Early Church Doctrines, Concepts, and Practices

[joey_the_ox]

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.

I agree with all of this, save for part of your last sentence. There was likely some local doubt, Cyprian did think that one could not claim the excuse of teaching acting instead of acting, and the actor was part of the church. Cyprian writes that the actor "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." This sounds like the actor was resistant to the correction proposed by Eucratius. He was still acting ("still persisting in the infamy") as well as teaching ("also teaching others").

My point was that Bercot constructs a narrative around this that is not supported by the text.

[ohio jones]

All of Bercot's bibliographies and other reference notes that I know of are from the ANF, searchable online at ccel.org/fathers

The link for the passage under discussion is https://ccel.org/ccel/cyprian/epistles/ ... iv.LX.html, if others would like to follow along.

My point was that Bercot constructs a narrative around this that is not supported by the text.

That does seem to be the case in this example.

[Reluctant Poster]

Persisting as a master and teacher was, from the beginning of the letter, the issue, not continuing at the theater as if nothing had changed. Cyprian's whole argument is that this is a continuance of the problem in another, perhaps worse form, and he also addresses the reason for the actor's resistance in the rather lengthy discussion of his finances. Again, if it is assumed that he was simply in sinful obstinancy, resisting the church and acting in the theater as he always had been, then I can't imagine why his finances or willingness to see them changed so drastically would even be a subject. It is interesting that the main concern in that regard seems to be whether he would be content with the basic, wholesome but more poverty-level fare that the church would sustain him with. Someone losing their job is one thing, but the church asking someone to walk away from popular public employment with good income is another. BTW, does the Catholic Church do this today? Does it tell those of its members employed in Hollywood, or worse (Las Vegas?), that they cannot be in any such profession and bring infamy on the Body of Christ? I know that the LDS does not, and probably few, if any, others.

[joey_the_ox]

Persisting as a master and teacher was, from the beginning of the letter, the issue, not continuing at the theater as if nothing had changed. Cyprian's whole argument is that this is a continuance of the problem in another, perhaps worse form, and he also addresses the reason for the actor's resistance in the rather lengthy discussion of his finances. Again, if it is assumed that he was simply in sinful obstinancy, resisting the church and acting in the theater as he always had been, then I can't imagine why his finances or willingness to see them changed so drastically would even be a subject.

I'm content to leave the discussion of this specific example here and let interested parties read the letter for themselves and judge if Bercot's presentation and yours above accurately represent the text.

[Reluctant Poster]

I'm content to leave the discussion of this specific example here and let interested parties read the letter for themselves and judge if Bercot's presentation and yours above accurately represent the text.

That is fine with me as well. I will just say that Bercot's frequent insistence on reading and referencing primary sources is probably the main reason that I slogged it through the ANF, and am glad that I did. Otherwise, I probably would have just read books about their writings.

[Soloist]

I would say Bercot was accurate based on my reading of the text. Perhaps he interpreted it for the reader, but show me a writer of the early church who has not done the same. The Catholic church certainly has interpreted the writings through the lens of their teachings.

[joey_the_ox]

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 a question about this - did you get this information from a personal communication with Bercot? I haven't found anywhere in my copy of the book where he identifies what translations he is relying on. The citations are quite brief. For example, for this Cyprian example we were discussing, the entirety of the citation is "Cyprian Letter to Euchratius (epis. 60)". (To be clear, I don't doubt that what you are saying is true - I'm just curious as to how you discovered it.)

[Soloist]

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 a question about this - did you get this information from a personal communication with Bercot? I haven't found anywhere in my copy of the book where he identifies what translations he is relying on. The citations are quite brief. For example, for this Cyprian example we were discussing, the entirety of the citation is "Cyprian Letter to Euchratius (epis. 60)". (To be clear, I don't doubt that what you are saying is true - I'm just curious as to how you discovered it.)

I don't have it in front of me, but I'm pretty sure he gives the actual set he uses reference in a few books of his. He also sells a copy if I'm not mistaken.

[Reluctant Poster]

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 a question about this - did you get this information from a personal communication with Bercot? I haven't found anywhere in my copy of the book where he identifies what translations he is relying on. The citations are quite brief. For example, for this Cyprian example we were discussing, the entirety of the citation is "Cyprian Letter to Euchratius (epis. 60)". (To be clear, I don't doubt that what you are saying is true - I'm just curious as to how you discovered it.)

He references the ANF volumes as the source back in various notes on where he is drawing the characters from, such as on pp. 168 and 175 of my copy. (It has gone through several reprints over three decades.) I also have the volume from Hendrickson that he edited, A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs, mostly for modern language and phrasing, and the English sourcing is referenced for every quote there, nearly all by volume and page from the ANF set.

[joey_the_ox]

'Reluctant Poster' and Soloist - thank you both for the information!