Biblical History

This page contains articles discussing history as recorded in the Bible. For topics relating to creationism, go to the Creation page.

List of titles:

Most recent entries are generally at the bottom of this page.
(For a listing of ALL articles on my web website, click on “Contents ->" at top of page)

Pharaoh of the Exodus
Summary of Early Church History

Pharaoh of the Exodus

October 2014

Introduction

It is generally thought that Ramesses II was the Pharaoh referred to in the story of the Hebrew exodus. This assumption is fairly widespread, based not only on biblical references but also deductions from the Qur’an. And of course Cecil B. DeMille’s 1956 epic film The Ten Commandments depicted Ramesses II as that king. But a close look at the Bible, and consideration of what is known about Ramesses’ reign do not support this belief. The two leading candidates for “Pharaoh of the Exodus” are Merneptah, who succeeded Ramesses II, and the much earlier Amenhotep II, who followed the equally great Thutmose III. Amenhotep III is a third possibility.

The Exodus: Fact or Myth?

Before discussing who might have been the pharaoh of the exodus, it should be acknowledged that there are many who question whether the great Hebrew exodus from Egypt ever really occurred. This questioning can be understood in light of the paucity of evidence for a large Israelite population at that time. Exodus 12:37 indicates the children of Israel had increased from a total of 70 people upon entry to the land, to 600,000 men by the time they left. If women and children are added in, the total Israelite population must have been in the 2 to 3 million range! As Exodus 1:7 states, “…the children of Israel were fruitful and increased abundantly, multiplied and grew exceedingly mighty; and the land was filled with them.” Yet one of the only mentions of the Hebrew people in Egyptian records comes from a comment by Pharaoh Merneptah regarding the “desolation of Israel.”

This absence of mention of the Israelites is not necessarily surprising when one considers that Egyptian pharaohs were notorious for recording only their victories, and never their defeats. Written records were essentially propaganda projects, and furthermore previous records were often erased when they became unpopular or deemed politically incorrect by later pharaohs. And since Egyptian writings are usually accepted at face value, even in the absence of corroborating evidence, it could be argued that Hebrew writings should likewise be accepted as historical, at least in the absence of any contradictory evidence. To discount them because they are embedded in “religious” documents is disingenuous; most writings of the day were influenced in significant ways by the religious beliefs of their authors.

But ultimately it comes down to a question of faith. There is no reason why the Exodus story couldn't be true, even if there is no compelling proof that it was true, outside of what is recorded in the Bible. It certainly has been taken as fact throughout the ages, not only by Christians and Jews, but in large part by Muslims as well. To me, as a Christian, the most convincing argument in favour of the reality of the exodus is the fact that Jesus Christ clearly believed it to be a part of Jewish history. Jesus referred often to Mosaic law, and Acts 7 recounts Stephen’s storytelling of the entire Israelites’ Egyptian saga. Also, both Moses and Elijah appeared with Jesus in Matthew 17:3. Although Christ’s knowledge was limited during his time on earth, it seems inconceivable that he would have spoken of Moses in this way if the story of the exodus had been mythical.

So the question becomes, who was the pharaoh who experienced the wrath of God and the exodus of the Israelite people?

The Kings of the 18th and 19th Dynasties

To facilitate this study, a listing of the Egyptian pharaohs during the relevant period is provided. Those mentioned in the discussion are shown in bold type.

Prior to the eighteenth dynasty, Asiatic or Semitic people known as Hyksos had ruled much of Egypt. That period, also known as the “Second Intermediate Period,” lasted from the thirteenth through 17th dynasties of Egyptian pharaohs. On racial grounds, it is easy to see that the Hyksos kings would have been sympathetic to the descendants of Jacob. But the Bible reports that kings who did not know Joseph or Israel subsequently began to rule harshly over the Israelites and enslaved them.
The Eighteenth Dynasty brought a return of true Egyptian pharaohs to the throne of Egypt. The pharaohs of the 18th dynasty were:

