1. This essay represents a brief summary of the writer’s published dissertation,
From Sabbath to Sunday: A Historical Investigation of the Rise of Sunday Observance in Early Christianity (Rome: The Pontifical Gregorian University Press, 1977). The book is sold directly by the author ($10.00 postage paid), 230 Lisa Lane, Berrien Springs, Michigan, 49103, USA. The reader will be frequently referred to this study for a more extensive treatment of various issues. Space limitation has necessitated the total omission of significant aspects of the problem such as the NT references to the first day of the week (1 Cor. 16:1-3; Acts 20:7-12) and to the Lord’s day (Rev. 1:10); Paul’s attitude toward the Sabbath (Col. 2:14-17; Rom. 14:5-6; Gal. 4:10); the earliest patristic references to Sunday by Ignatius, Barnabas and Justin Martyr; the development of the theology of Sunday in the early Church. All of these issues are discussed extensively in
From Sabbath to Sunday, to which the reader is referred in order better to assess the validity of the conclusions of this essay.
2. For a bibliography of significant studies dealing with the historical genesis of Sunday observance, see
From Sabbath to Sunday, pp. 333-338.
3. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, 1947, Q. 122, Art. 4, II, p. 1702.
4. J. Donovan, ed. Catechism of the Council of Trent, 1908, chapter IV, question 18, p. 347.
5. On the use of this argument in the disputations between Catholics and Protestants in French Switzerland, see Daniel Augsburger,
“Sunday in the Pre-Reformation Disputations in French Switzerland,” Andrews University Seminary Studies 14 (1976): 265-277. For a survey of the use of this argument in the disputations between Catholic and Lutheran theologians, see J. N. Andrews and L.R. Conradi,
History of the Sabbath, 1912, pp. 586-595.
6.
The augsburg Confession, Art. 28, in
Concordia or Book of Concord, the Symbols of the Evangelivcal Lutheran Church, 1957, p. 24. Luther implicitly stated that Sunday is not
“celebrated in Christendom by God’s command.... Yet it is a necessity and is ordained by the church for the sake of the imperfect laity and the working class” (
D. Martin Luthers Werke, Weimer, 1888, 6:243, I. 31).
7.
Augsburg Confession (n. 6), p. 25.
8. John Calvin,
Institutes of the Christian Religion, 1972, I, p. 343.
9. In his
Symbolum, Erasmus writes:
“By His rest in the tomb, Christ abrogated the Jewish Sabbath and by His resurrection on the eighth day he commended to us the evangelical Sabbath” (
D. Erasmi opera omnia, 1962, 5:1190E).
10. Theodore Beza infers from 1 Cor. 16:2 and Acts 20:7 that
“the religious assemblies of the Lord’s day are of apostolical and truly divine tradition” (
Novum Testamentum. Ejusdem T. Bezae annotaziones, 1642, cited by Robert Cox,
The Literature of the Sabbath Question, 1865, I, p. 134). The two volumes by Robert Cox provide a most comprehensive and handy collection of documents on the Sabbath question. Most of the quotations and references below are drawn from this fine collection, which henceforth will be cited as
“Cox.” 11.
The Second Helvetic Confession (1566), chapter 24, states:
“From the very times of the Apostles, not merely were certain days in each week appointed for religious assemblies, but the Lord’s Day itself was consecrated to that purpose and to holy rest” (Philip Schaff,
The Creeds of Christendom, 1919, p. 298).
12. Nicolas Bownde in his popular book
The True Doctrine of the Sabbath (1595) argues that the Fourth Commandment is moral and perpetual. The actual day was changed from Saturday to Sunday by apostolic authority (Cox I, pp. 145-151).
13. Antonius Walaeus, professor of Theology at Leyden, wrote
Dissertatio de Sabbato (1628) in which he distinguishes between the ceremonial and moral aspects of the Sabbath. The latter is applicable to Sunday, which he views as an apostolic institution (Cox I, pp. 441-442).
14. Hamon L’
Estrange, in his book
God’s Sabbath before the Law, under the Law, and under the Gospel (1641) dedicated to the Long Parliament, maintains that the Sabbath-day was changed by Christ at His resurrection:
“No sooner was the old Sabbath abolished, than the new established and installed” (p. 71; cited by Cox. I, p. 202).
15. Articles 4 and 5 of the Synod of Dort read:
“4. The Sabbath of the Jews having been abrogated, the Lord’s Day must be solemnly sanctified by Christians. 5. From the time of the apostles this day was always observed in the ancient Catholic Church” (cited by Cox I, p. 218).
16.
The Westminster Confession of Faith, chapter 21, article 7, states:
“He hath particularly appointed one day in seven for a Sabbath, to be kept holy unto him: which, from the beginning of the world to the resurrection of Christ, was the last day of the week; and, from the resurrection of Christ, was changed into the first day of the week, which in the Scripture is called the Lord’s day, and is to be continued to the end of the world as the Christian Sabbath” (Philip Schaff (n. 11], pp. 648-649).
17. Gisbertus Voetius, a leading Dutch theologian, in his book
Lachrymae Crocodili Abstersae (1627) defends the notion that the primitive Sabbath was transferred to Sunday by apostolic authority.
18. John Owen, an eminent English theologian, in his
treatise Exercitations concerning the Name, Original Nature, Use, and Continuance, of a Day of Sacred Rest (1671), advocates strongly the divine authority and moral nature of Sundaykeeping (Cox II, pp. 22-28).
19. Henry Wilkinson, Principal of Magdalen Hall, Oxford, wrote a 94-page treatise
on the Divine Authority of the Lord’s Day, where he presents the name
“Lord’s Day” as a proof that Sunday was instituted by the Lord Himself (Cox I, p. 265).
20. Jonathan Edwards, President of the College of New Jersey, preached a series of sermons
On the Perpetuity and the Change of the Sabbath (1804), arguing that the first day of the week is the Christian Sabbath which was established by apostolic authority (Cox II, pp. 176-183).
21. William Paley, Archdeacon of Carlisle, discusses at length the institution of the Sabbath in his treatise
The Principles of Moral and Political Philosophy (1785). In chapter VII, Paley argues that Sunday worship
“originated from some precept of Christ, or of His Apostles” (cited by Cox II, p. 255).
22. James Augustus Hessey, in his famous Bampton Lectures delivered at the University of Oxford in 1860 and published under the title Sunday:
Its Origin, History, and Present Obligation (1866), maintains that Sunday is a
“Divine institution” because it was
“observed by the Apostles and their immediate followers” (p. 39).
23. See above notes 3, 4, 5.
24. See above note 6.
25. See above note 8.
26. William Tyndale, the famous translator of the Scriptures in modern English, accepted the ecclesiastical origin of Sunday, but rejected its obligations. He wrote:
“As for the Sabbath, we be lords over the Sabbath, and yet change it into Monday, or into any other day as we see need... Neither was there any cause to change it from the Saturday to Sunday, but to put a difference between ourselves and the Jews” (cited by Hessey [n. 22], p. 198).
27. Thomas Cranmer, Archbishop of Canterbury (burned at Oxford, 1555), argues in his
Confutation of Unwritten Verities that
“since the Church has without challenge shifted the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday, thus altering the law of God, much more has it authority to make new laws for things necessary to salvation” (cited by Cox I, p. 135).
