must probably ascribe the fact that Marcion no longer attempted to derive the creator of the
world from the good God. His disciples who had theoretical interests in the matter, no doubt noted
the contradictions. In order to remove them, some of these disciples advanced to a doctrine of three
principles, the good God, the just creator of the world, the evil god, by conceiving the creator of
the world sometimes as an independent being, sometimes as one dependent on the good God. Others
reverted to the common dualism, God of the spirit and God of matter. But Apelles, the most important
of Marcions disciples, returned to the creed of the one God ( ), and conceived the creator
of the world and Satan as his angels, without departing from the fundamental thought of the master,
387
388
Tertull. I. 6: Marcion non negat creatorem deum esse.

Here Tertull., I. 27, 28, is of special importance; see also II. 28; IV. 29 (on Luke XII. 4146): IV. 30. Marcions idea was this.
The good God does not judge or punish; but He judges in so far as he keeps evil at a distance from Him: it remains foreign to
Him. Marcionit interrogati quid fiet peccatori cuique die illo? respondent abici ilium quasi ab oculis. Tranquilitas est et
mansuetudinis segregare solummodo et partem ejus cum infidelibus ponere. But what is the end of him who is thus rejected?
Ab igne, inquiunt, creatoris deprehendetur. We might think with Tertullian that the creator of the world would receive sinners
with joy: but this is the god of the law who punishes sinners. The issue is twofold: the heaven of the good God, and the hell of
the creator of the world. Either Marcion assumed with Paul that no one can keep the law, or he was silent about the end of the
righteous because he had no interest in it. At any rate, the teaching of Marcion closes with an outlook in which the creator of
the world can no longer be regarded as an independent god. Marcions disciples (see Esnik) here developed a consistent theory:
the creator of the world violated his own law by killing the righteous Christ, and was therefore deprived of all his power by
Christ.
168
276
277
Adolf Harnack
but rather following suggestions which he himself had given.389 Apart from Apelles, who founded
a Church of his own, we hear nothing of the controversies of disciples breaking up the Marcionite
church. All those who lived in the faith for which the master had workedviz., that the laws ruling
in nature and history, as well as the course of common legality and righteousness, are the antitheses
of the act of Divine mercy in Christ, and that cordial love and believing confidence have their
proper contrasts in self-righteous pride and the natural religion of the heart,those who rejected
the Old Testament and clung solely to the Gospel proclaimed by Paul, and finally, those who
considered that a strict mortification of the flesh and an earnest renunciation of the world were
demanded in the name of the Gospel, felt themselves members of the same community, and to all
appearance allowed perfect liberty to speculations about final causes.
4. Marcion had no interest in specially emphasising the distinction between the good God and
Christ, which according to the Pauline Epistles could not be denied. To him Christ is the
manifestation of the good God himself.390 But Marcion taught that Christ assumed absolutely nothing
from the creation of the Demiurge, but came down from heaven in the 15th year of the Emperor
Tiberius, and after the assumption of an apparent body, began his preaching in the synagogue of
Capernaum.391 This pronounced docetism which denies that Jesus was born, or subjected to any
human process of development,392 is the strongest expression of Marcions abhorrence of the world.
This aversion may have sprung from the severe attitude of the early Christians toward the world,
but the inference which Marcion here draws, shews that this feeling was, in his case, united with
the Greek estimate of spirit and matter. But Marcions docetism is all the more remarkable that,
under Pauls guidance, he put a high value on the fact of Christs death upon the cross. Here also
is a glaring contradiction which his later disciples laboured to remove. This much, however, is
unmistakable, that Marcion succeeded in placing the greatness and uniqueness of redemption
389
Schools soon arose in the Marcionite church, just as they did later on in the main body of Christendom (see Rhodon in Euseb.,
H. E. V. 13. 2-4). The different doctrines of principles which were here developed (two, three, four principles; the Marcionite
Marcuss doctrine of two principles in which the creator of the world is an evil being, diverges furthest from the Master) explain
the different accounts of the Church Fathers about Marcions teaching. The only one of the disciples who really seceded from
the Master was Appelles (Tertull., de prscr. 30). His teaching is therefore the more important, as it shews that it was possible
to retain the fundamental ideas of Marcion without embracing dualism. The attitude of Apelles to the Old Testament is that of
Marcion in so far as he rejects the book. But perhaps he somewhat modified the strictness of the Master. On the other hand, he
certainly designated much in it as untrue and fabulous. It is remarkable that we meet with a highly honoured prophetess in the
environment of Apelles: in Marcions church we hear nothing of such, nay, it is extremely important as regards Marcion that he
has never appealed to the Spirit and to prophets. The sanctiores femin (Tertull. V. 8) are not of this nature, nor can we appeals
even to V. 15. Moreover, it is hardly likely that Jerome ad Eph. III. 5, refers to Marcionites. In this complete disregard of early
Christian prophecy, and in his exclusive reliance on literary documents, we see in Marcion a process of despiritualising, that is,
a form of secularisation peculiar to himself. Marcion no longer possessed the early Christian enthusiasm as, for example, Hermas
did.
390 Marcion was fond of calling Christ Spiritus salutaris. From the treatise of Tertullian we can prove both that Marcion distinguished
Christ from God, and that he made no distinction (see, for example, I. 11, 14: II. 27: III. 8, 9, 11: IV. 7). Here again Marcion did
not think theologically. What he regarded as specially important was that God has revealed himself in Christ, per semetipsum.
Later Marcionites expressly taught Patripassianism, and have on that account been often grouped with the Sabellians. But other
Christologies also arose in Marcions church, which is again a proof that it was not dependent on scholastic teaching, and therefore
could take part in the later development of doctrines.
391 See the beginning of the Marcionite Gospel.
392 Tertullian informs us sufficiently about this. The body of Christ was regarded by Marcion merely as an umbra, a phantasma.
His disciples adhered to this, but Apelles first constructed a doctrine of the body of Christ.
169
Adolf Harnack
through Christ in the clearest light, and in beholding this redemption in the person of Christ, but
chiefly in his death upon the cross.
278
279
5. Marcions eschatology is also quite rudimentary. Yet he assumed with Paul that violent attacks
were yet in store for the Church of the good God on the part of the Jewish Christ of the future, the
Antichrist. He does not seem to have taught a visible return of Christ, but, in spite of the omnipotence
and goodness of God, he did teach a twofold issue of history. The idea of a deliverance of all men,
which seems to follow from his doctrine of boundless grace, was quite foreign to him. For this very
reason he could not help actually making the good God the judge, though in theory he rejected the
idea, in order not to measure the will and acts of God by a human standard. Along with the
fundamental proposition of Marcion, that God should be conceived only as goodness and grace,
we must take into account the strict asceticism which he prescribed for the Christian communities,
in order to see that that idea of God was not obtained from antinomianism. We know of no Christian
community in the second century which insisted so strictly on renunciation of the world as the
Marcionites. No union of the sexes was permitted. Those who were married had to separate ere
they could be received by baptism into the community. The sternest precepts were laid down in
the matter of food and drink. Martyrdom was enjoined; and from the fact that they were
in the world, the members were to know that they were disciples of Christ.393 With
all that, the early Christian enthusiasm was wanting.
6. Marcion defined his position in theory and practice towards the prevailing form of Christianity,
which, on the one hand, shewed throughout its connection with the Old Testament, and, on the
other, left room for a secular ethical code, by assuming that it had been corrupted by Judaism, and
therefore needed a reformation.394 But he could not fail to note that this corruption was not of recent
date, but belonged to the oldest tradition itself. The consciousness of this moved him to a historical
criticism of the whole Christian tradition.395 Marcion was the first Christian who undertook such a
task. Those writings to which he owed his religious convictions, viz., the Pauline Epistles, furnished
the basis for it. He found nothing in the rest of Christian literature that harmonised with the Gospel
of Paul. But he found in the Pauline Epistles hints which explained to him this result of his
observations. The twelve Apostles whom Christ chose did not understand him, but regarded him
as the Messiah of the god of creation.396 And therefore Christ inspired Paul by a special revelation,
393
The strict asceticism of Marcion and the Marcionites is reluctantly acknowledged by the Church Fathers; see Tertull., de prscr.
30: Sanctissimus magister; I. 28, carni imponit sanctitem. The strict prohibition of marriage: I. 29: IV. 11, 17, 29, 34, 38:
V. 7, 8, 15, 18; prohibition of food: 1. 14; cynical life: Hippol., Philos. VII. 29; numerous martyrs: Euseb., H. E. V. 16. 21, and
frequently elsewhere. Marcion named his adherents (Tertull. IV. 9 36) . It is questionable
whether Marcion himself allowed the repetition of baptism; it arose in his church. But this repetition is a proof that the prevailing
conception of baptism was not sufficient for a vigorous religious temper.
394 Tertull. I. 20. Aiunt, Marcionem non tam innovasse regulam separatione legis et evangelii quam retro adulteratam recurasse;
see the account of Epiphanius, taken from Hippolytus, about the appearance of Marcion in Rome (h. 42. 1. 2).
395 Here again we must remember that Marcion appealed neither to a secret tradition nor to the Spirit, in order to appreciate the
epoch-making nature of his undertaking.
396 In his estimate of the twelve Apostles Marcion took as his standpoint Gal. II. See Tertull. I. 20: IV. 3 (generally IV. 1-6), V. 3;
de prscr. 22, 23. He endeavoured to prove from this chapter that from a misunderstanding of the words of Christ, the twelve
Apostles had proclaimed a different Gospel than that of Paul; they had wrongly taken the Father of Jesus Christ for the god of
creation. It is not quite clear how Marcion conceived the inward condition of the Apostles during the lifetime of Jesus (see
Tertull. III. 22: IV. 3, 39). He assumed that they were persecuted by the Jews as the preachers of a new God. It is probable,
170
280
Adolf Harnack
lest the Gospel of the grace of God should be lost through falsifications.397 But even Paul had been
understood only by few (by none?). His Gospel had also been misunderstoodnay, his Epistles
had been falsified in many passages,398 in order to make them teach the identity of the god of creation
and the God of redemption. A new reformation was therefore necessary. Marcion felt himself
entrusted with this commission, and the church which he gathered recognised this vocation of his
to be the reformer.399 He did not appeal to a new revelation such as he presupposed for Paul. As
the Pauline Epistles and an authentic were in existence, it was only necessary
to purify these from interpolations, and restore the genuine Paulinism which was just the Gospel
itself. But it was also necessary to secure and preserve this true Christianity for the future. Marcion,
in all probability, was the first to conceive and, in great measure, to realise the idea of placing
Christendom on the firm foundation of a definite theory of what is Christianbut not of basing it
on a theological doctrineand of establishing this theory by a fixed collection of Christian writings
281
therefore, that he thought of a gradual obscuring of the preaching of Jesus in the case of the primitive Apostles. They fell hack
into Judaism; see Iren. III. 2. 2. Apostolos admiscuisse ea qu sunt legalia salvatoris verbis; III, 12. 12: Apostoli qu sunt
Judorum sentientes scripserunt etc.; Tertull. V. 3: Apostolos vultis Judaismi magis adfines subintelligi. The expositions of
Marcion in Tertull. IV. 9. 11, 13, 21, 24, 39: V. 13, shew that he regarded the primitive Apostles as out and out real Apostles of
Christ.
397 The call of Paul was viewed by Marcion as a manifestation of Christ, of equal value with His first appearance and ministry; see
the account of Esnik. Then for the second time Jesus came down to the lord of the creatures in the form of his Godhead, and
entered into judgment with him on account of his death .... And Jesus said to him: Judgment is between me and thee, let no
one be judge but thine own laws .... hast thou not written in this thy law, that he who killeth shall die? And he answered, I
have so written .... Jesus said to him, Deliver thyself therefore into my hands .... The creator of the world said, Because
I have slain thee I give thee a compensation, all those who shall believe on thee, that thou mayest do with them what thou
pleasest. Then Jesus left him and carried away Paul, and shewed him the price, and sent him to preach that we are bought with
this price, and that all who believe in Jesus are sold by this just god to the good one. This is a most instructive account; for it
shews that in the Marcionite schools the Pauline doctrine of reconciliation was transformed into a drama, and placed between
the death of Christ and the call of Paul, and that the Pauline Gospel was based, not directly on the death of Christ upon the cross,
but a theory of it converted into history. On Paul as the one apostle of the truth, see Tertull. I. 20: III. 5, 14: IV. 2 sq.: IV. 34: V.
I. As to the Marcionite theory that the promise to send the Spirit was fulfilled in the mission of Paul, an indication of the want
of enthusiasm among the Marcionites, see the following page, note 2.
398 Marcion must have spoken ex professo in his Antitheses about the Judaistic corruptions of Pauls Epistles and the Gospel. He
must also have known Evangelic writings bearing the names of the original Apostles, and have expressed himself about them
(Tertull. IV. 1-6).
399 Marcions self-consciousness of being a reformer, and the recognition of this in his church is still not understood, although his
undertaking itself and the facts speak loud enough. (1) The great Marcionite church called itself after Marcion (Adamant., de
recta in deum fide. I. 809; Epiph. h. 42, p. 668, ed. Oehler:
. We possess a Marcionite inscription which begins: ). As the
Marcionites did not form a school, but a church, it is of the greatest value for shewing the estimate of the master in this church,
that its members called themselves by his name. (2) The Antitheses of Marcion had a place in the Marcionite canon (see above,
p. 272). This canon therefore embraced a book of Christ, Epistles of Paul, and a book of Marcion, and for that reason the Antitheses
were always circulated with the canon of Marcion. (3) Origen (in Luc. hom. 25. T. III. p. 962) reports as follows: Denique in
tantam quidam dilectionis audaciam proruperunt, ut nova qudam et inaudita super Paulo monstra confingerent. Alli enim aiunt,
hoc quod scriptum est, sedere a dextris salvatoris et sinistris, de Paulo et de Marcione dici, quod Paulus sedet a dextris, Marcion
sedet a sinistris. Porro alii legentes: Mittam vobis advocatum Spiritum veritatis, nolunt intelligere tertiam personam a patre et
filio, sed Apostolum Paulum. The estimate of Marcion which appears here is exceedingly instructive. (4) An Arabian writer,
who, it is true, belongs to a later period, reports that Marcionites called their founder Apostolorum principem. (5) Justin, the
first opponent of Marcion, classed him with Simon Magus and Menander; that is, with demonic founders of religion. These
testimonies may suffice.
171
282
Adolf Harnack
with canonical authority.400 He was not a systematic thinker, but he was more; for he was not only
a religious character, but at the same time a man with an organising talent, such as has no peer in
the early Church. If we think of the lofty demands he made on Christians, and, on the other hand,
ponder the results that accompanied his activity, we cannot fail to wonder. Wherever Christians
were numerous about the year 160, there must have been Marcionite communities with the same
fixed but free organisation, with the same canon and the same conception of the essence of
Christianity, pre-eminent for the strictness of their morals and their joy in martyrdom.401 The Catholic
Church was then only in process of growth, and it was long ere it reached the solidity won by the
Marcionite church through the activity of one man, who was animated by a faith so strong that he
was able to oppose his conception of Christianity to all others as the only right one, and who did
not shrink from making selections from tradition instead of explaining it away. He was the first
who laid the firm foundation for establishing what is Christian, because, in view of the absoluteness
of his faith,402 he had no desire to appeal either to a secret evangelic tradition, or to prophecy, or to
natural religion.
Remarks.The innovations of Marcion are unmistakable. The way in which he attempted to sever
Christianity from the Old Testament was a bold stroke which demanded the sacrifice of the dearest
possession of Christianity as a religion, viz., the belief that the God of creation is also the God of
redemption. And yet this innovation was partly caused by a religious conviction, the origin of which
must be sought not in heathenism, but on Old Testament and Christian soil. For the bold Anti-judaist
was the disciple of a Jewish thinker, Paul, and the origin of Marcions antinomianism may be
ultimately found in the prophets. It will always be the glory of Marcion in the early history of the
Church that he, the born heathen, could appreciate the religious criticism of the Old Testament
religion as formerly exercised by Paul. The antinomianism of Marcion was ultimately based on the
strength of his religious feeling, on his personal religion as contrasted with all statutory religion.
That was also its basis in the case of the prophets and of Paul, only the statutory religion, which
was felt to be a burden and a fetter, was different in each case. As regards the prophets, it was the
400
On Marcions Gospel see the Introductions to the New Testament and Zahns Kanonsgeschichte, Bd. I., p. 585 ff. and II., p.
409. Marcion attached no name to his Gospel, which, according to his own testimony, he produced from the third one of our
Canon (Tertull., adv. Marc. IV. 2. 3. 4). He called it simply (), but held that it was the Gospel which Paul had
in his mind when he spoke of his Gospel. The later Marcionites ascribed the authorship of the Gospel partly to Paul, partly to
Christ himself, and made further changes in it. That Marcion chose the Gospel called after Luke should be regarded as a make-shift;
for this Gospel, which is undoubtedly the most Hellenistic of the four Canonical Gospels, and therefore comes nearest to the
Catholic conception of Christianity, accommodated itself in its traditional form but little better than the other three to Marcionite
Christianity. Whether Marcion took it for a basis because in his time it had already been connected with Paul (or really had a
connection with Paul), or whether the numerous narratives about Jesus as the Saviour of sinners led him to recognise in this
Gospel alone a genuine kernel, we do not know.
401 The associations of the Encratites and the community founded by Apelles stood between the main body of Christendom and the
Marcionite church. The description of Celsus (especially V. 61-64 in Orig.) shews the motley appearance which Christendom
presented soon after the middle of the second century. He there mentions the Marcionites, and a little before (V. 59), the great
Church. It is very important that Celsus makes the main distinction consist in this, that some regarded their God as identical
with the God of the Jews, whilst others again declared that theirs was a different Deity, who is hostile to that of the Jews, and
that it was he who had sent the Son. (V. 61.)
402 One might be tempted to comprise the character of Marcions religion in the words, The God who dwells in my breast can
profoundly excite my inmost being. He who is throned above all my powers can move nothing outwardly. But Marcion had
the firm assurance that God has done something much greater than move the world: he has redeemed men from the world, and
given them the assurance of this redemption, in the midst of all oppression and enmity which do not cease.
172
283
284
Adolf Harnack
outer sacrificial worship, and the deliverance was the idea of Jehovahs righteousness. In the case
of Paul, it was the pharisaic treatment of the law, and the deliverance was righteousness by faith.
To Marcion it was the sum of all that the past had described as a revelation of God: only what Christ
had given him was of real value to him. In this conviction he founded a Church. Before him there
was no such thing in the sense of a community firmly united by a fixed conviction, harmoniously
organised, and spread over the whole world. Such a Church the Apostle Paul had in his minds eye,
but he was not able to realise it. That in the century of the great mixture of religion the greatest
apparent paradox was actually realisednamely, a Paulinism with two Gods and without the Old
Testament; and that this form of Christianity first resulted in a church which was based not only
on intelligible words, but on a definite conception of the essence of Christianity as a religion, seems
to be the greatest riddle which the earliest history of Christianity presents. But it only seems so.
The Greek, whose mind was filled with certain fundamental features of the Pauline Gospel (law
and grace), who was therefore convinced that in all respects the truth was there, and who on that
account took pains to comprehend the real sense of Pauls statements, could hardly reach any other
results than those of Marcion. The history of Pauline theology in the Church, a history first of
silence, then of artificial interpretation, speaks loudly enough. And had not Paul really separated
Christianity as religion from Judaism and the Old Testament? Must it not have seemed an
inconceivable inconsistency, if he had clung to the special national relation of Christianity to the
Jewish people, and if he had taught a view of history in which for pdagogic reasons indeed, the
Father of mercies and God of all comfort had appeared as one so entirely different? He who was
not capable of translating himself into the consciousness of a Jew, and had not yet learned the
method of special interpretation, had only the alternative, if he was convinced of the truth of the
Gospel of Christ as Paul had proclaimed it, of either giving up this Gospel against the dictates of
his conscience, or striking out of the Epistles whatever seemed Jewish. But in this case the god of
creation also disappeared, and the fact that Marcion could make this sacrifice proves that this
religious spirit, with all his energy, was not able to rise to the height of the religious faith which
we find in the preaching of Jesus.
In basing his own position and that of his church on Paulinism, as he conceived and remodelled it,
Marcion connected himself with that part of the earliest tradition of Christianity which is best known
to us, and has enabled us to understand his undertaking historically as we do no other. Here we
have the means of accurately indicating what part of this structure of the second century has come
down from the Apostolic age and is really based on tradition, and what has not. Where else could
we do that? But Marcion has taught us far more. He does not impart a correct understanding of
early Christianity, as was once supposed, for his explanation of that is undoubtedly incorrect, but
a correct estimate of the reliability of the traditions that were current in his day alongside of the
Pauline. There can be no doubt that Marcion criticised tradition from a dogmatic stand-point. But
would his undertaking have been at all possible if at that time a reliable tradition of the twelve
Apostles and their teaching had existed and been operative in wide circles? We may venture to say
no. Consequently, Marcion gives important testimony against the historical reliability of the notion
that the common Christianity was really based on the tradition of the twelve Apostles. It is not
surprising that the first man who clearly put and answered the question, What is Christian?
adhered exclusively to the Pauline Epistles, and therefore found a very imperfect solution. When
more than 1600 years later the same question emerged for the first time in scientific form, its solution
173
285
286
Adolf Harnack
had likewise to be first attempted from the Pauline Epistles, and therefore led at the outset to a
one-sidedness similar to that of Marcion. The situation of Christendom in the middle of the second
century was not really more favourable to a historical knowledge of early Christianity than that of
the 18th century, but in many respects more unfavourable. Even at that time, as attested by the
enterprise of Marcion, its results, and the character of the polemic against him, there were besides
the Pauline Epistles no reliable documents from which the teaching of the twelve Apostles could
have been gathered. The position which the Pauline Epistles occupy in the history of the world is,
however, described by the fact that every tendency in the Church which was unwilling to introduce
into Christianity the power of Greek mysticism, and was yet no longer influenced by the early
Christian eschatology, learned from the Pauline Epistles a Christianity which, as a religion, was
peculiarly vigorous. But that position is further described by the fact that every tendency which
courageously disregards spurious traditions is compelled to turn to the Pauline Epistles, which, on
the one hand, present such a profound type of Christianity, and on the other darken and narrow the
judgment about the preaching of Christ himself by their complicated theology. Marcion was the
first, and for a long time the only Gentile Christian who took his stand on Paul. He was no moralist,
no Greek mystic, no Apocalyptic enthusiast, but a religious character, nay, one of the few
pronouncedly typical religious characters whom we know in the early Church before Augustine.
But his attempt to resuscitate Paulinism is the first great proof that the conditions under which this
Christianity originated do not repeat themselves, and that therefore Paulinism itself must receive
a new construction if one desires to make it the basis of a Church. His attempt is a further proof of
the unique value of the Old Testament to early Christendom, as the only means at that time of
defending Christian monotheism. Finally, his attempt confirms the experience that a religious
community can only be founded by a religious spirit who expects nothing from the world.
Nearly all ecclesiastical writers, from Justin to Origen, opposed Marcion. He appeared already to
Justin as the most wicked enemy. We can understand this, and we can quite as well understand
how the Church Fathers put him on a level with Basilides and Valentinus, and could not see the
difference between them. Because Marcion elevated a better God above the god of creation, and
consequently robbed the Christian God of his honour, he appeared to be worse than a heathen
(Sentent. episc. LXXXVII., in Hartels edition of Cyprian, I. p. 454; Gentiles quamvis idola colant,
tamen summum deum patrem creatorem cognoscunt et confitentur [!]; in hunc Marcion, blasphemat,
etc.), as a blaspheming emissary of demons, as the first-born of Satan (Polyc., Justin, Irenus).
Because he rejected the allegoric interpretation of the Old Testament, and explained its predictions
as referring to a Messiah of the Jews who was yet to come, he seemed to be a Jew (Tertull., adv.
Marc. III.). Because he deprived Christianity of the apologetic proof (the proof from antiquity) he
seemed to be a heathen and a Jew at the same time (see my Texte u. Unters. I. 3, p. 68; the antitheses
of Marcion became very important for the heathen and Manichan assaults on Christianity). Because
he represented the twelve Apostles as unreliable witnesses, he appeared to be the most wicked and
shameless of all heretics. Finally, because he gained so many adherents, and actually founded a
church, he appeared to be the ravening wolf (Justin, Rhodon), and his church as the spurious church.
(Tertull., adv. Marc. IV. 5.) In Marcion the Church Fathers chiefly attacked what they attacked in
all Gnostic heretics, but here error shewed itself in its worst form. They learned much in opposing
Marcion (see Bk. II.). For instance, their interpretation of the regula fidei and of the New Testament
received a directly Antimarcionite expression in the Church. One thing, however, they could not
174
Adolf Harnack
learn from him, and that was how to make Christianity into a philosophic system. He formed no
such system, but he has given a clearly outlined conception, based on historic documents, of
Christianity as the religion which redeems the world.
Literature.All anti-heretical writings of the early Church, but especially Justin, Apol. I. 26, 58;
Iren. I. 27; Tertull., adv. Marc. I-V.; de prscr.; Hippol., Philos.; Adamant., de recta in deum fidei;
Epiph. h. 42; Ephr. Syr.; Esnik. The older attempts to restore the Marcionite Gospel and Apostolicum
have been antiquated by Zahns Kanonsgeschichte, l. c. Hahn (Regimonti, 1823) has attempted to
restore the Antitheses. We are still in want of a German monograph on Marcion (see the whole
presentation of Gnosticism by Zahn, with his Excursus, l. c.). Hilgenfeld, Ketzergesch. p. 316 f.
522 f.; cf. my work, Zur Quellenkritik des Gnosticismus, 1873; de Apelles Gnosis Monarchia,
1874; Beitrge z. Gesch. der Marcionitischen Kirchen (Ztschr. f. wiss. Theol. 1876). Marcions
Commentar zum Evangelium (Ztschr. f. K. G. Bd. IV. 4). Apelles Syllogismen in the Texte u.
Unters. VI. H. 3. Zahn, die Dialoge des Adamantius in the Ztschr. f. K-Gesch. IX. p. 193 ff.
Meyboom, Marcion en de Marcionieten, Leiden, 1888.
287
CHAPTER VI
APPENDIX: THE CHRISTIANITY OF THE JEWISH CHRISTIANS.
I. ORIGINAL Christianity was in appearance Christian Judaism, the creation of a universal religion
on Old Testament soil. It retained, therefore, so far as it was not hellenised, which never altogether
took place, its original Jewish features. The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob was regarded as the
Father of Jesus Christ, the Old Testament was the authoritative source of revelation, and the hopes
of the future were based on the Jewish ones. The heritage which Christianity took over from Judaism
shews itself on Gentile Christian soil, in fainter or distincter form, in proportion as the philosophic
mode of thought already prevails, or recedes into the background.403 To describe the appearance of
403
The attitude of the recently discovered Teaching of the twelve Apostles is strictly universalistic, and hostile to Judaism as a
nation, but shews us a Christianity still essentially uninfluenced by philosophic elements. The impression made by this fact has
caused some scholars to describe the treatise as a document of Jewish Christianity. But the attitude of the Didache is rather the
ordinary one of universalistic early Christianity on the soil of the Grco-Roman world. If we describe this as Jewish Christian,
then from the meaning which we must give to the words Christian and Gentile Christian, we tacitly legitimise an undefined
and undefinable aggregate of Greek ideas, along with a specifically Pauline element, as primitive Christianity, and this is perhaps
not the intended, but yet desired, result of the false terminology. Now, if we describe even such writings as the Epistle of James
and the Shepherd of Hermas as Jewish Christian, we therewith reduce the entire early Christianity, which is the creation of a
universal religion on the soil of Judaism, to the special case of an indefinable religion. The same now appears as one of the
particular values of a completely indeterminate magnitude. Hilgenfeld (Judenthum und Judenchristenthum, 1886; cf. also Ztschr.
f. wiss. Theol. 1886 H. 4.) advocates another conception of Jewish Christianity in opposition to the following account. Zahn.
Gesch. des N.T.-lich. Kanons, II. p. 668 ff. has a different view still.
175
288
289
Adolf Harnack
the Jewish, Old Testament, heritage in the Christian faith, so far as it is a religious one, by the name
Jewish Christianity, beginning at a certain point quite arbitrarily chosen, and changeable at will,
must therefore necessarily lead to error, and it has done so to a very great extent. For this designation
makes it appear as though the Jewish element in the Christian religion were something accidental,
while it is rather the case that all Christianity, in so far as something alien is not foisted into it,
appears as the religion of Israel perfected and spiritualised. We are therefore not justified in speaking
of Jewish Christianity where a Christian community, even one of Gentile birth, calls itself the true
Israel, the people of the twelve tribes, the posterity of Abraham; for this transfer is based on the
original claim of Christianity and can only be forbidden by a view that is alien to it. Just as little
may we designate Jewish Christian the mighty and realistic hopes of the future which were gradually
repressed in the second and third centuries. They may be described as Jewish, or as Christian; but
the designation Jewish Christian must be rejected; for it gives a wrong impression as to the historic
right of these hopes in Christianity. The eschatological ideas of Papias were not Jewish Christian,
but Christian; while, on the other hand, the eschatological speculations of Origen were not Gentile
Christian, but essentially Greek. Those Christians who saw in Jesus the man chosen by God and
endowed with the Spirit, thought about the Redeemer not in a Jewish Christian, but in a Christian
manner. Those of Asia Minor who held strictly to the 14th of Nisan as the term of the Easter festival,
were not influenced by Jewish Christian, but by Christian or Old Testament considerations. The
author of the Teaching of the Apostles, who has transferred the rights of the Old Testament priests
with respect to the first fruits to the Christian prophets, shews himself by such transference not as
a Jewish Christian, but as a Christian. There is no boundary here; for Christianity took possession
of the whole of Judaism as religion, and it is therefore a most arbitrary view of history which looks
upon the Christian appropriation of the Old Testament religion, after any point, as no longer
Christian, but only Jewish Christian. Wherever the universalism of Christianity is not violated in
favour of the Jewish nation, we have to recognise every appropriation of the Old Testament as
Christian. Hence this proceeding could be spontaneously undertaken in Christianity, as was in fact
done.
2. But the Jewish religion is a national religion, and Christianity burst the bonds of nationality,
though not for all who recognised Jesus as Messiah. This gives the point at which the introduction
of the term Jewish Christianity is appropriate.404 It should be applied exclusively to those Christians
who really maintained in their whole extent, or in some measure, even if it were to a minimum
degree, the national and political forms of Judaism and the observance of the Mosaic law in its
literal sense, as essential to Christianity, at least to the Christianity of born Jews, or who, though
rejecting these forms, nevertheless assumed a prerogative of the Jewish people even in Christianity
(Clem., Homil. XI. 26: , , ;
If the foreigner observe the law he is a Jew, but if not he is a Greek).405 To this Jewish Christianity
is opposed, not Gentile Christianity, but the Christian religion, in so far as it is conceived as
404
405
Or even Ebionitism; the designations are to be used as synonymous.