Ahmose (~ 1539 BC - 1515 BC): 24 years
Amenhotep I (1514 BC - 1494 BC): 20 years
Thutmose I (1493 BC - 1483 BC): 10 years
Thutmose II (1482 BC - 1480 BC): 2 years
Thutmose III (1479 BC - 1425 BC): 54 years
..and Queen Hatshpsut (1479 BC - 1458 BC): 21 years
Amenhotep II (1425 BC - 1400 BC): 25 year
Thutmose IV (1400 BC - 1390 BC): 10 years
Amenhotep III (1390 BC - 1353 BC): 37 years
Amenhotep IV (Akhenaten) (1353 BC - 1336 BC): 17 years
Smenkhkara (1336 BC - 1334 BC): 2 years
Nefernefruaten (1334 BC - ?)
Tutankhamun (? - 1324 BC)
Ay II (1323 BC - 1320 BC): 3 years
Horemheb (1319 BC - 1292 BC): 27 years

The pharaohs of the 19th dynasty were:
Ramesses I (1292 BC - 1291 BC): 1 year
Seti I (1290 BC - 1279 BC): 11 years
Ramesses II (1279 B - 1213 BC): 66 years
Merneptah (or Merenptah) (1213 BC - 1203 BC): 10 years
Seti II (1202 BC - 1198 BC): 4 years
Amenmesse (1202 BC - 1200 BC): 2 years
Siptah (1197 BC - 1193 BC): 4 years
Tawosret (1192 BC - 1191 BC): 1 year

The Case Against Ramesses II

In Exodus 1:11 we read that the Israelites were working to build the cities of Pithom and Ramesses. These cities would have been built during the time of Ramesses II (Ramesses I had a very short reign). Also, according to Exodus 12:37, the exodus began in the city of Ramesses. This would lead us to think that Moses would have been born early in the reign of Seti I (1290 BC - 1279 BC), Ramesses II’s father, as was depicted in the movie. In the New Testament it is stated that Moses lived 40 years in Egypt (Acts 7:23), which would have taken him to about 1250 BC - well into the reign of Ramesses II who had an extraordinarily long and successful reign of 66 years and 2 months, from 1279 BC - 1213 BC).

After his departure from Egypt, Acts 7:30 indicates that Moses lived an additional 40 years as a shepherd in Midian, which brings us to around 1210 BC. According to Exodus 2:23, the king of Egypt had died just prior to Moses’ return to Egypt, and that could have been Ramesses II. So if the biblical record is correct, the pharaoh that Moses dealt with during the exodus period was fairly new to the throne. This could not have been Ramesses II.

Another reason why Ramesses II was likely not the pharaoh of the exodus is circumstantial. Ramesses II was one of the most successful rulers in Egyptian history. How could this man, who is often referred to as Ramesses the Great, and who was one of the most celebrated and most powerful pharaohs of the Egyptian Empire have had such extraordinary success after experiencing what has been described in the book of Exodus? Since a pharaoh had just died, it couldn't have been near the end of his long reign, but near the start. It is difficult to think that the 10 plagues would not have had a major impact, and especially the death of the Egyptians’ firstborn. Then there was the drowning of what must have been a significant part of the Egyptian army in the Red Sea. And let us not forget the loss of a large part of their slave labour force.

While it made for a better story in the epic movie for “The Ten Commandments” to show the great Ramesses II as the Pharaoh who let the Israelites go, from the evidence at hand, and especially the reference to a new pharaoh having come to power just prior to the exodus, I am quite sure that Ramesses II was not the pharaoh of the exodus.

The Case For Merneptah

Merneptah (also known as Merenptah) succeeded Ramesses II to the throne of Egypt, and had a relatively short reign, from 1213 BC - 1203 BC. He was in his late 60’s or early 70’s when he assumed power. Following the timeline herein described, Moses could very well have led the Israelites out of Egypt during this time. Whether or not Merneptah met his doom in the Red Sea, the Egyptian Empire certainly faced significant decline during the remainder of the 19th dynasty. This is more consistent with the impact of God’s intervention in Egypt than the highly successful reign of Ramesses II.