28. John Prideaux, Bishop of Worcester, in his discourse on
The Doctrine of the Sabbath (published in 1634), reasons that the Lord’s day is founded not on the Fourth Commandment but only on the authority of the Church (Cox I, p. 165).
29. Hugo Grotius, an eminent Dutch jurist, deals at length with the Sabbath question in his
Opera Omnia Theologica, refuting
“those who think that the Lord’s Day was substituted for the Sabbath-a thing nowhere mentioned either by Christ or his apostles” (cited by Cox I, p. 223).
30. Franciscus Gomarus, professor of theology at Leyden, wrote the famous treatise
Investigatio Sententiae et Originis Sabbati (1628), in which he holds that the Fourth Commandment is not binding upon Christians and that there is no proof that the apostles appointed the Lord’s Day as a new day of worship (Cox I, p. 442).
31 Peter Heylyn, sub-dean of Westminster and chaplain to Charles I, wrote a two-volume treatise on
The History of the Sabbath (1636). In the first chapter of the second volume, Heylyn argues that Christ prepared the ground for the
“dissolution” of the Sabbath and that
“The Lord’s Day was not enjoined by him or his apostles in its place, but was instituted by the authority of the church” (cited by Cox I, p. 177).
32. John Cocceius, professor of theology at the University of Leyden, wrote a major study entitled
Indagatio Naturae Sabbati et Quietis Novi Testamenti (1658). His position is that the Lord’s Day arose among early Christians not without
“divine providence” but without an express divine command (p. 35; Cox II, p. 1, 2).
33. John Milton, the famous English poet and theologian, examines the question of the Sabbath in his work,
A Treatise on Christian Doctrine. His view is that
“the original Sabbath is abrogated, and since we are nowhere told that it has been transferred from one day to another, nor is any reason given why it should be so transferred, the Church, when she sanctioned a change in this matter, evidenced, not her obedience to God’s command (inasmuch as the command existed no longer), but her own rightful liberty” (cited by Cox II, p. 52).
34. John Samuel Stryk, a German jurist, examines the juridical basis of Sunday observance in his work
Coinmentatio de Jure Sabbathi (1756). His position is that
“the Sunday of Christians does not stand on any common ground with the Sabbath of the Jews. It has not been introduced by a direct Divine command; for it cannot be proved that the observance originated with the apostles; ... The observance of the Sunday rests entirely upon a simple arrangement of the Church” (cited from Hengstenberg’s review of Stryk’s book by Cox II, p. 135).
35. Edward Evanson, rector of Tewkesbury, in England, in his work
Arguments against and for the Sabbatical Observance of Sunday,
“denies that we have any proof of the Lord’s Day having been observed by the Apostles or other primitive Christians as a Sabbath” (Cox II, p. 292).
36. Richard Whately, Archbishop of Dublin, in his
Thoughts on the Sabbath (published in 1830), maintains that there is no connection between Sabbath and Sunday and that the Lord’s Day was instituted not by the apostles but by the Church that succeeded them (Cox II, p. 333).
37. C.C.L. Franke, a German theologian, strongly emphasizes in his treatise
De Diei Dominici apud Veteres Christianos Celebratione (1826) that Sunday is a purely ecclesiastical institution since there is no trace of apostolic or divine support for it (Cox II, p. 438).
38. William Domville, according to Robert Cox, made
“the most valu. able contribution in this century [19th century] to the literature of the Sabbath Question” (Cox II, p. 357). In his treatise
The Sabbath, or, an Examination of the Six Texts Commonly Adduced from the New Testament in Proof of a Christian Sabbath, he emphatically states:
“there is not a single instance recorded in Scripture of the observance of Sunday by the Apostles themselves ... consequently there are no just grounds for presuming that a precept from Christ or his Apostles did once exist ... the observance of Sunday ... is not an institution of Divine appointment” (p. 2151, cited by Cox II, p. 185).
39. E. W. Hengstenberg, professor of theology at the University of Berlin, wrote a major study on
The Lord’s Day (translated into English by James Martin, 1853), in which he treats the Sabbath as a purely Jewish institution and Sunday as an ecclesiastical creation (Cox II, p. 439).
40. J. Francke,
Van Sabbat naar Zondag, 1973. F. N. Lee,
The Covenantal Sabbath, 1969. C. S. Mosna,
Storia della domenica dalle origini fino agli inizi del V secolo, Analecta Gregoriana 170, 1969. Paul K. Jewett, The Lord’s Day:
A Theological Guide to the Christian Day of Worship, 1971. R. T. Beckwith and W. Stott,
This is the Day: The Biblical Doctrine of the Christian Sunday in its Jewish and Early Christian Setting, 1978.
41. Willy Rordorf, Sunday:
The History of the Day of Rest and Worship in the Earliest Centuries of the Christian Church, 1968, especially pp. 215-237.
42. M.M.B. Turner,
“The Sabbath, Sunday and the Law in Luke-Acts,” in
From Sabbath to Lord’s Day: A Biblical, Historical and Theological Investigation, D. A. Carson, ed., soon to be published, p. 198, manuscript.
43. Hiley H. Ward,
Space-Age Sunday, 1960, pp. 70-71. The conclusion of my own investigation is to a large extent similar to Ward’s position. I hope that my analysis of the political, social and pagan-religious situation of the time explains sufficiently the underlying causes for the change from Saturday to Sunday observance in the early part of the second century (see From
Sabbath to Sunday, pp. 165-300).
44. C. S. Mosna, for example, concludes his investigation into the origin of Sunday worship, stating categorically:
“Therefore we can conclude with certainty that the event of the resurrection has determined the choice of Sunday as the day of worship of the first Christian community” (n 40, pp. 44, 53). See
From Sabbath to Sunday, pp. 74-89 for a bibliography on the supporters of the resurrection/appearance origin of Sunday.
45. The fact that Paul employs the adjective
“Lord’s” to describe only the nature of the Supper and not of Sunday (the latter he calls by the Jewish designation
“first day of the week”- 1 Cor. 16:2), specially when the mentioning of the sacredness of the time could have strengthened the apostle’s plea for a more worshipful attitude during the partaking of the Lord’s Supper, hardly suggests that Sunday was already known as
“Lord’s Day” or that the Lord’s Supper was celebrated exclusively on Sunday. Possibly the Lord’s Supper was celebrated on different days and in different homes to avoid the suspicion of the hetaeriae. See my discussion in
From Sabbath to Sunday, 95-102.
46. It is notworthy that in the
Didache, regarded as the most ancient source of ecclesiastical legislation (dated between 70-150), in the instructions given regarding the thanksgiving prayer to be offered over the cup and bread, mention is made of life, knowledge, church unity, faith, immortality, creation and food (chs. 9, 10), but no allusion is made to Christ’s resurrection.
47. E. Hennecke, ed.,
New Testament Apocrypha, 1963, I, p. 199.
48. Gerald F. Hawthorne,
“A new English Translation of Melito’s Paschal Homily,” in
Current Issues in Biblical and Patristic Interpretation, ed., Gerald F. Hawthorne, 1975, p. 160.
“Passover” in Hebrew means
“passing over” and not
“to suffer.” The erroneous definition obviously represents the prevailing interpretation of the feast, namely, the commemoration of Christ’s suffering. Se also below notes 49 to 52 and 98.