The more rarely the right standard has been set up in the literature of Church history for the distinction of Jewish Christianity,
the more valuable are those writings in which it is found. We must refer, above all, to Diestel, Geschichte des A. T. in der Christl.
Kirche, p. 44, note 7.
176
Adolf Harnack
universalistic and anti-national in the strict sense of the term (Presupp. 3), that is, the main body
of Christendom in so far as it has freed itself from Judaism as a nation.406
290
It is not strange that this Jewish Christianity was subject to all the conditions which arose from the
internal and external position of the Judaism of the time; that is, different tendencies were necessarily
developed in it, according to the measure of the tendencies (or the disintegrations) which asserted
themselves in the Judaism of that time. It lies also in the nature of the case that, with one exception,
that of Pharisaic Jewish Christianity, all other tendencies were accurately parallelled in the systems
which appeared in the great, that is, anti-Jewish Christendom. They were distinguished from these,
simply by a social and political, that is, a national element. Moreover, they were exposed to the
same influences from without as the synagogue and as the larger Christendom, till the isolation to
which Judaism as a nation, after severe reverses condemned itself, became fatal to them also.
Consequently, there were besides Pharisaic Jewish Christians, ascetics of all kinds who were joined
by all those over whom Oriental religious wisdom and Greek philosophy had won a commanding
influence. (See above, p. 242 f.)
In the first century these Jewish Christians formed the majority in Palestine, and perhaps also in
some neighbouring provinces. But they were also found here and there in the West.
Now the great question is whether this Jewish Christianity as a whole, or in certain of its tendencies,
was a factor in the development of Christianity to Catholicism. This question is to be answered in
the negative, and quite as much with regard to the history of dogma as with regard to the political
history of the Church. From the stand-point of the universal history of Christianity, these Jewish
Christian communities appear as rudimentary structures which now and again, as objects of curiosity,
engaged the attention of the main body of Christendom in the East, but could not exert any important
influence on it, just because they contained a national element.
291
The Jewish Christians took no considerable part in the Gnostic controversy, the epoch-making
conflict which was raised within the pale of the larger Christendom about the decisive question,
whether and to what extent the Old Testament should remain a basis of Christianity, although they
themselves were no less occupied with the question.407 The issue of this conflict in favour of that
party which recognised the Old Testament in its full extent as a revelation of the Christian God,
and asserted the closest connection between Christianity and the Old Testament religion, was so
little the result of any influence of Jewish Christianity, that the existence of the latter would only
have rendered that victory more difficult unless it had already fallen into the background as a
406
See Theol. Lit. Ztg. 1883. Col. 409 f. as to the attempt of Joel to make out that the whole of Christendom up to the end of the
first century was strictly Jewish Christian, and to exhibit the complete friendship of Jews and Christians in that period (Blicke
in die Religionsgesch. 2 Abth. 1883). It is not improbable that Christians like James, living in strict accordance with the law,
were for the time being respected even by the Pharisees in the period preceding the destruction of Jerusalem But that can in no
case have been the rule. We see from Epiph. h. 29. 9. and from the Talmud what was the custom at a later period.
407 There were Jewish Christians who represented the position of the great Church with reference to the Old Testament religion,
and there were some who criticised the Old Testament like the Gnostics. Their contention may have remained as much an internal
one as that between the Church Fathers and Gnostics (Marcion) did, so far as Jewish Christianity is concerned. Their may have
been relations between Gnostic Jewish Christians and Gnostics not of a national Jewish type, in Syria and Asia Minor, though
we are completely in the dark on the matter.
177
292
Adolf Harnack
phenomenon of no importance.408 How completely insignificant it was is shewn not only by the
limited polemics of the Church Fathers, but perhaps still more by their silence, and the new import
which the reproach of Judaising obtained in Christendom after the middle of the second century.
In proportion as the Old Testament, in opposition to Gnosticism, became a more conscious and
accredited possession in the Church, and at the same time, in consequence of the naturalising of
Christianity in the world, the need of regulations, fixed rules, statutory enactments etc., appeared
as indispensable, it must have been natural to use the Old Testament as a holy code of such
enactments. This procedure was no falling away from the original anti-Judaic attitude, provided
nothing national was taken from the book, and some kind of spiritual interpretation given to what
had been borrowed. The apostasy rather lay simply in the changed needs. But one now sees how
those parties in the Church, to which for any reason this progressive legislation was distasteful,
raised the reproach of Judaising,409 and further, how conversely the same reproach was hurled at
those Christians who resisted the advancing hellenising of Christianity, with regard, for example,
to the doctrine of God, eschatology, Christology, etc.410 But while this reproach is raised, there is
nowhere shewn any connection between those described as Judaising Christians and the Ebionites.
That they were identified off-hand is only a proof that Ebionitism was no longer known. That
Judaising within Catholicism which appears, on the one hand, in the setting up of a Catholic
ceremonial law (worship, constitution, etc.), and on the other, in a tenacious clinging to less
hellenised forms of faith and hopes of faith, has nothing in common with Jewish Christianity, which
desired somehow to confine Christianity to the Jewish nation.411 Speculations that take no account
of history may make out that Catholicism became more and more Jewish Christian. But historical
observation, which reckons only with concrete quantities, can discover in Catholicism, besides
Christianity, no element which it would have to describe as Jewish Christian. It observes only a
408
From the mere existence of Jewish Christians, those Christians who rejected the Old Testament might have argued against the
main body of Christendom and put before it the dilemma: either Jewish Christian or Marcionite. Still more logical indeed was
the dilemma: either Jewish, or Marcionite Christian.
409 So did the Montanists and Antimontanists mutually reproach each other with Judaising (see the Montanist writings of Tertullian).
Just in the same way the arrangements as to worship and organisation, which were ever being more richly developed, were
described by the freer parties as Judaising, because they made appeal to the Old Testament, though, as regards their contents,
they had little in common with Judaism. But is not the method of claiming Old Testament authority for the regulations rendered
necessary by circumstances nearly as old as Christianity itself? Against whom the lost treatise of Clement of Alexandria
(Euseb. H. E. VI. 13. 3.) was directed, we cannot tell. But as we read, Strom., VI.
15. 125, that the Holy Scriptures are to be expounded according to the , and then find the following
definition of the Canon:
, we may conjecture that the Judaisers were those Christians who, in principle or to some
extent, objected to the allegorical interpretation of the Old Testament. We have then to think either of Marcionite Christians or
of Chiliasts, that is, the old Christians who were still numerous in Egypt about the middle of the third century (see Dionys.
Alex. in Euseb., H. E. VII. 24). In the first case, the title of the treatise would be paradoxical. But perhaps the treatise refers to
the Quarto-decimans, although the expression seems too ponderous for them (see, however, Orig.,
Comm. in Matth. n. 76, ed. Delarue III., p. 895). Clement may possibly have had Jewish Christians before him. See Zahn,
Forschungen, vol. III., p. 37 f.
410 Cases of this kind are everywhere, up to the fifth century, so numerous that they need not be cited. We may only remind the
reader that the Nestorian Christology was described by its earliest and its latest opponents as Ebionitic.
411 Or were those western Christians Ebionitic who, in the fourth century, still clung to very realistic Chiliastic hopes, who, in fact,
regarded their Christianity as consisting in these?
178
293
294
Adolf Harnack
progressive hellenising, and in consequence of this, a progressive spiritual legislation which utilizes
the Old Testament, a process which went on for centuries according to the same methods which
had been employed in the larger Christendom from the beginning.412 Baurs brilliant attempt to
explain Catholicism as a product of the mutual conflict and neutralising of Jewish and Gentile
Christianity, (the latter, according to Baur, being equivalent to Paulinism) reckons with two factors,
of which the one had no significance at all, and the other only an indirect effect, as regards the
formation of the Catholic Church. The influence of Paul in this direction is exhausted in working
out the universalism of the Christian religion, for a Greater than he had laid the foundation for this
movement, and Paul did not realise it by himself alone. Placed on this height Catholicism was
certainly developed by means of conflicts and compromises, not, however, by conflicts with
Ebionitism, which was to all intents and purposes discarded as early as the first century, but as the
result of the conflict of Christianity with the united powers of the world in which it existed, on
behalf of its own peculiar nature as the universal religion based on the Old Testament. Here were
fought triumphant battles, but here also compromises were made which characterise the essence
of Catholicism as Church and as doctrine.413
412
The hellenising of Christianity went hand in hand with a more extensive use of the Old Testament; for, according to the principles
of Catholicism, every new article of the Church system must be able to legitimise itself as springing from revelation. But, as a
rule, the attestation could only be gathered from the Old Testament, since religion here appears in the fixed form of a secular
community. Now the needs of a secular community for outward regulations gradually became so strong in the Church as to
require palpable ceremonial rules. But it cannot be denied that from a certain point of time, first by means of the fiction of
Apostolic constitutions (see my edition of the Didache, Prolegg. p. 239 ff.), and then without this fiction, not, however, as a rule,
without reservations, ceremonial regulations were simply taken over from the Old Testament. But this transference (see Bk. II.)
takes place at a time when there can be absolutely no question of an influence of Jewish Christianity. Moreover, it always proves
itself to be catholic by the fact that it did not in the least soften the traditional anti-Judaism. On the contrary, it attained its full
growth in the age of Constantine. Finally, it should not be overlooked that at all times in antiquity certain provincial churches
were exposed to Jewish influences, especially in the East and in Arabia, that they were therefore threatened with being Judaised,
or with apostasy to Judaism, and that even at the present day certain Oriental Churches shew tokens of having once been subject
to Jewish influences (see Serapion in Euseb. H. E. VI. 12. 1, Martyr. Pion., Epiph. de mens. et pond 15. 18; my Texte u. Unters.
I. 3. p. 73 f., and Wellhausen, Skizzen und Vorarbeiten, Part. 3. p. 197 ff.; actual disputations with Jews do not seem to have
been common, though see Tertull., adv. Jud. and Orig. c. Cels. I. 45, 49, 55: II. 31. Clement also keeps in view Jewish objections).
This Jewish Christianity, if we like to call it so, which in some regions of the East was developed through an immediate influence
of Judaism on Catholicism, should not, however, be confounded with the Jewish Christianity which is the most original form in
which Christianity realised itself. This was no longer able to influence the Christianity which had shaken itself free from the
Jewish nation (as to futile attempts, see below), any more than the protecting covering stripped from the new shoot can ever
again acquire significance for the latter.
413 What is called the ever-increasing legal feature of Gentile Christianity and the Catholic Church is conditioned by its origin,
in so far as its theory is rooted in that of Judaism spiritualised and influenced by Hellenism. As the Pauline conception of, the
law never took effect, and a criticism of the Old Testament religion which is just law, neither understood nor ventured upon in
the larger Christendomthe forms were not criticised, but the contents spiritualisedso the theory that Christianity is promise
and spiritual law is to be regarded as the primitive one. Between the spiritual law and the national law there stand indeed
ceremonial laws which, without being spiritually interpreted, could yet be freed from the national application. It cannot be denied
that the Gentile Christian communities and the incipient Catholic Church were very careful and reserved in their adoption of
such laws from the Old Testament, and that the later Church no longer observed this caution. But still it is only a question of
degree, for there are many examples of that adoption in the earliest period of Christendom. The latter had no cause for hurry in
utilizing the Old Testament so long as there was no external or internal policy, or so long as it was still in embryo. The decisive
factor lies here again in enthusiasm and not in changing theories. The basis for these was supplied from the beginning. But a
community of individuals under spiritual excitement builds on this foundation something different from an association which
wishes to organise and assert itself as such on earth. (The history of Sunday is specially instructive here; see Zahn, Gesch. des
Sonntags, 1878, as well as the history of the discipline of fasting, see Linsenmayr, Entwickelung der Kirchl. Fastendisciplin.
1877, and Die Abgabe des Zehnten. In general, cf. Ritschl., Entstehung der Altkath. Kirche, 2 edit. pp. 312 ff. 331 ff. 1 Cor. IX.
9, may be noted).
179
295
Adolf Harnack
A history of Jewish Christianity and its doctrines does not therefore, strictly speaking, belong to
the history of dogma, especially as the original distinction between Jewish Christianity and the
main body of the Church lay, as regards its principle, not in doctrine, but in policy. But seeing that
the opinions of the teachers in this Church regarding Jewish Christianity throw light upon their
own stand-point, also that up till about the middle of the second century Jewish Christians were
still numerous and undoubtedly formed the great majority of believers in Palestine,414 and finally,
that attemptsunsuccessful ones indeedon the part of Jewish Christianity to bring Gentile
Christians under its sway did not cease till about the middle of the third century, a short sketch may
be appropriate here.415
414
Justin, Apol. I. 53, Dial. 47; Euseb., H. E. IV. 5; Sulpic. Sev., Hist. Sacr. II. 31; Cyrill, Catech. XIV. 15. Important testimonies
in Origen, Eusebius, Epiphanius and Jerome.
415 No Jewish Christian writings have been transmitted to us, even from the earliest period; for the Apocalypse of John which
describes the Jews as a synagogue of Satan is not a Jewish Christian book (III. 9 especially, shews that the author knows of only
one covenant of God, viz., that with the Christians). Jewish Christian sources lie at the basis of our synoptic Gospels, but none
of them in their present form is a Jewish Christian writing. The Acts of the Apostles is so little Jewish Christian, its author
seemingly so ignorant of Jewish Christianity, at least so unconcerned with regard to it that to him the spiritualised Jewish law,
or Judaism as a religion which he connects as closely as possible with Christianity, is a factor already completely detached from
the Jewish people (see Overbecks Commentar z. Apostelgesch. and his discussion in the Ztschr. f. wiss. Theol. 1872. p. 305
ff.). Measured by the Pauline theology we may indeed, with Overbeck, say of the Gentile Christianity, as represented by the
Author of the Acts of the Apostles, that it already has germs of Judaism and represents a falling off from Paulinism; but these
expressions are not correct, because they have at least the appearance of making Paulinism the original form of Gentile Christianity.
But as this can neither be proved nor believed, the religious attitude of the Author of the Acts of the Apostles must have been a
very old one in Christendom. The Judaistic element was not first introduced into Gentile Christianity by the opponents of Paul,
who indeed wrought in the national sense, and there is even nothing to lead to the hypothesis that the common Gentile Christian
view of the Old Testament and of the law should be conceived as resulting from the efforts of Paul and his opponents, for the
consequent effect here would either have been null, or a strengthening of the Jewish Christian thesis. The Jewish element, that
is the total acceptance of the Jewish religion sub specie aternitatis et Christi, is simply the original Christianity of the Gentile
Christians itself considered as theory. Contrary to his own intention, Paul was compelled to lead his converts to this Christianity,
for only for such Christianity was the time fulfilled within the empire of the world. The Acts of the Apostles gives eloquent
testimony to the pressing difficulties which under such circumstances stand in the way of a historical understanding of the Gentile
Christians in view of the work and the theology of Paul. Even the Epistle to the Hebrews is not a Jewish Christian writing; but
there is certainly a peculiar state of things connected with this document. For, on the one hand, the author and his readers are
free from the law, a spiritual interpretation is given to the Old Testament religion which makes it appear to be glorified and
fulfilled in the work of Christ, and there is no mention of any prerogative of the people of Israel. But, on the other hand, because
the spiritual interpretation, as in Paul, is here teleological, the author allows a temporary significance to the cultus as literally
understood, and therefore by his criticism he conserves the Old Testament religion for the past, while declaring that it was set
aside as regards the present by the fulfilment of Christ. The teleology of the author, however, looks at everything only from the
point of view of shadow and reality, an antithesis which is at the service of Paul also, but which in his case vanishes behind the
antithesis of law and grace. This scheme of thought which is to be traced back to a way of looking at things which arose in
Christian Judaism, seeing that it really distinguishes between old and new, stands midway between the conception of the Old
Testament religion entertained by Paul, and that of the common Gentile Christian as it is represented by Barnabas. The author
of the Epistle to the Hebrews undoubtedly knows of a twofold convenant of God. But the two are represented as stages, so that
the second is completely based on the first. This view was more likely to be understood by the Gentile Christians than the Pauline,
that is, with some seemingly slight changes, to be recognised as their own. But even it at first fell to the ground, and it was only
in the conflict with the Marcionites that some Church Fathers advanced to views which seem to be related to those of the Epistle
to the Hebrews. Whether the author of this Epistle was a born Jew or a Gentilein the former case he would far surpass the
Apostle Paul in his freedom from the national claimswe cannot, at any rate, recognise in it a document containing a conception
which still prizes the Jewish nationality in Christianity, nay, not even a document to prove that such a conception was still
dangerous. Consequently, we have no Jewish Christian memorial in the New Testament at all, unless it be in the Pauline Epistles.
But as concerns the early Christian literature outside the Canon, the fragments of the great work of Hegesippus are even yet by
some investigators claimed for Jewish Christianity. Weizscker (Art. Hegesippus in Herzogs R. E. 2 edit.) has shewn how
groundless this assumption is. That Hegesippus occupied the common Gentile Christian position is certain from unequivocal
testimony of his own. If, as is very improbable, we were obliged to ascribe to him a rejection of Paul, we should have to refer
180
296
297
298
Adolf Harnack
Justin vouches for the existence of Jewish Christians, and distinguishes between those who would
force the law even on Gentile Christians and would have no fellowship with such as did not observe
it, and those who considered that the law was binding only on people of Jewish birth and did not
shrink from fellowship with Gentile Christians who were living without the law. How the latter
could observe the law and yet enter into intercourse with those who were not Jews is involved in
obscurity, but these he recognises as partakers of the Christian salvation and therefore as Christian
brethren, though he declares that there are Christians who do not possess this large-heartedness.
He also speaks of Gentile Christians who allowed themselves to be persuaded by Jewish Christians
into the observance of the Mosaic law, and confesses that he is not quite sure of the salvation of
these. This is all we learn from Justin,416 but it is instructive enough. In the first place, we can see
that the question is no longer a burning one: Justin here represents only the interests of a Gentile
Christianity whose stability has been secured. This has all the more meaning that in the Dialogue
Justin has not in view an individual Christian community, or the communities of a province, but
speaks as one who surveys the whole situation of Christendom.417 The very fact that Justin has
devoted to the whole question only one chapter of a work containing 142, and the magmanimous
way in which he speaks, shew that the phenomena in question have no longer any importance for
the main body of Christendom. Secondly, it is worthy of notice that Justin distinguishes two
tendencies in Jewish Christianity. We observe these two tendencies in the Apostolic age (Presupp.
3); they had therefore maintained themselves to his time. Finally, we must not overlook the
circumstance that he adduces only the , legal polity, as characteristic of this
Jewish Christianity. He speaks only incidentally of a difference in doctrine, nay, he manifestly
presupposes that the , teachings of Christ, are essentially found among them
just as among the Gentile Christians; for he regards the more liberal among them as friends and
brethren.418
The fact that even then there were Jewish Christians here and there who sought to spread the
among Gentile Christians has been attested by Justin and also by other contemporary
to Euseb. H. E. IV. 29. 5. (