There is in fact evidence that Merneptah had dealings with the children of Israel. On the Merneptah Stele (or “Israel Table”), discovered in 1906 by Sir Flinders Petrie, Merneptah recounts various victories and indicates, near the bottom, “Plundered is Canaan. Israel is desolated; his seed is not.” It seems likely that although he did everything he could to prevent the departure of Israel, he actually recorded their departure as a victory over them.

Further evidence for this scenario comes from Fisher of the University Museum of Pennsylvania, who in 1922 found, at Bethsan in Palestine, a stele of Ramesses II, 8 feet high, 2.5 feet wide, on which he says he “built Ramesses with Asiatic Semitic (i.e. Hebrew) slaves.” Furthermore Naville (1883) identified the site of Pithom, and found an inscription of Ramesses II “I built Pithom at the mouth of the East.” These all lead to the conclusion that Ramesses II was the pharaoh for whom these cities were built, and who was the oppressor of Israel, and so point to his successor Merneptah as the pharaoh of the exodus.

So in this scenario, we can surmise that:
- Joseph came to Egypt as a captive in around 1650 BC;
- Jacob entered Egypt in around 1635 BC with a total company of 70 people (Exodus 1:5)
- Moses was born around 1290 BC, near the beginning of the reign of Seti I (who reigned from 1290 BC - 1279 BC);
- Moses grew up as a Prince of Egypt during the reign of Ramesses II, was probably brought up by Seti’s daughter, and escaped from Egypt around 1250 BC;
- Moses returned to Egypt around 1208 BC during the reign of Merneptah;
- The exodus would have taken place sometime during the next several years, and according to Exodus 12:41 exactly 430 years to the very day from the beginning of the “sojourn in Egypt.” Exodus 12:37 states that 600,000 men, not counting women and children, exited Egypt at this time. That implies a total company of around 2.5 million people! It is unclear whether Merneptah perished with his Egyptian army in the Red Sea -- I would suspect not, as suggested in the movie. However his remains were embalmed in the usual Egyptian manner, and his mummy has been recovered.

The Case for Amenhotep II

There is one major problem with above scenario: timeline suggested by the Bible indicate a much earlier exodus. If one works back chronologically from Christ’s time using the genealogies and durations indicated by biblical texts, the dates for these related events are about 230 years earlier. Complicating the analysis is the fact that all dates from archaeology become less precise as we go back in time.

If one follows the chronologies of the Old Testament, Jacob (Israel) led his band of around 70 people into Egypt in around 1850 BC. As mentioned, the exodus should have taken place around 400 years later, in 1450 BC. Since Exodus 12:41 records the time in Egypt at 430 years, it must be counting from the time of Joseph’s arrival, presumably 30 years prior to Jacob’s coming. This also agrees with the accepted date of the fall of Jericho circa 1400 - 1380 BC. Though disputed by some, radiocarbon dating provides supportive evidence for the timeframe of 1380 BC - 1325 BC for Jericho’s fall. These dates are from what is sometimes referred to as the “early-date model.”

So in this scenario:
- Joseph’s arrival in Egypt would have been around 1880 BC;
- entry of the original Israelites would have occurred in around 1850 BC;
- Moses birth took place around 1500 BC, perhaps during the reign of Thutmose I. He would have been in his early twenties at the start of the co-regency of Queen Hatshepsut and her son Thutmose III. Moses may have been brought up by Hatshepsut, before she was queen;
- Moses lived in Egypt until around 1460 BC, during the long and increasingly oppressive reign of Thutmose III;
- Moses returned to Egypt around 1420 BC to lead the Israelites to freedom. This would have been during Amenhotep II’s reign (1425 BC - 1400 BC);
- fall of Jericho circa 1400 - 1380 BC with radiocarbon dating provide supportive evidence.

