This is the second last installment of the series responding to Tim K’s article on Novel Antiquity. The reply here will deal with Aphrahat the Persian Sage.
Overall, Tim K’s main thrust is that since Aphrahat in Demonstration 16.4 mention Jews committing idolatry by revering “idols and images”, he is against Roman ‘incarnationalism’. But what Aphrahat refers to is of course as will be shown, different from what Rome sees in its use of incense, candles or a theological system where material things can convey Grace(particularly a realist conception of sacraments).
First off, to address the citation from Demonstrations 16.4 on the “reverence for images and idols”. According to Tim K, this means,
What distinguished the Gentile heirs of the kingdom from the Jews, according to Aphrahat, is that Gentile believers did not stumble into veneration of images as the Jews had. This is a matter of Law — something the Jews had forsaken, but the Gentiles had heard—and the Law prohibited veneration of images. Aphrahat repeats the charge in Demonstration 21, On Persecution, explaining that the Jews had made broken cisterns for themselves (Jeremiah 2:13), and “The shattered cisterns represent reverence for images and idols…” (Aphrahat, Demonstration 21.7).
See: http://www.whitehorseblog.com/2014/12/07/novel-antiquity/
Generally here, Tim K isn’t wrong but unfortunately for him he ought to remember why images are prohibited. And this involves knowing how the cultures around Israel viewed images which will be shown to be completely different from how Catholicism sees its use of imagery.
Here, I’ll let the Anchor Bible Dictionary do the talking on this topic,
To the Egyptians and Mesopotamians—and almost certainly to the Canaanites as well—images were not the inanimate objects that the Hebrew prophets insisted they were; rather, they were living, feeling beings in which the deity was actually present. The primary significance of images lay in the fact that the life of the deity was thought to be present in the statue. The Egyptian view is expressed in a passage from the Memphite Theology which says, ―He placed the gods in their shrines, He settled their offerings, He established their shrines, He made their bodies according to their wishes. Thus the gods entered into their bodies, Of every wood, every stone, every clay‖ (AEL 1:55). The gods were thought to manifest themselves in a variety of ways and to animate a variety of objects, but the cult image was a primary focus of the god‘s presence on earth. Numerous Egyptian texts (though coming mostly from the Greek and Roman periods) describe the god in the form of a bird descending from heaven to alight on his image. Morenz (1973: 157) says that this figure ―represents the living substance of the deity which is imparted to the inanimate image.(Anchor Bible Dictionary, pg 3811(PDF),Idol, Idolatry)
When one takes this into account, the charge of Catholic idolatry falls flat as they certainly do not see Mary or the Saints or God in the images and paintings made of them. And given that Aphrahat’s citations on the topic of images is within a Biblical context, one ought to understand how the culture at its time see images and statues, one in which the deity worshiped as present within them. This hence nullifies Tim K’s core argument on the subject of Aphrahat being iconoclastic as what he is referring to is one in which the deity is seen to be within the image itself. Again, I stress that Tim K’s point isn’t wrong but one ought to remember why such is prohibited and under what context which when understood sees it as something different from Catholic treatment of their own imagery which sometimes seem to be for artistic purposes (in my opinion at least).
Another thing about Aphrahat to note is his view of the Eucharist in which he is pretty much realist. I now turn to Demonstrations 7:6, On the Paschal Sacrifice to make my case. Here Aphrahat writes that Jesus gave his flesh to be eaten and blood to be drunk before he was crucified(Neusner, 1971,pg35). This act itself is seen by him as offering the Paschal sacrifice(ibid, pg 35) and again, he stresses the eating of Jesus’ flesh and blood.
Later on in Demonstrations 7:8, Aphrahat compares the Passover in the OT with the new Passover where he parallels the two together(ibid, pg 37). One of these comparisons include the Mana given to the Israelites to eat in the OT and Jesus giving his own body for “us”. Because of the pattern of paralleling the two, the two situations in OT and NT must be similar or alike in some way. Hence here, when the mana is given to the Israelites to eat, so is the flesh of Christ given for us to eat. Both of these are things that to Aphrahat, actually happened. And thus when the statement of eating Jesus’ body is made, it must be seen as an actual factual statement, not a metaphor or symbol of something.
Due to this, it would also appear that Aphrahat already agrees with Rome on part of its ‘incarnationalism’. In pg 39(or Demonstrations 7:13), Aphrahat mentions giving the sign of the cross. Again further agreeing with the Catholic Church.
