Saint Gamaliel the Elder, Jewish Tanna Christian Saint, Son of Hillel and His Role in Christian Tradition
One of the most interesting themes in the literature of the late second temple period and late antiquity onwards is the treatment of well respected Jewish personalities. In this category of tradition is included Saint Epiphanius of Salmis' Panarion where in the section on the Ebionites he relates the death bed conversion of Hillel II and his assistant Joseph and Severus of Minorca's record of the conversion of all the Jews on the island of Minorca in the 4th century due to the reception of the bones of St Stephen the first Christian martyr. One of the more enduring traditions of this kind is that relating to the first century Jewish sage known in Jewish tradition as Gamaliel the Elder the first to receive the title rabban in Jewish tradition. In Jewish tradition "When he died the honor [outward respect] of the Torah ceased, and purity and piety became extinct" (mSotah xv:18). Christian tradition numbers him among the saints, not just a believer but a saint. He is a figure who appears in visions and reveals things to people and is one of the eyewitnesses of the trial and crucifixion and resurrection of "Jesu Christ" as Gamaliel calls him in one of his revelations below. The purpose of this paper is to explore the features of the traditions regarding Gamaliel which have been handed down in the Church from the first century onwards. Whilst the historicity of the tradition would be difficult to confirm at least we can trace some of the lines of the story of Gamaliel among the Christian from the time of Christ through the 7th century.
Sources
The sources we have pointing to the relationship of Gamaliel to the Church are some of the most interesting and most difficult to come by in Church hagiography. Gamaliel is a saint of the Eastern Church. He appears in the Greek manuscripts of New Testament, Syriac, Ethiopic and Arabic sources. He appears in Christian sources before he appears in Jewish sources, and the Churches tradition regarding him start with the first century Acts of the Apostles written in koine Greeks. Here Gamaliel not only enters Church tradition but the scene of history. The next source we have is the second century pseudipigraphical Clementine Recognitions. These are traditions handed down in the Church of the East, in Syriac. They propose to be the work of Clement of Rome who wrote the early Epistles to the Corinthian Church. We then have the apocryphal work the Gospel of Nicodemus. These are second or third century documents. When we reach the 5th century we have the interesting tradition of the priest Lucius finding the bones of St Stephen the Christian proto martyr of first century Jerusalem. Here in his tomb was found the body of Gamaliel. We also have a 5th century document called the Gospel of Gamaliel (Bausmark 1906. p253) which relates his eyewitness record of the trial, crucifixion and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ. The book originally went the title of the Lament of the Virgin (Laha Maryam in Ethiopic) but in the second half where Gamaliel is clearly the writer, she is not mentioned at all. The Martyrdom of Pilate is another document assigned to the Gospel of Gamaliel with the record of Gamaliel the eye witness where Pilate is exonerated and shown to be a believer in the resurrection.
Approach
Gamaliel the Elder is respected greatly in both the Church traditions and in the Rabbinic traditions. What is even more interesting is the two biographies he is given. He dies as a great and wise tanna and he dies as a Christian saint. Perhaps he is finally the great bridge all the ecumenists are looking for. In Rabbinic tradition he is to be son of Simon, son of Gamaliel. He comes into the fore in about 20 AD and is held to be the successor to the seat of nasi in the Sanhedrin. He is the first to hold the seat without an assistant and the first teacher to be granted the title rabban (our Rabbi). According to tradition he dies 18 years before the destruction of the Temple and is succeeded as nasi by Simon his son. The epigram which Rabbinic literature gives to him speaks of the respect with which he was held:
When he died the honor [outward respect] of the Torah ceased, and purity and piety became extinct"(Sotah xv: 18).
Historically we know that he was an important Jewish leader of the first century, while the New Testament says nothing of his father and his position as nasi, it confirms that he was part of the Sanhedrin, a doctor of the law and respected by the people. Luke, in the Acts of the Apostles records all this along with the fact that he is a Pharisee and the teacher of the Apostle Paul. To Luke the term Pharisee was descriptive and not necessarily written with a negative connotation for Paul himself claimed to be a Pharisee in the Acts of the Apostles. Gamaliel flourished then from about 20 AD to 52 AD, this was the period in which the Church first grew up. If he was nasi in this period then while he headed up the party of the Pharisees, Jesus said: “The Pharisees sit in Moses' seat, so all that they say to you, observe and do”. Which could be a way of saying they have the authority to make halakah for the disciples. Since Gamaliel is held to sit at the steps of temple mount and issue letters from there it is likely he saw Jesus in action or heard him teach and perhaps even dialogued with him.
Gamaliel in the First Century
Gamaliel is mentioned twice in the New Testament. In the first place it is in the narrative of Acts chapter 5. Luke
[1] is writing Acts to a man called Theophilus
[2] who he calls Most Excellent (kratiste). He is writing to Kratiste Theophilus to assure him of the things, which were being taught to him as a catechumen. Luke asserts that he had investigated all the events accurately and is clearly respected by Theophilus. The identity of this man is uncertain.
[3] In his record Luke has described the birth of the Church and how it had begun to spread its good news though Jerusalem. By the time Gamaliel is introduced the Church is made up of at least 5000 brethren, the women and children being in addition. The Church was born on Shavuot 30 AD. In chapter 1 Jesus commissions the Church from Jerusalem and taken up (eperthee) into heaven and disappeared into a cloud. In chapter two the 11 apostles appoint a replacement for Judas (Yehudah). And spend time in prayer with 120 disciples, women, Mary and Jesus brethren. The twelve have the job of bearing witness to resurrection of Jesus. On Pentecost the Holy Spirit falls on the apostles and they begin to speak in tongues and prophesy. Peter proclaims the Gospel in Jerusalem and 3000 men join the Church. The proclamation continues in chapter three in the temple with Peter and John taking center place. They are witnesses that God raised Jesus from the dead. In chapter four Peter and John are arrested by the “captain of the temple (stategos tou herou) and the Saducees” arrested because they were preaching the resurrection (anastasin) in Jesus. At that same time the number who believed reached to 5000. This meant they outstripped both the Pharisees and the Essenes according Josephus’ numbers. They were now the fastest growing sect in Jerusalem and perhaps the biggest. Peter and John performed a miracle in Jesus name.
Gamaliel and the motif of protection of the Church
The next day the rulers (archontas), elders (presbeterous), scribes (grammateis) along with Annas the high priest, Kaiaphas, John and Alexander who were members of the high priestly race (genous) met to try Peter and John.
The apostles were on trial for the first time. They are questioned:
Ev poiaai dunamei ee Ev poiooi onomati epoieesate touto humeis;
In what power or in what name did you do this?
Peter proclaims Jesus as the only name under heaven given among men that men could be saved. The court release Peter and John but forbids them from speaking in the name of Jesus.
In order that it may not spread further among the people,
Let us warn them to speak no more to any man in the name (NASB Acts 4:17))
The church made the threat of the rulers a subject of prayer and continued to proclaim “the word of the Lord”. At this point Luke describes the Church as having everything in common with a system to receive property of new members. In chapter a couple die for claiming to have sold property and given the proceeds to the community, this was lying to Holy Ghost.
Peter and John continued preaching and miracles continued to happen. People were coming from cities (poleoon) near Jerusalem. The High priest and the Sadducees arrested them and locked up in public jail (teereesei deemosia). In the morning they were to be tried but the officers (huperetai) who went to take them to court found the prison empty. They had been released by an angel and told to preach in the Temple which they did from dawn. The strategos and his huperetais went to the temple brought gently for trial again. The Sanhedrin is convened. The high priest says:
We gave you strict orders not to continue teaching in this name, and behold you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and intend to bring this mans blood upon us (NASB Acts 5:28)
The high priest feels that Peter and John are accusing them of killing Jesus.
Peter and the Apostles claim that they must,
Obey God rather than men. The God of our Fathers raised up Jesus, whom you had put
to death by hanging him on the cross. He is the one whom God exalted to his right hand as a Prince (Archeegon) and a Savior (Sooteera), to grant repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins. And we are witnesses of these things. And so is the Holy Spirit whom God has given to those who obey him. (NASB Acts 5:30-32)
The chief priests are reacting to this accusation, that they are guilty of shedding the innocent blood of Jesus. Luke notes that the ones listening were cut (dieprioto) and
Eboulonto analein autous autous
Intending to slay them (NASB Acts 5:33)
The Apostles lives were threatened according to Lukes record and the element that saved them may have only been the intervention of Gamaliel as the representative of the Pharisees.