The Case for Amenhotep III

The case for Amenhotep III is circumstantial, but has some historical basis. Syncellus, a writer in 800 AD referred to presumed documents from Manetho, an Egyptian historian and priest who lived during the third century BC, and deduced that Amenhotep III was the pharaoh of the exodus (unfortunately the link to this information is now broken). Apparently Amenhotep III’s mummy was uniquely embalmed, suggesting that he may have died from drowning. This is all very speculative, and there are even questions about the authenticity of Syncellus’ manuscript.

More convincing, in my opinion, is the fact that the next pharaoh after Amenhotep III was unique in departing from Egypt’s traditional polytheistic tradition and adopting monotheism. Akhenaten, originally known as Amenhotep IV (1353-1336 BC), was that man. His name change was the result of his worship of one god, Aten, creator of all things. One would have thought, after the havoc wrought on Egypt during this time, that Egyptians would have been convinced of the existence of the One God of the Hebrews. Certainly Yul Brynner’s quotation as Pharaoh in The Ten Commandments regarding Moses that “His god IS God” seems to be the reasonable reaction to the plagues and defeat of the Egyptian army in the Red Sea. Yet there is no recorded movement towards monotheism by any pharaoh except for Amenhotep IV, who succeeded Amenhotep III. Perhaps it was because of the power of the priesthood in Egypt that this was the case. It is noteworthy that after Amenhotep IV’s death, it didn’t take long for polytheism to return to Egypt under the leadership of the priests. Nevertheless one can’t help thinking this may be a clue to the true identity of the pharaoh of the exodus.

So if Amenhotep III was indeed the pharaoh of the exodus, it is logical that his successor was convinced of the existence of a single, supreme, creator God. It is even claimed that some of his writings were remarkably similar to the psalms of David. The name Akhenaten means “It is well with Aten”. Over a period of 5 to 10 years he gradually eradicated worship of the traditional Egyptian gods in favour of the worship of Aten, for whom he made himself high priest. He was known to have built an alter for Aten, the one, creator God, at Tel el-Amarna. The extent to which the Egyptians worshiped Aten is controversial, and there is sketchy and contradictory information about the actual nature of this god. He is depicted on monuments as the disk of the sun, with arms and fingers extending to earth signifying his involvement with mankind. But the worship of Aten seems unlike the worship of the sun god in other cultures. Here it was the worship of a single, almighty, creator God who made all things, and who was represented by the symbol of the most important object known to men at the time — the sun.

Another fact that could support Amenhotep III as being the pharaoh of the exodus is the rapid decline of Egypt immediately following his death. Egyptologists suggest the reason for this was Akhenaten’s preoccupation with religious affairs and resultant neglect of political priorities. But it could equally be the result of the impact of the plagues and the decimation of the Egyptian army that made him unable, rather than unwilling, to embark on military ventures.

Akhenaten also created a new capital city called Akhet-Aten meaning “Horizon of Aten.” The city was later destroyed, and the site today is known as El-Amarna. In its ruins were found some of the finest archives in Egypt, now referred to as the Amarna letters, among which is the earliest recorded reference to the Canaanite city of Jerusalem. In any event by the time of the reign of Tutankhamun, pretty much all vestiges of Aten were obliterated from Egyptian records. But it is an intriguing idea.

Conclusions

While timelines established by archaeologists do vary by around 50-60 years, these differ markedly from dates established by Christian theologians. There is a 200+ year difference between accepted (late-date model) and biblical (early-date model) chronology. If biblical timelines are strictly correct, the pharaoh was likely Amenhotep II (1425BC - 1400 BC), but could have been Amenhotep III (1390 BC - 1353 BC) . However if the more widely accepted late-date chronology is correct, the pharaoh was most likely Merenptah II (1213-1203 BC). While I don’t rule out the biblical timelines, there is good reason to trust the dates generally agreed to by the archaeological and scientific community. Those dates have been confirmed to a remarkable degree by radiocarbon dating. Also there is strong evidence that biblical genealogies, while accurate in relative terms, omit individuals who may have been of lesser importance, and consequently should not be used for arriving at absolute dates. For more information on this, refer to my paper “Biblical Genealogies” (coming soon).

