Early Church Doctrines, Concepts, and Practices

[Ernie]

Is anybody familiar with the Disciples' Fellowship in Westfield Massachusetts? Here is their website: http://www.disciples-fellowship.org

This does not appear on my database, and their placement of the Didache as an authoritative document tends to make me think these are an "Ancient Church" group, likely influenced by some of David Bercot's work.

Ernie can more accurately place them. I am taking my best guess based on experiences I have had. Personally I don't have much use, except historical, for second century writings. By that point, apostasy and false doctrine was rampant.

This was curious to me as I had read in Franklin Littel's "The Anabaptist View of the Church" that one of its foundational premises was restitutionalism. In other words, that the work of Jesus and the Apostles would be seen as the aim or standard (per Acts 3:20-21, etc.). Your view would be that the Apostles and others of Jesus disciples failed His calling and charge to them in John 15:16 if there were apostates among their fruits? Forgive me as I am not from Anabaptist background but am trying to understand the reasoning.

This is a good question...

The Apostle Paul predicted that false teachers would arise after his decease. Even during his time there were already heresies. So it is not surprising to me that there would be even more heresies by the second century. I believe there were many God honoring believers in the second century and perhaps many who held to the teachings of the Apostles. We don't have many writings from that century, so it is difficult to discern what heresies and concepts of the church were commonly accepted by the Christian churches. I don't see this as being a failure on the part of the apostles, but rather the devil's goal to cause as much havoc as possible in the early formation of the church.

[joey_the_ox]

Don't rely on Bercot for information about "early church doctrines, concepts, and practices." I've been reading through his Real Heretics book, and he is not a good historian.

[Reluctant Poster]

Don't rely on Bercot for information about "early church doctrines, concepts, and practices." I've been reading through his Real Heretics book, and he is not a good historian.

Can you give me something to "hang my hat on" with that? An assertion doesn't work well as evidence or illustration. Thanks.

[joey_the_ox]

Don't rely on Bercot for information about "early church doctrines, concepts, and practices." I've been reading through his Real Heretics book, and he is not a good historian.

Can you give me something to "hang my hat on" with that? An assertion doesn't work well as evidence or illustration. Thanks.

Yes, as a quick example compare his description of Cyprian's letter (number 60) on pages 20 and 21 to the actual text of the letter.

[Reluctant Poster]

Don't rely on Bercot for information about "early church doctrines, concepts, and practices." I've been reading through his Real Heretics book, and he is not a good historian.

Can you give me something to "hang my hat on" with that? An assertion doesn't work well as evidence or illustration. Thanks.

Yes, as a quick example compare his description of Cyprian's letter (number 60) on pages 20 and 21 to the actual text of the letter.

I must be missing something. I would have summarized the situation, expectation, and offer similarly. How do you believe that it demonstrates a discrepancy?

[joey_the_ox]

Can you give me something to "hang my hat on" with that? An assertion doesn't work well as evidence or illustration. Thanks.

Yes, as a quick example compare his description of Cyprian's letter (number 60) on pages 20 and 21 to the actual text of the letter.

I must be missing something. I would have summarized the situation, expectation, and offer similarly. How do you believe that it demonstrates a discrepancy?

I have to run for a meeting now, but unless Bercot is reading some entirely different text of the letter than I am, he is just making elements of his narrative up out of thin air. I'll try to expand later when I have time.

[joey_the_ox]

Here is my promised expansion.

Bercot writes that the actor "realized he had to change his employment because most plays encouraged immorality and were steeped in pagan idolatry."

Here is how the letter by Cyprian begins (I'm using the translation by Sister Rose Bernard Donna, C.S.J, published by the Catholic University of America Press in 1964, pages 5 and 6):

In accordance with your love and our mutual reverence, dearly beloved Brother, you thought to consult me as to what seems best to me for a certain actor who, situated among you, is still persisting in the infamy of the same art and, as master and teacher, not for the instruction but for the downfall of youth, is also teaching others what he has unfortunately learned; [you wanted to know] whether such a one ought to communicate with us.

Nowhere in this passage or elsewhere in the letter is it indicated that the actor wanted to change his employment or had realized that it was wrong. Cyprian says that he was "still persisting in the infamy of the same art."

Bercot then writes: "Since this newly-converted actor had no other job skills, he considered establishing an acting school to teach drama to non-Christian students. However, he first submitted his idea to the leaders of his church for their council."

But again the letter does not support this narrative. Cyprian writes

Let no one excuse himself that he himself has withdrawn from the theater when he is still teaching this to others.

No indication is given that this was an actual excuse made by the actor. Cyprian here seems to be anticipating potential outcomes, as he later writes "But if such a one pleads as an excuse want and the necessity of poverty..."

And the letter does not say anywhere that the actor "submitted his idea to the leaders of his church." Again, it never indicates that he believed that what he was doing was wrong or intended to cease and desist. He was still continuing as an actor as well as teaching acting ("is also teaching others"). And there is no indication that the church had multiple leaders - the letter was written to Eucratius, who was the Bishop of Thena at the time, and is addressed to him ("dearly beloved Brother") in the singular.

Bercot continues: "The leaders told him that if acting was an immoral profession then it would be wrong to train others in it. Nevertheless, since this was a rather novel question, they wrote to Cyprian in nearby Carthage for his thoughts."

As above, there is no evidence that "the leaders" told the actor this. And this is not why Eucratius (the singular leader that we know of from the letter) wrote to Cyprian. He wrote with a question about communion ("whether such a one ought to communicate with us"). Cyprian said no, and then went on to draw the conclusion that teaching acting was also not permitted.