, but probably the Gospels; these Severians therefore, like Marcion, recognised the Gospel of
Luke, but rejected the Acts of the Apostles), and Orig. c. Cels. V. 65: (
). Consequently, our only sources of
knowledge of Jewish Christianity in the post-Pauline period are merely the accounts of the Church Fathers and some additional
fragments (see the collection of fragments of the Ebionite Gospel and that to the Hebrews in Hilgenfeld, Nov. Test. extra can.
rec. fasc. IV. Ed. 2, and in Zahn, l. c. II. p. 642 ff.). We know better, but still very imperfectly, certain forms of the syncretistic
Jewish Christianity, from the Philosoph. of Hippolytus and the accounts of Epiphanius, who is certainly nowhere more incoherent
than in the delineation of the Jewish Christians, because he could not copy original documents here, but was forced to piece
together confused traditions with his own observations. See below on the extensive documents which are even yet, as they stand,
treated as records of Jewish Christianity, viz., the Pseudo-Clementines. Of the pieces of writing whose Jewish Christian origin
is controverted, in so far as they may be simply Jewish, I say nothing.
416 As to the chief localities where Jewish Christians were found, see Zahn, Kanonsgesch. II. p. 648 ff.
417 Dialogue 47.
418 Yet it should be noted that the Christians who, according to Dial. 48, denied the pre-existence of Christ and held him to be a
man are described as Jewish Christians. We should read in the passage in question, as my recent comparison of the Parisian
codex shews, . Yet Justin did not make this a controversial point of great moment.
181
299
Adolf Harnack
writers.419 But there is no evidence of this propaganda having acquired any great importance. Celsus
also knows Christians who desire to live as Jews according to the Mosaic law (V. 61), but he
mentions them only once, and otherwise takes no notice of them in his delineation of, and attack
on, Christianity. We may perhaps infer that he knew of them only from hearsay, for he simply
enumerates them along with the numerous Gnostic sects. Had this keen observer really known them
he would hardly have passed them over, even though he had met with only a small number of
them.420 Irenus placed the Ebionites among the heretical schools,421 but we can see from his work
that in his day they must have been all but forgotten in the West.422 This was not yet the case in the
East. Origen knows of them. He knows also of some who recognise the birth from the Virgin. He
is sufficiently intelligent and acquainted with history to judge that the Ebionites are no school, but,
as believing Jews, are the descendants of the earliest Christians, in fact he seems to suppose that
all converted Jews have at all times observed the law of their fathers. But he is far from judging of
them favourably. He regards them as little better than the Jews (
419
The so-called Barnabas is considerably older than Justin. In his Epistle (4. 6) he has in view Gentile Christians who have been
converted by Jewish Christians, when he utters a warning against those who say (the Jews)
(). But how great the actual danger was cannot be gathered from the Epistle. Ignatius in two Epistles (ad Magn. 810: ad
Philad. 6. 9) opposes Jewish Christian intrigues, and characterises them solely from the point of view that they mean to introduce
the Jewish observance of the law. He opposes them with a Pauline idea (Magn. 8. 1: ,
), as well as with the common Gentile Christian assumption that the prophets themselves
had already lived . These Judaists must be strictly distinguished from the Gnostics whom Ignatius elsewhere
opposes (against Zahn, Ignat. v. Ant. p. 356 f.). The dangers from this Jewish Christianity cannot have been very serious, even
if we take Magn. 11. 1, as a phrase. There was an active Jewish community in Philadelphia (Rev. III. 9), and so Jewish Christian
plots may have continued longer there. At the first look it seems very promising that in the old dialogue of Aristo of Pella a
Hebrew Christian, Jason, is put in opposition to the Alexandrian Jew, Papiscus. But as the history of the little book proves, this
Jason must have essentially represented the common Christian and not the Ebionite conception of the Old Testament and its
relation to the Gospel, etc.; see my Texte u. Unters. I. 1. 2. p. 115 ff.; I. 3. pp. 115-130. Testimony as to an apostasy to Judaism
is occasionally though rarely given; see Serapion in Euseb., H. E. VI. 12, who addresses a book to one Domninus,
; see also Acta Pionii, 13. 14.
According to Epiphanius, de mens et pond. 14. 15, Acquila, the translator of the Bible, was first a Christian and then a Jew. This
account is perhaps derived from Origen, and is probably reliable. Likewise according to Epiphanius (l. c. 17. 18), Theodotion
was first a Marcionite and then a Jew. The transition from Marcionitism to Judaism (for extremes meet) is not in itself incredible.
420 It follows from c. Cels. II. 1-3, that Celsus could hardly have known Jewish Christians.
421 Iren. 26. 2: III. 11. 7: III. 15. 1, 21. 1: IV. 33. 4: V. 1. 3. We first find the name Ebionti, the poor, in Irenus. We are probably
entitled to assume that this name was given to the Christians in Jerusalem as early as the Apostolic age, that is, they applied it
to themselves (poor in the sense of the prophets and of Christ, fit to be received into the Messianic kingdom). It is very questionable
whether we should put any value on Epiph. h. 30. 17.
422 When Irenus adduces as the points of distinction between the Church and the Ebionites, that besides observing the law and
repudiating the Apostle Paul, the latter deny the Divinity of Christ and his birth from the Virgin and reject the New Testament
Canon (except the Gospel of Matthew), that only proves that the formation of dogma has made progress in the Church. The less
was known of the Ebionites from personal observation, the more confidently they were made out to be heretics who denied the
Divinity of Christ and rejected the Canon. The denial of the Divinity of Christ and the birth from the Virgin was, from the end
of the second century, regarded as the Ebionite heresy par excellence, and the Ebionites themselves appeared to the Western
Christians, who obtained their information solely from the East, to be a school like those of the Gnostics, founded by a scoundrel
named Ebion for the purpose of dragging down the person of Jesus to the common level. It is also mentioned incidentally, that
this Ebion had commanded the observance of circumcision and the Sabbath; but that is no longer the main thing (see Tertull, de
carne 14, 18, 24: de virg. vel. 6: de prscr. 10. 33; Hippol., Syntagma, [Pseudo-Tertull, 11; Philastr. 37; Epiph. h. 30]; Hippol.,
Philos. VII. 34. The latter passage contains the instructive statement that Jesus by his perfect keeping of the law became the
Christ). This attitude of the Western Christians proves that they no longer knew Jewish Christian communities Hence it is all
the more strange that Hilgenfeld (Ketzergesch. p. 422 ff.) has in all earnestness endeavoured to revive the Ebion of the Western
Church Fathers.
182
300
301
Adolf Harnack
, Jews and Ebionites who differ little from them). Their rejection of Paul destroys
the value of their recognition of Jesus as Messiah. They appear only to have assumed Christs name,
and their literal exposition of the Scripture is meagre and full of error. It is possible that such Jewish
Christians may have existed in Alexandria, but it is not certain. Origen knows nothing of an inner
development in this Jewish Christianity.423 Even in Palestine, Origen seems to have occupied himself
personally with these Jewish Christians, just as little as Eusebius.424 They lived apart by themselves
and were not aggressive. Jerome is the last who gives us a clear and certain account of them.425 He,
who associated with them, assures us that their attitude was the same as in the second century, only
they seem to have made progress in the recognition of the birth from the Virgin and in their more
friendly position towards the Church.426 Jerome at one time calls them Ebionites and at another
Nazarenes, thereby proving that these names were used synonymously.427 There is not the least
ground for distinguishing two clearly marked groups of Jewish Christians, or even for reckoning
the distinction of Origen and the Church Fathers to the account of Jewish Christians themselves,
so as to describe as Nazarenes those who recognised the birth from the Virgin and who had no wish
to compel the Gentile Christians to observe the law, and the others as Ebionites. Apart from
syncretistic or Gnostic Jewish Christianity, there is but one group of Jewish Christians holding
various shades of opinion, and these from the beginning called themselves Nazarenes as well as
Ebionites. From the beginning, likewise, one portion of them was influenced by the existence of a
great Gentile Church which did not observe the law. They acknowledged the work of Paul and
423
See Orig. c. Cels. II. 1: V. 61, 65: de princip. IV. 22; hom. in Genes. III. 15 (Opp. II, p. 65): hom. in Jerem. XVII. 12 (III. p.
254): in Matth. T. XVI. 12 (III. p. 494), T. XVII. 12 (III. p. 733); cf. Opp. III. p. 895: hom. in Lc. XVII. (III. p. 952). That a
portion of the Ebionites recognised the birth from the Virgin was according to Origen frequently attested. That was partly
reckoned to them for righteousness and partly not, because they would not admit the pre-existence of Christ. The name Ebionites
is interpreted as a nickname given them by the Church beggarly in the knowledge of scripture, and particularly of Christology.
424 Eusebius knows no more than Origen (H. E. III. 27) unless we specially credit him with the information that the Ebionites keep
along with the Sabbath also the Sunday. What he says of Symmachus, the translator of the Bible, and an Ebionite, is derived
from Origen (H. E. VI. 17). The report is interesting, because it declares that Symmachus wrote against Catholic Christianity,
especially against the Catholic Gospel of Matthew (about the year 200). But Symmachus is to be classed with the Gnostics, and
not with the common type of Jewish Christianity (see below). We have also to thank Eusebius (H. E. III. 5. 3) for the information
that the Christians of Jerusalem fled to Pella, in Pera, before the destruction of that city. In the following period the most
important settlements of the Ebionites must have been in the countries east of the Jordan, and in the heart of Syria (see Jul. Afric.
in Euseb., H. E. I. 7. 14: Euseb., de loc. hebr. in Lagarde, Onomast. p. 301; Epiph., h. 29. 7: h. 30. 2). This fact explains how
the bishops in Jerusalem and the coast towns of Palestine came to see very little of them. There was a Jewish Christian community
in Beroea with which Jerome had relations (Jerom., de Vir. inl. 3).
425 Jerome correctly declares (Ep. ad. August. 122. C. 13, Opp. I. p. 746), (Ebionit) credentes in Christo propter hoc solum a
patribus anathematizati sunt, quod legis cremonias Christi evangelio miscuerunt, et sic nova confessa sunt, ut vetera non
omitterent.
426 Ep. ad August. l. c.; Quid dicam de Hebionitis, qui Christianos esse se simulant? usque hodie per totas orientis synagogas inter
Judos (!) hresis est, que dicitur Minorum et a Pharisis nunc usque damnatur, quos vulgo Nazaros nuncupant, qui credunt
in Christum filium dei natum de Virgine Maria et eum dicunt esse, qui sub pontio Pilato passus est et resurrexit, in quem et nos
credimus; sed dum volunt et Judi esse et Christiani, nec Judi sunt nec Christiani. The approximation of the Jewish Christian
conception to that of the Catholics shews itself also in their exposition of Isaiah IX. 1. f. (see Jerome on the passage). Bert we
must not forget that there were such Jewish Christians from the earliest times. It is worthy of note that the name Nazarenes, as
applied to Jewish Christians, is found in the Acts of the Apostles XXIV. 5, in the Dialogue of Jason and Papiscus, and then first
again in Jerome.
427 Zahn, l. c. p. 648 ff. 668 ff. has not convinced me of the contrary, but I confess that Jeromes style of expression is not everywhere
clear.
183
302
303
Adolf Harnack
experienced in a slight degree influences emanating from the great Church.428 But the gulf which
separated them from that Church did not thereby become narrower. That gulf was caused by the
social and political separation of these Jewish Christians, whatever mental attitude, hostile or
friendly, they might take up to the great Church. This Church stalked over them with iron feet, as
over a structure which in her opinion was full of contradictions throughout (Semi-christiani), and
was disconcerted neither by the gospel of these Jewish Christians nor by anything else about them.429
But as the Synagogue also vigorously condemned them, their position up to their extinction was a
most tragic one. These Jewish Christians, more than any other Christian party, bore the reproach
of Christ.
The Gospel, at the time when it was proclaimed among the Jews, was not only law, but theology,
and indeed syncretistic theology. On the other hand, the temple service and the sacrificial system
had begun to lose their hold in certain influential circles.430 We have pointed out above (Presupp.
I. 2. 5) how great were the diversities of Jewish sects, and that there was in the Diaspora, as well
as in Palestine itself, a Judaism which, on the one hand, followed ascetic impulses, arid on the
other, advanced to a criticism of the religious tradition without giving up the national claims. It
may even be said that in theology the boundaries between the orthodox Judaism of the Pharisees
and a syncretistic Judaism were of an elastic kind. Although religion, in those circles, seemed to
be fixed in its legal aspect, yet on its theological side it was ready to admit very diverse speculations,
in which angelic powers especially played a great rle.431 That introduced into Jewish monotheism
an element of differentiation, the results of which were far-reaching. The field was prepared for
the formation of syncretistic sects. They present themselves to us on the soil of the earliest
Christianity, in the speculations of those Jewish Christian teachers who are opposed in the Epistle
to the Colossians, and in the Gnosis of Cerinthus (see above, p. 247). Here cosmological ideas and
myths were turned to profit. The idea of God was sublimated by both. In consequence of this, the
Old Testament records were subjected to criticism, because they could not in all respects be
428
Zahn, (1. c.) makes a sharp distinction between the Nazarenes, on the one side, who used the Gospel of the Hebrews, acknowledged
the With from the Virgin, and in fact the higher Christology to some extent, did not repudiate Paul, etc., and the Ebionites on
the other, whom he simply identifies with the Gnostic Jewish Christians, if I am not mistaken. In opposition to this, I think I
must adhere to the distinction as given above in the text and in the following: (1) Non-Gnostic, Jewish Christians (Nazarenes,
Ebionites), who appeared in various shades, according to their doctrine and attitude to the Gentile Church, and whom, with the
Church Fathers, we may appropriately classify as strict or tolerant (exclusive or liberal). (2) Gnostic or syncretistic Judo-Christians
who are also termed Ebionites.
429 This Gospel no doubt greatly interested the scholars of the Catholic Church from Clement of Alexandria onwards. But they have
almost all contrived to evade the hard problem which it presented. It may be noted, incidentally, that the Gospel of the Hebrews,
to judge from the remains preserved to us, can neither have been the model nor the translation of our Matthew, but a work
independent of this, though drawing from the same sources, representing perhaps to some extent an earlier stage of the tradition.
Jerome also knew very well that the Gospel of the Hebrews was not the original of the canonical Matthew, but he took care not
to correct the old prejudice. Ebionitic conceptions, such as that of the female nature of the Holy Spirit, were of course least likely
to convince the Church Fathers. Moreover, the common Jewish Christians hardly possessed a Church theology, because for them
Christianity was something entirely different from the doctrine of a school. On the Gospel of the Hebrews, see Handmann (Texte
u. Unters V. 3), Resch, Agrapha (1. c. V. 4), and Zahn, l. c. p. 642 ff.
430 We have as yet no history of the sacrificial system and the views as to sacrifice in the Grco-Roman epoch of the Jewish Nation.
It is urgently needed.
431 We may remind readers of the assumptions, that the world was created by angels, that the law was given by angels, and similar
ones which are found in the theology of the Pharisees. Celsus (in Orig. I. 26: V. 6) asserts generally that the Jews worshipped
angels, so does the author of the Prdicatio Petri, as well as the apologist Aristides. Cf. Jol, Blicke in die Religionsgesch. I
Abth., a book which is certainly to be used with caution (see Theol. Lit. Ztg. 1881. Coll. 184 ff.).
184
304
Adolf Harnack
reconciled with the universal religion which hovered before mens minds. This criticism was
opposed to the Pauline in so far as it maintained, with the common Jewish Christians and
Christendom as a whole, that the genuine Old Testament religion was essentially identical with the
Christian. But while those common Jewish Christians drew from this the inference that the whole
of the Old Testament must be adhered to in its traditional sense and in all its ordinances, and while
the larger Christendom secured for itself the whole of the Old Testament by deviating from the
ordinary interpretation, those syncretistic Jewish Christians separated from the Old Testament, as
interpolations, whatever did not agree with their purer moral conceptions and borrowed speculations.
Thus, in particular, they got rid of the sacrificial ritual and all that was connected with it by putting
ablutions in their place. First the profanation, and afterwards the abolition of the temple worship
after the destruction of Jerusalem, may have given another new and welcome impulse to this by
coming to be regarded as its Divine confirmation (Presupp. 2). Christianity now appeared as
purified Mosaism. In these Jewish Christian undertakings we have undoubtedly before us a series
of peculiar attempts to elevate the Old Testament religion into the universal one, under the impression
of the person of Jesus; attempts, however, in which the Jewish religion, and not the Jewish people,
was to bear the costs by curtailment of its distinctive features. The great inner affinity of these
attempts with the Gentile Christian Gnostics has already been set forth. The firm partition wall
between them, however, lies in the claim of these Jewish Christians to set forth the pure Old
Testament religion, as well as in the national Jewish colouring which the constructed universal
religion was always to preserve. This national colouring is shewn in the insistance upon a definite
measure of Jewish national ceremonies as necessary to salvation, and in the opposition to the Apostle
Paul, which united the Gnostic Judo-Christians with the common type, those of the strict
observance. How the latter were related to the former, we do not know, for the inner relations here
are almost completely unknown to us.432
Apart from the false doctrines opposed in the Epistle to the Colossians, and from Cerinthus, this
syncretistic Jewish Christianity which aimed at making itself a universal religion meets us in tangible
form only in three phenomena:433 in the Elkesaites of Hippolytus and Origen; in the Ebionites with
their associates of Epiphanius, sects very closely connected, in fact to be viewed as one party of
432
No reliance can be placed on Jewish sources, or on Jewish scholars, as a rule. What we find in Jol, l. c. I. Abth. p. 101 ff. is
instructive. We may mention Grtz, Gnosticismus und Judenthum (Krotoschin, 1846), who has called attention to the Gnostic
elements in the Talmud, and dealt with several Jewish Gnostics and Antignostics, as well as with the book of Jezira. Grtz
assumes that the four main dogmatic points in the book Jezira, viz., the strict unity of the deity, and, at the same time, the negation
of the demiurgic dualism, the creation out of nothing with the negation of matter, the systematic unity of the world and the
balancing of opposites, were directed against prevailing Gnostic ideas.
433 We may pass over the false teachers of the Pastoral Epistles, as they cannot be with certainty determined, and the possibility is
not excluded that we have here to do with an arbitrary construction; see Holtzman, Pastoralbriefe, p. 150 f.
185
305
306
Adolf Harnack
manifold shades;434 and in the activity of Symmachus.435 We observe here a form of religion as far
removed from that of the Old Testament as from the Gospel, subject to strong heathen influences,
not Greek, but Asiatic, and scarcely deserving the name Christian, because it appeals to a new
revelation of God which is to complete that given in Christ. We should take particular note of this
in judging of the whole remarkable phenomenon. The question in this Jewish Christianity is not
the formation of a philosophic school, but to some extent the establishment of a kind of new religion,
that is, the completion of that founded by Christ, undertaken by a particular person basing his claims
on a revealed book which was delivered to him from heaven. This book which was to form the
complement of the Gospel, possessed, from the third century, importance for all sections of Jewish
Christians so far as they, in the phraseology of Epiphanius, were not Nazarenes.436 The whole system
reminds one of Samaritan Christian syncretism;437 but we must be on our guard against identifying
the two phenomena, or even regarding them as similar. These Elkesaite Jewish Christians held fast
by the belief that Jesus was the Son of God, and saw in the book a revelation which proceeded
from him. They did not offer any worship to their founder,438 that is, to the receiver of the book,
and they were, as will be shewn, the most ardent opponents of Simonianism.439
Alcibiades of Apamea, one of their disciples, came from the East to Rome about 220-230, and
endeavoured to spread the doctrines of the sect in the Roman Church. He found the soil prepared,
inasmuch as he could announce from the book forgiveness of sins to all sinful Christians, even
434
Orig. in Euseb. VI. 38; Hippol., Philos. IX. 13 ff., X. 29; Epiph., h. 30, also h. 19. 53; Method., Conviv. VIII. to. From the
confused account of Epiphanius, who called the common Jewish Christians Nazarenes, the Gnostic type Ebionites and Sampsmi,
and their Jewish forerunners Osseni, we may conclude, that in many regions where there were Jewish Christians they yielded
to the propaganda of the Elkesaite doctrines, and that in the fourth century there was no other syncretistic Jewish Christianity
besides the various shades of Elkesaites.
435 I formerly reckoned Symmachus, the translator of the Bible, among the common Jewish Christians; but the statements of
Victorinus Rhetor on Gal. I. 19. II. 26 (Migne T. VIII. Col. 1155. 1162) shew that he has a close affinity with the
Pseudo-Clementines, and is also to be classed with the Elkesaite Alcibiades. Nam Jacobum apostolum Symmachiani faciunt
quasi duodecimum et hunc secuntur, qui ad dominum nostrum Jesum Christum adjungunt Judaismi observationem, quamquam
etiam Jesum Christum fatentur; dicunt enim eum ipsum Adam esse et esse animam generalem, et ali hujusmodi blasphemi.
The account given by Eusebius, H. E. VI. 17 (probably on the authority of Origen, see also Demonstr. VII. 1) is important:
, ....
, . Symmachus
therefore adopted an aggressive attitude towards the great Church, and hence we may probably class him with Alcibiades who
lived a little later. Common Jewish Christianity was no longer aggressive in the second century.
436 Wellhausen (l. c. Part III. p. 206) supposes that Elkesai is equivalent to Alexius. That the receiver of the book was a historical
person is manifest from Epiphanius account of his descendants (h. 19 2: 53. 1). From Hipp. Philosoph. IX. 16, p. 468, it is
certainly probable, though not certain, that the book was produced by the unknown author as early as the time of Trajan. On the
other hand, the existence of the sect itself can be proved only at the beginning of the third century, and therefore we have the
possibility of an ante-dating of the book. This seems to have been Origens opinion.
437 Epiph. (h. 53. 1) says of the Elkesaites:

, .
He pronounces a similar judgment as to the Samaritan sects (Simonians), and expressly (h. 30. 1) connects the Elkesaites with
them.
438 The worship paid to the descendants of this Elkesai, spoken of by Epiphanius, does not, if we allow for exaggerations, go beyond
the measure of honour which was regularly paid to the descendants of prophets and men of God in the East. Cf. the respect
enjoyed by the blood relations of Jesus and Mohammed.
439 It the book really originated in the time of Trajan, then its production keeps within the frame-work of common Christianity,
for at that time there were appearing everywhere in Christendom revealed books which contained new instructions and
communications of grace. The reader may be reminded, for example, of the Shepherd of Hermas. When the sect declared that
the book was delivered to Elkesai by a male and a female angel, each as large as a mountain, that these angels were the Son
of God and the Holy Spirit, etc., we have, apart from the fantastic colouring, nothing extraordinary.
186
307
308
Adolf Harnack
the grossest transgressors, and such forgiveness was very much needed. Hippolytus opposed him,
and had an opportunity of seeing the book and becoming acquainted with its contents. From his
account and that of Origen we gather the following: (1) The sect is a Jewish Christian one, for it
requires the (circumcision and the keeping of the Sabbath), and repudiates the
Apostle Paul; but it criticises the Old Testament and rejects a part of it. (2) The objects of its faith
are the Great and most High God, the Son of God (the Great King), and the Holy Spirit (thought
of as female); Son and Spirit appear as angelic powers. Considered outwardly, and according to
his birth, Christ is a mere man, but with this peculiarity, that he has already been frequently born
and manifested ( ,
, cf. the testimony of Victorinus as to Symmachus). From the
statements of Hippolytus we cannot be sure whether he was identified with the Son of God,440 at
any rate the assumption of repeated births of Christ shews how completely Christianity was meant
to be identified with what was supposed to be the pure Old Testament religion. (3) The book
proclaimed a new forgiveness of sin, which, on condition of faith in the book and a real change
of mind, was to be bestowed on every one, through the medium of washings, accompanied by
definite prayers which are strictly prescribed. In these prayers appear peculiar Semitic speculations
about nature (the seven witnesses: heaven, water, the holy spirits, the angels of prayer, oil, salt,
earth). The old Jewish way of thinking appears in the assumption that all kinds of sickness and
misfortune are punishments for sin, and that these penalties must therefore be removed by atonement.
The book contains also astrological and geometrical speculations in a religious garb. The main
thing, however, was the possibility of a forgiveness of sin, ever requiring to be repeated, though
Hippolytus himself was unable to point to any gross laxity. Still, the appearance of this sect represents
the attempt to make the religion of Christian Judaism palatable to the world. The possibility of
repeated forgiveness of sin, the speculations about numbers, elements, and stars, the halo of mystery,
the adaptation to the forms of worship employed in the mysteries, are worldly means of attraction
which shew that this Jewish Christianity was subject to the process of acute secularization. The
Jewish mode of life was to be adopted in return for these concessions. Yet its success in the West
was of small extent and short-lived.
Epiphanius confirms all these features, and adds a series of new ones. In his description, the new
forgiveness of sin is not so prominent as in that of Hippolytus, but it is there. From the account of
Epiphanius we can see that these syncretistic Judo-Christian sects were at first strictly ascetic and
rejected marriage as well as the eating of flesh, but that they gradually became more lax. We learn
here that the whole sacrificial service was removed from the Old Testament by the Elkesaites and
declared to be non-Divine, that is non-Mosaic, and that fire was consequently regarded as the impure
440
It may be assumed from Philos. X. 29 that, in the opinion of Hyppolytus, the Elkesaites identified the Christ from above with
the Son of God, and assumed that this Christ appeared on earth in changing and purely human forms, and will appear again
( , ,
, ,
). As the Elkesaites (see the account by Epiphanius) traced back the incarnations of Christ to Adam,
and not merely to Abraham, we may see in this view of history the attempt to transform Mosaism into the universal religion.
But the Pharisaic theology had already begun with these Adam speculations, which are always a sign that the religion in Judaism
is feeling its limits too narrow. The Jews in Alexandria were also acquainted with these speculations.
187
309
310
Adolf Harnack
and dangerous element, and water as the good one.441 We learn further, that these sects acknowledged
no prophets and men of God between Aaron and Christ, and that they completely adapted the
Hebrew Gospel of Matthew to their own views.442 In addition to this book, however, (the Gospel
of the 12 Apostles), other writings, such as
and similar histories of Apostles, were held in esteem by them. In these writings the Apostles were
represented as zealous ascetics, and, above all, as vegetarians, while the Apostle Paul was most
bitterly opposed. They called him a Tarsene, said he was a Greek, and heaped on him gross abuse.
Epiphanius also dwells strongly upon their Jewish mode of life (circumcision, Sabbath), as well as
their daily washings,443 and gives some information about the constitution and form of worship of
these sects (use of baptism: Lords Supper with bread and water). Finally, Epiphanius gives
particulars about their Christology. On this point there were differences of opinion, and these
differences prove that there was no Christological dogma. As among the common Jewish Christians,
the birth of Jesus from the Virgin was a matter of dispute. Further, some identified Christ with
Adam, others saw in him a heavenly being ( ), a spiritual being, who was created before
all, who was higher than all angels and Lord of all things, but who chose for himself the upper
world; yet this Christ from above came down to this lower world as often as he pleased. He came
in Adam, he appeared in human form to the patriarchs, and at last appeared on earth as a man with
the body of Adam, suffered, etc. Others again, as it appears, would have nothing to do with these
speculations, but stood by the belief that Jesus was the man chosen by God, on whom, on account
of his virtue, the Holy Spirit descended at the baptism.444 (Epiph. h. 30.
3, 14, 16). The account which Epiphanius gives of the doctrine held by these Jewish Christians
regarding the Devil, is specially instructive (h. 30. 16):
, , .
, ,
. Here we have a very old Semitico-Hebraic
idea preserved in a very striking way, and therefore we may probably assume that in other respects
also, these Gnostic Ebionites preserved that which was ancient. Whether they did so in their criticism
of the Old Testament, is a point on which we must not pronounce judgment.
We might conclude by referring to the fact that this syncretistic Jewish Christianity, apart from a
well-known missionary effort at Rome, was confined to Palestine and the neighbouring countries,
and might consider it proved that this movement had no effect on the history and development of
441
In the Gospel of these Jewish Christians Jesus is made to say (Epiph. h. 30. 16) ,