The identity of the Pharaoh of the Exodus has been lost to the sands of time. Unless new archaeological evidence is discovered, we will never be certain of his identity. However the likely candidates are identified here. At first I preferred Amenhotep III largely because of Amenhotep IV’s monotheism. The earlier Amenhotep II is more in line with traditional biblical chronologies, and is favoured by Halley’s Bible Handbook, which I highly respect. However repeated mentions of Ramesses in Biblical text leads me to prefer Merneptah as pharaoh at the time of exodus. Isaac Asimov came to the same conclusion (Asimov’s “Guide to the Bible”). Unless inaccurate revisions have been made to the biblical text, the exodus could not have pre-dated Ramesses. And for the reasons cited previously, it is very doubtful that Ramesses II could himself have been the pharaoh who let Israel go.

References

Support for Ramesses/Merneptah
Support for Amenhotep III...reference no longer available, sorry)
Support for Amenhotep II - read Halley’s Bible Handbook, Revised Edition (Twenty-fourth edition, 1965)
Support for Amenhotep II - read Ungers Bible Handbook, 1966
Islamic perspective (supports Ramesses II)
Information on the Hyksos kings
 

Summary of Early Church History

August 2017

Introduction

This essay is limited to the period from A.D. 30 to A.D. 590. The keyword here is "Summary;" for detailed information there are numerous historical sources available. An overview is my objective, and my primary references are Unger's Bible Handbook and Halley's Bible Handbook. I also rely on various secular sources of information, particularly pertaining to the history of the Roman Empire which I have studied in university courses.

Apostolic Period

The period from 33 to around 100 is often referred to as the Apostolic Period, because, of course, that was the time when the biblical apostles lived. It begins with Jesus' death and resurrection, circa the year 33. For two decades after this, the only written "Bible" in existence consisted of the Old Testament scriptures, available mostly in Greek. The first New Testament book was apparently James, written perhaps as early as A.D. 45. Revelation was the last book written, dating around A.D. 95. As Unger says, during this early period the early church employed the Old Testament as its Bible. Peter preached from it (Acts 2:14-36), as did Stephen (Acts 7:2-53), Philip (Acts 8:32-35) and Paul. Oral accounts of the life and work of Christ were written down and finally gave way to the inspired Synoptic Gospels sometime before A.D. 70. The Pauline and other epistles were written in an attempt to clarify doctrinal interpretations of Christ's person, and correct errors such as legalism. Acts provided an historical sketch of the development of the very early church. So the basic New Testament we have today was all written during this period, which is remarkably soon after Christ's ascension - a fact which greatly substantiates the claim that these books accurately related the events in Christ's life.

I consider the "founding" of the Christian church to have been at Pentecost. The miraculous infilling of the Holy Spirit amongst believers, as Christ had promised, gave Christians the motivation and power to preach in Christ's name. Acts 1 through 12 describes the amazing, wonderful growth of the beginnings of the Christian church. There was great excitement, evangelization, as well as persecution and martyrdom. This happened during the reigns of the emperors Tiberius (14-37) and Caligula (37-41). Caligula became genuinely insane, and some Christians died during his time. But Christianity was still considered to be a sect of Judaism, which was legal in the empire at that time. Christianity began to spread to Gentiles, as evidenced by the conversion of the centurion Cornelius. Saul's (Paul's) conversion is thought to have happened during Caligula's reign. During this time Christians were for the most part united in love and selflessness, and lived in accordance with Christ's teachings - sharing all as needed in brotherly love. I am sure that it was the witness of their lives, through the enabling power of the Holy Spirit, that contributed greatly to the spread of the faith.