49. Irenaeus, Against Haresies 4, 10, 1,
ANF 1, 473. See also Tertullian, On Baptism 19; Justin Martyr,
Dialogue with Tdypho 72.
50. M. P. Nautin, ed.,
Une homélie inspirée du traité sur la Pâque d’Hippolyte, Sources Chrétiennes 27, 1960, p. 35.
51. Marcel Richard,
“ La question pascale au IIe siècle,” L’Orient Syrien 6 (1961): 182.
52. Clement of Alexandria in a fragment of his work Treatise on the Passover preserved in the
Chronicon Paschale, says:
“Christ always ate the paschal lamb with His disciples in His earlier years, but not in the last year of His life, in which He was Himself the lamb immolated upon the cross” (
Chronicon Paschale, PG 92, 81). Hippolytus, in a fragment of his treatise
on the Passover, explains that
“Christ did not eat the passover but suffered it, because it was not time for Him to eat” (
Chronicon Paschale,
PG 92, 79). These and similar testimonies discredit Eusebius’ claim that by Victor’s time (about 195) practically all Christians viewed the Passover as the celebration of
“the mystery of the resurrection”(
Eccl. Hist. V, 23, 2). Eusebius’ bias in favor of the antiquity and popu. larity of Easter-Sunday are examined further below, see pp. 248-249.
53. Barnabas’ first theological reason for Sunday observance is the eschatological significance of the
“eighth day” which, he claims, represents
“the beginning of another world” (
Epistle of Barnabas 15,8). Justin’s first reason for the Christians’ Sunday assembly is the commemoration of the inauguration of creation:
“because it is the first day on which God, transforming the darkness and prime matter created the world” (1 Apology 67). Both texts are examined in
From Sabbath to Sunday, pp. 218-233 and in my other study,
Anti-Judaism and the Origin of Sunday, 1975, pp. 94-116.
54. Several liturgical practices such as the prohibition to fast and to kneel on Sunday, as well as the celebration of a Sunday morning Lord’s Supper, were introduced to honor specifically the memory of the resurrection. Augustine • explicitly explains, for instance, that on Sunday
“fasting is interrupted and we pray standing, because it is a sign of the resurrection” (
Epistola 55, 28,
CSEL 34, 202); cf. Basil,
De Spiritu Sanctu 27, 66;
Apostolic Constitutions 2, 59; Cyprian,
Epistola 63, 15,
CSEL 3, 2 714.
55. J. Daniélou,
Bible and Liturgy, 1956, p. 243; cf. pp. 242, 222.
56. For an analysis of these arguments see chapter V,
“Jerusalem and the Origin of Sunday,” in
From Sabbath to Sunday, pp. 132-164.
57. For a brief survey of Jewish-Christian literature, see
From Sabbath to Sunday, pp. 143-144.
58. Jacob Jervell, Luke and the People of God, 1972, pp. 50-59. Several of the chapters of Jervell’s book first appeared as essays in several journals, and were delivered as lectures at a seminar held at Yale University.
59. Ibid., pp. 142-143.
60. M.M. B. Turner examines Jervell’s arguments at length and criticizes them as being somewhat too radical. Yet he concludes by acknowledging that
“for the sake of the mission to the Jews, the law was necessary for Jewish Christians, and Gentile Christians were to fulfill their part (the decrees) so that association with them would be no hindrance to the Jewish mission” (n. 42, p. 179, manuscript).
61. Jacob Jervell (n. 58), p. 142.
62. A concise survey of the exaltation of James in Judeo-Christian literature is provided by B. Bagatti,
The Church from the Circumcision, 1971, pp. 70-78. My brief treatment of this question is found in
From Sabbath to Sunday, pp. 142-145.
63. The conversion of
“a great many of the priests” (Acts 6:7) presumably contributed to maintaining a Jewish-oriented ministry, since most probably they ministered to the
“many thousands” of Jewish converts (Acts 21:20).
64. Jacob Jervell (n. 58), p. 144. Cf. H. Waitz,
“Das problem des sogenannten Aposteldekrets,” Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte 55 (1936): 277.
65. M. M.B. Turner’s argument that
“the council’s final court of appeal is not Moses and the law-they are not so much mentioned in the letter--but the Spirit (15:28)” (n. 42, p. 170, manuscript), fails to recognize that the decision is reached by appealing to the prophets (Amos 9:11; cf. Jer. 12:15) and to Moses (Acts 15:16-21). Thus the Holy Spirit guides in the application of the OT to the new situation rather than in the abrogation of the Mosaic law.
66. M. M. B. Turner (n. 42), p. 183, manuscript. In the same symposium A. T. Lincoln writes:
“ By its silence in regard to any Sabbath controversy the Acts account strongly suggests that Jewish christians must have continued to keep th Sabbath. The Sabbath was an institution too central to Judaism for it to have been tampered with without provoking extremely hostile reaction and persecution, and yet there is no record in Acts of the early Christians being persecuted on this account. Instead they appear to have taken advantage of their observance to preach Jesus as the Messiah at the same time (cf. Acts 5:42)” (n. 42, pp. 580-581, manuscript). Christ’s admonition,
“Pray that your flight may not be in winter or on a Sabbath” (Matt. 24:20), provides, as stated by E. Lohse, another
“example of the keeping of the Sabbath by Jewish-Christians” (
“sabbaton,” Theological Dictionary of the New Testament 7 (1968), p. 29). For my analysis of the text see
From Sabbath to Sunday, pp. 69-71, 150-151.
67. Eusebius,
Ecclesiastical History 3, 27, 3; cf. 4, 5, 2-11; Epiphanius,
Adversus haereses 70, 10,
PG 42, 355-356. On the liberal wing of the Ebionites who observed Sunday in addition to the Sabbath, see my discussion in
From Sabbath to Sunday, pp. 153-156.
68. M. Simon,
“La migration à Pella. Légende ou réalité,” in
JudéoChristianisme, ed., Joseph Moingt, 1972, p. 48. For a similar assessment, see J. Daniélou,
The Theology of Jewish Christianity, 1964, p. 56; B. Bagatti (n. 62), pp. 31-35.
69. Epiphanius,
Adversus haereses 29, 7,
PG 42, 407.
70. For the text of the malediction and its significance, see
From Sabbath to Sunday, pp. 157-159.
71. M.M.B. Turner admits that
“it is all but impossible to believe that Sunday was established as the Lord’s Day, as a holy convocation and as a christian response to a creation ordinance, in Palestine shortly after the resurrection. The arguments against this position are virtually conclusive: ... The earliest Jewish Christians, almost without exception, kept the whole law and were theologically committed to it. There is no indication of their sensing the inner freedom that would be required to allow for so fundamental a manipulation” (n. 42, p. 195).
72. The following quotation is a sample of statements often occurring in the Talmud regarding Hadrian’s anti-Jews policies:
“The Government of Rome had issued a decree that they should not study the Torah and that they should not circumcise their sons and that they should profane the Sabbath” (Ros. Has. 19a in
The Babylonian Talmud, trans. I. Epstein, 1938, vol. 13, p. 78. B. Bat. 60b similarly states:
“a Government has come to power which issues cruel decrees against us and forbids to us the observance of the torah and the precepts....” (
Babylonian Talmud, vol. 25, p. 246); see also Sanh. lla, 14a;
Abod. Zar. 8b. In the
Midrash Rabbah (eds. H. Freedman, M. Simon, 1939) also occur frequent references to Hadrian’s decree. In commenting on Exodus 15, 7, it states for instance:
“For even if an enemy decrees that they should desecrate the Sabbath, abolish circumcision or serve idols, they [i.e., the Jews] suffer martyrdom rather than be assimilated” (3:170; cf. also the comment under Ecclesiastes 2, 17).