, . We see the essential progress of this Jewish Christianity within Judaism in the opposition
in principle to the whole sacrificial service (vid. also Epiph., h. 19. 3).
442 On this new Gospel see Zahn, Kanongesch. II. p. 724.
443 It is incorrect to suppose that the lustrations were meant to take the place of baptism, or were conceived by these Jewish Christians
as repeated baptisms. Their effect was certainly equal to that of baptism. But it is nowhere hinted in our authorities that they
were on that account made equivalent to the regular baptism.
444 The characteristic here, as in the Gentile Christian Gnosis, is the division of the person of Jesus into a more or less indifferent
medium, and into the Christ. Here the factor constituting his personality could sometimes be placed in that medium, and sometimes
in the Christ spirit, and thus contradictory formul could not but arise. It is therefore easy to conceive how Epiphanius reproaches
these Jewish Christians with a denial, sometimes of the Divinity, and sometimes of the humanity of Christ (see h. 30 14).
188
311
Adolf Harnack
Catholicism445 were it not for two voluminous writings which still continue to be regarded as
monuments of the earliest epoch of syncretistic Jewish Christianity. Not only did Baur suppose
that he could prove his hypothesis about the origin of Catholicism by the help of these writings,
but the attempt has recently been made on the basis of the Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions and
Homilies, for these are the writings in question, to go still further and claim for Jewish Christianity
the glory of having developed by itself the whole doctrine, worship and constitution of Catholicism,
and of having transmitted it to Gentile Christianity as a finished product which only required to be
divested of a few Jewish husks.446 It is therefore necessary to subject these writings to a brief
examination. Every-thing depends on the time of their origin, and the tendencies they follow. But
these are just the two questions that are still unanswered. Without depreciating those worthy men
who have earnestly occupied themselves with the Pseudo-Clementines,447 it may be asserted, that
in this region everything is as yet in darkness, especially as no agreement has been reached even
in the question of their composition. No doubt such a result appears to have been pretty nearly
arrived at as far as the time of composition is concerned, but that estimate (150-170, or the latter
half of the second century) not only awakens the greatest suspicion, but can be proved to be wrong.
The importance of the question for the history of dogma does not permit the historian to set it aside,
while, on the other hand, the compass of a manual does not allow us to enter into an exhaustive
investigation. The only course open in such circumstances is briefly to define ones own position.
1. The Recognitions and Homilies, in the form in which we have them, do not belong to the second
century, but at the very earliest to the first half of the third. There is nothing, however, to prevent
our putting them a few decades later.448
445
This syncretistic Judaism had indeed a significance for the history of the world, not, however, in the history of Christianity, but
for the origin of Islam. Islam, as a religious system, is based partly on syncretistic Judaism (including the Zabians, so enigmatic
in their origin), and, without questioning Mohammeds originality, can only be historically understood by taking this into account.
I have endeavoured to establish this hypothesis in a lecture printed in MS. form, 1877. Cf. now the conclusive proofs in Wellhausen,
1. c. Part III. p. 197-212. On the Mandeans, see Brandt, Die Mandische Religion, 1889; (also Wellhausen in d. deutschen Lit.
Ztg., 1890 No. I. Lagarde i. d. Gtt. Gel. Anz., 1890, No. 10).
446 See Bestmann, Gesch. der Christ]. Sitte, Bd. II. 1 Part: Die judenchristliche Sitte, 1883; also, Theol. Lit. Ztg., 1883. Col. 269 ff.
The same author, Der Ursprung der Katholischen Christenthums und des Islams, 1884; also Theol. Lit. Ztg. 1884, Col. 291 ff.
447 See Schliemann, Die Clementinen, etc., 1844; Hilgenfeld, Die Clementinischen Recogn. u. Homil, 1848; Ritschl, in d. Allg.
Monatschrift f. Wissensch. u. Litt., 1852. Uhlhorn, Die Homil. u. Recogn., 1854, Lehmann, Die Clement. Schriften, 1869;
Lipsius, in d. Protest. K. Ztg., 1869, p. 477 ff.; Quellen der Romische Petrussage, 1872. Uhlhorn, in Herzogs R. Encykl.
(Clementinen) 2 Edit. III. p. 286, admits: There can be no doubt that the Clementine question still requires further discussion.
It can hardly make any progress worth mentioning until we have collected better the material, and especially till we have got a
corrected edition with an exhaustive commentary. The theory of the genesis, contents and aim of the pseudo-Clementine writings
unfolded by Renan (Orig. T. VII. p. 74-l01) is essentially identical with that of German scholars. Langen (die Clemensromane,
1890) has set up very bold hypotheses, which are based on the assumption that Jewish Christianity was an important church
factor in the second century, and that the pseudo-Clementines are comparatively old writings.
448 There is no external evidence for placing the pseudo-Clementine writings in the second century. The oldest witness is Origen
(IV. p. 401, Lommatzsch); but the quotation: Quoniam opera bona, qu fiunt ab infidelibus, in hoc sculo its prosunt, etc.,
is not found in our Clementines, so that Origen appears to have used a still older version. The internal evidence all points to the
third century (canon, composition, theological attitude, etc.). Moreover, Zahn, (Gtt. Gel. Anz. 1876. No. 45) and Lagarde have
declared themselves in favour of this date; while Lipsius (Apokr. Apostelgesch. II. 1) and Weingarten (Zeittafeln, 3 Edit. p. 23)
have recently expressed the same opinion. The Homilies presuppose (1) Marcions Antitheses, (2) Apelles Syllogisms, (3)
perhaps Callistus edict about penance (see III. 70) and writings of Hippolytus (see also the expression .
Clem. ep. ad Jacob I., which is first found in Tertull., de pudic. I.). (4) The most highly developed form of polemic against
heathen mythology. (5) The complete development of church apologetics, as well as the conviction that Christianity is identical
with correct and absolute knowledge. They further presuppose a time when there was a lull in the persecution of Christians, for
189
312
Adolf Harnack
2. They were not composed in their present form by heretical Christians, but most probably by
Catholics. Nor do they aim at forming a theological system,449 or spreading the views of a sect.
Their primary object is to oppose Greek polytheism, immoral mythology, and false philosophy,
and thus to promote edification.450
3. In describing the authors as Catholic, we do not mean that they were adherents of the theology
of Irenus or Origen. The instructive point here, rather, is that they had as yet no fixed theology,
and therefore could without hesitation regard and use all possible material as means of edification.
In like manner, they had no fixed conception of the Apostolic age, and could therefore appropriate
motley and dangerous material. Such Christians, highly educated and correctly trained too, were
still to be found, not only in the third century, but even later. But the authors do not seem to have
been free from a bias, inasmuch as they did not favour the Catholic, that is the Alexandrian,
apologetic theology which was in process of formation
4. The description of the Pseudo-Clementine writings, naturally derived from their very form, as
edifying, didactic romances for the refutation of paganism, is not inconsistent with the idea that
the authors at the same time did their utmost to oppose heretical phenomena, especially the
Marcionite church and Apelles, together with heresy and heathenism in general, as represented by
Simon Magus.
313
5. The objectionable materials which the authors made use of were edifying for them, because of
the position assigned therein to Peter, because of the ascetic and mysterious elements they contained,
and the opposition offered to Simon, etc. The offensive features, so far as they were still contained
in these sources, had already become unintelligible and harmless. They were partly conserved as
such and partly removed.
6. The authors are to be sought for perhaps in Rome, perhaps in Syria, perhaps in both places,
certainly not in Alexandria.
7. The main ideas are: (1) The monarchy of God. (2) the syzygies (weak and strong). (3) Prophecy
(the true Prophet). (4) Stoical rationalism, belief in providence, good works, , etc. =
Mosaism. The Homilies are completely saturated with stoicism, both in their ethical and metaphysical
systems, and are opposed to Platonism, though Plato is quoted in Hom. XV. 8, as
(a wise man of the Greeks). In addition to these ideas we have also a strong hierarchical tendency.
the Emperor, though pretty often referred to, is never spoken of as a persecutor, and when the cultured heathen world was entirely
disposed in favour of a eclectic monotheism. Moreover, the remarkable Christological statement in Hom. XVI. 15. 16. points
to the third century, in fact probably even presupposes the theology of Origen; Cf. the sentence:
, . Finally, the decided repudiation of
the awakening of Christian faith by visions and dreams, and the polemic against these is also no doubt of importance for
determining the date; see XVII. 14-19. Peter says, 18: ,
he had already learned that at his confession (Matt. XVI). The question, ,
is answered in the negative, 19.
449 This is also acknowledged in Koffmane, Die Gnosis, etc., p. 33.
450 The Homilies, as we have them, are mainly composed of the speeches of Peter and others. These speeches oppose polytheism,
mythology and the doctrine of demons, and advocate monotheism, ascetic morality and rationalism. The polemic against Simon
Magus almost appears as a mere accessory.
190
Adolf Harnack
The material which the authors made use of was in great part derived from syncretistic Jewish
Christian tradition, in other words, those histories of the Apostles were here utilised which Epiphanius
reports to have been used by the Ebionites (see above). It is not probable, however, that these
writings in their original form were in the hands of the narrators; the likelihood is that they made
use of them in revised forms.
8. It must be reserved for an accurate investigation to ascertain whether those modified versions
which betray clear marks of Hellenic origin were made within syncretistic Judaism itself, or whether
they are to be traced back to Catholic writers. In either case, they should not be placed earlier than
about the beginning of the third century, but in all probability one or two generations later still.
314
315
9. If we adopt the first assumption, it is most natural to think of that propaganda which, according
to the testimony of Hippolytus and Origen, Jewish Christianity attempted in Rome in the age of
Caracalla and Heliogabalus, through the medium of the Syrian, Alcibiades. This coincides with the
last great advance of Syrian cults into the west, and is at the same time the only one known to us
historically. But it is further pretty generally admitted that the immediate sources of the
Pseudo-Clementines already presuppose the existence of Elkesaite Christianity. We should
accordingly have to assume that in the West this Christianity made greater concessions to the
prevailing type, that it gave up circumcision and accommodated itself to the Church system of
Gentile Christianity, at the same time withdrawing its polemic against Paul.
10. Meanwhile the existence of such a Jewish Christianity is not as yet proved, and therefore we
must reckon with the possibility that the remodelled form of the Jewish Christian sources, already
found in existence by the revisers of the Pseudo-Clementine Romances, was solely a Catholic
literary product. In this assumption, which commends itself both as regards the aim of the
composition and its presupposed conditions, we must remember that, from the third century onwards,
Catholic writers systematically corrected, and to a great extent reconstructed, the heretical histories
which were in circulation in the churches as interesting reading, and that the extent and degree of
this reconstruction varied exceedingly, according to the theological and historical insight of the
writer. The identifying of pure Mosaism with Christianity was in itself by no means offensive when
there was no further question of circumcision. The clear distinction between the ceremonial and
moral parts of the Old Testament, could no longer prove an offence after the great struggle with
Gnosticism.451 The strong insistance upon the unity of God, and the rejection of the doctrine of the
Logos, were by no means uncommon in the beginning of the third century; and in the speculations
about Adam and Christ, in the views about God and the world and such like, as set before us in the
immediate sources of the Romances, the correct and edifying elements must have seemed to outweigh
the objectionable. At any rate, the historian who, until further advised, denies the existence of a
Jewish Christianity composed of the most contradictory elements, lacking circumcision and national
451
This distinction can also be shewn elsewhere in the Church of the third century. But I confess I do not know how Catholic circles
got over the fact that, for example, in the third book of the Homilies many passages of the old Testament are simply characterised
as untrue, immoral and lying. Here the Homilies remind one strongly of the Syllogisms of Apelles, the author of which, in other
respects, opposed them in the interest of his doctrine of creating angels. In some passages the Christianity of the Homilies really
looks like a syncretism composed of the common Christianity, the Jewish Christian Gnosticism, and the criticism of Apelles.
Hom. VIII. 6-8 is also highly objectionable.
191
Adolf Harnack
hopes, and bearing marks of Catholic and therefore of Hellenic influence, judges more prudently
than he who asserts, solely on the basis of Romances which are accompanied by no tradition and
have never been the objects of assault, the existence of a Jewish Christianity accommodating itself
to Catholicism which is entirely unattested.
11. Be that as it may, it may at least be regarded as certain that the Pseudo-Clementines contribute
absolutely nothing to our knowledge of the origin of the Catholic Church and doctrine, as they
shew at best in their immediate sources a Jewish Christianity strongly influenced by Catholicism
and Hellenism.
316
12. They must be used with great caution even in seeking to determine the tendencies and inner
history of syncretistic Jewish Christianity. It cannot be made out with certainty, how far back the
first sources of the Pseudo-Clementines date, or what their original form and tendency were. As to
the first point, it has indeed been said that Justin, nay, even the author of the Acts of the Apostles,
presupposes them, and that the Catholic tradition of Peter in Rome and of Simon Magus are
dependent on them (as is still held by Lipsius); but there is so little proof of this adduced that in
Christian literature up to the end of the second century (Hegesippus?) we can only discover very
uncertain traces of acquaintance with Jewish Christian historical narrative. Such indications can
only be found to any considerable extent in the third century, and I do not mean to deny that the
contents of the Jewish Christian histories of the Apostles contributed materially to the formation
of the ecclesiastical legends about Peter. As is shewn in the Pseudo-Clementines, these histories
of the Apostles especially opposed Simon Magus and his adherents (the new Samaritan attempt at
a universal religion), and placed the authority of the Apostle Peter against them. But they also
opposed the Apostle Paul, and seem to have transferred Simonian features to Paul, and Pauline
features to Simon. Yet it is also possible that the Pauline traits found in the magician were the
outcome of the redaction, in so far as the whole polemic against Paul is here struck out, though
certain parts of it have been woven into the polemic against Simon. But probably the Pauline features
of the magician are merely an appearance. The Pseudo-Clementines may to some extent be used,
though with caution, in determining the doctrines of syncretistic Jewish Christianity. In connection
with this we must take what Epiphanius says as our standard. The Pantheistic and Stoic elements
which are found here and there must of course be eliminated. But the theory of the genesis of the
world from a change in God himself (that is from a ), the assumption that all things emanated
from God in antitheses (Son of GodDevil; heavenearth; malefemale; male and female
prophecy), nay, that these antitheses are found in God himself (goodness, to which corresponds
the Son of Godpunitive justice, to which corresponds the Devil), the speculations about the
elements which have proceeded from the one substance, the ignoring of freedom in the question
about the origin of evil, the strict adherence to the unity and absolute causality of God, in spite of
the dualism, and in spite of the lofty predicates applied to the Son of Godall this plainly bears
the Semitic Jewish stamp.
We must here content ourselves with these indications. They were meant to set forth briefly the
reasons which forbid our assigning to syncretistic Jewish Christianity, on the basis of the
Pseudo-Clementines, a place in the history of the genesis of the Catholic Church and its doctrine.
192
317
Adolf Harnack
Bigg, The Clementine Homilies (Studia Biblica et Eccles. II., p. 157 ff.), has propounded the
hypothesis that the Homilies are an Ebionitic revision of an older Catholic original (see p. 184:
The Homilies as we have it, is a recast of an orthodox work by a highly unorthodox editor. P.
175: The Homilies are surely the work of a Catholic convert to Ebionitism, who thought he saw
in the doctrine of the two powers the only tenable answer to Gnosticism. We can separate his
Catholicism from his Ebionitism just as surely as his Stoicism). This is the opposite of the view
expressed by me in the text. I consider Biggs hypothesis well worth examining, and at first sight
not improbable; but I am not able to enter into it here.
318
APPENDIX I.
On the Conception of Pre-existence.
ON account of the importance of the question, we may be here permitted to amplify a few hints
given in Chap. II., 4, and elsewhere, and to draw a clearer distinction between the Jewish and
Hellenic conceptions of pre-existence.
According to the theory held by the ancient Jews and by the whole of the Semitic nations, everything
of real value that from time to time appears on earth has its existence in heaven. In other words, it
exists with God, that is God possesses a knowledge of it; and for that reason it has a real being. But
it exists beforehand with God in the same way as it appears on earth, that is with all the material
attributes belonging to its essence. Its manifestation on earth is merely a transition from concealment
to publicity (). In becoming visible to the senses, the object in question assumes no
attribute that it did not already possess with God. Hence its material nature is by no means an
inadequate expression of it, nor is it a second nature added to the first. The truth rather is that what
was in heaven before is now revealing itself upon earth, without any sort of alteration taking place
in the process. There is no assumptio natur nov, and no change or mixture. The old Jewish
theory of pre-existence is founded on the religious idea of the omniscience and omni-potence of
God, that God to whom the events of history do not come as a surprise, but who guides their course.
As the whole history of the world and the destiny of each individual are recorded on his tablets or
books, so also each thing is ever present before him. The decisive contrast is between God and the
creature. In designating the latter as foreknown by God, the primary idea is not to ennoble the
creature, but rather to bring to light the wisdom and power of God. The ennobling of created things
by attributing to them a pre-existence is a secondary result (see below).
319
According to the Hellenic conception, which has become associated with Platonism, the idea of
pre-existence is independent of the idea of God; it is based on the conception of the contrast between
spirit and matter, between the infinite and finite, found in the cosmos itself. In the case of all spiritual
beings, life in the body or flesh is at bottom an inadequate and unsuitable condition, for the spirit
is eternal, the flesh perishable. But the pre-temporal existence, which was only a doubtful assumption
as regards ordinary spirits, was a matter of certainty in the case of the higher and purer ones. They
193
Adolf Harnack
lived in an upper world long before this earth was created, and they lived there as spirits without
the polluted garment of the flesh. Now if they resolved for some reason or other to appear in this
finite world, they cannot simply become visible, for they have no visible form. They must rather
assume flesh, whether they throw it about them as a covering, or really make it their own by a
process of transformation or mixture. In all casesand here the speculation gave rise to the most
exciting problemsthe body is to them something inadequate which they cannot appropriate
without adopting certain measures of precaution, but this process may indeed pass through all
stages, from a mere seeming appropriation to complete union. The characteristics of the Greek
ideas of pre-existence may consequently be thus expressed. First, the objects in question to which
pre-existence is ascribed are meant to be ennobled by this attribute. Secondly, these ideas have no
relation to God. Thirdly, the material appearance is regarded as something inadequate. Fourthly,
speculations about phantasma, assumptio natur human, transmutatio, mixtura, du natur,
etc., were necessarily associated with these notions.
We see that these two conceptions are as wide apart as the poles. The first has a religious origin,
the second a cosmological and psychological; the first glorifies God, the second the created spirit.
320
However, not only does a certain relationship in point of form exist between these speculations,
but the Jewish conception is also found in a shape which seems to approximate still more to the
Greek one.
Earthly occurrences and objects are not only regarded as foreknown by God before being seen
in this world, but the latter manifestation is frequently considered as the copy of the existence and
nature which they possess in heaven, and which remains unalterably the same, whether they appear
upon earth or not. That which is before God experiences no change. As the destinies of the world
are recorded in the books, and God reads them there, it being at the same time a matter of
indifference, as regards this knowledge of his, when and how they are accomplished upon earth,
so the Tabernacle and its furniture, the Temple, Jerusalem, etc., are before God and continue to
exist before him in heaven, even during their appearance on earth and after it.
This conception seems really to have been the oldest one. Moses is to fashion the Temple and its
furniture according to the pattern he saw on the Mount (Exod. XXV. 9. 40: XXVI. 30: XXVII. 8:
Num. VIII. 4). The Temple and Jerusalem exist in heaven, and they are to be distinguished from
the earthly Temple and the earthly Jerusalem; yet the ideas of a of the thing which
is in heaven and of its copy appearing on earth, shade into one another and are not always clearly
separated.
The classing of things as original and copy was at first no more meant to glorify them than was the
conception of a pre-existence they possessed within the knowledge of God. But since the view
which in theory was true of everything earthly, was, as is naturally to be expected, applied in practice
to nothing but valuable objectsfor things common and ever recurring give no impulse to such
speculationsthe objects thus contemplated were ennobled, because they were raised above the
multitude of the commonplace. At the same time the theory of original and copy could not fail to
become a starting point for new speculations, as soon as the contrast between the spiritual and
material began to assume importance among the Jewish people.
194
321
Adolf Harnack
That took place under the influence of the Greek spirit; and was perhaps also the simultaneous
result of an intellectual or moral development which arose independently of that spirit. Accordingly,
a highly important advance in the old ideas of pre-existence appeared in the Jewish theological
literature belonging to the time of the Maccabees and the following decades. To begin with, these
conceptions are now applied to persons, which, so far as I know, was not the case before this
(individualism). Secondly, the old distinction of original and copy is now interpreted to mean that
the copy is the inferior and more imperfect, that in the present on of the transient it cannot be
equivalent to the original, and that we must therefore look forward to the time when the original
itself will make its appearance, (contrast of the material and finite and the spiritual).
With regard to the first point, we have not only to consider passages in Apocalypses and other
writings in which pre-existence is attributed to Moses, the patriarchs, etc., (see above, p. 102), but
we must, above all, bear in mind utterances like Ps. CXXXIX. 15, 16. The individual saint soars
upward to the thought that the days of his life are in the book of God, and that he himself was before
God, whilst he was still unperfect. But, and this must not be overlooked, it was not merely his
spiritual part that was before God, for there is not the remotest idea of such a distinction, but the
whole man, although he is .
322
As regards the second point, the distinction between a heavenly and an earthly Jerusalem, a heavenly
and an earthly Temple, etc., is sufficiently known from the Apocalypses and the New Testament.
But the important consideration is that the sacred things of earth were regarded as objects of less
value, instalments, as it were, pending the fulfilment of the whole promise. The desecration and
subsequent destruction of sacred things must have greatly strengthened this idea. The hope of the
heavenly Jerusalem comforted men for the desecration or loss of the earthly one. But this gave at
the same time the most powerful impulse to reflect whether it was not an essential feature of this
temporal state, that everything high and holy in it could only appear in a meagre and inadequate
form. Thus the transition to Greek ideas was brought about. The fulness of the time had come when
the old Jewish ideas, with a slightly mythological colouring, could amalgamate with the ideal
creations of Hellenic philosophers.
These, however, are also the general conditions which gave rise to the earliest Jewish speculations
about a personal Messiah, except that, in the case of the Messianic ideas within Judaism itself, the
adoption of specifically Greek thoughts, so far as I am able to see, cannot be made out.
Most Jews, as Trypho testifies in Justins Dialogue 49, conceived the Messiah as a man. We may
indeed go a step further and say that no Jew at bottom imagined him otherwise; for even those who
attached ideas of pre-existence to him, and gave the Messiah a supernatural background, never
advanced to speculations about assumption of the flesh, incarnation, two natures and the like. They
only transferred in a specific manner to the Messiah the old idea of pre-terrestrial existence with
God, universally current among the Jews. Before the creation of the world the Messiah was hidden
with God, and, when the time is fulfilled, he makes his appearance. This is neither an incarnation
nor a humiliation, but he appears on earth as he exists before God, viz., as a mighty and just king,
equipped with all gifts. The writings in which this thought appears most clearly are the Apocalypse
of Enoch (Book of Similitudes, Chap. 46-49) and the Apocalypse of Esra (Chap. 12-14). Support
195
Adolf Harnack
to this idea, if anything more of the kind had been required, was lent by passages like Daniel VII.
13 f. and Micah, V. 1. Nowhere do we find in Jewish writings a conception which advances beyond
the notion that the Messiah is the man who is with God in heaven; and who will make his appearance
at his own time. We are merely entitled to say that, as the same idea was not applied to all persons
with the same certainty, it was almost unavoidable that mens minds should have been led to
designate the Messiah as the man from heaven. This thought was adopted by Paul (see below), but
I know of no Jewish writing which gave clear expression to it.
323
324
Jesus Christ designated himself as the Messiah, and the first of his disciples who recognised him
as such were native Jews. The Jewish conceptions of the Messiah consequently passed over into
the Christian community. But they received an impulse to important modifications from the living
impression conveyed by the person and destiny of Jesus. Three facts were here of pre-eminent
importance. First, Jesus appeared in lowliness, and even suffered death. Secondly, he was believed
to be exalted through the resurrection to the right hand of God, and his return in glory was awaited
with certainty. Thirdly, the strength of a new life and of an indissoluble union with God was felt
issuing from him, and therefore his people were connected with him in the closest way.
In some old Christian writings found in the New Testament and emanating from the pen of native
Jews, there are no speculations at all about the pre-temporal existence of Jesus as the Messiah, or
they are found expressed in a manner which simply embodies the old Jewish theory and is merely
distinguished from it by the emphasis laid on the exaltation of Jesus after death through the
resurrection. 1. Pet. I. 18 ff. is a classic passage:
, ,