It is at this point that Gamaliel is first introduced to history
[4]. In the story of Acts into which Gamaliel is introduced it is the first introduction of the Pharisees and hence perhaps the tannaim into the narrative. Luke identifies him by his name, Gamaliel, with a number four other factors:
1 He is a certain Pharisee
2 He is a teacher of the Torah (nomodidskalos)
3 Honored (timios) by all the people
4 He commanded (ekeleusen) that Peter and John be put outside
We find that that Gamaliel in relation to the Sanhedrin has enough authority to command the defendents to be put out of the court and to address the court and expect them to be listened to. We may wonder who he commanded to take them out and did his authority equal the high priests? Luke then gives a speech or a summary of the speech of Gamaliel.
Men of Israel, take care what you propose to do with these men
For some time ago Theudas rose up, claiming to be somebody;
And a group of about four hundred men joined up with him.
And he was slain and all those who followed him were dispersed
And came to nothing. After this man Judas of Galilee rose up in the
days of the census and drew away some people after him, he too
Perished and all those who followed him were scattered.
And so in the present case, I say to you, stay away from these men
And let them alone, for if this plan or action should be of men
It will be overthrown; but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow
Them; or else you may even be found fighting against God (Acts 5: 35-38)
We see then according to Luke’s record Gamaliel spoke with favour almost in defence of the Church and may have saved there lives. But he does not claim that Gamaliel is a believer. This appears in later traditions. The motifs represented here of Gamaliel is protection and observation and reserved judgement (gather evidence to ascertain the truth or falsehood) of the message. For this Gamaliel the teacher of the Torah with authority to command the proceedings of the court, a movement will be known by its fruit (App 2)
Our focus is on Gamaliel’s role. We see here perhaps a pattern of the trial of the prophet Jeremiah. He was tried for speaking about the destruction of the temple. Precedents were cited regarding how past prophets Urijah and Micah were treated by authorities
[5]. Then one man rose up in support of Jeremiah so he was not killed. Perhaps Luke has patterned this trial a little along the lines of the trial of Jeremiah.
The role of Gamaliel in the defence of the Church is interesting. Firstly we see that the intention of the unidentified listeners was to kill the apostles. Gamaliel intervenes at this point. His main message appears leave these men alone. But his message is also maybe this Jesus is a prince and a saviour. Maybe he is seated at God’s right hand and granting repentance (metanoian) to Israel and forgiveness of sins (aphesin harmatioon). For Gamaliel and perhaps for the tannaim he represented of beit Hillel, the message of the Church at this point appears to be possibly a message from God. The theme of Gamaliel's defence of the apostles is expanded in Christian traditions of the second century. We will seek to look at the later traditions regarding the role of Gamaliel in light of this first Lukan exposition. Most scholars see this intervention of Gamaliel in the trial of the apostles as the catalyst for the later traditions on Gamaliel. He is a kind of Christian fifth column in the midst of the Jewish authorities. He remains among his people with the permission of the apostles in order to protect the Church from too much destruction. This is one of the themes in the second century traditions regarding Gamaliel which we turn to now.
Gamaliel in the Second and Third Century Syriac Traditions
The Recognitions (Anagnoseis) of Clement are a kind of philosophical and theological romance. It is one of a category of literary traditions including Clementine Homilies and two Epitomes. The Recognitions have been preserved in a Latin manuscript. In their present condition they are dated to early part of the third century. There authorship is uncertain. They appear to have Jewish Christian or Ebionite sympathies and to be unsympathetic to the apostle Paul.
[6] They are quoted by Origen in 231 in his commentary to Genesis.
[7] And they contain a large section from Bardesanes De Fato. The Recognitions claim to come from Clement of Rome traditionally the fourth bishop of Rome from the turn of the first century. However some believe he has been confused with Flavius Clemens the kinsman of Emperor Domitian. The translation we will use that from The Ante Nicene Fathers (Roberts and Donaldson). Recognitions consists of 10 books which are in many places parallel to the Clementine Homilies. However the story relating to Gamaliel and the Church is only in Recognitions
[8]. In Book 1 chap we find scenes described reminiscent of those in Luke 5. Clement
[9], the narrator, relates stories regarding the relationship between the Apostles, Annas and Gamaliel and the people of Israel. From chapter 39 the coming of the True Prophet is described. It is Simon Peter who is teaching. He described how baptism was instituted in place of sacrifice. The chapters then speak of Advent of the True Prophet, Rejection of the True Prophet, Call of the Gentiles, Success of the Gospel and the Challenge by Caiaphas.
In these chapters Peter relates some of the story of Jesus. He came, he selected 12 apostles and 72 disciples as had Moses. He performed many miracles but he suffered from the 6th to the 9th hour and rose again. He was accused of being a magician or some pretended the body was stolen. However the truth prevailed, "So that the priests at one time were afraid, lest haply, by the providence of God to their confusion, the whole of the people should come over to the faith" (ANC, VIII 89)
The priests often sent and asked for a discussion with the Apostles as to whether Jesus was the Prophet Moses had foretold.
For on this point only does there seem to be any difference between us
Who believe in Jesus, and unbelieving Jews.
But while they often made such requests to us, and we sought for a fitting
Opportunity, a week of years was completed from the passion of the Lord
The Church of the Lord which was constituted in Jerusalem was most plentifully multiplied and grew, being governed with most righteous ordinances by James, Who was ordained bishop in it by the Lord (ANC VIII, 89)
So we see Simon Peter in the tradition sets the date of the events to be related to Passover 37 AD. On that day the twelve apostles came together with a very large multitude. They related what they had been doing as James requested. It is Caiaphas the high priest who sent priests to the Apostles repeatedly to arrange a debate. The Apostles regularly put it off waiting for a more opportune time. The day comes and the Church decides to go to the temple to testify publicly. The scene is set where the various Jewish sects are refuted by the Apostles.
The tradition in the Recognitions is a variant on the tradition in Acts. Gamaliel is the apparent impartial protector. In the scene in the Recognitions Book I:65, he stills a tumult set off by the Churches teaching against the temple status quo in Jerusalem The scene is a public discussion initiated by the high priest. The apostles refute the Sadducees, the Samaritans, the Scribes, the Pharisees, and the Disciples of John the Baptist. Caiaphas then arises and seeks to undermine the teaching of the Apostles about Jesus. Caiaphas looks at Simon Peter and tells him not to preach Christ Jesus any more, Simon Peter replies that sacrifices are over with and God is not pleased with the Sacrifice and that the temple will be destroyed. This causes an uproar and Gamaliel as in the Acts above, intervenes to quell the storm. However the narrative has a number of differences to Luke’s narrative some of which are interesting to us.
The first insights are two comments by Simon Peter the narrator of this part of the book. He tells us that Gamaliel was actually a follower of Jesus Christ and a brother in the faith. These comments assign motives to Gamaliel's activity, which identify him as a secret believer, like Nicodemus in the Gospel of John (chap 3) who came by night to talk to Jesus.
When I had thus spoken, the whole multitude of the priests, were in a rage, because I had foretold to them the overthrow of the temple. Which when Gamaliel, a chief of the people, saw—who was secretly our brother in the faith, but by our advice remained among them—because they were greatly enraged and moved with intense fury against us, he stood up, and said,
593 ‘Be quiet for a little, O men of Israel'... (CR LXV)
Then, when profound silence was obtained, Gamaliel, who, as we have said, was of our faith, but who by a dispensation remained amongst them, that if at any time they should attempt anything unjust or wicked against us, he might either check them by skillfully adopted counsel, or might warn us, that we might either be on our guard or might turn it aside;—he therefore, as if acting against us, first of all looking to James the bishop, addressed him in this manner ( CR LXVI)
So we see that the second century tradition maintains Gamaliel's role as an impartial defender of the Church but asserts that he was also a secret "brother in the faith", who by the permission of the apostles "remained amongst them" in order to avert injustices and wicked acts intended against the Church. Interestingly the Hebraic branch of the Church represented by the apostles suffered little from persecution in the early years. The first martyr Stephen was a Hellenist and he in later tradition is associated with Gamaliel.
The tradition of Gamaliel’s secret belief is interesting. And we find in later traditions that it is with the other secret believers who were people in high authority among the Jews in the first century whom Gamaliel is associated with, namely Nicodemas (App 4) of John 3 and Joseph of Arimathea who took possession of Jesus body after his crucifixion. Joseph was a rich man and Nicodemas a teacher of Israel of high rank. Thus to the Lukan story, aside from many other added details we find a second level of narrative explaining motives for Gamaliel's actions.