73. An excellent survey of the Christian anti-Jewish literature of the second century is provided by F. Blanchetière,
“Aux sources de l’anti-judaïsme chrétien,” Revue d’histoire et de Philosophie Religieuse 53 (1973) 353-398; cf. my brief analysis of this literature in
From Sabbath to Sunday, 178-185.
74. Cf. also Rom. 1:13-15 where Paul says:
“I am eager to preach the gospel to you also who are in Rome... in order that I may reap some harvest among you as well as among the rest of the Gentiles” (emphasis supplied).
75. Leonard Goppelt,
Les Origines de l’ Eglise, 1961, p. 203.
76. According to Tacitus, Nero
“fastened the guilt [of arson) and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on ... Christians” (
Annales 15, 44).
77. Tacitus gives an estimate of 600,000 Jewish fatalities for the A.D. 70 war (
Historiae 5, 13. Josephus referring to the same war, speaks of 1,000,000 Jews who were either killed or perished during the siege (
War of the Jews 6, 9, 3). In the Barkokeba war, according to Dio Cassius (about 150-235), 580,000 Jews were killed in action, besides the numberless who died of hunger and disease (
Historia 69, 13).
78. See n. 72 above.
79. According to Suetonius (about 70-122) the fiscus judaicus was exacted for the temple of
Jupiter Capitolinus even from those
“who without publicly acknowledging that faith yet lived as Jews” (
Domitianus 12). Under Hadrian (117-138), according to Appian, a contemporary historian, the Jews were subjected at that time to a
“poll-tax... heavier than that imposed upon the surrounding people” (
Roman History, The Syrian Wars 50). To evidence their severance from Judaism and thereby avoid the payment of a discriminatory tax, the leaders of the Church of Rome could well have introduced at this time Sunday worship in place of
“Jewish” Sabbath-keeping.
80. The texts of these and of other Roman authors are cited in
From Sabbath to Sunday, pp. 173-177.
81. Suetonius’ expressive
invitus invitam (Titus 7, 1, 2) indicates that the separation was difficult for both of them.
82. See n. 73 above.
83. Justin Martyr,
Dialogue with Trypho 23, 3; cf. 29, 3; 16, 1; 21, 1. Justin’s texts are quoted and discussed in
From Sabbath to Sunday, pp. 223-233 and in
Anti-Judaism and the Origin of Sunday, pp. 101-114.
84. The references are given and discussed in
From Sabbath to Sunday, pp. 189-192.
85. S. R. E. Humbert,
Adversus Graecorum calumnias 6, PL 143, 933.
86. Victorinus (about 304),
De fabrica mundi 5,
CSEL 49, 5.
87. Pope Innocent I (402-417), in his famous decretal establishes that
“as the tradition of the Church maintains, in these two days (i.e., Friday and Saturday] one should not absolutely celebrate the sacraments” (Ad
Decentium, Epist. 25, 4, 7, PL 20, 555); Socrates (about 439) confirms Innocent I’s decretal when he reports that
“although almost all churches throughout the world celebrate the sacred mysteries on the Sabbath of every week, yet the Christians of Alexandria and at Rome, on account of some ancient tradition, have ceased to do this” (
Historia ecclesiastica 5, 22,
NPNF 2nd, II, 132); Sozomen (about 440) refers exclusively to religious assemblies, saying that while
“the people of Constantinople, and almost everywhere, assemble together on the Sabbath, as well as on the first day of the week,” such a
“custom is never observed at Rome or at Alexandria” (
Historia ecclesiastica 7, 19,
NPNF 2nd, II, 390).
88. Tertullian (On Fasting 14) and Augustine (
Epistle to Casulanus 36) associate the two, though approving of the annual paschal Sabbath fast and condemning the weekly Sabbath fast which Rome and a few Western Churches practiced. A similar connection is found in the
Apostolic Constitutions 5, 15, 20 and in the
Apostolic Canons 64. Willy Rordorf observes that since
“the whole of Western Christendom by this time [i.e. Tertullian’s time) fasted on Holy Saturday, it would have been easy to have come up with the idea of fasting on every Saturday (just as every Sunday was a little Easter)” (n. 41, p. 143).
89. The
Didascalia Apostolorum (about 250), for example, enjoins Christians to fast on Eastery-Friday and Saturday
“on account of the disobedience of our brethren (i.e., the Jews] ... because thereon the People killed themselves in crucifying our Savior” (14, 19, trans. H. Connolly, 1929, p. 190). In the
Apostolic Constitutions, a related document, in a similar vein Christians are enjoined to fast on Easter-Friday and Saturday
“because in these days ... He was taken from us by the Jews, falsely so named, and fastened to the cross” (5, 18,
ANF VII, 447; cf. 5, 15, p. 445). Epiphanius also refers to an alleged apostolic ordinance which established:
“when they [i.e., the Jews] feast, we should mourn for them with fasting, because in the feast they fastened Christ on the Cross” (
Adversus haereses 70, 11, PG 42, 359-360).
90. Tertullian, for example, shows how close a relation existed between the annual Easter-Sunday and the weekly Sunday by prohibiting kneeling and fasting during both festivities:
“On Sunday it is unlawful to fast or to kneel while worshipping. We enjoy the same liberty from Easter to Pentecost” (
De Corona 3, 4; cf.
On Idolatry 14). Similar testimonies are found in
Fragments from the Lost Writings of Irenaeus 7,
ANF I, pp. 569-570; Origen,
Homilia in Isaiam 5, 2,
GCS 8, 265, 1; Eusebius,
De solemnitate paschali 7, 12, PG 24, 710A; Innocent I, Ad
Decentium, Epistola 25, 4, 7,
PL 20, 555. These and other references are cited in
From Sabbath to Sunday, pp. 204-205.
91. Eusebius’ account of the Easter controversy is found in his
Ecclesiastical History 5, 23-25.
92. Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 5, 23, 1 and 5, 25, 1.
93. For example, W. Rordorf,
“Zum Ursprung des Osterfestes am Sonntag,” Theologische Zeitschrift 18 (1962): 167-189. Similarly Kenneth A. Strand argues on the basis of Eusebius’ and Sozomen’s accounts that
“Rome and other places where Peter and Paul labored did indeed receive from these apostles a Sunday-Easter tradition, whereas Asia received from John a Quartodeciman observance” (
Three Essays on Early Church History with Emphasis on the Roman Province of Asia, 1967, p. 36). For my analysis of Strand’s arguments, see
From Sabbath to Sunday, pp. 202-205.
94. Marcel Richard (n. 51), p. 211.
95. Eusebius,
Ecclesiastical History 5, 23, 1, 2; 5, 24, 11.