Now, this doesn't substantially change the point Bercot is trying to make. But it is enough to make me not trust how he uses historical sources. Why not just be honest and stick to what the source actually says, rather than making up a narrative that sounds good?

This is just one example. I could go into detail about some others but am out of time for now. And it is not just the details - Bercot's entire methodology as outlined in Chapter 2 is ad hoc, and he selectively uses sources to make the points he wants to make while ignoring other parts of the same corpus of writings that complicate his narrative.

[Reluctant Poster]

Here is my promised expansion.

Bercot writes that the actor "realized he had to change his employment because most plays encouraged immorality and were steeped in pagan idolatry."

Here is how the letter by Cyprian begins (I'm using the translation by Sister Rose Bernard Donna, C.S.J, published by the Catholic University of America Press in 1964, pages 5 and 6):

In accordance with your love and our mutual reverence, dearly beloved Brother, you thought to consult me as to what seems best to me for a certain actor who, situated among you, is still persisting in the infamy of the same art and, as master and teacher, not for the instruction but for the downfall of youth, is also teaching others what he has unfortunately learned; [you wanted to know] whether such a one ought to communicate with us.

Nowhere in this passage or elsewhere in the letter is it indicated that the actor wanted to change his employment or had realized that it was wrong. Cyprian says that he was "still persisting in the infamy of the same art."

Bercot then writes: "Since this newly-converted actor had no other job skills, he considered establishing an acting school to teach drama to non-Christian students. However, he first submitted his idea to the leaders of his church for their council."

But again the letter does not support this narrative. Cyprian writes

Let no one excuse himself that he himself has withdrawn from the theater when he is still teaching this to others.

No indication is given that this was an actual excuse made by the actor. Cyprian here seems to be anticipating potential outcomes, as he later writes "But if such a one pleads as an excuse want and the necessity of poverty..."

And the letter does not say anywhere that the actor "submitted his idea to the leaders of his church." Again, it never indicates that he believed that what he was doing was wrong or intended to cease and desist. He was still continuing as an actor as well as teaching acting ("is also teaching others"). And there is no indication that the church had multiple leaders - the letter was written to Eucratius, who was the Bishop of Thena at the time, and is addressed to him ("dearly beloved Brother") in the singular.

Bercot continues: "The leaders told him that if acting was an immoral profession then it would be wrong to train others in it. Nevertheless, since this was a rather novel question, they wrote to Cyprian in nearby Carthage for his thoughts."

As above, there is no evidence that "the leaders" told the actor this. And this is not why Eucratius (the singular leader that we know of from the letter) wrote to Cyprian. He wrote with a question about communion ("whether such a one ought to communicate with us"). Cyprian said no, and then went on to draw the conclusion that teaching acting was also not permitted.

Now, this doesn't substantially change the point Bercot is trying to make. But it is enough to make me not trust how he uses historical sources. Why not just be honest and stick to what the source actually says, rather than making up a narrative that sounds good?

This is just one example. I could go into detail about some others but am out of time for now. And it is not just the details - Bercot's entire methodology as outlined in Chapter 2 is ad hoc, and he selectively uses sources to make the points he wants to make while ignoring other parts of the same corpus of writings that complicate his narrative.

Well, using a translation by one person of a particular Constantinian sect instead of a group of scholars collaborating in their subject-matter area doesn't seem like a place of strength from which to begin any discussion. Can you use the ANF from the work at Edinburgh in the 1800's for the discussion since I believe that is what Bercot used?

"Nowhere in this passage or elsewhere in the letter is it indicated that the actor wanted to change his employment or had realized that it was wrong. Cyprian says that he was 'still persisting in the infamy of the same art.'" Then what is meant by, "Nor let anyone excuse himself that he himself has given up the theatre, while he is still teaching the art to others. For he cannot appear to have given it up who substitutes others in his place, and who, instead of himself alone, supplies many in his stead"? Not only does Cyprian indicate that he had changed his involvement in the theater, but that he had done so on the basis of conviction but that this was insufficient / unsustainable even if it was his only means of earning a living without the church's support. In other words, precisely as Bercot summarized.

I will stop there for now.

[joey_the_ox]

Bercot does not specify what translation he used in his citation. If the translation changes the meaning, I'm happy to accept that if evidence is provided.

As to your other points, I addressed them in what I wrote.

[Reluctant Poster]

Bercot does not specify what translation he used in his citation. If the translation changes the meaning, I'm happy to accept that if evidence is provided.

As to your other points, I addressed them in what I wrote.

All of Bercot's bibliographies and other reference notes that I know of are from the ANF, searchable online at ccel.org/fathers , the only exceptions being later-discovered works that he cites in some places from CUA and other sources. I have only read the ANF and a couple more recent discoveries in translation, and a variety of academic literature that surrounds them, so I can't speak beyond those. I have not noticed great differences in understandings of major works between patristic scholars except as they might need to remain within the boundaries of their particular sectarian commitments. Meanings, and especially applications, can then become strained, as in other fields. When writing for a common audience, it is common to set the stage as communications and their purposes largely existed between churches at that time in history, for example, and as you note, it was compelled by the question of if or how someone was to be accepted at the Table with them. If there had not been local doubt over what was allowable conduct, it is unlikely that the letter would have been written, and if Cyprian did not think the details of acting vs. teaching acting were relevant, there would be no point in addressing them. If he believed the actor to simply be unconverted or impenitent, much of his response is pointless.