In the Clementime narrative we see a competition between Caiaphas the Sadducee and Gamaliel the secret brother. Caiaphas is suspicious regarding Gamaliel’s intentions and of course quite rightly so.
Another interesting feature of the narrative which Recognitions has is a focus on the place where the Apostles stood to conduct their apology. The LV it says they "we went up to the temple, and, standing on the steps together with our faithful brethren" and when they returned for the continued debate the next day with Gamaliel at the helm the notice says
There we found a great multitude, who had been waiting for us from the middle of the night. Therefore we took our stand in the same place as before, in order that, standing on an elevation, we might be seen by all the people.
That is they went to the temple and stood on the steps so that they could be seen by the people. According to Jewish tradition Gamaliel stood on steps to make his decrees and issues his letters. Not only so but according to Neusner one of the distinguishing features of pericope related to Gamaliel the Elder, in the Mishnahh, Tosephtah and the Talmuds is relating the place he was standing when an event was taking place. We can not show this parallels are any more than coincidence but clearly in this tradition the apostles stood on steps in the temple and in Jewish tradition Gamaliel did. In both cases there seems to be some kind of emphasis on that place. This comment is an aside and so we turn back to the development of the traditions. We turn to the continuation of the theme of Gamaliel in the second and third centuries.
In the Gospel of Nicodemus also known as the Acts of Pilate another tradition arises which can be dated at least to the second century. It like the later Gospel of Gamaliel has a focus on the exoneration of Pilate. The book begins with a certain “Ananias, an officer of the guard” who is learned in the law and through the scriptures came to know Jesus Christ. He indicates that he had searched for reports from the time of Jesus Christ and found one written in Hebrew. This document he translated from Hebrew into Greek “for the information of all those who call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ”. These documents may have been mentioned by Justin Martyr but were almost certainly mentioned by Tertullian (Chandler, p.158). Ananias gives the date of the event as the 19th year of Tiberius Caeser, the fourth year of the two hundred and second Olympiad on the eighth day before the kalends of April, or the 25th of March. This would place it in about the year AD33. Ananias claims the record is that of Nicodemus. Gamaliel first appears in the council of priests and scribes who are named as the main accusers of Jesus. The council consisted of Annas, Caiaphas, Semes, Dathaes, Gamaliel, Judas, Levi, Nephtalim, Alexander and Jairus and the “rest of the Jews”. The story deals with the testimony of Nicodemus and Joseph of Aramathea and their persecution for being sympathetic to Jesus. A number of miracles occur, for example Joseph is arrested and imprisoned in a room with no windows. Jesus appears to him and transfers him supernaturally to his house in Aramathea. In one recension of the book
[10] a group go to Galilee to bring some witnesses to describe Jesus’ activities in Hades. Those who went were “Annas and Caiaphas, and Joseph and Nicodemus and Gamaliel” We should notice that in this listing Gamaliel is seen with Nicodemus and Joseph but he is connected with the council not the believers
[11]. In the whole book he does not say a word but is with the council in their investigations. The tradition then in this documented connected him with these two secret believers independently of the tradition of him as a secret believer in Recognitions.
Gamaliel in the fourth and fifth Century
The Acts of Pilate sees Gamaliel as among those investigated the miracles around the trial, crucifixion and resurrection. In one second century tradition he is a believer, in the other he is an investigator. The two documents which point him as the witness and the author have him writing the story of the trial crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus. Here we see Gamaliel the eye witness. He does not do speeches but writes about what he saw. For Mingana the translator of our documents, these are two Egyptian documents. However the manuscripts he used were in Garshuni that is Arabic written in Syriac characters. Rendel Harris notes,
The two documents before us are concerned, the one with the spiritual history of Pontius Pilate, who is made over into an accepted and glorified saint, accepted in the Church on earth and glorified in the Church in heaven; the other with the sorrows of the Virgin, not this time at the cross, but rather at the empty tomb” (WSII, p164) So what does Gamaliel have to say? In regard to the Martyrdom of Pilate after the completion of the narrative we have:
And I Gamaliel had learnt the art of writing, the science of Judaism and that of the Apostles our fathers, and had also stepped in the science of philosophers until I had acquired the knowledge of the right answer, and learnt the mystery of the resurrection of the Lord Christ, and the miracles which he performed, and what happened to the vizier of the Emperor, and to Galil8us and the Emperor Tiberius, and I put all to writing and composed it as a memorial of the holy resurrection (WSII, p200)
As in the Jewish tradition, Gamaliel likes to write. Some have argued the Apostle Paul was like his teacher in this respect. The interesting thins about these narratives is Gamaliel general invisibility. Although they may be pseudipigraphs Gamaliel is by no means a central or important character he is simply the narrator. The Pilate documents calls itself “the history of Pilate, the Governor of the city of Jerusalem”. It talks of the fact that in it “it makes mention of Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus, the venerable chiefs” (WSII p.242). Then Gamaliel gets his first introduction:
The story is told as found in the copy written by Gamaliel and Horus (Anaius) the good, pious and respectable teachers in all things dealing with God. They wrote it because they were present with Joseph and Nicodemus and witnessed the ordeals of Christ which became the source of our life, and his glorious resurrection (WSII, p.244)
Mingana sees a connection between the Anaius here called Horus in some manuscripts and the Ananius who translated the gospel of Nicodemus. If this is the case we may see that the presence of Gamaliel with Nicodemus and Joseph in this document may come from connection with the early tradition as seen in the acts of Pilate above. However since those comments are introductory it is possible they come from the narrative it self. We find in this document a narrative of post crucifixion events. Jesus is buried by Joseph and Nicodemus and the following events are related. After some time a plot is hatched by Judas’s sister to kill Pilate. When this is mentioned suddenly the narrative is interrupted by the first person comment of Gamaliel.
After this wicked company of Jews resolved to kill Pilate with his wife and children and to plunder his possessions, when I, Gamaliel learned the conspiracy of these wicked people I did not neglect the matter, but I hastened to Joseph of Arimathea, who had shrouded the body of the Saviour, and I disclosed to him the conspiracy. (p250)
Here we see Gamaliel perhaps playing out the role assigned to him in Recognitions above. There as a secret believer he was left to be among the people lest they sought to doing anything wicked on unjust to the Church. Gamaliel becomes the secret spy of the Church. The text then moves back into narrative and Gamaliel continue to relate the story. It centres on Pilate, Joseph and Nicodemus. A confirmation of his role as secret informant is confirmed in his next interruption to the narrative. "This is what the angel Gabriel told the venerable chiefs Joseph and Nicodemus. And these two blessed ones sent for me, in secret, me Gamaliel, I the weak Gamaliel, was the disciple of those blessed ones "(p265).
We see here also an addition to the tradition. Gamaliel now describes himself as a disciple of Joseph and Nicodemus whom he respects greatly. Thus we find in the traditions he is naturally related to these two teachers and find himself in a position as their student. In the Lamentation of the Virgin, Gamaliel is again seen as a witness, one who sees all the events as they unfold. He again, very rarely, interrupts in storytelling in the first person.
And I Gamaliel was following with the crowd” (WSII, p.201) and “At that moment I followed the crowd and my fathers Joseph and Nicodemus, because fear did not allow the Apostles to come to the sepulchre and witness what happened to Him. They were hiding in every place from fear of the Jews. I Gamaliel, walked with the crowds and witnessed all what happened in the tomb of my Lord Jesus, and the great fight that Pilate undertook against the High Priests (WSII, p.210).
We see then in this last statement of Gamaliel that he is seen as a witness of the events of the death and resurrection where the other apostles were hidden and unavailable. We notice also that he calls Jesus his Lord. From these traditions it is apparent that he is a believer through the ministry of Joseph and Nicodemus his “fathers” and that he is a believer before Jesus is crucified. The end of the text tells us “These (words) have been written by Gamaliel and Nicodemus, the venerable chiefs, and they placed them in Jerusalem, the holy city, and in all the districts that surround it” (WWII, p211). With these two texts we almost 70 pages of the purported writing of Gamaliel, with traditions contained in them going back to the second and first century. They overlap with the gospels and give us a tradition which is held by the Coptic Church and other Eastern Churches. However the Gamaliel traditions do not end here. We move to our final fascinating scene in the history of Gamaliel in the Church. In this scene further additions are made to the tradition.