96. Ibid., 5, 23, 2.
97. See above notes 46 to 52.
98. Tertullian,
An Answer to the Jews 10,
ANF 1, 167. Similarly Justin Martyr writes:
“For the passover was Christ who was afterwards sacrificed ... And it is written, that on the day of the passover you seized Him, and that also during the passover you crucified Him” (
Dialogue with Trypho III,
ANF 1, 254). Hippolytus argues that the month of the Passover has been since the beginning the first month because it
“is honored by His holy sacrifice” (
Homélies Pascales I, ed., P. Nautin,
Sources Chrétiennes 27, 1950, p. 149). It is noteworthy that a century later Eusebius gives a different explanation for the primacy of the month of the passover, namely, because it is the time when
“the Lord of the whole world celebrated the mystery of His own feast [i.e. resurrection)” (
De solemnitate paschali,
PG 24, 697A). This difference between Hippolytus and Eusebius shows that the resurrection interpretation of the Passover represents a later development which discredits Eusebius’ attempt to make the Passover, already in Victor’s time, the universal festival of the resurrection.
99. Origen,
Homelies Paschales II, ed., P. Nautin,
Sources Chrétiennes 36, p. 35 n. 1.
100. Eusebius,
Ecclesiastical History 5, 24, 1 and 11; cf. 5, 23, 1.
101. Ibid., 5, 23, 1 and 5, 25, 1.
102. Both Polycrates (5, 24, 3) and Irenaeus (5, 24, 16) explicitly trace back the Quartodeciman Passover to
“John the disciple of the Lord.” 103. Marcel Richard makes the same observation when he points out that
“if Eusebius had found in that letter of the Palestinian synod] a clear affirmation of the apostolic origin of the Easter Sunday celebration, he would not have missed the chance to mention it” (n. 51, p. 210).
104. Eusebius,
Ecclesiastical History, 5, 24, 14.
105. Kenneth A. Strand rejects this conclusion, because, he argues, Irenaeus’ list of Roman bishops serves to illustrate
“peaceful relationship, not the origin of practices” (
“Bacchiocchi on Sabbath and Sunday,” Andrews University Seminary Studies 17 [1979]: 92). Strand’s assessment is hardly accurate, since Irenaeus discusses cordial relationship in the context of the origin of divergent practices:
“This variety in its observance has not originated in our time; but long before in that of our ancestors” (Eusebius,
Eccl. Hist. 5, 24, 13; emphasis supplied). Then Irenaeus gives the name of some of the
“ancestors” (back to Sixtus) who lived peaceably in spite of divergent practices. Thus
“origin of practices” and
“peaceful relationship” are not at all divorced in Irenaeus’ letter.
106. Henry Leclercq,
“Pâques,” in Dictionnaire
D’Archéologie Chrétienne et de Liturgie, 1938, XIII, p. 1524.
107. Karl Baus,
From the Apostolic Community to Constantine, Handbook of Church History, 1965, I, p. 270. The same view is expressed by B. Lohse, Das Passafest der Quartadecimaner, 1953, p. 117.
108. J. Jeremias,
“Pascha,” Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, 1973, V, p. 903, n. 66. A similar view is expressed by Millard Scherich,
“Paschal Controversies,” The New International Dictionary of the Christian Church, 1974, p. 750.
109. Epiphanius,
Adversus haereses 70, 10 PG 42, 355-356. The Bishop makes specific reference to the fifteen Judeo- Christian bishops who until A.D. 135 practiced the Quartodeciman Passover, since they based themselves on a document known as the
Apostolic Constitution where the following rule is given:
“you shall not change the calculation of time, but you shall celebrate it at the same time as your brethren who came out from the circumcision. With them observe the Passover” (ibid., PG 42, 357-358). A similar injunction is found in the
Didascalia Apostolorum 21, 17. For a discussion of Epiphanius’ text see
From Sabbath to Sunday, pp. 161-162 and
Anti-Judaism and the Origin of Sunday, pp. 45-52.
110. The expression
“Roman Easter” is frequently used as a designa. tion for Easter-Sunday by C. S. Mosna (n. 40), pp. 117, 119, 333; cf. also Mario Righetti,
L’Anno liturgico, manuale di storia liturgica, 1969, II, pp. 245-246.
111. The conciliar decree of the Council of Nicaea specifically enjoins :
“All the brethren in the East who formerly celebrated Easter with the Jews, will henceforth keep it at the same time as the Romans ...” (Socrates,
Ecclesiastical History 1, 9). Constantine, in his personal letter, exhorts all bishops to embrace
“the practice which is observed at once in the city of Rome, in Africa, in all Italy, Egypt ...” (Eusebius,
Life of Constantine 3, 19). The
Chronicon Paschale similarly reports that Constantine urged all Christians to follow the custom of
“the ancient church of Rome and Alexandria” (
PG 92, 83).
112. J. Jeremias (n. 108), p. 903, n. 64.
113. J. B. Lightfoot,
The Apostolic Fathers, 1885, II, part 1, p. 88.
114. Kenneth A. Strand (n. 105), p. 93. Strand’s position is that EasterSunday stemmed from the sectarian solar calendar used by Qumranites and similar groups, where the unnual omer day and the day of Pentecost always fell on Sunday (n. 93, pp. 34-40; n. 105, p. 95). Thus both the Quartodeciman and the Easter-Sunday practice would reach back to apostolic time, having risen contemporaneously as a result of differences existing in Jewish modes of reckoning. This hypothesis was proposed over twenty years ago by J. van Goudoever (
Biblical Calendars, 1959, pp. 161-162, 19-20), but it has been practically ignored in recent studies dealing with the influence of Qumran on early Christianity. The reason is that while right after the Dead Sea Scrolls discoveries, the tendency was to make early Christianity dependent upon Qumran’s religious ideologies and practices, today after three decades of mature reflection, scholars generally agree that the differences between primitive Christianity and Qumran are more impressive than the apparent similarities. William S. LaSor, for example, concludes his twenty years’ investigation of the Scrolls saying:
“It seems reasonable to conclude that the two movements [Qumran and Christianity) were independent beyond the initial origin in Judaism.... The differences are such that they seem to require independent development of the two movements” (
The Dead Sea Scrolls and the New Testament, 1972, p. 254. See also pp. 201-205 where LaSor presents cogent reasons which discredit the suggestion that the Synoptics used the Qumran calendar). There are no indications of the use of a sectarian solar calendar in the book of Acts, where the Jerusalem Church is presented as following closely the normative calendar of the temple (see
From Sabbath to Sunday, pp. 142-150). As far as later Christianity is concerned, in all the documents discussing the Passover question, I have not found a single passing reference to the solar calendar of Qumran (
“jubilees calendar”) being mentioned to justify the Sunday. celebration of the Passover or the method used for such a calendrical calculation. J. van Goudover (
Biblical Calendars, 1959, pp. 161-162) argues for the possible influence of the old calendar of Enoch and Jubilees upon early Christians by referring to Anatolius (d. 282), Bishop of Laodicea. In his
Paschal Canons, Anatolius insists that
“it is altogether necessary to keep the passover and the feast of unleavened bread after the equinox” because this has been taught by such Jewish authorities as Philo, Josephus, Aristobulus and by
“the teaching of the Book of Enoch” (cited by Eusebius,
Eccl. Hist. 7, 32, 16-19). This reference however has no probative value for Easter-Sunday because Anatolius is mentioning the Book of Enoch not to defend Easter-Sunday but the celebration of the Quartodeciman Passover after the vernal equinox. Moreover the Bishop views the post-equinox Passover celebration not as a peculiarity of sectarian Judaism but as the general practice of all
“the Jews of old.” To prove it, Anatolius mentions a number of Jewish authorities, all of whom, with the exception of the Book of Enoch, do not represent sectarian Judaism. Thus the hypothesis of a Jewish sectarian solar calendar influence on the origin of Easter Sunday (and presumably of weekly Sunday) represents a gratuitous speculation devoid of any historical support.