I now move on to the Sage’s view of Baptism to further demonstrate Tim K’s failure in using him to argue against Roman ‘incarnationalism’. Lizorkin (2007, pg 54) cites from Demonstrations 11:11 showing the two circumcisions in Aphrahat’s thought. The first circumcision is of the heart. This takes the form of faith which Aphrahat uses Abraham as an example of such (ibid, pg 52). His reasoning is that if Abraham is indeed the way to eternal life, God would proclaim him(Abraham) as righteous because of his circumcision (ibid, pg 52). But as Aphrahat says in Demonstrations 11:3 that Abraham is declared as righteous by God through his faith. What must be remembered is that this is the first circumcision. It does not entail that Aphrahat doesn’t believe in some baptismal regeneration. This leads to the second circumcision.
The second circumcision according to Aphrahat is Baptism which is for the forgiveness of sins as he states in Demonstrations 11:11 (Lizorkin, 2007, pg 54). And at the end of Demonstrations 6, the inheritors of Abraham is described as those that underwent the two circumcisions(Neusner, 1971, pg 30). Fromm (2010) does make clear that to Aphrahat, the Holy Spirit is received in Baptism which the elite(bnay qyama) must protect through the act of celibacy. Quite interestingly, Aphrahat thinks that the Holy Spirit received in Baptism can be lost as Evans & Zacharias (2009, pg 192) mentions (see Demonstrations 6:17) where should the individual continue to indulge in sin after Baptism, the Holy Spirit can leave the person and even accuse the person who “grieved it”. This apart from demonstrating that Aphrahat would agree with aspects of the so called Roman ‘incarnationalism’ Tim K argues against, shows that there is certainly no notion that Salvation cannot be lost.
I end this with a final citation from the Demonstrations showing Aphrahat’s use of typology in comparison of Mary of the NT and Eve of the OT,
. Therefore, brethren, because we know and have seen that from the beginning it was through woman that the adversary had access unto men, and to the end he will accomplish it by her— for she is the weapon of Satan, and through her he fights against the champions. Through her he makes music at every time, for she became as a harp for him from the first day. For because of her the curse of the Law was established, and because of her the promise unto death was made. For with pangs she bears children and delivers them to death. Because of her the earth was cursed, that it should bring forth thorns and tares. Accordingly, by the coming of the offspring of the Blessed Mary the thorns are uprooted, the sweat wiped away, the fig-tree cursed, Matthew 21:19 the dust made salt, Matthew 5:13 the curse nailed to the cross, Colossians 2:14 the edge of the sword removed from before the tree of life and it given as food to the faithful, and Paradise promised to the blessed and to virgins and to the saints.(Demonstrations: Of Monks, 6)
Final Notice
The final part on Epiphanius of salamis to follow. As an important note, I’ll assume that he is against images eventhough it can be argued how such is not necessarily the case.
A special appendix on Early Christian art and on the Nomina Sacra are planned once I am finished with Epiphanius.
Once this series is over, I intend to get into John Calvin and dive deeper into explorations of Early Christianity. First off, to debunk misconceptions about Calvin and stereotypical thought about him and to demonstrate Early Christianity as it is through the use of scholarship, rather than to follow the apologetical approach of projecting one’s own beliefs upon the fathers.
References
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/370106.htm
Evans, C.A. and Zacharias, D.H. (eds.) (2009) Early Christian Literature and Intertextuality: Volume 2: Exegetical studies. United Kingdom: Continuum International Publishing Group.
Freedman, D.N., Herion, G.A., Graf, D.F. and Pleins, J.D. (eds.) (2007) The anchor Yale bible dictionary. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Koltun-Fromm, N. (2010) Hermeneutics of Holiness: Ancient Jewish and Christian notions of sexuality and religious community. New York, NY, United States: Oxford Univ Pr on Demand.
Lizorkin, I. (2009)
Aphrahat ” s demonstrations: A conversation with the Jews of Mesopotamia. Available at:
https://scholar.sun.ac.za/bitstream/handle/10019.1/2998/lizorkin_aphrahats_2009.pdf?sequence=1 (Accessed: 12 September 2016).
Neusner, J (1971) Aphrahat and Judaism: Christian-Jewish argument in fourth-century Iran. Netherlands: Brill.
Debunking Deceit 