Gamaliel in the 5th Century
Interestingly this scene connects with the theme of honour which is linked with Gamaliel in the traditions relating to him in the Jewish community. “When he died the honour [outward respect] of the Torah ceased, and purity and piety became extinct"(Sotah xv: 18).” says the Mishnah This last story we will look at starts with the issue of honour. During the fifth century, the story goes a priest by the name of Lucian “of the country of Jerusalem” and who is counted among noble had a vision. He went to sleep on a Friday awoke to find an ancient man who was noble in stature and who wore a long beard dressed in a white robed with golden crosses embroidered on to it. This noble man had a golden rod in his hand and he spoke to Lucius saying: "Go and with great diligence open our tombs, for we be lain in a place dishonest and of despite. Go thou therefore unto John bishop of Jerusalem and say to him that he lay us in a more honourable place."
Here we see that word honour again. The speaker is looking for a more honourable home. It seems that it is not only by chance that these bodies need to be moved for this man is sent in order to resolve a present drought in Jerusalem: “And because that drought and tribulation is through the world, God hat ordained to be debonair and merciful to the by our suffrages and prayers”. Lucian asked the man who he was. The man replied:
I am Gamaliel, which nourished the apostle Paul and ensigned him the law of my fathers, and he that lieth with me is Saint Stephen, which was stoned of the Jews and cast out of the city for to be devoured of beasts and birds, but he kept him, to whom he kept his faith, without hurting and I with great diligence took up the body and with great diligence buried it in my new tomb.
We see some interesting additions to the tradition of Gamaliel in his speech here. We see firstly that he took and buried the body of the Christian proto martyr Stephen. Secondly we see that now Nicodemus is assigned to him as his nephew, an interesting addition to his relationship with Nicodemus. This would no doubt help to explain his closeness to Nicodemus in the Gospel of Nicodemus; it also helps to explain why it was Gamaliel and Nicodemus who wrote the Lament of the Virgin together. Thirdly the notice that Nicodemus received baptism by Peter and John reflects a parallel tradition helps by 9th Century Byzantine Patriarch, that Gamaliel himself received baptism at the hand of Simon Peter and John. Fourthly we see a tradition that Nicodemus was saved from death because of the priests respect for the house of Gamaliel. The vision Gamaliel continued:
Nevertheless they took away his [Nicodemus’] all his substance and deposed him from his principate, and beat him strongly and let him lie for dead. And then I led him into my house, where he lived after but a few days, when he was dead I buried him at the feet of Saint Stephen. And the third that is with me is my Son , which in the twentieth year of his age received baptism with me and was a clean virgin, and learned the law of the God with my disciple. And Ethea my wife and Selimus my son, which would not receive the faith of Jesu Christ, were not worthy to be in our sepulchre. thou shalt find them buried in another place and thou shalt find their tombs void and idle.
Thus we find now a family assigned to Gamaliel, an unbelieving wife and son, Ethea and Selimus. We also see a believing son Abibas. Abibas was a fellow student of the Apostle Paul in this tradition. The entrance of Paul places us back in Acts where Paul claims he learned Torah from Gamaliel. The Recognitions are believed by some to be anti Pauline documents although he is not directly mentioned. This suggests that this tradition is from another source to that of the recognition.
After the vision Lucius prays and asks God to confirm that the vision was true by sending it two times more. Saint Gamaliel as he is called then appears the following two Fridays. He indicated to Lucian where he could find the tombs. After the last vision Lucian went to the bishop of Jerusalem. They went to the place and dug and found the tombs and moved them to the Church of Sion. They ordained them honourably in that new place and rain began to fall and the drought was ended.
Thus we see a number of literary traditions in 1st to 5th century regarding the role of Gamaliel in the Church. We have a whole family assigned to him and a lot of witnessing but no legal rulings. His role was to work as a Christian spy among the Jews. With such a strong tradition among the Christians regarding Gamaliel we might ponder the idea of this affecting Gamaliel’s treatment in Jewish tradition. As respected as Gamaliel was he is mysteriously omitted from the rabbinic chain of Torah authorities:
Tradition [Jewish] does not represent Gamaliel as learned in the Scriptures, nor as a teacher, because the school of Hillel, whose head he undoubtedly was, always appears collectively in its controversies with the school of Shammai, and the individual scholars and their opinions are not mentioned. Hence Gamaliel is omitted in the chain of tradition as given in the Mishnah (Abot i., ii.), while Johanan b. Zakkai is mentioned as the next one who continued the tradition after Hillel and Shammai. Gamaliel's name is seldom mentioned in halakic tradition (JE. Gamaliel)
Although Schechter and Bacher assert that the reason Gamaliel is missing from the chain of tradition is because he was not seen as a great scholar of the Torah. I would like to suggest that the greatness of his position and his reputation really excludes this as a reason. He is at the same time held in great respect regarding the very honor of the Torah and yet eliminated from the chain of tradition representing the transmission of the Torah. It is here where Christian tradition may be able to help give an explanation of his omission. Is it possible that the Church great respect for Gamaliel was known by the Rabbis, and this lead to their downgrading of his position? Perhaps this should have been the controlling thesis of this paper? But it was not. In this paper we have look at the Church traditions regarding Gamaliel. We have found it to be widespread and in some sense consistent. Gamaliel got his own wife, his own nephew and his close teachers in the Christ faith his nephew Nicodemus and his friend Joseph of Arimathea, these three acts as the witnesses to the truth of the resurrection among the Jewish first century elite. But when we ask why was Gamaliel so innocently invisible in most of the traditions regarding him. He never does any amazing miracles, he does not take an obvious role in the Church like his disciple the apostle Paul, he simply speaks, writes and defends. Why did gospels get written in his name? And perhaps it is simply this role as impartial fifth column defender of the faith that lead to his interesting role. There is another possible reason why he was chosen to write, to appear to Lucius and to witness the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ in these traditions. This reason clearly unacceptable today but perhaps foremost in the mind of the Eastern Church. They held the tradition that he witnessed and wrote of these things simply because they thought he did.
Reference List
Chandler, W.M., The Trial of Jesus (Georgia: Harrison Co, 1976)
WSII Mingana, A. Woodbrooke Studies Christian Documents in Syriac, Arabic And Garshuni, Edited and translated with a Critical Apparatus (Cambridge: W. Heffer and Son Ltd, 1928)
The Clementine Recognitions, The Ante Nicene Fathers, Vol VIII, (www.ccel.org)
“Gamaliel”
Hennecke, E New Testament Apocrypha. English translation edited by Robert Mcl (SCM 1963)
Bibliography
“Gamaliel” Jewish Encyclopedia
“Gamaliel” New Catholic Encyclopedia
Neusner, J. The Rabbinic Traditions about the Pharisees before 70. Leiden , 1971: Brill. I-III. Second printing: Atlanta, 1999: Scholars Press for South Florida Studies in the History of Judaism.
Appendix 1
From Luke's and Paul's reliable historical records
[12], three things are apparent: Gamaliel once had a disciple who was extremely zealous for the law of his fathers and under Gamaliel excelled beyond most of his peers. This same disciple of Gamaliel then became the head of a sect, which spread like wild fire to the "uttermost parts of the world" and rocked Israel. Gamaliel warned the Sanhedrin to leave the "wildfire" Church alone. It is possible that the message they were bringing could be from God, and if the council resisted it they could find themselves fighting against God and they would not overthrow the work of the Church. Gamaliel in the New Testament is never seen to oppose the preaching of the name of Jesus. The council forbade them to preach but Gamaliel had advised "Refrain from these men" in public (See Acts 4-6). The role attributed to Gamaliel can perhaps bring light on later traditions regarding him.
Appendix 2
. He brought up two cases
[13]. The two precedents used in Gamaliel’s example are Judas of Galilee and Theudas. Historically there was a Judas of Galilee and he did arise during the period of a census just as Luke asserts here, he is mentioned in Josephus War 2:8:1 and in Antiquities 18:1:1.
The territory of Archelaus was brought under direct Roman rule and a man of equestrian rank at
Rome, Coponius, was sent as procurator with authority from Caeser to inflict the death penalty. In his time a Galilean named Judas tried to stir the natives to revolt, saying that they would be
Cowards if they submitted to paying taxes to the Romans, and after serving God alone
Accepted human masters. This man was a Rabbi with a sect of his own, and quite unlike other.