115 Justin Martyr,
Dialogue with Trypho 47,
ANF I, 218.
116. Translation by Gerald F. Hawthorne (n. 48), pp. 171-172.
117. A. T. Kraabel,
“Melito the Bishop and the Synagogue at Sardis: Text and Context,” in
Studies Presented to George M. A. Hanfmann, 1971, p. 81.
118.
Didascalia Apostolorum 14, 19, trans. H. Connolly, 1929, pp. 184 and 190.
119. Epiphanius, for example, writes:
“when they [i.e., the Jews] feast, we should mourn for them with fasting, because in that feast they fastened Christ on the Cross”(
Adversus haereses 70, 11,
PG 42, 359-360); cf.
Apostolic Constitutions 5, 18. In a
Paschal Homily delivered in A.D. 387, the author explains the origin of various divergent Passover practices. Speaking of the Montanists(originated about 170) he says that
“they are careful to dissociate themselves from the practice of the Jews” by celebrat. ing Passover on the Sunday following the 14th day of the month. Nevertheless, the author notes, the Montanists are mistaken in determining their Easter-Sunday because they reckon the latter from the 14th day of the solar rather than of the lunar month(
Homelies Paschales III:
Une homélie anatolienne sur la date de Pâques en l’an 387, eds. F. Floeri and P. Nautin, Source Chrétienne 48, 1957, p. 118). In the same document the author explains that Christians by celebrating Passover on the FridaySabbath-Sunday after the 14th,
“reject the sillness of the Jews and at the same time the folly of the heretics”(ibid., p. 162). The anti-Judaic motivation for the Easter-Sunday dating could hardly have been expressed more emphatically.
120. It is noteworthy that Irenaeus specifies that
“the controversy is not only concerning the day but also concerning the very manner of the fast”(Eusebius,
Eccl. hist. 5, 24, 12). This text as well as other documents make no mention of an
initial theological controversy over the actual significance attributed to the Passover. This fact discredits the popular contention that the Quartodecimans celebrated Christ’s passion while the Easter-Sunday observers emphasized His
resurrection(cf. Henri Leclercq(n. 105], p. 1524; Charles Joseph Hefele,
A History of the Christian Councils, 1883, I, pp. 300-302). On the passion significance of the Passover see above notes 46 to 52 and 97, 98.
121.
Chronicon Paschale, PG 92, 79D. According to Apollinaris, the radical Quartodecimans appealed to Matthew’s chronology of the passionweek(
“they pretend that Matthew teaches it”) to defend their dating and their manner of observing Passover. A fragment of Melito’s treatise
On the Passover, reported by Eusebius, confirms the existence of such a controversy:
“While Servilius Paulus was proconsul of Asia, at the time when Sagaris suffered martyrdom, there arose in Laodicea a great strife concerning the Passover”(Eusebius,
Eccl. Hist. 4, 26, 3).
122. Apollinaris belonged to the latter group(
“orthodox” Quartodecimans). He refutes those who ate the paschal lamb at the same time and manner as the Jews, saying:
“The 14th of Nisan is the true Passover of the Lord, the great Sacrifice; instead of the lamb we have the Son of God”(
Chronicon Paschale 92, 82). The two Quartodeciman groups differed not only on the dating of Christ’s passion(14th versus 15th of Nisan) but also on their attitude toward the Jewish Passover. Apollinaris, who wrote two books
Against the Jews(Eusebius,
Eccl. Hist. 4, 27, 1) insisted on dissociating from the Jewish paschal banquet. Like Melito and Polycrates, Apollinaris was a Johannine Quartodeciman who held that Christ on the last year of His life did not eat but suffered as Passover on Nisan 14th. Thus the Jewish paschal feast was abolished by the death of Christ which took place on the day of the Passover(John 19:14). Christians were therefore urged to fast on the 14th to commemorate the death of Christ and the crime committed by the Jews(
“When they(the Jews] feast, we should mourn for them with fasting”-Epiphanius, n. 119). The fast was broken at dawn of Nisan 15th with the celebration of the Lord’s Supper. For a concise treatment of the controversy among Quartodecimans, see Charles Joseph Hefele(n. 120), pp. 301-313.
123. Clement of Alexandria wrote a
Treatise on the Passover to refute radical Quartodecimans. A fragment, which has been preserved, is quoted above, n. 52. Hippolytus attacked the same group in Rome. In a preserved fragment of his treatise
Against all Heresies, he writes:
“The controversy still lasts, for some erroneously maintain that Christ ate the Passover before His death and that consequently we ought to do so also. But, at the time when Christ suffered, He did not eat the legal Passover, for He was Himself the Passover that had been previously announced and that was on that day fulfilled in Him”(
Chronicon Paschale PG 92, 79).
124. See
Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 5, 15, 1.
125. Tertullian,
De Praescriptione, CSEL 27, p. 225.
126. Wide acceptance of the Roman Easter does not mean, as held by Kenneth A. Strand, that the Quartodeciman practice was
“utterly restricted to Asia or Asian Christians”(n. 93, p. 36). In addition to the many reasons already given in
From Sabbath to Sunday, p. 198, n. 97, it should be pointed out that Eusebius’ restriction of the Quartodeciman practice to
“the dioceses of Asia”(
Eccl. Hist. 5, 23, 1) is discredited by the following facts:(1) Eusebius himself reports that Victor attempted to excom. municate
“the parishes of all Asia and the neighboring(paroikias) prov. inces”(ibid., 5, 24, 1). The last statement clearly implies that the Quarto deciman practice extended beyond
Asia Proconsularis. (2) The testimonies of Hippolytus of Rome and of Clement of Alexandria(see above n. 123) indicate, as noted by Henri Leclercq, that
“the Asiatics were not isolated and their practice is found very far from the borders of Asia Minor”(n. 106, p. 1527).(3) Firmilian, bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, in his letter to Cyprian(dated 256) speaks of
“diversities” among Roman Christians
“concerning the celebration of Easter”(
The Epistles of Cyprian 74, 6,
ANF V, 391). This suggests, as pointed out by James F. McCue,
“that the uniformity which had been sought by Victor sixty years earlier had not been achieved and that it was still somewhat bitterly resisted”(
“The Roman Primacy in the Patristic Era,” in
Papal Primacy and the Universal Church, 1974, p. 67). Consequently Eusebius’ statement that all bishops consulted by Victor expressed a
“unanimous decision”(
Eccl. Hist. 5, 23, 3) against the Quartodeciman practice cannot be taken at face value but rather as an extravagant and exaggerated assessment. This is further indicated not only by the
“lengthy discussion” that preceded the decision but also by the admonition to send copies of the conciliar letter to
“every church”(
Eccl. Hist. 5, 25, 1). Such an effort was hardly necessary if Quartodecimans were restricted to the province of Asia.