Acts 13-28 covers the period of Claudius' reign (41-54). Claudius was a good emperor, except in matters relating to his wives (each of his marriages ended either in divorce or execution). Christianity continued to spread strongly throughout the empire, facilitated by the rapid and safe travel afforded by the empire's roads and overall military control of land and sea. But it remained pretty much under the radar, so to speak, of the Roman government. During this time Paul made his missionary journeys and wrote his epistles. This safety and security ended under the rule of Nero (54-68), who blamed Christians for the great fire that destroyed much of Rome. The Apostle Paul is thought to have been executed under Nero's rule, along with many other Christians.

Peter's epistles, the synoptic gospels, and epistle to Hebrews are thought to have been written around the time of the emperor Galba (68, 69). Jerusalem was destroyed by the Roman army in the year 70, under the rule of Vespasian (69-79). Vespasian is considered to have been a good emperor who put down numerous civil wars (including the one in Jerusalem), bringing a period of peace and stability to the empire. Military campaigns were carried out during this time in Britain, to Romanize the island. Persecution of Christians began in earnest during the reign of Domitian (81-96). This emperor became increasingly paranoid during his reign, and Christians were among his many victims. The emperor Nerva (96-98) ended the persecution of Christians and brought back peace and stability after the last years of Domitian's reign. But he was old, and only ruled for two years. His adopted son Trajan took power in 98. Though he was considered to be a generally good and strong emperor, he supported the persecution of Christians. Correspondence between Trajan and Pliny the Younger is the earliest recorded mention of Christians in pagan literature and correspondence. Trajan replied that Christians should not be sought out. Also, anonymously posted accusations ought to have no place in prosecutions, "for this is out of keeping with the spirit of our age." But if denounced and proved guilty, Christians were to be punished, unless they denied their faith with proof - by worshipping the Roman gods. In that case they might obtain pardon through repentance. Further correspondence was exchanged regarding whether children should be executed along with their Christian parents. So these were very dangerous times for Christians. And yet, the church grew and thrived, despite deviations which required corrections by Paul and others. And by the end of this period, all the New Testament books that we have in our Bibles had been completed. Notable Christian leaders during this time included Clement, bishop of Rome; Ignatius, bishop of Antioch (martyred); Papias, bishop of Hierapolis, and Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna (martyred).

Sub-Apostolic Period

The period from the end of the Apostolic period to about the year 150 is known as the Sub-Apostolic Period. After Hadrian, Antoninus Pius served as emperor for the remainder of this period (138-161). Considered by many to be a golden age of the Roman Empire, persecutions of Christians continued. However they were local and scattered, fomented mainly by Jews and a few pagan intellectuals. This period is noted for some early Christian writings, including the Epistle to the Corinthians by Clement of Rome which was seriously considered for inclusion in the Bible; the Epistle of Barnabas, The Shepherd of Hermas which taught "adoptionism," the belief that Jesus was born as a virtuous, mortal man with a pre-existent spirit and was later adopted as the Son of God; and The Didache, an early handbook of an anonymous Christian community.