(Jos J War 2:8:1)
We see that the revolt of this Judas took place in the time of Coponius who ruled from 6-9 AD. This agrees with the period when Quirinius legate augustus of Syria did the census in about 6 AD. The census clearly had the purpose of assessing the population for taxation purposes. This was why Judas was protesting. It was a very appropriate time for Judas to arise for it was the very time when Rome took direct control of Judea. Before this Herod and his son Archelaus were controlling Judah, but at least they were converts, but in AD 6 The Romans were taking complete control of the land and assessing it directly for taxation purposes. This event would have had great prophetic significance for the messianically oriented parts of the Jewish population. This Judas is the same as that mentioned by Gamaliel. Further details tell us he was a Gaulonite from Gamala.
As for the Theudas mentioned by Gamaliel he would need to arise before 6 AD, this raises a possible historical problem. Josephus mentioned a magician called Theudas who arose around AD 44-46 who persuaded people to follow him to the river Jordan, where he would divide it. Fadus sent a troop against him and killed many of his followers. Some scholars hold that it is the same Theudas being referred to and either Luke or Josephus has erred. I hold that two Theudases over the forty year period is historically probable. Luke refers to the earlier one
[14] and Josephus to the later.
Appendix 3
Gamaliel would have watched the development of the Church, from 30-32 AD, when Peter and John performed the miracle in the name of Jesus and were tried. Then having been locked up they were found preaching in the temple courts, until 52 AD when it is traditionally held that he died.
It is not only likely that Gamaliel heard Jesus and was probably present in about AD 6 when Jesus was speaking to the doctors of the law in Jerusalem, it is also likely that Jesus heard Gamaliel in his many visits to Jerusalem. It is Gamaliel who is traditionally held to have spoken on the subject of disciples that there were four kinds:
An unclean fish, a clean fish, a fish from the Jordan, a fish from the Great Sea. An unclean fish Who is that? A poor youth who studies Scripture and Mishnah, Halakha and Aggada and is without understanding. A clean fish: who is that? That's the rich youth who studies…and has understanding. A fish from the Jordan…is without a talent for give and take. A fish from the Great Sea… has a talent for give and take (Nathan, 166)
And it was Jesus who said:
Follow me and I will make you as fishers of men
And The Parable of the Net
47“Once again, the kingdom of heaven is like a net that was let down into the lake and caught all kinds of fish. 48When it was full, the fishermen pulled it up on the shore. Then they sat down and collected the good fish in baskets, but threw the bad away. 49This is how it will be at the end of the age. The angels will come and separate the wicked from the righteous 50and throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
51“Have you understood all these things?” Jesus asked.
“Yes,” they replied.
52He said to them, “Therefore every teacher of the law who has been instructed about the kingdom of heaven is like the owner of a house who brings out of his storeroom new treasures as well as old.” (Matthew 13 NASB)
We see then parallels between these two contempories in the traditions attributed to Gamaliel and the traditions of the Church regarding Jesus view of men
[15]. There are also coincidences in numbers for example Gamaliel is said to have 500 disciples. Jesus also appeared to 500 disciples after rising from the dead as testified by the apostle Paul in 1Corinthians 15. As respected as Gamaliel was he is mysteriously omitted from the Rabbinic chain of Torah authorities:
Tradition does not represent Gamaliel as learned in the Scriptures, nor as a teacher, because the school of Hillel, whose head he undoubtedly was, always appears collectively in its controversies with the school of Shammai, and the individual scholars and their opinions are not mentioned. Hence Gamaliel is omitted in the chain of tradition as given in the Mishnah (Abot i., ii.), while Johanan b. Zakkai is mentioned as the next one who continued the tradition after Hillel and Shammai. Gamaliel's name is seldom mentioned in halakic tradition (JE. Gamaliel)
Although Schechter and Bacher assert that the reason Gamaliel is missing from the chain of tradition is because he was not seen as a great scholar of the Torah. I would like to suggest that the greatness of his position and his reputation really excludes this as a reason. He is at the same time held in great respect regarding the very honor of the Torah and yet eliminated from the chain of tradition representing the transmission of the Torah. It is here where Christian tradition may be able to help give an explanation of his omission. In the first century the Church had protection inspired by Gamaliel. His word was fulfilled the Church was not overthrown but increased from strength to strength in his lifetime. According to the record in Acts thousands of Jews joined the Church, including not a few Pharisees and not a few priests.
The tradition among the Jews, although based on only two sources inidcates that he was possibly the son of a mysterious Simon. This Simon is supposed to be between him and his supposed grand father Hillel the Elder. These are all traditionally from the House of David. If this were the case we would have an immedate reason as to why Gamaliel would have a reason to relate to Jesus and his disciples. Jesus was from the House of David and so potentially a legitimate heir to the throne of David and Gamaliel was from the same family. Gamaliel's advice in Acts(4-6) shows one who had interest in messianic movements and this we would expect of someone from a Tanna from the house of David in Jerusalem in the first century. I am sure the people of this house had great theological problems with the ruling Edomites (Idumeans), Herod and his family. The family of Herod could in no way be seen as legitimate heirs to the throne of David but would have been tolerated for the sake of peace and relations with Rome. All this I admit is only probable. However if it were true we would expect a tradition of relations between the house of Joseph (Jesus's father) and then the house of Jesus, which in the first century would have been the Church, the group of those supporting the cause of the son of David, Jesus, and the house of Gamaliel, another Davidic house in Jerusalem. Perhaps we can see a parallel in the modern day Abu Huwa family of the Mount of Olives. They are more than 10,000 strong and all Abu Huwa are seen as connected. You insult one you insult them all. Thus with this hypothesis of the expected relatioship let us turn to the traditions, which no doubt had an original historical core which was later, perhaps embelished. Later embellished.
App 3: Clementine Recognitions
Chapter LV.—Public Discussion.
“However, as we were proceeding to say, when the high priest had often sent priests to ask us that we might discourse with one another concerning Jesus; when it seemed a fit opportunity, and it pleased all the Church, we went up to the temple, and, standing on the steps together with our faithful brethren, the people kept perfect silence; and first the high priest began to exhort the people that they should hear patiently and quietly, and at the same time witness and judge of those things that were to be spoken. Then, in the next place, exalting with many praises the rite or sacrifice which had been bestowed by God upon the human race for the remission of sins, he found fault with the baptism of our Jesus, as having been recently brought in in opposition to the sacrifices. But Matthew,
587 meeting his propositions, showed clearly, that whosoever shall not obtain the baptism of Jesus shall not only be deprived of the kingdom of heaven, but shall not be without peril at the resurrection of the dead, even though he be fortified by the prerogative of a good life and an upright disposition. Having made these and such like statements, Matthew stopped.”
Chapter LXV.—Tumult Stilled by Gamaliel.
“When I had thus spoken, the whole multitude of the priests were in a rage, because I had foretold to them the overthrow of the temple. Which when Gamaliel, a chief of the people, saw—who was secretly our brother in the faith, but by our advice remained among them—because they were greatly enraged and moved with intense fury against us, he stood up, and said,
593 ‘Be quiet for a little, O men of Israel, for ye do not perceive the trial which hangs over you. Wherefore refrain from these men; and if what they are engaged in be of human counsel, it will soon come to an end; but if it be from God, why will you sin without cause, and prevail nothing? For who can overpower the will of God? Now therefore, since the day is declining towards evening, I shall myself dispute with these men to-morrow, in this same place, in your hearing, so that I may openly oppose and clearly confute every error.’ By this speech of his their fury was to some extent checked, especially in the hope that next day we should be publicly convicted of error; and so he dismissed the people peacefully.”
Chapter LXVI.—Discussion Resumed.
“Now when we had come to our James, while we detailed to him all that had been said and done, we supped, and remained with him, spending the whole night in supplication to Almighty God, that the discourse of the approaching disputation might show the unquestionable truth of our faith. Therefore, on the following day, James the bishop went up to the temple with us, and with the whole church. There we found a great multitude, who had been waiting for us from the middle of the night. Therefore we took our stand in the same place as before, in order that, standing on an elevation, we might be seen by all the people. Then, when profound silence was obtained, Gamaliel, who, as we have said, was of our faith, but who by a dispensation remained amongst them, that if at any time they should attempt anything unjust or wicked against us, he might either check them by skillfully adopted counsel, or might warn us, that we might either be on our guard or might turn it aside;—he therefore, as if acting against us, first of all looking to James the bishop, addressed him in this manner:—
Chapter LXVII.—Speech of Gamaliel.