, . Here we find a conception of the
pre-existence of Christ which is not yet affected by cosmological or psychological speculation,
which does not overstep the boundaries of a purely religious contemplation, and which arose from
the Old Testament way of thinking, and the living impression derived from the person of Jesus. He
is fore-known (by God) before the creation of the world, not as a spiritual being without a body,
but as a Lamb without blemish and without spot; in other words, his whole personality together
with the work which it was to carry out, was within Gods eternal knowledge. He was manifested
in these last days for our sake, that is, he is now visibly what he already was before God. What is
meant here is not an incarnation, but a revelatio. Finally, he appeared in order that our faith and
hope should now be firmly directed to the living God, that God who raised him from the dead and
gave him honour. In the last clause expression is given to the specifically Christian thought, that
the Messiah Jesus was exalted after crucifixion and death; from this, however, no further conclusions
are drawn.
But it was impossible that men should everywhere rest satisfied with these utterances, for the age
was a theological one. Hence the paradox of the suffering Messiah, the certainty of his glorification
through the resurrection, the conviction of his specific relationship to God, and the belief in the
real union of his Church with him did not seem adequately expressed by the simple formul
, . In reference to all these points, we see even in the oldest Christian
writings, the appearance of formul which fix more precisely the nature of his pre-existence, or in
196
325
Adolf Harnack
other words his heavenly existence. With regard to the first and second points there arose the view
of humiliation and exaltation, such as we find in Paul and in numerous writings after him. In
connection with the third point the concept Son of God was thrust into the fore-ground, and gave
rise to the idea of the image of God (2 Cor. IV. 4; Col. I. 15; Heb. I. 2; Phil. II. 6). The fourth point
gave occasion to the formation of theses, such as we find in Rom. VIII. 29:
, Col. I. 18: (Rev. I. 5), Eph. II. 6:
, I. 4: ,
I. 22: ,
etc. This purely religious view of the Church, according to which all that is predicated of Christ is
also applied to his followers, continued a considerable time. Hermas declares that the Church is
older than the world, and that the world was created for its sake (see above, p. 103), and the author
of the so-called 2nd Epistle of Clement declares (Chap. 14) .......
, .... , ,
. .
. . Thus Christ and his Church are inseparably
connected. The latter is to be conceived as pre-existent quite as much as the former; the Church
was also created before the sun and the moon, for the world was created for its sake. This conception
of the Church illustrates a final group of utterances about the pre-existent Christ, the origin of which
might easily be misinterpreted unless we bear in mind their reference to the Church. In so far as he
is , he is the (Rev. III. 14), the
, etc. According to the current conception of the time, these expressions
mean exactly the same as the simple , as is proved by the
parallel formul referring to the Church. Nay, even the further advance to the idea that the world
was created by him (Cor. Col. Eph. Heb.) need not yet necessarily be a ;
for the beginning of things () and their purpose form the real force to which their origin is due
(principle ). Hermas indeed calls the Church older than the world simply because the world
was created for its sake.
All these further theories which we have quoted up to this time need in no sense alter the original
conception, so long as they appear in an isolated form and do not form the basis of fresh speculations.
They may be regarded as the working out of the original conception attaching to Jesus Christ
, ...; and do not really modify this religious
view of the matter. Above all, we find in them as yet no certain transition to the Greek view which
splits up his personality into a heavenly and an earthly portion; it still continues to be the complete
Christ to whom all the utterances apply. But, beyond doubt, they already reveal the strong impulse
to conceive the Christ that had appeared as a divine being. He had not been a transitory phenomenon,
but has ascended into heaven and still continues to live. This post-existence of his gave to the ideas
of his pre-existence a support and a concrete complexion which the earlier Jewish theories lacked.
197
326
Adolf Harnack
We find the transition to a new conception in the writings of Paul. But it is important to begin by
determining the relationship between his Christology and the views we have been hitherto
considering. In the Apostles clearest trains of thought everything that he has to say of Christ hinges
on his death and resurrection. For this we need no proofs, but see, more
especially Rom. I. 3 f.: , ,
,
. What Christ became and his significance for us now are due to his death on the
cross and his resurrection. He condemned sin in the flesh and was obedient unto death. Therefore
he now shares in the of God. The exposition in 1 Cor. XV. 45, also (
, , .
) is still capable of being understood as
to its fundamental features, in a sense which agrees with the conception of the Messiah, as
, the man from heaven who was hidden with God. There can be no doubt, however, that this
conception, as already shewn by the formul in the passage just quoted, formed to Paul the
starting-point of a speculation, in which the original theory assumed a completely new shape. The
decisive factors in this transformation were the Apostles doctrine of spirit and flesh, and the
corresponding conviction that the Christ who is not be known after the flesh, is a spirit, namely,
the mighty spiritual being ( ), who has condemned sin in the flesh, and thereby
enabled man to walk not after the flesh, but after the spirit.
According to one of the Apostles ways of regarding the matter, Christ, after the accomplishment
of his work, became the through the resurrection. But the belief that Jesus
always stood before God as the heavenly man, suggested to Paul the other view, that Christ was
always a spirit, that he was sent down by God, that the flesh is consequently something inadequate
and indeed hostile to him, that he nevertheless assumed it in order to extirpate the sin dwelling in
the flesh, that he therefore humbled himself by appearing, and that this humiliation was the deed
he performed.
327
This view is found in 2 Cor. VIII. 9: ; in Rom.

VIII. 3:
; and in Phil. II. 5 f.:
..... , ,
... In both forms of thought Paul presupposes a
real exaltation of Christ. Christ receives after the resurrection more than he ever possessed (
). In this view Paul retains a historical interpretation of Christ, even in
the conception of the . But whilst many passages seem to imply that the work of
Christ began with suffering and death, Paul shews in the verses cited, that he already conceives the
appearance of Christ on earth as his moral act, as a humiliation, purposely brought about by God
and Christ himself, which reaches its culminating point in the death on the cross. Christ, the divine
spiritual being, is sent by the Father from heaven to earth, and of his own free will he obediently
takes this mission upon himself. He appears in the , dies the death of
the cross, and then, raised by the Father, ascends again into heaven in order henceforth to act as
198
Adolf Harnack
the and , and to become to his own people the principle of a new life in the
spirit.
Whatever we may think about the admissibility and justification of this view, to whatever source
we may trace its origin and however strongly we may emphasise its divergencies from the
contemporaneous Hellenic ideas, it is certain that it approaches very closely to the latter; for the
distinction of spirit and flesh is here introduced into the concept of pre-existence, and this
combination is not found in the Jewish notions of the Messiah.
Paul was the first who limited the idea of pre-existence by referring it solely to the spiritual part of
Jesus Christ, but at the same time gave life to it by making the pre-existing Christ (the spirit) a
being who, even during his pre-existence, stands independently side by side with God.
328
He was also the first to designate Christs as assumpta, and to recognise its assumption as
in itself a humiliation. To him the appearance of Christ was no mere , but a ,
, .
These outstanding features of the Pauline Christology must have been intelligible to the Greeks,
but, whilst embracing these, they put everything else in the system aside,
, , , says 2 Clem. (9. 5), and
that is also the Christology of 1 Clement, Barnabas and many other Greeks. From the sum total of
Judo-Christian speculations they only borrowed, in addition, the one which has been already
mentioned: the Messiah as is for that very reason also
, that is the beginning, purpose and principle of the creation The Greeks,
as the result of their cosmological interest, embraced this thought as a fundamental proposition.
The complete Greek Christology then is expressed as follows: , ,
, . That is the
fundamental, theological and philosophical creed on which the whole Trinitarian and Christological
speculations of the Church of the succeeding centuries are built, and it is thus the root of the orthodox
system of dogmatics; for the notion that Christ was the necessarily led in some
measure to the conception of Christ as the Logos. For the Logos had long been regarded by cultured
men as the beginning and principle of the creation.452
452
These hints will have shewn that Pauls theory occupies a middle position between the Jewish and Greek ideas of pre-existence.
In the canon, however, we have another group of writings which likewise gives evidence of a middle position with regard to the
matter, I mean the Johannine writings. If we only possessed the prologue to the Gospel of John with its
the and the we could indeed point to nothing but Hellenic ideas. But the
Gospel itself, as is well known, contains very much that must have astonished a Greek, and is opposed to the philosophical idea
of the Logos. This occurs even in the thought, , which in itself is foreign to the Logos conception. Just
fancy a proposition like the one in VI. 44, , , or in V.
17. 21, engrafted on Philos system, and consider the revolution it would have caused there. No doubt the prologue to some
extent contains the themes set forth in the presentation that follows, but they are worded in such a way that one cannot help
thinking the author wished to prepare Greek readers for the paradox he had to communicate to them, by adapting his prologue
to their mode of thought. Under the altered conditions of thought which now prevail, the prologue appears to us the mysterious
part, and the narrative that follows seems the portion that is relatively more intelligible. But to the original readers, if they were
educated Greeks, the prologue must have been the part most easily understood. As nowadays a section on the nature of the
Christian religion is usually prefixed to a treatise on dogmatics, in order to prepare and introduce the reader, so also the Johannine
199
329
330
Adolf Harnack
With this transition the theories concerning Christ are removed from Jewish and Old Testament
soil, and also that of religion (in the strict sense of the word), and transplanted to the Greek one.
Even in his pre-existent state Christ is an independent power existing side by side with God. The
pre-existence does not refer to his whole appearance, but only to a part of his essence; it does not
primarily serve to glorify the wisdom and power of the God who guides history, but only glorifies
Christ, and thereby threatens the monarchy of God.453 The appearance of Christ is now an
assumption of flesh, and immediately the intricate questions about the connection of the heavenly
and spiritual being with the flesh simultaneously arise and are at first settled by the theories of a
naive docetism. But the flesh, that is the human nature created by God, appears depreciated, because
it was reckoned as something unsuitable for Christ, and foreign to him as a spiritual being. Thus
the Christian religion was mixed up with the refined asceticism of a perishing civilization, and a
foreign substructure given to its system of morality, so earnest in its simplicity.454 But the most
questionable result was the following. Since the predicate Logos, which at first, and for a long
time, coincided with the idea of the reason ruling in the cosmos, was considered as the highest that
could be given to Christ, the holy and divine element, namely, the power of a new life, a power to
be viewed and laid hold of in Christ, was transformed into a cosmic force and thereby secularised.
In the present work I have endeavoured to explain fully how the doctrine of the Church developed
from these premises into the doctrine of the Trinity and of the two natures. I have also shewn that
the imperfect beginnings of Church doctrine, especially as they appear in the Logos theory derived
from cosmology, were subjected to wholesome correctionsby the Monarchians, by Athanasius,
prologue seems to be intended as an introduction of this kind. It brings in conceptions which were familiar to the Greeks, in fact
it enters into these more deeply than is justified by the presentation which follows; for the notion of the incarnate Logos is by
no means the dominant one here. Though faint echoes of this idea may possibly be met with here and there in the GospelI
confess I do not notice themthe predominating thought is essentially the conception of Christ as the Son of God, who obediently
executes what the Father has shewn and appointed him. The works which he does are allotted to him, and he performs them in
the strength of the Father. The whole of Christs farewell discourses and the intercessory prayer evince no Hellenic influence
and no cosmological speculation whatever, but shew the inner life of a man who knows himself to be one with God to a greater
extent than any before him, and who feels the leading of men to God to be the task he had received and accomplished. In this
consciousness he speaks of the glory he had with the Father before the world was (XVII. 4 f.:
, ,
). With this we must compare verses like III. 13:
, , and III. 31: .
(see also I. 30: VI. 33, 38, 41 f. 50 f. 58, 62: VIII. 14, 58; XVII.
24). But though the pre-existence is strongly expressed in these passages, a separation of () and in Christ is
nowhere assumed in the Gospel except in the prologue. It is always Christs whole personality to which every sublime attribute
is ascribed. The same one who can do nothing of himself is also the one who was once glorious and will yet be glorified. This
idea, however, can still be referred to the , although it gives a peculiar with God to
him who was foreknown of God, and the oldest conception is yet to be traced in many expressions, as, for example, I. 31:
, , V. 19:
, V. 36: VIII. 38: , VIII. 40:
, XII. 49: XV. 15: .
453 This is indeed counterbalanced in the fourth Gospel by the thought of the complete community of love between the Father and
the Son, and the pre-existence and descent of the latter here also tend to the glory of God. In the sentence God so loved the
world, etc., that which Paul describes in Phil. II. becomes at the same time an act of God, in fact the act of God. The sentence
God is love sums up again all individual speculations, and raises them into a new and most exalted sphere.
454 If it had been possible for speculation to maintain the level of the Fourth Gospel, nothing of that would have happened; but
where were there theologians capable of this?
200
331
Adolf Harnack
and by the influence of biblical passages which pointed in another direction. Finally, the Logos
doctrine received a form in which the idea was deprived of nearly all cosmical content. Nor could
the Hellenic contrast of spirit and flesh become completely developed in Christianity, because
the belief in the bodily resurrection of Christ, and in the admission of the flesh into heaven, opposed
to the principle of dualism a barrier which Paul as yet neither knew nor felt to be necessary. The
conviction as to the resurrection of the flesh proved the hard rock which shattered the energetic
attempts to give a completely Hellenic complexion to the Christian religion.
The history of the development of the ideas of pre-existence is at the same time the criticism of
them, so that we need not have recourse to our present theory of knowledge which no longer allows
such speculations. The problem of determining the significance of Christ through a speculation
concerning his natures, and of associating with these the concrete features of the historical Christ,
was originated by Hellenism. But even the New Testament writers, who appear in this respect to
be influenced in some way by Hellenism, did not really speculate concerning the different natures,
but, taking Christs spiritual nature for granted, determined his religious significance by his moral
qualitiesPaul by the moral act of humiliation and obedience unto death, John by the complete
dependence of Christ upon God and hence also by his obedience, as well as the unity of the love
of Father and Son. There is only one idea of pre-existence which no empiric contemplation of
history and no reason can uproot. This is identical with the most ancient idea found in the Old
Testament, as well as that prevalent among the early Christians, and consists in the religious thought
that God the Lord directs history. In its application to Jesus Christ, it is contained in the words we
read in 1 Pet. I. 20: ,
,
.
332
APPENDIX II.
Liturgy and the Origin of Dogma.
THE reader has perhaps wondered why I have made so little reference to Liturgy in my description
of the origin of dogma. For according to the most modern ideas about the history of religion and
the origin of theology, the development of both may be traced in the ritual. Without any desire to
criticise these notions, I think I am justified in asserting that this is another instance of the exceptional
nature of Christianity. For a considerable period it possessed no ritual at all, and the process of
development in this direction had been going on, or been completed, a long time before ritual came
to furnish material for dogmatic discussion.
The worship in Christian Churches grew out of that in the synagogues, whereas there is no trace
of its being influenced by the Jewish Temple service (Duchesne, Origines du Culte Chrtien, p. 45
ff.). Its oldest constituents are accordingly prayer, reading of the scriptures, application of scripture
texts, and sacred song. In addition to these we have, as specifically Christian elements, the celebration
201
333
Adolf Harnack
of the Lords Supper, and the utterances of persons inspired by the Spirit. The latter manifestations,
however, ceased in the course of the second century, and to some extent as early as its first half.
The religious services in which a ritual became developed were prayer, the Lords Supper and
sacred song. The Didache had already prescribed stated formul for prayer. The ritual of the Lords
Supper was determined in its main features by the memory of its institution. The sphere of sacred
song remained the most unfettered, though here also, even at an early periodno later in fact than
the end of the first and beginning of the second centurya fixed and a variable element were
distinguished; for responsory hymns, as is testified by the Epistle of Pliny and the still earlier Book
of Revelation, require to follow a definite arrangement. But the whole, though perhaps already
fixed during the course of the second century, still bore the stamp of spirituality and freedom. It
was really worship in spirit and in truth, and this and no other was the light in which the Apologists,
for instance, regarded it. Ritualism did not begin to be a power in the Church till the end of the
second century; though it had been cultivated by the Gnostics long before, and traces of it are
found at an earlier period in some of the older Fathers, such as Ignatius.
Among the liturgical fragments still preserved to us from the first three centuries two strata may
de distinguished. Apart from the responsory hymns in the Book of Revelation, which can hardly
represent fixed liturgical pieces, the only portions of the older stratum in our possession are the
Lords Prayer, originating with Jesus himself and used as a liturgy, together with the sacramental
prayers of the Didache. These prayers exhibit a style unlike any of the liturgical formul of later
times; the prayer is exclusively addressed to God, it returns thanks for knowledge and life; it speaks
of Jesus the (Son of God) as the mediator; the intercession refers exclusively to the
Church, and the supplication is for the gathering together of the Church, the hastening of the coming
of the kingdom and the destruction of the world. No direct mention is made of the death and
resurrection of Christ. These prayers are the peculiar property of the Christian Church. It cannot,
however, be said that they exercised any important influence on the history of dogma. The thoughts
contained in them perished in their specific shape; the measure of permanent importance they
attained in a more general form, was not preserved to them through these prayers.
334
The second stratum of liturgical pieces dates back to the great prayer with which the first Epistle
of Clement ends, for in many respects this prayer, though some expressions in it remind us of the
older type , through thy beloved son Jesus Christ),
already exhibits the characteristics of the later liturgy, as is shewn, for example, by a comparison
of the liturgical prayer in the Constitutions of the Apostles (see Lightfoots edition and my own).
But this piece shews at the same time that the liturgical prayers, and consequently the liturgy also,
sprang from those in the synagogue, for the similarity is striking. Here we find a connection
resembling that which exists between the Jewish Two Ways and the Christian instruction of
catechumens. If this observation is correct, it clearly explains the cautious use of historical and
dogmatic material in the oldest liturgiesa precaution not to their disadvantage. As in the prayers
of the synagogue, so also in Christian Churches, all sorts of matters were not submitted to God or
laid bare before Him, but the prayers serve as a religious ceremony, that is, as adoration, petition
and intercession.
, (thou art God alone and Jesus Christ is thy son, and we are thy people and the sheep
of thy pasture). In this confession, and expressive Christian modification of that of the synagogue,
202
Adolf Harnack
the whole liturgical ceremony is epitomised. So far as we can assume and conjecture from the
scanty remains of Ante-Nicene liturgy, the character of the ceremony was not essentially altered
in this respect. Nothing containing a specific dogma or theological speculation was admitted. The
number of sacred ceremonies, already considerable in the second century, (how did they arise?)
was still further increased in the third; but the accompanying words, so far as we know, expressed
nothing but adoration, gratitude, supplication and intercession. The relations expressed in the liturgy
became more comprehensive, copious and detailed; but its fundamental character was not changed.
The history of dogma in the first three centuries is not reflected in their liturgy.
335
APPENDIX III.
NEOPLATONISM.
The Historical Significance and Position of Neoplatonism.
336
THE political history of the ancient world ends with the Empire of Diocletian and Constantine,
which has not only Roman and Greek, but also Oriental features. The history of ancient philosophy
ends with the universal philosophy of Neoplatonism, which assimilated the elements of most of
the previous systems, and embodied the result of the history of religion and civilisation in East and
West. But as the Roman Byzantine Empire is at one and the same time a product of the final effort
and the exhaustion of the ancient world, so also Neoplatonism is, on one side, the completion of
ancient philosophy, and, on another, its abolition. Never before in the Greek and Roman theory of
the world did the conviction of the dignity of man and his elevation above nature attain so certain
an expression as in Neoplatonism; and never before in the history of civilisation did its highest
exponents, notwithstanding all their progress in inner observation, so much undervalue the sovereign
significance of real science and pure knowledge as the later Neoplatonists did. Judged from the
stand-point of pure science, of empirical knowledge of the world, the philosophy of Plato and
Aristotle marks a momentous turning-point, the post-Aristotelian a retrogression, the Neoplatonic
a complete declension. But judging from the stand-point of religion and morality, it must be admitted
that the ethical temper which Neoplatonism sought to beget and confirm was the highest and purest
which the culture of the ancient world produced. This necessarily took place at the expense of
science: for on the soil of polytheistic natural religions, the knowledge of nature must either fetter
and finally abolish religion, or be fettered and abolished by religion. Religion and ethic, however,
proved the stronger powers. Placed between these and the knowledge of nature, philosophy, after
a period of fluctuation finally follows the stronger force. Since the ethical itself, in the sphere of
natural religions, is unhesitatingly conceived as a higher kind of nature, conflict with the empirical
knowledge of the world is unavoidable. The higher physics, for that is what religious ethics is
here, must displace the lower or be itself displaced. Philosophy must renounce its scientific aspect,
in order that mans claim to a supernatural value of his person and life may be legitimised.
203
337
338
Adolf Harnack
It is an evidence of the vigour of mans moral endowments that the only epoch of culture which
we are able to survey in its beginnings, its progress, and its close, ended not with materialism, but
with the most decided idealism. It is true that in its way this idealism also denotes a bankruptcy;
as the contempt for reason and science, and these are contemned when relegated to the second
place, finally leads to barbarism, because it results in the crassest superstition, and is exposed to
all manner of imposture. And, as a matter of fact, barbarism succeeded the flourishing period of
Neoplatonism. Philosophers themselves no doubt found their mental food in the knowledge which
they thought themselves able to surpass; but the masses grew up in superstition, and the Christian
Church, which entered on the inheritance of Neoplatonism, was compelled to reckon with that and
come to terms with it. Just when the bankruptcy of the ancient civilisation and its lapse into barbarism
could not have failed to reveal themselves, a kindly destiny placed on the stage of history barbarian
nations, for whom the work of a thousand years had as yet no existence. Thus the fact is concealed,
which, however, does not escape the eye of one who looks below the surface, that the inner history
of the ancient world must necessarily have degenerated into barbarism of its own accord, because
it ended with the renunciation of this world. There is no desire either to enjoy it, to master it, or to
know it as it really is. A new world is disclosed for which everything is given up, and men are ready
to sacrifice insight and understanding, in order to possess this world with certainty; and, in the light
which radiates from the world to come, that which in this world appears absurd becomes wisdom,
and wisdom becomes folly.
Such is Neoplatonism. The pre-Socratic philosophers, declared by the followers of Socrates to be
childish, had freed themselves from theology, that is the mythology of the poets, and constructed
a philosophy from the observation of nature, without troubling themselves about ethics and religion.
In the systems of Plato and Aristotle physics and ethics were to attain to their rights, though the
latter no doubt already occupied the first place; theology, that is popular religion, continues to be
thrust aside. The post-Aristotelian philosophers of all parties were already beginning to withdraw
from the objective world. Stoicism, indeed, seems to fall back into the materialism that prevailed
before Plato and Aristotle; but the ethical dualism which dominated the mood of the Stoic
philosophers did not in the long run tolerate the materialistic physics; it sought and found help in
the metaphysical dualism of the Platonists, and at the same time reconciled itself to the popular
religion by means of allegorism, that is it formed a new theology. But it did not result in permanent
philosophic creations. A one-sided development of Platonism produced the various forms of
scepticism which sought to abolish confidence in empirical knowledge. Neoplatonism, which came
last, learned from all schools. In the first place, it belongs to the series of post-Aristotelian systems
and, as the philosophy of the subjective, it is the logical completion of them. In the second place,
it rests on scepticism; for it also, though not at the very beginning, gave up both confidence and
pure interest in empirical knowledge. Thirdly, it can boast of the name and authority of Plato; for
in metaphysics it consciously went back to him and expressly opposed the metaphysics of the
Stoics. Yet on this very point it also learned something from the Stoics; for the Neoplatonic
conception of the action of God on the world, and of the nature and origin of matter, can only be
explained by reference to the dynamic pantheism of the Stoics. In other respects, especially in
psychology, it is diametrically opposed to the Stoa, though superior. Fourthly, the study of Aristotle
also had an influence on Neoplatonism. That is shewn not only in the philosophic methods of the
Neoplatonists, but also, though in a subordinate way, in their metaphysics. Fifthly, the ethic of the
204
Adolf Harnack
Stoics was adopted by Neoplatonism, but this ethic necessarily gave way to a still higher view of
the conditions of the spirit. Sixthly and finally, Christianity also, which Neoplatonism opposed in
every form (especially in that of the Gnostic philosophy of religion), seems not to have been entirely
without influence. On this point we have as yet no details, and these can only be ascertained by a
thorough examination of the polemic of Plotinus against the Gnostics.
339
Hence, with the exception of Epicureanism, which Neoplatonism dreaded as its mortal enemy,
every important system of former times was drawn upon by the new philosophy. But we should
not on that account call Neoplatonism an eclectic system in the usual sense of the word. For in the
first place, it had one pervading and all-predominating interest, the religious; and in the second
place, it introduced into philosophy a new supreme principle, the super-rational, or the
super-essential. This principle should not be identified with the Ideas of Plato or the Form of
Aristotle. For as Zeller rightly says: In Plato and Aristotle the distinction of the sensuous and the
intelligible is the strongest expression for belief in the truth of thought; it is only sensuous perception
and sensuous existence whose relative falsehood they presuppose; but of a higher stage of spiritual
life lying beyond idea and thought, there is no mention. In Neoplatonism, on the other hand, it is
just this super-rational element which is regarded as the final goal of all effort, and the highest
ground of all existence; the knowledge gained by thought is only an intermediate stage between
sensuous perception and the super-rational intuition; the intelligible forms are not that which is
highest and last, but only the media by which the influences of the formless original essence are
communicated to the world. This view therefore presupposes not merely doubt of the reality of
sensuous existence and sensuous notions, but absolute doubt, aspiration beyond all reality. The
highest intelligible is not that which constitutes the real content of thought, but only that which is
presupposed and earnestly desired by man as the unknowable ground of his thought. Neoplatonism
recognised that a religious ethic can be built neither on sense-perception nor on knowledge gained
by the understanding, and that it cannot be justified by these; it therefore broke both with intellectual
ethics and with utilitarian morality. But for that very reason, having as it were parted with perception
and understanding in relation to the ascertaining of the highest truth, it was compelled to seek for
a new world and a new function in the human spirit, in order to ascertain the existence of what it
desired, and to comprehend and describe that of which it had ascertained the existence. But man
cannot transcend his psychological endowment. An iron ring incloses him. He who does not allow
his thought to be determined by experience falls a prey to fancy, that is thought which cannot be
suppressed assumes a mythological aspect: superstition takes the place of reason, dull gazing at
something incomprehensible is regarded as the highest goal of the spirits efforts, and every conscious
activity of the spirit is subordinated to visionary conditions artificially brought about. But that every
conceit may not be allowed to assert itself, the gradual exploration of every region of knowledge
according to every method of acquiring it, is demanded as a preliminarythe Neoplatonists did
not make matters easy for themselves,and a new and mighty principle is set up which is to bridle
fancy, viz., the authority of a sure tradition. This authority must be superhuman, otherwise it would
not come under consideration; it must therefore be divine. On divine disclosures, that is revelations,
must rest both the highest super-rational region of knowledge and the possibility of knowledge
itself. In a word, the philosophy which Neoplatonism represents, whose final interest is the religious,
and whose highest object is the super-rational, must be a philosophy of revelation.
205
340
341
Adolf Harnack
In the case of Plotinus himself and his immediate disciples, this does not yet appear plainly. They
still shew confidence in the objective presuppositions of their philosophy; and have, especially in
psychology, done great work and created something new. But this confidence vanishes in the later
Neoplatonists. Porphyry, be-fore he became a disciple of Plotinus, wrote a book
; as a philosopher he no longer required the . But the later representatives of
the system sought for their philosophy revelations of the Godhead. They found them in the religious
traditions and cults of all nations. Neoplatonism learned from the Stoics to rise above the political
limits of nations and states, and to widen the Hellenic consciousness to a universally human one.
The spirit of God has breathed throughout the whole history of the nations, and the traces of divine
revelation are to be found everywhere. The older a religious tradition or cultus is, the more worthy
of honour, the more rich in thoughts of God it is. Therefore the old Oriental religions are of special
value to the Neoplatonists. The allegorical method of interpreting myths, which was practised by
the Stoics in particular, was accepted by Neoplatonism also. But the myths, spiritually explained,
have for this system an entirely different value from what they had for the Stoic philosophers. The
latter adjusted themselves to the myths by the aid of allegorical explanation; the later Neoplatonists,
on the other hand, (after a selection in which the immoral myths were sacrificed, see, e.g., Julian)
regarded them as the proper material and sure foundation of philosophy. Neoplatonism claims to
be not only the absolute philosophy, completing all systems, but at the same time the absolute
religion, confirming and explaining all earlier religions. A rehabilitation of all ancient religions is
aimed at (see the philosophic teachers of Julian and compare his great religious experiment); each
was to continue in its traditional form, but at the same time each was to communicate the religious
temper and the religious knowledge which Neoplatonism had attained, and each cultus is to lead
to the high morality which it behoves man to maintain. In Neoplatonism the psychological fact of
the longing of man for something higher, is exalted to the all-predominating principle which
ex-plains the world. Therefore the religions, though they are to be purified and spiritualised, become
the foundation of philosophy. The Neoplatonic philosophy therefore presupposes the religious
syncretism of the third century, and cannot be understood without it. The great forces which were
half unconsciously at work in this syncretism, were reflectively grasped by Neoplatonism. It is the
final fruit of the developments resulting from the political, national and religious syncretism which
arose from the undertakings of Alexander the Greek and the Romans.
Neoplatonism is consequently a stage in the history of religion; nay, its significance in the history
of the world lies in the fact that it is so. In the history of science and enlightenment it has a position
of significance only in so far as it was the necessary transition stage through which humanity had
to pass, in order to free itself from the religion of nature and the depreciation of the spiritual life,
which oppose an insurmountable barrier to the highest advance of human knowledge. But as
Neoplatonism in its philosophical aspect means the abolition of ancient philosophy, which, however,
it desired to complete, so also in its religious aspect it means the abolition of the ancient religions
which it aimed at restoring. For in requiring these religions to mediate a definite religious knowledge,
and to lead to the highest moral disposition, it burdened them with tasks to which they were not
equal, and under which they could not but break down. And in requiring them to loosen, if not
completely destroy, the bond which was their only stay, namely, the political bond, it took from
them the foundation on which they were built. But could it not place them on a greater and firmer
206
342
343
Adolf Harnack
foundation? Was not the Roman Empire in existence, and could the new religion not become
dependent on this in the same way as the earlier religions had been dependent on the lesser states
and nations? It might be thought so, but it was no longer possible. No doubt the political history
of the nations round the Mediterranean, in their development into the universal Roman monarchy,
was parallel to the spiritual history of these nations in their development into monotheism and a
universal system of morals; but the spiritual development in the end far outstripped the political:
even the Stoics attained to a height which the political development could only partially reach.
Neoplatonism did indeed attempt to gain a connection with the Byzantine Roman Empire: one
noble monarch, Julian, actually perished as a result of this endeavour: but even before this the
profounder Neoplatonists discerned that their lofty religious philosophy would not bear contact
with the despotic Empire, because it would not bear any contact with the world (plan of the
founding of Platonopolis). Political affairs are at bottom as much a matter of indifference to
Neoplatonism as material things in general. The idealism of the new philosophy was too high to
admit of its being naturalised in the despiritualised, tyrannical and barren creation of the Byzantine
Empire, and this Empire itself needed unscrupulous and despotic police officials, not noble
philosophers. Important and instructive, therefore, as the experiments are, which were made from
time to time by the state and by individual philosophers, to unite the monarchy of the world with
Neoplatonism, they could not but be ineffectual.
But, and this is the last question which one is justified in raising here, why did not Neoplatonism
create an independent religious community? Since it had already changed the ancient religions so
fundamentally, in its purpose to restore them; since it had attempted to fill the old naive cults with
profound philosophic ideas, and to make them exponents of a high morality; why did it not take
the further step and create a religious fellowship of its own? Why did it not complete and confirm
the union of gods by the founding of a church which was destined to embrace the whole of humanity,
and in which, beside the one ineffable Godhead, the gods of all nations could have been worshipped?
Why not? The answer to this question is at the same time the reply to another, viz., Why did the
christian church supplant Neoplatonism? Neoplatonism lacked three elements to give it the
significance of a new and permanent religious system. Augustine in his confessions (Bk. VII. 18-21)
has excellently described these three elements. First and above all, it lacked a religious founder;
secondly, it was unable to give any answer to the question, how one could permanently maintain
the mood of blessedness and peace; thirdly, it lacked the means of winning those who could not
speculate. The people could not learn the philosophic exercises which it recommended as the
condition of attaining the enjoyment of the highest good; and the way by which even the people
can attain to the highest good was hidden from it. Hence these wise and prudent remained a
school. When Julian attempted to interest the common uncultured man in the doctrines and worship
of this school, his reward was mockery and scorn.
Not as philosophy and not as a new religion did Neoplatonism become a decisive factor in history,
but, if I may say so, as a frame of mind.455 The feeling that there is an eternal highest good which
455
Excellent remarks on the nature of Neoplatonism may be found in Eucken, Gtt. Gel. Anz., 1 Mrz, 1884. p. 176 ff.: this sketch
was already written before I saw them. We find the characteristic of the Neoplatonic epoch in the effort to make the inward,
which till then had had alongside of it an independent outer world as a contrast, the exclusive and all-determining element. The
207
Adolf Harnack
lies beyond all outer experience and is not even the intelligible, this feeling, with which was united
the conviction of the entire worthlessness of everything earthly, was produced and fostered by
Neoplatonism. But it was unable to describe the contents of that highest being and highest good,
and therefore it was here compelled to give itself entirely up to fancy and aesthetic feeling. Therefore
it was forced to trace out mysterious ways to that which is within, which, however, led no-where.
It transformed thought into a dream of feeling; it immersed itself in the sea of emotions; it viewed
the old fabled world of the nations as the reflection of a higher reality, and transformed reality into
poetry; but in spite of all these efforts it was only able, to use the words of Augustine, to see from
afar the land which it desired. It broke this world into fragments; but nothing remained to it, save
a ray from a world beyond, which was only an indescribable something.
344
And yet the significance of Neoplatonism in the history of our moral culture has been, and still is,
immeasurable. Not only because it refined and strengthened mans life of feeling and sensation,
not only because it, more than anything else, wove the delicate veil which even to-day, whether
we be religious or irreligious, we ever and again cast over the offensive impression of the brutal
reality, but, above all, because it begat the consciousness that the blessedness which alone can
satisfy man is to be found somewhere else than in the sphere of knowledge. That man does not live
by bread alone is a truth that was known before Neoplatonism; but it proclaimed the profounder
truth, which the earlier philosophy had failed to recognise, that man does not live by knowledge
alone. Neoplatonism not only had a propadeutic significance in the past, but continues to be, even
now, the source of all the moods which deny the world and strive after an ideal, but have not power
to raise themselves above esthetic feeling, and see no means of getting a clear notion of the impulse
of their own heart and the land of their desire.
Historical Origin of Neoplatonism.
The forerunners of Neoplatonism were, on the one hand, those Stoics who recognise the Platonic
distinction of the sensible and supersensible world, and on the other, the so-called Neopythagoreans
and religious philosophers, such as Posidonius, Plutarch of Chronea, and especially Numenius
of Apamea.456 Nevertheless, these cannot be regarded as the actual Fathers of Neoplatonism; for
the philosophic method was still very imperfect in comparison with the Neoplatonic, their principles
were uncertain, and the authority of Plato was not yet regarded as placed on an unapproachable
height. The Jewish and Christian philosophers of the first and second centuries stand very much
nearer the later Neoplatonism than Numenius. We would probably see this more clearly if we knew
movement which makes itself felt here, outlasts antiquity and prepares the way for the modern period; it brings about the
dissolution of that which marked the culminating point of ancient life, that which we are wont to call specifically classic. The
life of the spirit, till then conceived as a member of an ordered world and subject to its laws, now freely passes beyond these
bounds, and attempts to mould, and even to create, the universe from itself. No doubt the different attempts to realise this desire
reveal, for the most part, a deep gulf between will and deed; usually ethical and religious requirements of the naive human
consciousness must replace universally creative spiritual power, but all the insufficient and unsatisfactory elements of this period
should not obscure the fact that, in one instance, it reached the height of a great philosophic achievement, in the case of Plotinus.
456 Plotinus, even in his lifetime, was reproached with having borrowed most of his system from Numenius. Porphyry, in his Vita
Plotini, defended him against this reproach.
208
345
346
Adolf Harnack
the development of Christianity in Alexandria in the second century, But, unfortunately, we have
only very meagre fragments to tell us of this. First and above all, we must mention Philo. This
philosopher who interpreted the Old Testament religion in terms of Hellenism had, in accordance
with his idea of revelation, already maintained that the Divine Original Essence is supra-rational,
that only ecstasy leads to Him, and that the materials for religious and moral knowledge are contained
in the oracles of the Deity. The religious ethic of Philo, a combination of Stoic, Platonic,
Neopythagorean and Old Testament gnomic wisdom, already bears the marks which we recognise
in Neoplatonism. The acknowledgment that God was exalted above all thought was a sort of tribute
which Greek philosophy was compelled to pay to the national religion of Israel, in return for the
supremacy which was here granted to the former. The claim of positive religion to be something
more than an intellectual conception of the universal reason was thereby justified. Even religious
syncretism is already found in Philo; but it is something essentially different from the later
Neoplatonic, since Philo regarded the Jewish cult as the only valuable one, and traced back all
elements of truth in the Greeks and Romans to borrowings from the books of Moses.
The earliest Christian philosophers, especially Justin and Athenagoras, likewise prepared the way
for the speculations of the later Neoplatonists by their attempts, on the one hand, to connect
Christianity with Stoicism and Platonism, and on the other, to exhibit it as supra-Platonic. The
method by which Justin, in the introduction to the Dialogue with Trypho, attempts to establish the
Christian knowledge of God, that is the knowledge of the truth, on Platonism, Scepticism and
Revelation, strikingly reminds us of the later methods of the Neoplatonists. Still more is one
reminded of Neoplatonism by the speculations of the Alexandrian Christian Gnostics, especially
of Valentinus and the followers of Basilides. The doctrines of the Basilidians(?) communicated by
Hippolytus (Philosoph. VII. c. 20 sq.), read like fragments from the didactic writings of the
Neoplatonists: m , , , ,
, , ... ... ,
, , . . . . . .