127. See above n. 123.
128. Several liturgical practices were introduced to honor the resurrection. Cyprian(died 258), for example, explains that though Christ partook of the Lord’s Supper in the evening,
“we celebrate it in the morning on account of the resurrection of the Lord”(
Epistola 63, 15
CSEL 3, 2, 714). For the same reason Tertullian(died 225) regards as
“unlawful ∙∙∙ fasting and kneeling in worship on the Lord’s day”(
De corona 3, 4,
ANF III, p. 94). See also above n. 54.
129. For a brief survey of
“Christian” literature produced at that time to defame the Jews, see
From Sabbath to Sunday, pp. 179-184.
130. The earliest Roman computation that has come down to us is by Hippolytus. His treatise
On Easter which explains the system has not survived, but his table listing the Easter full-moons, calculated for the years 222 to 333, is still visible(in the Vatican Museum) on the left side of the marble throne and statue of Hippolytus which was found in 1551.
131. Pseudo-Cyprian,
De Pascha computus, trans. G. Ogg, 1955, p. 1.
132. Eusebius,
Life of Constantine 3, 18-19
NPNF 2nd, I, pp. 524-525.
133. The question is examined at greater length in
From Sabbath to Sunday, pp. 207-211.
134. On the significant difference between Ignatius’ praise for the Church of Rome and his commendation for the other churches, see the comparative analysis done by Jean Colson,
L’Épiscopat Catholique, 1963, pp. 43-47.
135. Ignatius,
To the Romans, prologue, trans. James A. Kleist, Ancient Christian Writers, 1946, p. 80.
136. See, for example,
To the Philadelphians 11, 2;
To the Smyrnaeans 12, 1;
To the Romans 9, 3.
137. An example of the concern of the Church of Rome for the welfare of other churches is provided by Clement’s letter to the Corinthians. Another example is the letter of Dionysius of Corinth to Bishop Soter of Rome(about 180) which says:
“For from the beginning it has been your practice to do good to all the brethren in various ways and to send contributions to the many churches in every city. Thus relieving the want of the needy ∙∙∙ encouraging the brethren from abroad with blessed words, as a loving father his children”(Eusebius,
Eccl. Hist. 4, 23, 10).
138. The Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals offer an example of(interpolated) legal documents used to defend papal supremacy.
139. The leadership role of the Church of Rome is also indicated by Ignatius’ remark:
“You have never envied any one; you have taught others. What I desire is that what you counsel and ordain may always be practiced”(
To the Romans 3, 1). Kenneth A. Strand’s argument that Ignatius
“does not so much as greet or even mention a bishop of Rome”(n. 105, p. 96) fails to recognize that the lack of any reference to a single bishop may show that initially the prestige and influence of the Roman Church was dependent not upon exceptionally gifted leaders but rather upon other factors such as her geographical-political location, the cosmopolitan representation of her membership, her concern for other churches and her association with the ministry and martyrdom of Peter and Paul(cf. Ignatius, To the Ronians 4, 3; Clement,
To the Corinthians 5, 4-5).
140. Irenaeus,
Against Heresies 3, 3, 1
ANF I, p. 415. Kenneth A. Strand argues on the basis of a different rendering of Irenaeus’ text(suggested by the translators of
ANF in their comments to the text-
ANF I, p. 461) that for Irenaeus the
“preeminent authority” of the Church of Rome rests not on the authority of her bishop but rather upon the cosmopolitan representation within her church(
“the faithful from all parts, representing every Church, are obliged to resort to Rome”-
ANF I, p. 461; cf. Strand n. 105, p. 98). Strand’s argument deserves consideration because it suggests, as noted by George La Piana, that
“the many problems which concerned so many churches were at the same time problems of the Roman community” since so many various groups were represented in Rome(
“The Roman Church at the End of the Second Century,” Harvard Theological Review 18 [1925]: 252). On account of this fact, La Piana rightly states:
“It is not an exaggeration to say that the Church of Rome became very early the great laboratory of Christian and ecclesiastical polity”(ibid., p. 203). This valid observation, however, does not minimize but rather maximizes the authority of the Church of Rome by pointing to a significant contributary factor, namely, her wide ethnic cosmo politan representation which fostered her
“preeminent authority.” 141. Eusebius,
Ecclesiastical History 5, 23, 8.
142. Kenneth A. Strand(n. 105), p. 97.
143. Eusebius,
Ecclesiastical History 5, 23, 7. James F. McCue rightly points out that
“from the defensive and at points defiant tone of Poly crates’ response, it is reasonable to infer that he is aware of a certain pressure to conform to the Roman custom. ∙∙∙ we clearly have to do, in the Roman request-demand for an account of the Asian custom, with a noteworthy instance of far-reaching Roman activity”(n. 126, p. 67).
144. Eusebius,
Ecclesiastical History, 5, 23, 9. The fact that Victor may not have carried out his excommunication on account of Irenaeus’ intervention does not detract from the bishop’s consciousness of his authority to separate the Asian Christians from the communion of the rest of the churches, if necessary. It is noteworthy that Irenaeus does not challenge Victor’s right to excommunicate but
“exhorts him respectfully and with great consideration-prosekontos”(trans. by Giuseppe del Ton,
Eusebio di Cesarea. Storia Ecclesiastica, 1964, p. 414).
145. Jean Colson(n. 134), p. 50. 146 George La Piana(n. 140), p. 235.
147. Ibid., p. 204. The Roman Catholic Church’s effort to assert her supremacy by imposing her liturgical practices continued for centuries. As examples could be cited her promotion of the Christmas date of December 25 in the fourth century and of the Roman Easter(in England-seventh century) and Sabbath fasting in later centuries(see
From Sabbath to Sunday, p. 194, n. 84, and pp. 257-260).
148. Ibid., p. 252.
149. Additional indicatioris are provided in
From Sabbath to Sunday, pp. 207-211. It is significant to note that in his
Prescription Against Heretics 36(written about 200 before becoming a Montanist) Tertullian refutes the heretics by appealing to
“Rome, from which there comes even into our own hands the very authority(of apostles themselves). How happy is its church, on which apostles poured forth all their doctrine along with their blood! where Peter endures a passion like his Lord’s! where Paul wins his crown in a death like John’s !”(
ANF III, p. 260). On becoming a Montanist, however, Tertullian radically changed his attitude toward the Roman Church. In his treatise
On Modesty 1, written after 208, Tertullian ridicules the claim of the Roman Bishop(possibly Victor-
ANF IV, p. 74, n. 7) to have power to remit grievous sins, saying:
“The Pontifex Maximus--that is, the bishop of bishops-issues an edict: ‘I remit, to such as have discharged(the requirements of) repentance, the sins both of adultery and of fornication.’ O edict, on which cannot be inscribed ‘Good deed!’”(
ANF IV, p. 74; cf. also
On Modesty 21). Tertullian’s sarcastic challenge of the names and claims of the Roman Bishop(possibly Victor himself) only serves to substantiate the unusual authority asserted by the Bishop of Rome by the end of the second century.
150. Gaston H. Halsberghe,
The Cult of Sol Invictus, 1972, p. 44. Marcel Simon notes that recent archeological discoveries have shown that the geographical distribution of Mithraism was greater than previously thought(
“Mithra, Rival du Christ?” in Acta Iranica 17.
Actes du 2° Congrès International Téhéran, du ler au 8 septembre 1975,(Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1978), pp. 459-460).
151.
Fasti of Philocalus, Corpus Inscriptionum Latinorum I:2, 324, 4192. For texts and discussion see
From Sabbath to Sunday, pp. 239-241.