“‘If I, Gamaliel, deem it no reproach either to my learning or to my old age to learn something from babes and unlearned ones, if haply there be anything which it is for profit or for safety to acquire (for he who lives reasonably knows that nothing is more precious than the soul), ought not this to be the object of love and desire to all, to learn what they do not know, and to teach what they have learned? For it is most certain that neither friendship, nor kindred, nor lofty power, ought to be more precious to men than truth. Therefore you, O brethren, if ye know anything more, shrink not from laying it 95before the people of God who are present, and also before your brethren; while the whole people shall willingly and in perfect quietness hear what you say. For why should not the people do this, when they see even me equally with themselves willing to learn from you, if haply God has revealed something further to you? But if you in anything are deficient, be not ye ashamed in like manner to be taught by us, that God may fill up whatever is wanting on either side. But if any fear now agitates you on account of some of our people whose minds are prejudiced against you, and if through fear of their violence you dare not openly speak your sentiments, in order that I may deliver you from this fear, I openly swear to you by Almighty God, who liveth for ever, that I will suffer no one to lay hands upon you. Since, then, you have all this people witnesses of this my oath, and you hold the covenant of our sacrament as a fitting pledge, let each one of you, without any hesitation, declare what he has learned; and let us, brethren, listen eagerly and in silence.’”
Chapter LXVIII.—The Rule of Faith.
“These sayings of Gamaliel did not much please Caiaphas; and holding him in suspicion, as it seemed, he began to insinuate himself cunningly into the discussions: for, smiling at what Gamaliel had said, the chief of the priests asked of James, the chief of the bishops,
594 that the discourse concerning Christ should not be drawn but from the Scriptures; ‘that we may know,’ said he, ‘whether Jesus be the very Christ or no.’ Then said James, ‘We must first inquire from what Scriptures we are especially to derive our discussion.’ Then he, with difficulty, at length overcome by reason, answered, that it must be derived from the law; and afterwards he made mention also of the prophets.”
Appendix 4
1.
Matthew 27:57[ The Burial of Jesus ] As evening approached, there came a rich man from Arimathea, named Joseph, who had himself become a disciple of Jesus.
Matthew 27:56-58 (in Context)
Matthew 27 (Whole Chapter)
2.
Mark 15:43Joseph of Arimathea, a prominent member of the Council, who was himself waiting for the kingdom of God, went boldly to Pilate and asked for Jesus' body.
Mark 15:42-44 (in Context)
Mark 15 (Whole Chapter)
3.
Luke 23:51who had not consented to their decision and action. He came from the Judean town of Arimathea and he was waiting for the kingdom of God.
Luke 23:50-52 (in Context)
Luke 23 (Whole Chapter)
4.
John 19:38[ The Burial of Jesus ] Later, Joseph of Arimathea asked Pilate for the body of Jesus. Now Joseph was a disciple of Jesus, but secretly because he feared the Jews. With Pilate's permission, he came and took the body away.
John 19:37-39 (in Context)
John 19 (Whole Chapter)
Ph
otius of Constantinople
Catholic Encyclopedia on CD-ROMContains 11,632 articles. Browse off-line, ad-free, printer-friendly.Get it here for only $29.95Photius of Constantinople, chief author of the great schism between East and West, was b. at Constantinople c. 815 (Hergenröther says "not much earlier than 827", "Photius", I, 316; others, about 810); d. probably 6 Feb., 897. His father was a spatharios (lifeguard) named Sergius. Symeon Magister ("De Mich. et Theod.", Bonn ed., 1838, xxix, 668) says that his mother was an escaped nun and that he was
illegitimate. He further relates that a holy bishop, Michael of Synnada, before his birth foretold that he would become patriarch, but would work so much evil that it would be better that he should not be born. His father then wanted to kill him and his mother, but the bishop said: "You cannot hinder what
God has ordained. Take care for yourself." His mother also dreamed that she would give birth to a demon. When he was born the abbot of the Maximine monastery baptized him and gave him the name Photius (Enlightened), saying: "Perhaps the anger of
God will be turned from him" (Symeon Magister, ibid., cf. Hergenröther, "Photius", I, 318-19). These stories need not be taken seriously. It is certain that the future patriarch belonged to one of the great families of Constantinople; the Patriarch Tarasius (784-806), in whose time the seventh general council (Second of Nicæa, 787) was held, was either elder brother or uncle of his father (Photius: Ep. ii, P. G., CII, 609). The family was conspicuously orthodox and had suffered some persecution in
Iconoclast times (under Leo V, 813-20). Photius says that in his youth he had had a passing inclination for the monastic life ("Ep. ad Orient. et Oecon.", P. G., CII, 1020), but the prospect of a career in the world soon eclipsed it.
He early laid the foundations of that erudition which eventually made him one of the most famous scholars of all the
Middle Ages. His natural aptitude must have been extraordinary; his industry was colossal. Photius does not appear to have had any teachers worthy of being remembered; at any rate he never alludes to his masters. Hergenröther, however, notes that there were many good scholars at Constantinople while Photius was a child and young man, and argues from his exact and systematic knowledge of all branches of learning that he could not have been entirely self-taught (op. cit., I, 322). His enemies appreciated his learning. Nicetas, the friend and biographer of his rival Ignatius, praises Photius's skill in grammar, poetry, rhetoric, philosophy, medicine, law, "and all science" ("Vita S. Ignatii" in Mansi, XVI, 229).
Pope Nicholas I, in the heat of the quarrel writes to the Emperor Michael III: "Consider very carefully how Photius can stand, in spite of his great virtues and universal knowledge" (Ep. xcviii "Ad Mich.", P. G., CXIX, 1030). It is curious that so learned a man never knew Latin. While he was still a young man he made the first draft of his encyclopædic "Myrobiblion". At an early age, also, he began to teach grammar, philosophy, and theology in his own house to a steadily increasing number of students.
His public career was to be that of a statesman, coupled with a military command. His brother Sergius married Irene, the emperor's aunt. This connexion and his undoubted merit procured Photius speedy advancement. He became chief secretary of State (protosekretis) and captain of the Life Guard (protospatharios). He was unmarried. Probably about 838 he was sent on an embassy "to the Assyrians" ("Myrobiblion", preface), i. e., apparently, to the Khalifa at Bagdad. In the year 857, then, when the crisis came in his life, Photius was already one of the most prominent members of the Court of Constantinople. That crisis is the story of the Great Schism (see GREEK CHURCH). The emperor was Michael III (842-67), son of the Theodora who had finally restored the holy images. When he succeeded his father Theophilus (829-842) he was only three years old; he grew to be the wretched boy known in Byzantine history as Michael the Drunkard (ho methystes). Theodora, at first regent, retired in 856, and her brother Bardas succeeded, with the title of Cæsar. Bardas lived in incest with his daughter-in-law Eudocia, wherefore the Patriarch Ignatius (846-57) refused him Holy Communion on the Epiphany of 857. Ignatius was deposed and banished (Nov. 23, 857), and the more pliant Photius was intruded into his place. He was hurried through Holy Orders in six days; on
Christmas Day, 857, Gregory Asbestas of Syracuse, himself
excommunicate for insubordination by Ignatius, ordained Photius patriarch. By this act Photius committed three offences against canon law: he was ordained bishop without having kept the interstices, by an
excommunicate consecrator, and to an already occupied see. To receive ordination from an
excommunicate person made him too
excommunicate ipso facto.
After vain attempts to make Ignatius resign his see, the emperor tried to obtain from
Pope Nicholas I (858-67) recognition of Photius by a letter grossly misrepresenting the facts and asking for legates to come and decide the question in a synod. Photius also wrote, very respectfully, to the same purpose (Hergenröther, "Photius", I, 407-11). The pope sent two legates, Rodoald of Porto and Zachary of Anagni, with cautious letters. The legates were to hear both sides and report to him. A synod was held in St. Sophia's (May, 861). The legates took heavy bribes and agreed to Ignatius's deposition and Photius's succession. They returned to Rome with further letters, and the emperor sent his Secretary of State, Leo, after them with more explanations (Hergenröther, op. cit., I, 439-460). In all these letters both the emperor and Photius emphatically acknowledge the Roman primacy and categorically invoke the pope's jurisdiction to confirm what has happened. Meanwhile Ignatius, in exile at the island Terebinth, sent his friend the Archimandrite Theognostus to Rome with an urgent letter setting forth his case (Hergenröther, I, 460-461). Theognostus did not arrive till 862.
Nicholas, then, having heard both sides, decided for Ignatius, and answered the letters of Michael and Photius by insisting that Ignatius must be restored, that the usurpation of his see must cease (ibid, I, 511-16, 516-19). He also wrote in the same sense to the other Eastern patriarchs (510-11). From that attitude Rome never wavered: it was the immediate cause of the schism. In 863 the pope held a synod at the Lateran in which the two legates were tried, degraded, and
excommunicated. The synod repeats
Nicholas's decision, that Ignatius is lawful Patriarch of Constantinople; Photius is to be
excommunicate unless he retires at once from his usurped place.