,
. Like the Neoplatonists, these Basilidians did not teach an emanation
from the Godhead, but a dynamic mode of action of the Supreme Being. The same can be asserted
of Valentinus who also places an unnamable being above all, and views matter not as a second
principle, but as a derived product. The dependence of Basilides and Valentinus on Zeno and Plato
is, besides, un-doubted. But the method of these Gnostics in constructing their mental picture of
the world and its history was still an uncertain one. Crude primitive myths are here received, and
naively realistic elements alternate with bold attempts at spiritualising. While therefore,
philosophically considered, the Gnostic systems are very unlike the finished Neoplatonic ones, it
is certain that they contained almost all the elements of the religious view of the world which we
find in Neoplatonism.
But were the earliest Neoplatonists really acquainted with the speculations of men like Philo, Justin,
Valentinus and Basilides? Were they familiar with the Oriental religions, especially with the Jewish
and the Christian? And, if we must answer these questions in the affirmative, did they really learn
from these sources?
209
347
Adolf Harnack
Unfortunately, we cannot at present give certain, and still less detailed, answers to these questions.
But, as Neoplatonism originated in Alexandria, as Oriental cults confronted every one there, as the
Jewish philosophy was prominent in the literary market of Alexandria, and that was the very place
where scientific Christianity had its headquarters, there can, generally speaking, be no doubt that
the earliest Neoplatonists had some acquaintance with Judaism and Christianity. In addition to that,
we have the certain fact that the earliest Neoplatonists had discussions with (Roman) Gnostics (see
Carl Schmidt, Gnostische Schriften in koptischer Sprache, pp. 603-665, and that Porphyry entered
into elaborate controversy with Christianity. In comparison with the Neoplatonic philosophy, the
system of Philo and the Gnostics appears in many respects an anticipation which had a certain
influence on the former, the precise nature of which has still to be ascertained. But the anticipation
is not wonderful, for the religious and philosophic temper which was only gradually produced on
Greek soil, existed from the first in such philosophers as took their stand on the ground of a revealed
religion of redemption. Iamblichus and his followers first answer completely to the Christian Gnostic
schools of the second century; that is to say, Greek philosophy, in its immanent development, did
not attain till the fourth century the position which some Greek philosophers who had accepted
Christianity, had already reached in the second. The influence of Christianityboth Gnostic and
Catholicon Neoplatonism was perhaps very little at any time, though individual Neoplatonists
since the time of Amelius employed Christian sayings as oracles, and testified their high esteem
for Christ.
Sketch of the History and Doctrines of Neoplatonism.
Ammonius Saccas (died about 245), who is said to have been born a Christian, but to have lapsed
into heathenism, is regarded as the founder of the Neoplatonic school in Alexandria. As he has left
no writings, no judgment can be formed as to his teaching. His disciples inherited from him the
prominence which they gave to Plato and the attempts to prove the harmony between the latter and
Aristotle. His most important disciples were Origen the Christian, a second heathen Origen,
Longinus, Herennius, and, above all, Plotinus. The latter was born in the year 205, at Lycopolis in
Egypt, laboured from 224 in Rome, and found numerous adherents and admirers, among others
the Emperor Galienus and his consort, and died in lower Italy about 270. His writings were arranged
by his disciple Porphyry, and edited in six Enneads.
348
The Enneads of Plotinus are the fundamental documents of Neoplatonism. The teaching of this
philosopher is mystical, and, like all mysticism, it falls into two main portions. The first and theoretic
part shews the high origin of the soul, and how it has departed from this its origin. The second and
practical part points out the way by which the soul can again be raised to the Eternal and the Highest.
As the soul with its longings aspires beyond all sensible things and even beyond the world of ideas,
the Highest must be something above reason. The system therefore has three parts. I. The Original
Essence. II. The world of ideas and the soul. III. The world of phenomena. We may also, in
conformity with the thought of Plotinus, divide the system thus: A. The supersensible world (1.
The Original Essence; 2. the world of ideas; 3. the soul). B. The world of phenomena. The Original
Essence is the One in contrast to the many; it. is the Infinite and Unlimited in contrast to the finite;
it is the source of all being, therefore the absolute causality and the only truly existing; but it is also
the Good, in so far as everything finite is to find its aim in it and to flow back to it. Yet moral
210
349
Adolf Harnack
attributes cannot be ascribed to this Original Essence, for these would limit it. It has no attributes
at all: it is a being without magnitude, without life, without thought; nay, one should not, properly
speaking, even call it an existence; it is something above existence, above goodness, and at the
same time the operative force without any substratum. As operative force the Original Essence is
continually begetting something else, without itself being changed or moved or diminished. This
creation is not a physical process, but an emanation of force; and because that which is produced
has any existence only in so far as the originally Existent works in it, it may be said that
Neoplatonism is dynamical Pantheism. Everything that has being is directly or indirectly a production
of the One. In this One everything so far as it has being, is Divine, and God is all in all. But
that which is derived is not like the Original Essence itself. On the contrary, the law of decreasing
perfection prevails in the derived. The latter is indeed an image and reflection of the Original
Essence, but the wider the circle of creations extends the less their share in the Original Essence.
Hence the totality of being forms a gradation of concentric circles which finally lose themselves
almost completely in non-being, in so far as in the last circle the force of the Original Essence is a
vanishing one. Each lower stage of being is connected with the Original Essence only by means of
the higher stages; that which is inferior receives a share in the Original Essence only through the
medium of these. But everything derived has one feature, viz., a longing for the higher; it turns
itself to this so far as its nature allows it.
The first emanation of the Original Essence is the it is a complete image of the Original
Essence and archetype of all existing things; it is being and thought at the same time, World of
ideas and Idea. As image the Nov; is equal to the Original Essence, as derived it is completely
different from it. What Plotinus understands by is the highest sphere which the human spirit
can reach ( ) and at the same time pure thought itself.
The soul which, according to Plotinus, is an immaterial substance like the ,457 is an image and
product of the immovable . It is related to the as the latter is to the Original Essence. It
stands between the and the world of phenomena. The penetrates and enlightens it, but
it itself already touches the world of phenomena. The is undivided, the soul can also preserve
its unity and abide in the ; but it has at the same time the power to unite itself with the material
world and thereby to be divided. Hence it occupies a middle position. In virtue of its nature and
destiny it belongs, as the single soul (soul of the world), to the supersensible world; but it embraces
at the same time the many individual souls; these may allow themselves to be ruled by the ,
or they may turn to the sensible and be lost in the finite.
The soul, an active essence, begets the corporeal or the world of phenomena. This should allow
itself to be so ruled by the soul that the manifold of which it consists may abide in fullest harmony.
Plotinus is not a dualist like the majority of Christian Gnostics. He praises the beauty and glory of
the world. When in it the idea really has dominion over matter, the soul over the body, the world
is beautiful and good. It is the image of the upper world, though a shadowy one, and the gradations
of better or worse in it are necessary to the harmony of the whole. But, in point of fact, the unity
457
On this sort of Trinity, see Bigg, The Christian Platonists of Alexandria, p. 248 f.
211
350
Adolf Harnack
and harmony in the world of phenomena disappear in strife and opposition. The result is a conflict,
a growth and decay, a seeming existence. The original cause of this lies in the fact that a substratum,
viz., matter, lies at the basis of bodies. Matter is the foundation of each ( );
it is the obscure, the indefinite, that which is without qualities, the . As devoid of form and
idea it is the evil, as capable of form the intermediate.
The human souls that are sunk in the material have been ensnared by the sensuous, and have allowed
themselves to be ruled by desire. They now seek to detach themselves entirely from true being, and
striving after independence fall into an unreal existence. Conversion therefore is needed, and this
is possible, for freedom is not lost.
351
Now here begins the practical philosophy. The soul must rise again to the highest on the same path
by which it descended: it must first of all return to itself. This takes place through virtue, which
aspires to assimilation with God and leads to Him. In the ethics of Plotinus all earlier philosophic
systems of virtue are united and arranged in graduated order. Civic virtues stand lowest, then follow
the purifying, and finally the deifying virtues. Civic virtues only adorn the life, but do not elevate
the soul as the purifying virtues do; they free the soul from the sensuous and lead it back to itself
and thereby to the . Man becomes again a spiritual and permanent being, and frees himself
from every sin, through asceticism. But he is to reach still higher; he is not only to be without sin,
but he is to be God. That takes place through the contemplation of the Original Essence, the One,
that is through ecstatic elevation to Him. This is not mediated by thought, for thought reaches only
to the , and is itself only a movement. Thought is only a preliminary stage towards union with
God. The soul can only see and touch the Original Essence in a condition of complete passivity
and rest. Hence, in order to attain to this highest, the soul must subject itself to a spiritual Exercise.
It must begin with the contemplation of material things, their diversity and harmony, then retire
into itself and sink itself in its own essence, and thence mount up to the , to the world of ideas;
but, as it still does not find the One and Highest Essence there, as the call always comes to it from
there: We have not made ourselves (Augustine in the sublime description of Christian, that is
Neoplatonic, exercises), it must, at it were, lose sight of itself in a state of intense concentration,
in mute contemplation and complete forgetfulness of all things. It can then see God, the source of
life, the principle of being, the first cause of all good, the root of the soul. In that moment it enjoys
the highest and indescribable blessedness; it is itself, as it were, swallowed up by the deity and
bathed in the light of eternity.
Plotinus, as Porphyry relates, attained to this ecstatic union with God four times during the six years
he was with him. To Plotinus this religious philosophy was sufficient; he did not require the popular
religion and worship. But yet he sought their support. The Deity is indeed in the last resort only
the Original Essence, but it manifests itself in a fulness of emanations and phenomena. The
is, as it were, the second God; the which are included in it are gods; the stars are gods etc.
A strict monotheism appeared to Plotinus a poor thing. The myths of the popular religion were
interpreted by him in a particular sense, and he could justify even magic, soothsaying and prayer.
He brought forward reasons for the worship of images, which the Christian worshippers of images
subsequently adopted. Yet, in comparison with the later Neoplatonists, he was free from gross
superstition and wild fanaticism. He cannot, in the remotest sense, be reckoned among the deceivers
212
Adolf Harnack
who were themselves deceived, and the restoration of the ancient worship of the Gods was not
his chief aim.
352
353
Among his disciples the most important were Amelius and Porphyry. Amelius changed the doctrine
of Plotinus in some points, and even made use of the prologue of the Gospel of John. Porphyry has
the merit of having systematized and spread the teaching of his master, Plotinus. He was born at
Tyre, in the year 233; whether he was for some time a Christian is uncertain; from 263-268 he was
a pupil of Plotinus at Rome; before that he wrote the work , which
shews that he wished to base philosophy on revelation; he lived a few years in Sicily, (about 270)
where he wrote his fifteen books against the Christians; he then returned to Rome, where he
laboured as a teacher, edited the works of Plotinus, wrote himself a series of treatises, married in
his old age, the Roman Lady Marcella, and died about the year 303. Porphyry was not an original,
productive thinker, but a diligent and thorough investigator, characterized by great learning, by the
gift of an acute faculty for philological and historical criticism, and by an earnest desire to spread
the true philosophy of life, to refute false doctrines, especially those of the Christians, to ennoble
man and draw him to that which is good. That a mind so free and noble surrendered itself entirely
to the philosophy of Plotinus and to polytheistic mysticism, is a proof that the spirit of the age
works almost irresistibly, and that religious mysticism was the highest possession of the time. The
teaching of Porphyry is distinguished from that of Plotinus by the fact that it is still more practical
and religious. The aim of philosophy, according to Porphyry, is the salvation of the soul. The origin
and the guilt of evil lie not in the body, but in the desires of the soul. The strictest asceticism
(abstinence from cohabitation, flesh and wine) is therefore required in addition to the knowledge
of God. During the course of his life Porphyry warned men more and more decidedly against crude
popular beliefs and immoral cults. The ordinary notions of the Deity are of such a kind that it is
more godless to share them than to neglect the images of the gods. But freely as he criticised the
popular religions, he did not wish to give them up. He contended for a pure worship of the many
gods, and recognised the right of every old national religion, and the religious duties of their
professors. His work against the Christians is not directed against Christ, or what he regarded as
the teaching of Christ, but against the Christians of his day, and against the sacred books which,
according to Porphyry, were written by impostors and ignorant people. In his acute criticism of the
genesis or what was regarded as Christianity in his day, he spoke bitter and earnest truths, and
therefore acquired the name of the fiercest and most formidable of all the enemies of Christians.
His work was destroyed (condemned by an edict of Theodosius II. and Valentinian, of the year
448), and even the writings in reply (by Methodius, Eusebius, Apollinaris, Philostorgius, etc.,) have
not been preserved. Yet we possess fragments in Lactantius, Augustine, Macarius Magnes and
others, which attest how thoroughly Porphyry studied the Christian writings and how great his
faculty was for true historical criticism.
Porphyry marks the transition to the Neoplatonism which subordinated itself entirely to the
polytheistic cults, and which strove, above all, to defend the old Greek and Oriental religions against
the formidable assaults of Christianity. Iamblichus, the disciple of Porphyry (died 330), transformed
Neoplatonism from a philosophic theorem into a theological doctrine. The doctrines peculiar to
Iamblichus can no longer be deduced from scientific, but only from practical motives. In order to
justify superstition and the ancient cults, philosophy in Iamblichus becomes a theurgic mysteriosophy,
213
354
Adolf Harnack
spiritualism. Now appears that series of Philosophers in whose case one is frequently unable to
decide whether they are deceivers or deceived, decepti deceptores, as Augustine says. A mysterious
mysticism of numbers plays a great role. That which is absurd and mechanical is surrounded with
the halo of the sacramental; myths are proved by pious fancies and pietistic considerations with a
spiritual sound; miracles, even the most foolish, are believed in and are performed. The philosopher
becomes the priest of magic, and philosophy an instrument of magic. At the same time the number
of Divine Beings is infinitely increased by the further action of unlimited speculation. But this
fantastic addition which Iamblichus makes to the inhabitants of Olympus is the very fact which
proves that Greek philosophy has here returned to mythology, and that the religion of nature was
still a power. And yet no one can deny that, in the fourth century, even the noblest and choicest
minds were found among the Neoplatonists. So great was the declension that this Neoplatonic
philosophy was still the protecting roof for many influential and earnest thinkers, although swindlers
and hypocrites also concealed themselves under this roof. In relation to some points of doctrine, at
any rate, the dogmatic of Iamblichus marks an advance. Thus, the emphasis he lays on the idea that
evil has its seat in the will, is an important fact; and in general the significance he assigns to the
will is perhaps the most important advance in psychology, and one which could not fail to have
great influence on dogmatic also (Augustine). It likewise deserves to be noted that Iamblichus
disputed Plotinus doctrine of the divinity of the human soul.
The numerous disciples of Iamblichus (Aedesius, Chrysantius, Eusebius, Priscus, Sopater, Sallust
and especially Maximus, the most celebrated) did little to further speculation; they occupied
themselves partly with commenting on the writings of the earlier philosophers (particularly
Themistius), partly as missionaries of their mysticism. The interests and aims of these philosophers
are best shewn in the treatise De mysteriis gyptiorum. Their hopes were strengthened when
their disciple Julian, a man enthusiastic and noble, but lacking in intellectual originality, ascended
the imperial throne, 361 to 363. This emperors romantic policy of restoration, as he himself must
have seen, had, however, no result, and his early death destroyed every hope of supplanting
Christianity.
355
But the victory of the Church in the age of Valentinian and Theodosius, unquestionably purified
Neoplatonism. The struggle for dominion had led philosophers to grasp at and unite themselves
with everything that was hostile to Christianity. But now Neoplatonism was driven out of the great
arena of history. The Church and its dogmatic, which inherited its estate, received along with the
latter superstition, polytheism, magic, myths and the apparatus of religious magic. The more firmly
all this established itself in the Church and succeeded there, though not without finding resistance,
the freer Neoplatonism becomes. It does not by any means give up its religious attitude or its theory
of knowledge, but it applies itself with fresh zeal to scientific investigations and especially to the
study of the earlier philosophers. Though Plato remains the divine philosopher, yet it may be noticed
how, from about 400, the writings of Aristotle were increasingly read and prized. Neoplatonic
schools continue to flourish in the chief cities of the empire up to the beginning of the fifth century,
and in this period they are at the same time the places where the theologians of the Church are
formed. The noble Hypatia, to whom Synesius, her enthusiastic disciple, who was afterwards a
bishop, raised a splendid monument, taught in Alexandria. But from the beginning of the fifth
century ecclesiastical fanaticism ceased to tolerate heathenism. The murder of Hypatia put an end
214
Adolf Harnack
to philosophy in Alexandria, though the Alexandrian school maintained itself in a feeble form till
the middle of the sixth century. But in one city of the East, removed from the great highways of
the world, which had become a provincial city and possessed memories which the Church of the
fifth century felt itself too weak to destroy, viz., in Athens, a Neoplatonic school continued to
flourish. There, among the monuments of a past time, Hellenism found its last asylum. The school
of Athens returned to a more strict philosophic method and to learned studies. But as it clung to
religious philosophy and undertook to reduce the whole Greek tradition, viewed in the light of
Plotinus theory, to a comprehensive and strictly articulated system, a philosophy arose here which
may be called scholastic. For every philosophy is scholastic which considers fantastic and
mythological material as a noli me tangere, and treats it in logical categories and distinctions by
means of a complete set of formul. But to these Neoplatonists the writings of Plato, certain divine
oracles, the Orphic poems, and much else which were dated back to the dim and distant past, were
documents of standard authority and inspired divine writings. They took from them the material
of philosophy, which they then treated with all the instruments of dialectic.
356
The most prominent teachers at Athens were Plutarch (died 433), his disciple Syrian (who, as an
exegete of Plato and Aristotle, is said to have done important work, and who deserves notice also
because he very vigorously emphasised the freedom of the will), but, above all, Proclus (411-485).
Proclus is the great scholastic of Neoplatonism. It was he who fashioned the whole traditional
material into a powerful system with religious warmth and formal clearness, filling up the gaps and
reconciling the contradictions by distinctions and speculations. Proclus, says Zeller, was the
first who, by the strict logic of his system, formally completed the Neoplatonic philosophy and
gave it, with due regard to all the changes it had undergone since the second century, that form in
which it passed over to the Christian and Mohammedan middle ages. Forty-four years after the
death of Proclus the school of Athens was closed by Justinian (in the year 529); but in the labours
of Proclus it had completed its work, and could now really retire from the scene. It had nothing
new to say; it was ripe for death, and an honourable end was prepared for it. The words of Proclus,
the legacy of Hellenism to the Church and to the middle ages, attained an immeasurable importance
in the thousand years which followed. They were not only one of the bridges by which the philosophy
of the middle ages returned to Plato and Aristotle, but they determined the scientific method of the
next thirty generations, and they partly produced, partly strengthened and brought to maturity the
medieval Christian mysticism in East and West.
The disciples of ProclusMarinus, Asclepiodotus, Ammonius, Zenodotus, Isidorus, Hegias,
Damasciusare not regarded as prominent. Damascius was the last head of the school at Athens.
He, Simplicius, the masterly commentator on Aristotle, and five other Neoplatonists migrated to
Persia after Justinian had issued the edict closing the school. They lived in the illusion that Persia,
the land of the East, was the seat of wisdom, righteousness and piety. After a few years they returned
with blasted hopes to the Byzantine kingdom.
At the beginning of the sixth century Neoplatonism died out as an independent philosophy in the
East; but almost at the same time, and this is no accident, it conquered new regions in the dogmatic
of the Church through the spread of the writings of the pseudo-Dionysius; it began to fertilize
Christian mysticism, and filled the worship with a new charm.
215
357
Adolf Harnack
In the West, where, from the second century, we meet with few attempts at philosophic speculation,
and where the necessary conditions for mystical contemplation were wanting, Neoplatonism only
gained a few adherents here and there. We know that the rhetorician, Marius Victorinus, (about
350) translated the writings of Plotinus. This translation exercised decisive influence on the mental
history of Augustine, who borrowed from Neoplatonism the best it had, its psychology, introduced
it into the dogmatic of the Church, and developed it still further. It may be said that Neoplatonism
influenced the West at first only through the medium or under the cloak of ecclesiastical theology.
Even Boethiuswe can now regard this as certainwas a Catholic Christian. But in his mode of
thought he was certainly a Neoplatonist. His violent death in the year 525, marks the end of
independent philosophic effort in the West. This last Roman philosopher stood indeed almost
completely alone in his century, and the philosophy for which he lived was neither original nor
firmly grounded and methodically carried out.
Neoplatonism and Ecclesiastical Dogmatic.
358
The question as to the influence which Neoplatonism had on the history of the development of
Christianity is not easy to answer; it is hardly possible to get a clear view of the relation between
them. Above all, the answers will diverge according as we take a wider or a narrower view of
so-called Neoplatonism. If we view Neoplatonism as the highest and only appropriate expression
for the religious hopes and moods which moved the nations of Grco-Roman Empire from the
second to the fifth centuries, the ecclesiastical dogmatic which was developed in the same period
may appear as a younger sister of Neoplatonism which was fostered by the elder one, but which
fought and finally conquered her. The Neoplatonists themselves described the ecclesiastical
theologians as intruders who appropriated Greek philosophy, but mixed it with foreign fables.
Hence Porphyry said of Origen (in Euseb., H. E. VI. 19): The outer life of Origen was that of a
Christian and opposed to the law; but, in regard to his views of things and of the Deity, he thought
like the Greeks, inasmuch as he introduced their ideas into the myths of other peoples. This
judgment of Porphyry is at any rate more just and appropriate than that of the Church theologians
about Greek philosophy, that it had stolen all its really valuable doctrines from the ancient sacred
writings of the Christians. It is, above all, important that the affinity of the two sides was noted. So
far, then, as both ecclesiastical dogmatic and Neoplatonism start from the feeling of the need of
redemption, so far as both desire to free the soul from the sensuous, so far as they recognise the
inability of man to attain to blessedness and a certain knowledge of the truth without divine help
and without a revelation, they are fundamentally related. It must no doubt be admitted that
Christianity itself was already profoundly affected by the influence of Hellenism when it began to
outline a theology; but this influence must be traced back less to philosophy than to the collective
culture and to all the conditions under which the spiritual life was enacted. When Neoplatonism
arose ecclesiastical Christianity already possessed the fundamental features of its theology, that is,
it had developed these, not by accident, contemporaneously and independent of Neoplatonism.
Only by identifying itself with the whole history of Greek philosophy, or claiming to be the
restoration of pure Platonism, was Neoplatonism able to maintain that it had been robbed by the
church theology of Alexandria. But that was an illusion. Ecclesiastical theology appears, though
our sources here are unfortunately very meagre, to have learned but little from Neoplatonism even
in the third century, partly because the latter itself had not yet developed into the form in which
216
359
360
Adolf Harnack
the dogmatic of the church could assume its doctrines, partly because ecclesiastical theology had
first to succeed in its own region, to fight for its own position and to conquer older notions intolerable
to it. Origen was quite as independent a thinker as Plotinus; but both drew from the same tradition.
On the other hand, the influence of Neoplatonism on the Oriental theologians was very great from
the fourth century. The more the Church expressed its peculiar ideas in doctrines which, though
worked out by means of philosophy, were yet unacceptable to Neoplatonism (the christological
doctrines), the more readily did theologians in all other questions resign themselves to the influence
of the latter system. The doctrines of the incarnation, of the resurrection of the body, and of the
creation of the word, in time formed the boundary lines between the dogmatic of the Church and
Neoplatonism; in all else ecclesiastical theologians and Neoplatonists approximated so closely that
many among them were completely at one. Nay, there were Christian men, such as Synesius, for
example, who in certain circumstances were not found fault with for giving a speculative
interpretation of the specifically Christian doctrines. If in any writing the doctrines just named are
not referred to, it is often doubtful whether it was composed by a Christian or a Neoplatonist. Above
all, the ethical rules, the precepts of the right life, that is asceticism, were always similar. Here
Neoplatonism in the end celebrated its greatest triumph. It introduced into the Church its entire
mysticism, its mystic exercises, and even the magical ceremonies as expounded by Iamblichus.
The writings of the pseudo-Dionysius contain a Gnosis in which, by means of the doctrines of
lamblichus and doctrines like those of Proclus, the dogmatic of the Church is changed into a
scholastic mysticism with directions for practical life and worship. As the writings of this
pseudo-Dionysius were regarded as those of Dionysius the disciple of the Apostle, the scholastic
mysticism which they taught was regarded as apostolic, almost as a divine science. The importance
which these writings obtained first in the East, then from the ninth or the twelfth century also in
the West, cannot be too highly estimated. It is impossible to explain them here. This much only
may be said, that the mystical and pietistic devotion of to-day, even in the Protestant Church, draws
its nourishment from writings whose connection with those of the pseudo-Areopagitic can still be
traced through its various intermediate stages.
In antiquity itself Neoplatonism influenced with special directness one Western theologian, and
that the most important, viz., Augustine. By the aid of this system Augustine was freed from
Manichaeism, though not completely, as well as from scepticism. In the seventh Book of his
confessions he has acknowledged his indebtedness to the reading of Neoplatonic writings. In the
most essential doctrines, viz., those about God, matter, the relation of God to the world, freedom
and evil, Augustine always remained dependent on Neoplatonism; but, at the same time, of all
theologians in antiquity he is the one who saw most clearly and shewed most plainly wherein
Christianity and Neoplatonism are distinguished. The best that has been written by a Father of the
Church on this subject, is contained in Chapters 9-21 of the seventh Book of his confessions.
The question why Neoplatonism was defeated in the conflict with Christianity, has not as yet been
satisfactorily answered by historians. Usually the question is wrongly stated. The point here is not
about a Christianity arbitrarily fashioned, but only about Catholic Christianity and Catholic theology.
This conquered Neoplatonism after it had assimilated nearly everything it possessed. Further, we
must note the place where the victory was gained. The battle-field was the empire of Constantine,
Theodosius and Justinian. Only when we have considered these and all other conditions are we
217
Adolf Harnack
entitled to enquire in what degree the specific doctrines of Christianity contributed to the victory,
and what share the organisation of the Church had in it. Undoubtedly, however, we must always
give the chief prominence to the fact that the Catholic dogmatic excluded polytheism in principle,
and at the same time found a means by which it could represent the faith of the cultured mediated
by science as identical with the faith of the multitude resting on authority.
In the theology and philosophy of the middle ages mysticism was the strong opponent of rationalistic
dogmatism; and, in fact, Platonism and Neoplatonism were the sources from which, in the age of
the Renaissance and in the following two centuries, empiric science developed itself in opposition
to the rationalistic dogmatism which disregarded experience. Magic, astrology, alchemy, all of
which were closely connected with Neoplatonism, gave an effective impulse to the observation of
nature and consequently to natural science, and finally prevailed over formal and barren rationalism.
Consequently, in the history of science, Neoplatonism has attained a significance and performed
services of which men like Iamblichus and Proclus never ventured to dream. In point of fact, actual
history is often more wonderful and capricious than legends and fables.
361
362
Literature.The best and fullest account of Neoplatonism, to which I have been much indebted
in preparing this sketch, is Zellers Die Philosophie der Griechen, III. Theil, 2 Abtheilung (3 Auflage,
1881) pp. 419-865. Cf. also Hegel, Gesch. d. Philos. III. 3 ff. Ritter, IV. pp. 571-728: Ritter et
Preller, Hist. phil. grc. et rom. 531 ff. The Histories of Philosophy by Schwegler, Brandis,
Brucker, Thilo, Strmpell, Ueberweg (the most complete survey of the literature is found here),
Erdmann, Cousin, Prantl. Lewes. Further: Vacherot, Hist. de lcole dAlexandria, 1846, 1851.
Simon, Hist. de lcole dAlexandria, 1845. Steinhart, articles Neuplatonismus, Plotin,
Porphyrius, Proklus in Pauly, Realencyclop. des klass. Alterthums. Wagenmann, article
Neuplatonismus in Herzog, Realencyklopdie f. protest. Theol. T. X. (2 Aufl.) pp. 519-529.
Heinze, Lehre vom Logos, 1872, p. 298 f. Richter, Neuplatonische Studien, 4 Hefte.
Heigl, Der Bericht des Porphyrios ber Origenes, 1835. Redepenning, Origenes I. p. 421 f. Dehaut,
Essai historique sur la vie et la doctrine dAmmonius Saccas, 1836. Kirchner, Die Philosophie des
Plotin, 1854. (For the biography of Plotinus, cf. Porphyry, Eunapius, Suidas; the latter also in
particular for the later Neoplatonists.) Steinhart, De dialectica Plotini ratione, 1829, and Meletemata
ten
ten
Plotiniana, 1840. Neander, Ueber die welthistorische Bedeutung des 9 Buchs in der 2 Enneade
des Plotinos, in the Adhandl. der Berliner Akademie, 1843. p. 299 f. Valentiner, Plotin u. s.
Enneaden, in the Theol. Stud. u. Kritiken, 1864, H. 1. On Porphyrius, see Fabricius, Bibl. gr. V. p.
725 f. Wolff, Porph. de philosophia ex oraculis haurienda librorum reliqui, 1856. Mller, Fragmenta
hist. gr. III. 688 f. Mai, Ep. ad Marcellam, 1816. Bernays, Theophrast. 1866. Wagenmann, Jahrbcher
fr Deutsche Theol. Th. XXIII. (1878) p. 269 f. Richter, Zeitschr. f. Philos. Th. LII. (1867) p. 30
f. Hebenstreit, de Iamblichi doctrina, 1764. Harless, Das Buch von den gyptischen Mysterien,
1858. Meiners, Comment. Societ. Gtting. IV. p. 50 f. On Julian, see the catalogue of the rich
literature in the Realencyklop. f. prot. Theol. Th. VII. (2 Aufl.) p. 287; and Neumann, Juliani libr.
c. Christ. qu supersunt, 1880. Hoche, Hypatia, in Philologus, Th. XV. (1860) p. 435 f. Bach,
De Syriano philosopho, 1862. On Proclus, see the Biography of Marinus and Freudenthal in
Hermes Th. XVI. p. 214 f. On Boethius, cf. Nitzsch, Das System des Bothius, 1860. Usener,
Anecdoton Holderi, 1877.
218
Adolf Harnack
On the relation of Neoplatonism to Christianity and its significance in the history of the world, cf.
the Church Histories of Mosheim, Gieseler, Neander, Baur; also the Histories of Dogma by Baur
and Nitzsch. Also Lffler, Der Platonismus, der Kirchenvter, 1782. Huber, Die Philosophie der
Kirchenvter, 1859. Tzschirner, Fall des Heidenthums, 1829. Burckhardt, Die Zeit Constantins
des Grossen, p. 155 f. Chastel, Hist. de la destruction du Paganisme dans lempire dOrient, 1850.
Beugnot, Hist. de la destruction du Paganisme en Occident. 1835. E. v. Lasaulx, Der Untergang
des Hellenismus, 1854. Bigg, The Christian Platonists of Alexandria, 1886. Rville, La rligion
Rome sous les Svres, 1886. Vogt, Neuplatonismus und Christenthum, 1836. Ullmann, Einfluss
des Christenthums auf Porphyrius, in Stud. und Krit., 1832.
On the relation of Neoplatonism to Monasticism, cf. Keim, Aus dem Urchristenthum, 1178, p. 204
f. Carl Schmidt, Gnostische Schriften in Koptischer Sprache, 1892 (Texte u. Unters., VIII. 1. 2).
See, further, the Monographs on Origen, the later Alexandrians, the three Cappadocians, Theodoret,
Synesius, Marius Victorinus, Augustine, Pseudo-Dionysius, Maximus, Scotus Erigena and the
Medival Mystics. Special prominence is due to Jahn, Basilius Plotinizans, 1838. Dorner,
Augustinus, 1875. Bestmann, Qua ratione Augustinus notiones philos. Grc adhibuerit, 1877.
Loesche, Augustinus Plotinizans, 1881. Volkmann, Synesios, 1869.
On the after effects of Neoplatonism on Christian Dogmatic, see Ritschl, Theologie und Metaphysik.
2 Aufl. 1887.
219
Adolf Harnack
Indexes
Index of Scripture References
Genesis
1 1:1
Exodus
24:3 25:9 25:40 26:30 27:8
Numbers
8:4
1 Samuel
27:1-12
Job
1880
Psalms
2:2 45:8 51:19 96:1-13 110:1 110:4 139:15 139:16
Isaiah
7:1-25 7:14 7:14 9:1 29:13 53:1-12
Daniel
7:1-28 7:13
Micah
5:1
Malachi
1:11
Matthew
1:1-2:23 5:1-48 9:13 16:1-28 16:18 18:17 19:17 22:31 24:36 28:19 28:19
Mark
1:15 5:18-19 8:29 10:45 12:32-34 13:32
Luke
1:4 1:34 1:35 8:45 10:27 10:28 12:41-46 24:26 24:34 24:34 24:51
John
1:1-51 1:18 1:30 1:31 3:13 3:13 3:31 4:2 4:22 4:24 4:62 5:17 5:21 5:36 6:1-71
6:27-58 6:33 6:38 6:41 6:44 6:50 6:58 6:62 8:14 8:38 8:40 8:58 12:49 15:15
17:1-26 17:4 17:24 20:17 20:28 20:29 32:9 88
Acts
2:14 2:32 3:13 10:42 14:11 15:22 19:5 20:28 24:5 28:6 28:31
Romans
1:3 1:3 2:4 3:1-8:39 4 4 5:1-21 6 6:1 6:2 6:3 6:3 7 7:1-25 8:1-39 8:1-39 8:3
8:29 9:5 10:6 10:9 13:1
1 Corinthians
220
Adolf Harnack
1:2 1:12 1:13 3:2 4:15 9:5 9:9 9:9 10:4 11:1 11:10 11:23 12:3 12:3 13:1-13
15:1-11 15:1-58 15:3 15:5 15:5 15:5 15:45
2 Corinthians
4:4 5:17 8:9 13:13
Galatians
1:15 1:15 1:16 1:18 1:22 2:1-21 2:1-21 2:8 2:11 3:16 3:19 4:22-31 4:26 5:22
Ephesians
1 1:1 1:1 1:4 1:20 1:22 2 2 2 2 2:6 3 3 3:5 4 4 4:9 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7:2
9 9 10 12 14 14:2 17 18 19 20 20:1 20:2 31 63 73
Philippians
1:18 2:5 2:6 2:9
Colossians
1:15 1:18 269 291 409 415 1155
1 Timothy
2:5 3:16 3:16 3:16 6:20
2 Timothy
4:1
Titus
2:13 2:13
Hebrews
1:2 10:25 12:22 13:16
James
1:25 1:27
1 Peter
1:18 1:20 3:19
2 Peter
1:1 1:1 3:2
2 John
10:11
Revelation
1:5 2:3 2:9 2:9 3:9 3:9 3:14 21:2
4 Maccabees
5:24
Index of Greek Words and Phrases