152. The differentiation between the two cults is persuasively demonstrated by Gaston H. Halsberghe(n. 150), p. 35.
153. Tertullian,
The Shows 8,
ANF III, p. 83. Tacitus confirms the existence of the temple in the Circus dedicated to the Sun in his
Annales 15, 74, 1.
154. See Harold Mattingly,
The Roman Imperial Coinage 1962, II, p. 360, plate XII, n. 244.
155. Elius Spartianus,
Hadrianus 19.
156. This factor is noted especially by Franz Cumont,
The Mysteries of Mithra, 1956, p. 101.
157. Marcel Simon(n. 150), pp. 466-477.—158 M. J. Vermaseren,
Corpus Inscriptionum et Monumentorum Religionis Mithriacae, 1956, I, p. 190, n. 463.
159. F. Cumont,
Les Religions orientales dans le Paganism romain, 1929, p. 79, illust. 5 and p. 236, n. 37.
160. See above n. 158. For epigraphic texts of the first century B.C., identifying Mithras with Mercury or with Apollo and Helios, see R. Turcan,
Les Religions de l’Asie dans la vallée du Rhone, 1972, pp. 34f. Also by the same author,
Mithras Platonicus, 1975, p. 19. Additional texts are given by Vivien J. Walters, who writes:
“The classic example comes from Merida, a marble statue of a naked Mercury, sitting on a large boulder, with an inscription dated by the year of the colonia to A.D. 155 and dedicated to Mithras”(
The Cult of Mithras in the Roman Provinces of Gaul, 1974, p. 118).
161.
“Obviously,” writes Marcel Simon,
“in a sanctuary dedicated to Mithras, his name being last, indicates his privileged position and the adjectives which precede his name are related precisely to him”(n. 150, p. 469).
162. Ibid. In his
Saturnales I, 17-23, Macrobius(about 400) endeavors to demonstrate that all the gods are a manifestation of the Sun-god-
ad solemn referunt.
163. See, for example, the mural inscriptions and pictures of the seven planetary gods which have been uncovered in Pompeii and Herculaneum. These and other indications are discussed in
From Sabbath to Sunday, pp. 241-247.
164. This change did not affect the sequence of the days of the week but only their numbering. Moreover the change did not affect the week of the Jews for whom the Sabbath(Saturday for the Romans) had always been the seventh day.
165. Vettius Valens,
Anthologiarum 5, 10, ed. G. Kroll, p. 26. See the informative study by Robert L. Odom,
“Vettius Valens and the Planetary Week,” Andrews University Seminary Studies 3(1965): 110-137.
166. This information has becn graciously supplied to me by Willy Rordorf, who examines the significance of the planetary gods appearing on the Wettingen’s goblet, in a paper presented at an International Congress on Mithraism in 1978. The title of the paper is
“Le christianisme et la semaine planétaire: à propos d’un gobelet trouvé à Wettingen en Suisse.” 167. For texts and discussion see
From Sabbath to Sunday, pp. 247-251. Kenneth A. Strand objects to the influence of the pagan day of the Sun on the Christian adoption of Sunday for two reasons. First, because Mithraism,
“one cult that did show honor to Sunday” was mainly
“a soldier’s religion” and thus had a limited influence on Christianity(n. 105, p. 90). Second, Strand maintains that Christians who were willing to sacrifice their lives rather than adopt pagan practices would hardly have been influenced by the pagan day of the sun in choosing their new day of worship(ibid.). Strand’s arguments ignore several significant facts. First, recent studies have shown that Mithraism was more widespread and influential than earlier thought(see, for example, the two volumes[
Corpus] by M. J. Vermaseren[n. 158] which list the many Mithraic inscriptions and monuments according to the respective Roman provinces where they have been found. Note that all the provinces are well represented. Cf. n. 150 and Vivien J. Walters, n. 160, pp. 1-49). Second, the advancement of the day of the Sun from second to first day of the week was influenced not merely by Mithraism but rather by the syncretistic solar-worship of which Mithraism was a component(see notes 157 to 162). In his apology
To the Pagans(written in 197), Tertullian replies to the taunt that Christians were Sun-worshipers by underscoring:
“It is you(pagans], at all events, who have admitted the sun into the calendar of the week; and you have selected its day(Sunday) in preference of the preceding day(Saturday) as the most suitable in the week for either an entire abstinence from bath ∙∙∙ or for taking rest and for banqueting”(1, 13,
ANF III, p. 123). Note that Tertullian attributes to the pagans in general(and not specifically to the Mithraists) the responsibility for the advancement and preference of the day of the Sun over that of Saturn. Third, while it is true that Christians
“were ready to give up life itself rather than adopt known pagan practices”(Strand, n. 105, p. 90), yet as Jacquetta Hawkes well puts it:
“with the malicious irony so often apparent in history, even while they fought heroically on one front, their position was infiltrated from another”(
Man and the Sun, 1967, p. 199). Tertullian, for example, strongly refutes the pagan charge that Christians were Sun-worshipers(
Apology 16, 1;
To the Pagans 1, 13, 1-5), yet at the same time he chides the Christians at length for celebrating pagan festivals within their own communities(
On Idolatry 14). On the influence of Sun-worship on Christian art, on literature, on the eastward orientation for prayer and on the adoption of the date of Christmas, see
From Sabbath to Sunday, pp. 253-261.
168. A concise survey of the influence of astrological beliefs on early Christianity is provided by Jack Lindsay,
Origin of Astrology, 1972, pp. 373400. For references and discussion on the influence of Sun-cults on Christian art and liturgy, see
From Sabbath to Sunday, pp. 253-261.
169. Justin Martyr,
I Apology 67.
170. Eusebius,
Commentaria in Psalmos 91
PG 23, 1169-1172(emphasis supplied). Similarly in his
Life of Constantine, Eusebius states that
“the Savior’s day ∙∙∙ derives its name from light and from the sun”(4, 18,
NPNF 2nd, I, p. 544).
171. Maximus of Turin(about 400-423) views the designation of the
“day of the Sun” as a proleptic announcement of the resurrection of Christ:
“We hold the day of the Lord to be venerable and solemn, because on it the Savior, like the rising sun, conquered the darkness of the underworld and gleamed in the glory of the resurrection. This is why the same day was called day of the sun by the pagans, because the Sun of Justice once risen would have illuminated it”(
Homilia 61,
PL 57, 371). Gaudentius, Bishop of Brescia(about 400),(
Sermo 9,
De evangelica lectione 2, PL 20, 916 and
De Exodo Sermo 1,
PL 20, 845), explains that the Lord’s day became first in relationship to the Sabbath, because on that day the Sun of righteousness has appeared, dispelling the darkness of the Jews, melting the ice of the pagans and restoring the world to its primordial order; cf. Hilary of
Poitiers, Tractatus in Psalmos 67, 6,
CSEL 27, 280; Athanasius,
Expositio in Psalmos 67, 34,
PG 27, 303; Ambrose,
Hexaemeron 4, 2, 7; and
Epistula 44,
PL 16, 1138.
172. Jerome,
In die dominica Paschae homilia CCL 78, 550, 1, 52(emphasis supplied). The same explanation is given by Augustine, in
Contra Faustum 18, 5 and in
Sermo 226,
PL 38, 1099.
(225.3)