But Photius had the emperor and the Court on his side. Instead of obeying the pope, to whom he had appealed, he resolved to deny his authority altogether. Ignatius was kept chained in prison, the pope's letters were not allowed to be published. The emperor sent an answer dictated by Photius saying that nothing
Nicholas could do would help Ignatius, that all the Eastern Patriarchs were on Photius's side, that the
excommunication of the legates must be explained and that unless the pope altered his decision, Michael would come to Rome with an army to punish him. Photius then kept his place undisturbed for four years. In 867 he carried the war into the enemy's camp by
excommunicating the pope and his Latins. The reasons he gives for this, in an encyclical sent to the Eastern patriarchs, are: that Latins
fast on Saturday
do not begin
Lent till
Ash Wednesday (instead of three days earlier, as in the East)
do not allow priests to be married
do not allow priests to administer confirmation
have added the
filioque to the creed.
Because of these errors the pope and all Latins are: "forerunners of apostasy, servants of
Antichrist who deserve a thousand deaths, liars, fighters against
God" (Hergenröther, I, 642-46). It is not easy to say what the Melchite patriarchs thought of the quarrel at this juncture. Afterwards, at the Eighth General Council, their legates declared that they had pronounced no sentence against Photius because that of the pope was obviously sufficient.
Then, suddenly, in the same year (Sept. 867), Photius fell. Michael III was murdered and Basil I (the Macedonian, 867-86) seized his place as emperor. Photius shared the fate of all Michael's friends. He was ejected from the patriarch's palace, and Ignatius restored.
Nicholas I died (Nov. 13, 867).
Adrian II (867-72), his successor, answered Ignatius's appeal for legates to attend a synod that should examine the whole matter by sending Donatus, Bishop of Ostia, Stephen, Bishop of Nepi, and a
deacon, Marinus. They arrived at Constantinople in Sept., 869, and in October the synod was opened which Catholics recognize as the Eighth General Council (Fourth of Constantinople). This synod tried Photius, confirmed his deposition, and, as he refused to renounce his claim,
excommunicated him. The bishops of his party received light penances (Mansi, XVI, 308-409). Photius was banished to a monastery at Stenos on the Bosphorus. Here he spent seven years, writing letters to his friends, organizing his party, and waiting for another chance. Meanwhile Ignatius reigned as patriarch. Photius, as part of his policy, professed great admiration for the emperor and sent him a fictitious pedigree showing his descent form
St. Gregory the Illuminator and a forged prophecy foretelling his greatness (Mansi, XVI, 284). Basil was so pleased with this that he recalled him in 876 and appointed him tutor to his son Constantine. Photius ingratiated himself with everyone and feigned reconciliation with Ignatius. It is doubtful how far Ignatius believed in him, but Photius at this time never tires of expatiating on his close friendship with the patriarch. He became so popular that when Ignatius died (23 Oct, 877) a strong party demanded that Photius should succeed him; the emperor was now on their side, and an embassy went to Rome to explain that everyone at Constantinople wanted Photius to be patriarch. The pope (
John VIII, 872-82) agreed, absolved him from all censure, and acknowledged him as patriarch.
This concession has been much discussed. It has been represented, truly enough, that Photius had shown himself unfit for such a post;
John VIII's acknowledgment of him has been described as showing deplorable weakness. On the other hand, by Ignatius's death the See of Constantinople was now really vacant; the clergy had an undoubted right to elect their own patriarch; to refuse to acknowledge Photius would have provoked a fresh breach with the East, would not have prevented his occupation of the see, and would have given his party (including the emperor) just reason for a quarrel. The event proved that almost anything would have been better than to allow his succession, if it could be prevented. But the pope could not foresee that , and no doubt hoped that Photius, having reached the height of his ambition, would drop the quarrel.
In 878, then, Photius at last obtained lawfully the place he had formerly usurped. Rome acknowledged him and restored him to her communion. There was no possible reason now for a fresh quarrel. But he had identified himself so completely with that strong anti-Roman party in the East which he mainly had formed, and, doubtless, he had formed so great a hatred of Rome, that now he carried on the old quarrel with as much bitterness as ever and more influence. Nevertheless he applied to Rome for legates to come to another synod. There was no reason for the synod, but he persuaded
John VIII that it would clear up the last remains of the schism and rivet more firmly the union between East and West. His real motive was, no doubt, to undo the effect of the synod that had deposed him. The pope sent three legates, Cardinal Peter of St. Chrysogonus, Paul, Bishop of Ancona, and Eugene, Bishop of Ostia. The synod was opened in St. Sophia's in November, 879. This is the "Psuedosynodus Photiana" which the Orthodox count as the Eighth General Council. Photius had it all his own way throughout. He revoked the acts of the former synod (869), repeated all his accusations against the Latins, dwelling especially on the filioque grievance,
anathematized all who added anything to the Creed, and declared that Bulgaria should belong to the Byzantine Patriarchate. The fact that there was a great majority for all these measures shows how strong Photius's party had become in the East. The legates, like their predecessors in 861, agreed to everything the majority desired (Mansi, XVII, 374 sq.). As soon as they had returned to Rome, Photius sent the Acts to the pope for his confirmation. Instead John, naturally, again
excommunicated him. So the schism broke out again. This time it lasted seven years, till Basil I's death in 886.
Basil was succeeded by his son Leo VI (886-912), who strongly disliked Photius. One of his first acts was to accuse him of treason, depose, and banish him (886). The story of this second deposition and banishment is obscure. The charge was that Photius had conspired to depose the emperor and put one of his own relations on the throne---an accusation which probably meant that the emperor wanted to get rid of him. As Stephen, Leo's younger brother, was made patriarch (886-93) the real explanation may be merely that Leo disliked Photius and wanted a place for his brother. Stephen's intrusion was as glaring an offence against canon law as had been that of Photius in 857; so Rome refused to recognize him. It was only under his successor Antony II (893-95) that a synod was held which restored reunion for a century and a half, till the time of Michael Cærularius (1043-58). But Photius had left a powerful anti-Roman party, eager to repudiate the pope's primacy and ready for another schism. It was this party, to which Cærularius belonged, that triumphed at Constantinople under him, so that Photius is rightly considered the author of the schism which still lasts. After this second deposition Photius suddenly disappears from history. It is not even known in what monastery he spent his last years. Among his many letters there is none that can be dated certainly as belonging to this second exile. The date of his death, not quite certain, is generally given as 6 February, 897.
That Photius was one of the greatest men of the
Middle Ages, one of the most remarkable characters in all church history, will not be disputed. His fatal quarrel with Rome, though the most famous, was only one result of his many-sided activity. During the stormy years he spent on the patriarch's throne, while he was warring against the Latins, he was negotiating with the
Moslem Khalifa for the protection of the
Christians under
Moslem rule and the care of the Holy Places, and carrying on controversies against various Eastern heretics, Armenians, Paulicians etc. His interest in letters never abated. Amid all his cares he found time to write works on dogma, Biblical criticism, canon law, homilies, an encyclopædia of all kinds of learning, and letters on all questions of the day. Had it not been for his disastrous schism, he might be counted the last, and one of the greatest, of the Greek Fathers. There is no shadow of suspicion against his private life. He bore his exiles and other troubles manfully and well. He never despaired of his cause and spent the years of adversity in building up his party, writing letters to encourage his old friends and make new ones.