: 1
: 1
: 1
: 1
: 1
221
Adolf Harnack
,
,
, .: 1
, , : 1
.: 1
: 1
: 1
: 1
, , , :
1
: 1
,
, , ,
, ,
.: 1
: 1
: 1
: 1
: 1 2 3
: 1
: 1
: 1
, , .
,
, :
1
, .: 1
: 1
: 1
, ...: 1
: 1
m , , , , ,
, ... ... , ,
, : 1
, ,
, , , , , ,
,
.: 1
: 1
222
Adolf Harnack
, , , ,
, ,
.: 1
,
; ,
,
, ,

.: 1
: 1
: 1
: 1
, . . . .
.: 1
: 1
. . : 1
, ,
, : 1
, ,
, ,
: 1
, ,
, [sic]
: 1

: 1
: 1
: 1
: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

,
;
, ,
.: 1
, ,
, : 1
, , , .
:1
,
,
,
223
Adolf Harnack
,
: 1
.
, ,
.: 1
: 1
: 1
: 1
: 1
() :
1
: 1

: 1
:
1
, ....
,
: 1
, : 1
. . . . ,
. . . . .: 1
. ,
,
. ,
.: 1
: 1
:
1
, , :
1
: 1
, , ,
.: 1
..... ,
,
...:
1
: 1
: 1 2
: 1
: 1
224
Adolf Harnack
: 1
, : 1
: 1
: 1
.: 1
: 1
: 1
: 1
( ): 1
: 1
.: 1
, : 1
: 1
: 1
, : 1
: 1
: 1
: 1
: 1 2
.: 1
, instead of .: 1
: 1
: 1
: 1
.
... or the exhortation:
, : 1
: 1
: 1
: 1
, : 1
,
.: 1
: 1 2
,
.: 1
: 1
: 1 2
: 1
: 1 2
: 1
225
Adolf Harnack
: 1
,
, : 1
. .: 1
: 1
: 1
, : 1
,
, , ,
: 1
: 1