And yet the other side of his character is no less evident. His insatiable ambition, his determination to obtain and keep the patriarchal see, led him to the extreme of dishonesty. His claim was worthless. That Ignatius was the rightful patriarch as long as he lived, and Photius an intruder, cannot be denied by any one who does not conceive the Church as merely the slave of a civil government. And to keep this place Photius descended to the lowest depth of deceit. At the very time he was protesting his obedience to the pope he was dictating to the emperor insolent letters that denied all papal jurisdiction. He misrepresented the story of Ignatius's deposition with unblushing lies, and he at least connived at Ignatius's ill-treatment in banishment. He proclaimed openly his entire subservience to the State in the whole question of his intrusion. He stops at nothing in his war against the Latins. He heaps up accusations against them that he must have known were lies. His effrontery on occasions is almost incredible. For instance, as one more grievance against Rome, he never tires of inveighing against the fact that Pope Marinus I (882-84),
John VIII's successor, was translated from another see, instead of being ordained from the Roman clergy. He describes this as an atrocious breach of canon law, quoting against it the first and second canons of Sardica; and at the same time he himself continually transferred bishops in his patriarchate. The Orthodox, who look upon him, rightly, as the great champion of their cause against Rome, have forgiven all his offences for the sake of this championship. They have canonized him, and on 6 Feb., when they keep his feast, their office overflows with his praise. He is the "far-shining radiant star of the church", the "most inspired guide of the Orthodox", "thrice blessed speaker for
God", "wise and divine glory of the hierarchy, who broke the horns of Roman pride" ("Menologion" for 6 Feb., ed. Maltzew, I, 916 sq.). The Catholic remembers this extraordinary man with mixed feelings. We do not deny his eminent qualities and yet we certainly do not remember him as a thrice blessed speaker for
God. One may perhaps sum up Photius by saying that he was a great man with one blot on his character---his insatiable and unscrupulous ambition. But that blot so covers his life that it eclipses everything else and makes him deserve our final judgment as one of the worst enemies the Church of Christ ever had, and the cause of the greatest calamity that ever befell her.
WORKS
Of Photius's prolific literary production part has been lost. A great merit of what remains is that he has preserved at least fragments of earlier Greek works of which otherwise we should know nothing. This applies especially to his "Myriobiblion".
The "Myriobiblion" or "Bibliotheca" is a collection of descriptions of books he had read, with notes and sometimes copious extracts. It contains 280 such notices of books (or rather 279; no. 89 is lost) on every possible subject---theology, philosophy, rhetoric, grammar, physics, medicine. He quotes pagans and
Christians, Acts of Councils, Acts of Martyrs, and so on, in no sort of order. For the works thus partially saved (otherwise unknown) see Krumbacher, "Byz. Litter.", 518-19.
The "Lexicon" (Lexeon synagoge) was compiled, probably, to a great extent by his students under his direction (Krumbacher, ibid., 521), from older Greek dictionaries (Pausanias, Harpokration, Diogenianos, Ælius Dionysius). It was intended as a practical help to readers of the Greek classics, the Septuagint, and the New testament. Only one MS. of it exists, the defective "Codex Galeanus" (formerly in the possession of Thomas Gale, now at Cambridge), written about 1200.
The "Amphilochia", dedicated to one of his favourite disciples, Amphilochius of Cyzicus, are answers to questions of Biblical, philosophical, and theological difficulties, written during his first exile (867-77). There are 324 subjects discussed, each in a regular form--question, answer, difficulties, solutions---but arranged again in no order. Photius gives mostly the views of famous Greek Fathers, Epiphanius, Cyril of Alexandria, John Damascene, especially Theodoret.
Biblical works.---Only fragments of these are extant, chiefly in Catenas. The longest are from Commentaries on St. Matthew and Romans.
Canon Law.---The classical "Nomocanon" (q. v.), the official code of the Orthodox Church, is attributed to Photius. It is, however, older than his time (see JOHN SCHOLASTICUS). It was revised and received additions (from the synods of 861 and 879) in Photius's time, probably by his orders. The "Collections and Accurate Expositions" (Eunagolai kai apodeixeis akribeis) (Hergenröther, op. cit., III, 165-70) are a series of questions and answers on points of canon law, really an indirect vindication of his own claims and position. A number of his letters bear on canonical questions.
Homilies.---Hergenröther mentions twenty-two sermons of Photius (III, 232). Of these two were printed when Hergenröther wrote (in P. G., CII, 548, sq.), one on the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin, and one at the dedication of a new church during his second patriarchate. Later, S. Aristarches published eighty-three homilies of different kinds (Constantinople, 1900).
Dogmatic and polemical works.---Many of these bear on his accusations against the Latins and so form the beginning of the long series of anti-Catholic controversy produced by Orthodox theologians. The most important is "Concerning the Theology about the Holy Ghost" (Peri tes tou hagiou pneumatos mystagonias, P. G., CII, 264-541), a defence of the Procession from
God the Father alone, based chiefly on John, xv, 26. An epitome of the same work, made by a later author and contained in Euthymius Zigabenus's "Panoplia", XIII, became the favourite weapon of Orthodox controversialists for many centuries. The treatise "Against Those who say that Rome is the First See", also a very popular Orthodox weapon, is only the last part or supplement of the "Collections", often written out separately. The "Dissertation Concerning the Reappearance of the Manichæans" (Diegesis peri tes manichaion anablasteseos, P. G., CII, 9-264), in four books, is a history and refutation of the Paulicians. Much of the "Amphilochia" belongs to this heading. The little work "Against the Franks and other Latins" (Hergenröther, "Monumenta", 62-71), attributed to Photius, is not authentic. It was written after Cærularius (Hergenröther, "Photius", III, 172-224).
Letters.---Migne, P. G., CII, publishes 193 letters arranged in three books; Balettas (London, 1864) has edited a more complete collection in five parts. They cover all the chief periods of Photius's life, and are the most important source for his history.
A. Ehrhard (in Krumbacher, "Byzantinische Litteratur", 74-77) judges Photius as a distinguished preacher, but not as a theologian of the first importance. His theological work is chiefly the collection of excerpts from Greek Fathers and other sources. His erudition is vast, and probably unequalled in the
Middle Ages, but he has little originality, even in his controversy against the Latins. Here, too, he only needed to collect angry things said by Byzantine theologians before his time. But his discovery of the filioque grievance seems to be original. Its success as a weapon is considerably greater than its real value deserves (Fortescue, "Orthodox Eastern Church", 372-84).
Editions.---The works of Photius known at the time were collected by Migne, P. G., CI-CV. J. Balettas, Photiou epistolai (London, 1864), contains other letters (altogether 260) not in Migne. A. Papadopulos-Kerameus, "S. Patris Photii Epistolæ XLV" (St. Petersburg, 1896) gives forty-five more, of which, however, only the first twenty-one are authentic. S. Aristaches, Photiou logoi kai homiliai 83 (Constantinople, 1900, 2 vols.), gives other homilies not in Migne. Oikonomos has edited the "Amphilochia" (Athens, 1858) in a more complete text. J. Hergenröther, "Monumenta græca ad Photium eiusque historiam pertinentia" (Ratisbon, 1869), and Papadopulos-Kerameus, "Monumenta græca et latina ad historiam Photii patriarchæ pertinentia" (St. Petersburg, 2 parts, 1899 and 1901), add further documents.
[1] With Bruce, Rackham, Ramsay, Harnak, Thornton and other I hold that Luke the companion of Paul wrote Acts of the Apostles.
[2] It has been argued by RichardAndersen that this Theophilus is the High priest of the same name mentioned by Josephus. See http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Pantheon/2454/theosub/THEOSUB.htm
[3] I personally think there is some weight to the argument that this Theophilus is the son of Caiaphas high priest in Jerusalem in about 37 AD whose daughter was Johanna and may also be mentioned in the Book of Luke.
[4] Interestingly this is the first mention of Gamaliel in history and he appears in a section of Luke whose source is not historically valuable but is a “worthless doublet” according to Kummel (1973,174). Needless to say Bruce, Rackham, Withering Spoon III do not agree.
[5] Jeremiah's trial is in Jeremiah 26. He proclaimed his word in the name Yahwah and told them to do to him as they pleased, but warned that if they killed him they would bring innocent blood on “yourselves, and on this city, and on its inhabitants; for truly Yahwah has sent me to you to sepak all these words in your hearing.” Two cases of past prophet trials were cited. The High Priest perhaps understood Peter’s charge to be having the same consequences. Jeremiah was saved by Ahikam the son of Shaphan whilst Peter and the Apostles were perhaps saved by Gamaliel.
[6] See the Catholic Encylopedia for and introduction: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04039b.htm
[7] Philocalia, cap 22
[8] This perhaps indicates that we are not dealing with the Ur texts but a text with later additions to the story.
[9] He is the narrator in the book and we will for simplicity’s sake call the author by that name
[10] Called Christs Decent into Hades in Henneke.
[11] See Henneke: NT Apocrypha: Gospel of Nicodemus
[12] See CK Barret Acts, ICC
[13] There is a historical problem with the cases sighted.
[14] We have no historical confirmation as to his existence but because of Luke excellent trustworthiness as a historian we need to exercise caution in assuming he made an error here.
[15] Harvey Falks, Jesus the Pharisee is an orthodox Jewish Rabbis view on Jesus as an Hillelite Pharisee which would clear place him next to Gamaliel.