,
, ,
, , , : 1
: 1
: 1
, apart from the : 1
: 1
(): 1
: 1
.: 1
: 1
: 1
, : 1
: 1
: 1
() : 1
: 1 2 3
: 1
: 1
: 1
: 1
, : 1
: 1 2
: 1
: 1
: 1
: 1
: 1
: 1
: 1
226
Adolf Harnack
: 1
: 1
: 1
: 1
: 1
: 1
: 1
: 1
: 1
, () , () : 1
. : 1
, ,
, : 1
: 1
: 1
: 1
: 1
: 1
: 1
: 1
: 1 2
() : 1
,
.... , , . .
. : 1

, : 1
, , : 1
: 1
, ...: 1

, , : 1
: 1
( : 1
, , , ;: 1
; : 1
: 1 2 3 4
: 1 2 3
: 1
: 1
227
Adolf Harnack

: 1
,
,
,
.: 1
: 1
the and the : 1
. . .: 1
: 1
: 1
: 1
(): 1
: 1
,
,
, ,
, , ,
,
,

.: 1
(): 1
( ) () (): 1
, , : 1
: 1
: 1
: 1
: 1 2
: 1
: 1
: 1
: 1
: 1
,
.: 1
,
: 1
, , , : 1
, : 1
, , : 1
228
Adolf Harnack
, : 1
,

: 1
, : 1
,
: 1
: 1
: 1
: 1
: 1
: 1
, , : 1

: 1
: 1
: 1
(): 1
: 1 2
: 1
,
, .: 1
.: 1
, , ,
,
: 1
,
: 1
: 1
: 1
: 1
: 1
: 1
: 1
, : 1

: 1
: 1
: 1
: 1
: 1
229
Adolf Harnack
or
: 1
: 1
, .: 1
: 1
: 1
, : 1
: 1
: 1
, ,
: 1
: 1
,
. : 1
: 1
: 1
, , :
1
: 1
. . . : 1
: 1
: 1
: 1
,
: 1
: 1 2 3
: 1
: 1
: 1
: 1
: 1
: 1 2
. : 1
: 1
, : 1
: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
: 1
: 1
: 1
,: 1
: 1
230
Adolf Harnack
: 1
: 1 2
: 1
: 1
: 1
,
: 1
: 1
: 1 2 3
: 1
, , : 1
, : 1
, , ,
.: 1
, , V. 19:
: 1
: 1

.: 1
) : 1
, .
.
, ,

: 1
: 1
(): 1
.: 1

, : 1
; : 1

, : 1
, ,
, .
, , , .: 1
,
, .: 1
, he says, ,
, : 1
.: 1
231
Adolf Harnack

: 1
: 1
: 1
: 1
,
, ,
). : 1
: 1
: 1 2
: 1
or : 1
, ...: 1
: 1
: 1
and : 1
, : 1
: 1
: 1
: 1
: 1
-: 1
, .: 1
, : 1
, , .: 1
, .: 1
: 1
, and the : 1
.: 1
: 1
: 1
. . . . . . ,
.:
1
: 1
: 1
: 1
, : 1
: 1
, .:
1
232
Adolf Harnack
: 1
, , : 1
: 1 2
: 1
= : 1
, , , , : 1
, : 1
: 1
: 1
: 1
: 1
.: 1
: 1
: 1 2
: 1 2 3
: 1 2
: 1
and : 1
, , : 1
: 1
: 1
: 1
: 1
: 1
: 1
: : 1
: 1
: 1
: 1
: 1
: 1
,
: 1

, , , .
, ....
, , ....
, .: 1
, ,
: 1
: 1
233
Adolf Harnack

,
, , ,
, , , ,
.: 1
: 1
;: 1
: 1
: 1
: 1
: 1
: 1
: 1
: 1
: 1
: 1
: 1
: 1
: 1
. : 1
: 1
: 1
,
, : 1
: 1
, ...: 1
.: 1
.
: 1
, , , , , , ,
, , , ,
: 1
: 1
: 1
,
.
, , ,
, .: 1
, ,
, . . . .
. : 1
234
Adolf Harnack
, or :
1
, ,
. : 1
, ,
: 1
.: 1

: 1
: 1
: 1
: 1
: 1

: 1
....
: 1
() .: 1
, .
...: 1
: 1
: 1
: 1
: 1
: 1 2 3 4
: 1
(): 1
.: 1
: 1
: 1
: 1
: 1
: 1
, .: 1

.: 1
: 1

, the women) . . . .
, . .: 1
: 1
235
Adolf Harnack
: 1
: 1
: 1
, : 1
: 1
,
,
,
.: 1
: 1
: 1
, , ,
, ,
, : 1
: 1
: 1
,
. ,
...: 1
: 1
: 1
: 1
: 1
: 1
: 1
, , .: 1
: 1
, : 1

: 1
, : 1
, : 1
: 1
: 1
: , : 1
,

: 1
,
.: 1
, . . . .
: 1
: 1
236
Adolf Harnack
(, ): 1
: 1
: 1
: 1 2
: 1
: 1
: 1
: 1
, , :
1
: 1
:
1
: 1
: 1
: 1

. Prd. Petri ap. Clem. Strom. VI. 6. 48:
, , .: 1
: 1
, ,
, : 1
: 1
: 1
: 1 2 3 4
: 1
.: 1
: 1 2 3
: 1
: 1 2
: 1
, : 1
, : 1
, : 1
,
. . . .
. , .:
1
: 1 2
: 1
: 1
237
Adolf Harnack
,
: 1
, ...
: 1
.
, ,

,
9; ,

.: 1
, , , ..: 1
: 1 2
: 1
, : 1
: 1 2 3
, ...: 1
, he is the : 1
, : 1
,
,
.: 1
: 1
: 1

: 1
, and as : 1
: 1
,

.: 1
, : 1
: 1
: 1
: 1
: 1
: 1
: 1
: 1
: 1
: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
, : 1
: 1
238
Adolf Harnack
: 1
: 1
: 1
, , , ( ), from the : 1
: 1
, , , , : 1
: 1
: 1
.: 1
: 1
: 1
, .:
1
: 1
: 1
: 1 2 3
, : 1
: 1
,
, , ,
, : 1
, ,
, , .:
1
: 1
. : 1
: 1
(): 1
: 1
: 1
: 1
: 1
: 1
: 1
(): 1
: 1
. . .
.: 1
: 1
: 1
, : 1
239
Adolf Harnack
: 1
: 1
; Eph. 7: 1
: 1
: 1
...: 1
, , : 1
,
; ,
, ,
, , , .: 1
, and : 1
, with , : 1
,
: 1
: 1
: 1
: 1
: 1
, or
, and 1 Clem. 36. 2:
: 1
,
,
: 1

: 1
: 1 2 3
: 1

, ,
. . . .: 1
: 1
: 1
: 1
: 1
: 1 2 3
: 1 2 3
: 1
: 1
: 1
240
Adolf Harnack
. , .: 1
: 1
, : 1
, ,

.
,
?: 1
: 1 2
. . . : 1
. . . . , ,
,
, ...: 1
. . . . , : 1
Index of Latin Words and Phrases

Sufficit, said the Marcionites, unicum opsus deo nostro, quod hominem liberavit summa et
prcipua bonitate sua: 1
(Ebionit) credentes in Christo propter hoc solum a patribus anathematizati sunt, quod legis
cremonias Christi evangelio miscuerunt, et sic nova confessa sunt, ut vetera non omitterent.: 1
Ab igne, inquiunt, creatoris deprehendetur: 1
Aiunt, Marcionem non tam innovasse regulam separatione legis et evangelii quam retro adulteratam
recurasse: 1
Apostoli et discentes ipsorum: 1
Apostoli non diversa inter se docuerent: 1
Apostoli qu sunt Judorum sentientes scripserunt: 1
Apostolorum principem: 1
Apostolos admiscuisse ea qu sunt legalia salvatoris verbis: 1
Apostolos vultis Judaismi magis adfines subintelligi.: 1
Atque adeo pr se ferunt Marcionit: quod deum suum omnino non timeant. Malus autem,
inquiunt, timebitur; bonus autem diligitur.: 1
Carmen dicere Christo quasi deo: 1
Cessatio delicti radix est veni, ut venia sit pnitenti fructus: 1
Christiani rudes: 1
Consensus repetitus: 1
Corpus sumus: 1
De verbi autem administratione quid dicam, cum hoc sit negotium illis, non ethnicos convertendi,
sed nostros evertendi? Hanc magis gloriam captant, si stantibus ruinam, non si jacentibus
elevationem operentur. Quoniam et ipsum opus eorum non de suo proprio dificio venit, sed de
veritatis destructione; nostra suffodiunt, ut sua dificent. Adime illis legem Moysis et prophetas
et creatorem deum, accusationem eloqui non habent.: 1
241
Adolf Harnack
Denique in tantam quidam dilectionis audaciam proruperunt, ut nova qudam et inaudita super
Paulo monstra confingerent. Alli enim aiunt, hoc quod scriptum est, sedere a dextris salvatoris et
sinistris, de Paulo et de Marcione dici, quod Paulus sedet a dextris, Marcion sedet a sinistris. Porro
alii legentes: Mittam vobis advocatum Spiritum veritatis, nolunt intelligere tertiam personam a
patre et filio, sed Apostolum Paulum.: 1
Deus incognitus: 1
Diabolus ipsas quoque res sacramentorum divinorum idolorum mysteriis mulatur. Tingit et ipse
quosdam, utique credentes et fideles suos; expositionem delictorum de lavacro repromittit, et si
adhuc memini, Mithras signat illic in frontibus milites suos, celebrat et panis oblationem et
imaginem resurrectionis inducit .... summum pontificem in unius nuptiis statuit, habet et virgines,
habet et continentes.: 1
Dispares deos, alterum, judicem, ferum, bellipotentem; alterum mitem, placidum et tantummodo
bonum atque optimum.: 1
Dixit Jesus ad suos : : 1
Dominus: 1
Dominus invenit me, qui ab initio orbis terrarum prparatus sum, ut sim arbiter (: 1
Es quo fit, ut nullo modo in theologicis, qu omnia e libris antiquis hebraicis, grcis, latinis
ducuntur, possit aliquis bene in definiendo versari et a peccatis multis et magnis sibi cavere, nisi
litteras et historiam assumat.: 1
Et hoc est, quod schismata apud hreticos fere non sunt, quia cum Sint, non parent. Schisma est
enim unitas ipsa.: 1
Et in primis illud retorquendum in istos, qui duorum nobis deorum controversiam facere prsumunt.
Scriptum est, quod negare non possunt: Quoniam unus est dominus. De Christo ergo quid
sentiunt? Dominum esse, aut ilium omnino non esse? Sed dominum illum omnino non dubitant.
Ergo si vera est illorum ratiocinatio, jam duo sunt domini.: 1
Felix aqua qu semel abluit, qum ludibrio pecatoribus non est.: 1
Fertur ergo in traditionibus, quoniam Johannes ipsum corpus, quod erat extrinsecus, tangens
manum suam in profunda misisse et duritiam carnis nullo modo reluctatam esse, sed locum manui
prbuisse discipuli.: 1
Gentiles quamvis idola colant, tamen summum deum patrem creatorem cognoscunt et confitentur
[!]; in hunc Marcion, blasphemat, etc.: 1
Gnosticos autem se vocant, etiam imagines, quasdam quidem depictas, quasdam autem et de
reliqua materia fabricatas habent et eas coronant, et proponent eas cum imaginibus mundi
philosophorum, videlicet cum imagine Pythagor et Platonis et Aristotelis et reliquorum, et
reliquam observationem circa eas similiter ut gentes faciunt.: 1
Hoc sentire et facere omnem servum dei oportet, etiam minors loci, ut maioris fieri possit, si
quern gradum in persecutionis tolerantia ascenderit: 1
Hominum plerique orationem demonstrativam continuam mente assequi nequeunt, quare indigent,
ut instituantur parabolis. Veluti nostro tempore videmus, homines illos, qui Christiani vocantur,
fidem suam e parabolis petiisse. Hi tamen interdum talia faciunt, qualia qui vere philosophantur.
Nam quod mortem contemnunt, id quidem omnes ante oculos habemus; item quod verecundia
quadam ducti ab usu rerum venerearam abhorrent. Sunt enim inter eos feminas et viri, qui per
totam vitam a concubitu abstinuerint; sunt etiam qui in animis regendis corcendisque et in
accerrimo honestatis studio eo progressi sint, ut nihil cedant vere philosophantibus.: 1
242
Adolf Harnack
Immo inquiunt Marcionit, deus poster, etsi non ab initio, etsi non per conditionem, sed per
semetipsum revelatus est in Christi Jesu.: 1
Inflatus est iste [scil. the Valentinian proud of knowledge] neque in clo, neque in terra putat se
esse, sed intra Pleroma introisse et complexum jam angelum suum, cum institorio et supercilio
incedit gallinacei elationem habens .... Plurimi, quasi jam perfecti, semetipsos spiritales vocant,
et se nosse jam dicunt eum qui sit intra Pleroma ipsorum refrigerii locum: 1
Major pne vis hominum e visionibus deum discunt.: 1
Major pars imperitorum apud gloriosissimam multitudinem psychicorum.: 1
Marcion non negat creatorem deum esse.: 1
Marcionit interrogati quid fiet peccatori cuique die illo? respondent abici ilium quasi ab oculis:
1
Mariccus .... iamque adsertor Galliarum et deus, nomen id sibi indiderat: 1
Mundus ille superior: 1
Nam Jacobum apostolum Symmachiani faciunt quasi duodecimum et hunc secuntur, qui ad
dominum nostrum Jesum Christum adjungunt Judaismi observationem, quamquam etiam Jesum
Christum fatentur; dicunt enim eum ipsum Adam esse et esse animam generalem, et ali hujusmodi
blasphemi.: 1
Narem contrahentes impudentissimi Marcionit convertuntur ad destructionem operum creatoris.
Nimirum, inquiunt, grande opus et dignum deo mundus?: 1
Naturam si expellas furca, tamen usque recurret.: 1
Nihil veritas erubescit nisi solummodo abscondi.: 1
Nullus potest hresim struere, nisi qui ardens ingenii est et habet dona natur qu a deo artifice
sunt creata: talis fait Valentinus, talis Marcion, quos doctissimos legimus, talis Bardesanes, cujus
etiam philosophi admirantur ingenium.: 1
Oportet me magis deo vivo et vero, regi sculorum omnium Christo, sacrificium offerre.: 1
Prius est prdicare posterius tinguere: 1
Ptolemus nomina et numeros onum distinxit in personales substantias, sed extra deum
determinatas, quas Valentinus in ipsa summa divinitatis ut sensus et affectus motus incluserat.: 1
Quem deum colis? Respondit: Christum. Polemon (judex): Quid ergo? iste alter est? [the
co-defendant Christians had immediately before confessed God the Creator]. Respondit: Non; sed
ipse quem et ipsi paullo ante confessi sunt: 1
Quid dicam de Hebionitis, qui Christianos esse se simulant? usque hodie per totas orientis synagogas
inter Judos (!) hresis est, que dicitur Minorum et a Pharisis nunc usque damnatur, quos
vulgo Nazaros nuncupant, qui credunt in Christum filium dei natum de Virgine Maria et eum
dicunt esse, qui sub pontio Pilato passus est et resurrexit, in quem et nos credimus; sed dum volunt
et Judi esse et Christiani, nec Judi sunt nec Christiani.: 1
Quid novi attulit dominus veniens?: 1
Quoniam opera bona, qu fiunt ab infidelibus, in hoc sculo its prosunt: 1
Sculum: 1
Sacrorum pleraque initia in Grcia participavi. Eorum qudam signa et monumenta tradita mihi
a sacerdotibus sedulo conservo.: 1
Scio dicturos, atqui hanc esse principalem et perfectam bonitatem, cum sine ullo debito familiaritatis
in extraneos voluntaria et libera effunditur, secundum quam inimicos quoque nostros et hoc nomine
jam extraneos deligere jubeamur.: 1
243
Adolf Harnack
Scio scripturam Enoch, qu hunc ordinem angelis dedit, non recipi a quibusdam, quia nec in
armorium Judaicum admittitur ... sed cum Enoch eadem scriptura etiam de domino prdicarit,
a nobis quidem nihil omnino reiciendum est quod pertinet ad nos. Et legimus omnem scripturam
dificationi habilem divinitus inspirari. A Judis potest jam videri propterea reiecta, sicut et cetera
fera qu Christum sonant. .... Eo accedit quod Enoch apud Judam apostolum testimonium
possidet.: 1
Sed enim nationes extrane, ab omni intellectu spiritalium potestatum eadem efficacia idolis suis
subministrant. Sed viduis aquis sibi mentiuntur. Nam et sacris quibusdam per lavacrum initiantur,
Isidis alicujus aut Mithr; ipsos etiam deos suos lavationibus efferunt. Ceterum villas, domos,
templa totasque urbes aspergine circumlat aqua expiant passim. Certe ludis Apollinaribus et
Eleusiniis tinguuntur, idque se in regenerationem et impunitatem periuriorum suorum agere
prsumunt. Item penes veteres, quisquis se homicidio infecerat, purgatrices aquas explorabat.: 1
Sensus, motus, affectus dei: 1
Separatio legis et Evangelii proprium et principale opus est Marcionis, nec poterunt negare discipuli
ejus, quod in summo (suo) instrumento habent, quo denique initiantur et indurantur in hanc
hresim.: 1
Separatio legis et evangelii proprium et principale opus est Marcionis ... ex diversitate sententiarum
utriusque instrumenti diversitatem quoque argumentatur deorum.: 1
Si bona fide quras, concreto vultu, suspenso supercilio, Altum est, aiunt. Si subtiliter temptes
per ambiguitates bilingues communem fidem adfirmant. Si scire to subostendas negant quidquid
agnoscunt. Si cominus certes, tuam simplicitatem sua cde dispergunt. Ne discipulis quidem
propriis ante committunt quam suos fecerint. Habent artificium quo prius persuadeant quam
edoceant.: 1
Si hominem non perfectum fecit deus, unusquisque autem per industriam propriam perfectionem
sibi virtutis adsciscit: non ne videtur plus sibi homo adquirere, quam ei deus contulit?: 1
Si homo tantummodo Christus, cur homo in orationibus mediator invocatur, cum invocatio hominis
ad prstandam salutem inefficax judicetur.: 1
Sicut ex lege ac prophetis et a domino nostro Jesu Christo didicimus.: 1
Simplices quique, ne dixerim imprudentes et idiot, qu major semper credentium pars est: 1
Solius bonitatis: 1
Speraverat Episcopatum Valentinus, quia et ingenio poterat et eloquio. Sed alium ex martyrii
prrogativa loci potitum indignatus de ecclesia authentic regul abrupit: 1
Spiritus salutaris: 1
Subito Christus, subito et Johannes. Sic sunt omnia apud Marcionem, qu suum et plenum habent
ordinem apud creatorem.: 1
Tranquilitas est et mansuetudinis segregare solummodo et partem ejus cum infidelibus ponere: 1
Valentini robustissima secta: 1
Valentiniani frequentissimum plane collegium inter hreticos.: 1
Valentiniani nihil magis curant quam occultare, quod prdicant; si tamen prdicant qui occultant.
Custodi officium conscienti officium est: 1
a ligno: 1
a priori: 1
analogia fidei: 1
articuli fide: 1
244
Adolf Harnack
articulus constitutivus ecclesia: 1

ascensus in clum: 1 2
assumpta: 1
assumptio: 1
assumptio natur nov: 1
clum tertium: 1
carmen dicere Christo quasi deo: 1
collegia tenuiorum: 1
communem fidem adfirmant: 1
consensus patrum et doctorum: 1
corpus permixtum: 1
de clo: 1
de conscientia religionis et disciplin unitate et spei foedere.: 1
decepti deceptores: 1
dei filius: 1
delicta pristin ccitatis: 1
demonstratio ver carnis post resurrectionem: 1
descensus ad inferna: 1
descensus de clo, ascensus in clum; ascensus in clum, descensus ad inferna: 1
deus: 1
deus Jesus Christus: 1
deus melior: 1
disciplina Evangelii: 1
distincte agere: 1
dominus ac deus: 1 2 3
dominus ac deus noster: 1 2
dominus regnavit: 1
ex errare per veritatem ad errorem: 1
ex necessitate salutis: 1
ex professo: 1 2
factiuncula, congregatio, conciliabulum, conventiculum: 1
fides implicita: 1
finis religionis: 1
frequentissimum collegium: 1
hc fere summa est doctrina apud suos, in qua cerni potest nihil inesse, quod discrepet a scripturis
vel ab ecclesia Catholica vel ab ecclesia Romana . . . . sed dissensio est de quibusdam abusibus:
1
hic igitur a multis quasi deus glorificatus est, et docuit semetipsunr esse qui inter Judos quidem
quasi filius apparuerit, in Samaria autem quasi pater descenderit in reliquis vero gentibus quasi
Spiritus Sanctus adventaverit.: 1
in abstracto: 1
invisibilia: 1
justitia civilis: 1
lex: 1
245
Adolf Harnack
malignus: 1
malus: 1
materia subjacens: 1
minori ad majus: 1
mutatis mutandis: 1
ne quid nimis: 1
numen supremum: 1
passiones dei: 1
per semetipsum: 1
personalis substantia: 1
phantasma: 1
phantasma, assumptio natur human, transmutatio, mixtura, du natur: 1
plerique nec Ecclesias habent: 1
prsens et corporalis deus: 1
prsens numen: 1 2
prter nocturnas visiones per dies quoque impletur apud nos spiritu sancto puerorum innocens
tas, qu in ecstasi videt: 1
primo per mantis impositionem in exorcismo, secundo per baptismi regenerationem: 1
profanum vulgus: 1 2
qu sine scelere prodi non poterit: 1
quamquam sciam somnia ridicula et visiones ineptas quibusdam videri, sed utique illis, qui malunt
contra sacerdotes credere quam sacerdoti, sed nihil mirum, quando de Joseph fratres sui dixerunt:
ecce somniator ille: 1
qui est super omnia: 1
qui est super omnia et originem nescit: 1
qui vitam ternam habet: 1
regul: 1
regul fide: 1
regula: 1 2 3 4 5
regula fide: 1 2 3
regula fidei: 1 2
renatus in ternum taurobolio: 1
restitutio in integrum: 1
revelatio: 1
salus legitima: 1
sanctiores femin: 1
sanguine dei: 1
secundum motum animi mei et spiritus Sancti: 1
secundum motum animi mei et spiritus sancti: 1
semper idem: 1
sub specie aternitatis et Christi: 1
summum bonum: 1
termini technici: 1
tertium genus: 1
246
Adolf Harnack
theologia Christi: 1 2
theologia patristica: 1
umbra: 1
unum: 1 2
visibilia: 1
vita beata: 1
vulgus: 1
Index of Pages of the Print Edition

iv v vi vii viii xix x xi xii xiii xiv xv xvi xvii xviii xix xx xxi xxii xxiii 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43
44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74
75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104
105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127
128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150
151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173
174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196
197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219
220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242
243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265
266 270 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288
289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311
312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334
335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357
358 359 360 361 362
247

Dogma1 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dogma1 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dogma1 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

History of Dogma - Volume I

About History of Dogma - Volume I by Adolf Harnack

History of Dogma - Volume I

History of Dogma - Volume I

History of Dogma - Volume I

History of Dogma - Volume I

DR. ADOLPH HARNACK

TRANSLATED FROM THE THIRD GERMAN

History of Dogma - Volume I

VORWORT ZUR ENGLISCHEN AUSGABE.

THE AUTHORS PREFACE TO THE ENGLISH EDITION.

History of Dogma - Volume I

FROM THE AUTHORS PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION.

History of Dogma - Volume I

AUTHORS PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION.

History of Dogma - Volume I

AUTHORS PREFACE TO THE THIRD EDITION.

Berlin, 31st December, 1893.

History of Dogma - Volume I

1. The Idea and Task of the History of Dogma

Limits and Divisions

Dogma and Theology

Factors in the formation of Dogma

Explanation as to the conception and 13

The Early, the Medival, and the 23

Lessing, Semler, Lange, Mnscher, 29

The Gosppel and the Old Testament

The Detachment of the Christians from 43

History of Dogma - Volume I

The Church and the Grco-Roman 45

The Elements connecting Primitive 50

2. The Gospel of Jesus Christ according to His own 5876

3. The Common Preaching concerning Jesus Christ in 7698

The faith of the first Disciples

The beginnings of Christology

Conceptions of the Work of Jesus

Belief in the Resurrection

Righteousness and the Law

The Self-consciousness of being the 88

Supplement 2. Questions as to the 89

History of Dogma - Volume I

4. The current Exposition of the Old Testament and the 99107

The Jewish Apocalyptic literature

Mythologies and poetical ideas, notions 102

5. The Religious Conceptions and the Religious 107116

Spiritualising and Moralising of the 107

The Hermeneutic principles of Philo 114

The new religious needs and the old 116

Platonic and Stoic Elements in the 126

(1) The twofold conception of the blessing of Salvation in 129

History of Dogma - Volume I

(3) Significance of the Pauline theology for the legitimising 133

(1) The Communities and the Church

Jesus the Lord

Jesus the Christ

Jesus the Son of God, the Theologia 186

The Worship and Sacrifice

Baptism and the Lords Supper

History of Dogma - Volume I