Conflict with Empire and Heresies

The years from A.D. 150 to A.D. 313 were known for Christian conflicts with the Empire, as well as for dealings with heresies. Politically, much of this period has been referred to as The Crisis of the Third Century. Many of the emperors survived only a few years, there were constant wars, frequent assassinations, and the empire was at times split into three parts. In terms of Christian persecution, Marcus Aurelius (161-180) persecuted Christians, with Justin Martyr and Polycarp being among the martyred. Septimius Severus (193-211) undertook severe, if localized persecutions in Alexandria and Gaul, with many Christians being tortured, beheaded, burned, or thrown to wild beast for entertainment of the masses. Severis famously told his sons be harmonious, enrich the soldiers, and scorn all other men. This pretty much reflected his personal philosophy. Then under the reigns of Caracalla, Elagabalus and Alexander Severus (211-235), Christians found themselves well tolerated in the Empire. But Maximin (235-238) put many prominent Christian leaders to death; Origen barely escaped. From 238-249, the emperors Gordian and Philip favoured Christians. Then from 249-260, Decius and Valerian carried out cruel persecution, in which multitudes of Christians perished in horrible deaths. Decius actually inaugurated the first major violent and general persecution of Christians. He was also the first Roman Emperor to die at the hands of non-Roman enemy soldiers in battle, something that many Christians considered to be just retribution. Diocletian (284-305) is considered by many to have been a great emperor, but according to Unger, in an attempt to exterminate Christianity he inaugurated the most severe imperial persecution the church had yet faced. But it seems that this persecution didn't begin until late in his reign - by edict in February 24, 303. All Christian churches were to be destroyed, Christians tortured and burned alive. But co-emperor Constantious didn't enforce it. And many in the army didn't enforce it. All monotheists were incensed and many helped the Christians. Although this was a giant stain on Diocletian's otherwise sterling reputation, this persecution was largely due to the prompting of Galerius who falsely blamed the burning of the Imperial Palace on Christian saboteurs (a familiar story). Galerius was a sadist against Christians, and became emperor in 305 and continued the persecution until near his deathbed in 311, when he relented and actually asked that Christians pray for him. He died of some horribly gruesome disease as described by Eusebius1 and Lactantius2. Thus ended the last state-sanctioned persecution of Christians in the Roman Empire.

Theologically, this period was also a time of turmoil. Although under periodic brutal persecution, many doctrinal errors and deviations occurred. Among these were Gnosticism which taught that all matter was inherently evil and therefore Christ could not have had a real body. Neoplatonism denied Christ's divinity. Montanism stressed the immediacy of Christ's return. Modalism argued that God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit were simply different "modes" of the One God. In this scenario, God the Father himself would have to have gone to the cross. Adoptionism, as mentioned previously, held that Jesus was a human who was granted godhood either at the time of his baptism, or at his ascension. Monarchianism stressed the unity of God, denying a trinity of "persons." Some noted polemicists wrote against heresies. Irenaeus in Against Heresies upheld the deity and resurrection of Christ against Gnosticism. Origen authored De Principiis, the first systematic theology. Tertullian formulated a doctrine of the Trinity in Against Praxeas, though this did not, as some modern theologians would have us believe, involve a co-equal and eternal Son; Tertullian held that Christ was in subordination to the Father, as he himself had clearly said. Meanwhile Cyprian formulated the doctrines of apostolic succession and Peter's primacy. Apostolic succession was certainly not a part of the accepted canon established in biblical scriptures. As Unger says, it was born out of a need for leadership in a time of persecution, and especially in combating heresies.

This was also the time of the first Christian apologists. These people sought legal recognition of Christianity. Justin Martyr was likely the foremost apologist, defending the moral and spiritual value of Christianity in his First Apology. He also defended it against Judaism in his Dialogue with Trypho. Well before year 200, the New Testament canon was pretty much accepted, and by 200 a church calendar had been developed, with Christmas and Easter being the principal celebrations. An early form of the Apostles' Creed had also become a symbol of orthodoxy. Also during this time, the catacombs of Rome became a place of refuge for Christians. They still contain thousands of inscriptions from this period.

Growth of the Catholic Imperial Church

The period from A.D. 313 to A.D. 590 was a time when Christianity was, for the most part, accepted into the culture of the Roman Empire. According to Halley, by the beginning of this period about half the total population of the Roman Empire was Christian - an astonishing growth in three hundred years, much of it under intense persecution. Christianity became the official state religion under the emperor Theodosius in A.D. 380. It was also transformed greatly in structure from that of the early church, and, it might be added, move away from many of the principles of Christ's teachings. As Halley said, though it might seem that the church had conquered the Roman Empire, in reality the empire had conquered the church. The military spirit of Rome, along with some of its organizational structures, had entered the church.

Constantine the Great

The emperor Constantine (306-337) was a key figure in what Halley called the paganization of the church. He was the first emperor to claim conversion to Christianity, and was venerated by the medieval church as a paragon of virtue, and by secular rulers as an ideal prototype. The official version of church history calls Constantine a saint, "the equal of the apostles." His mother, Saint Helen, is referred to by the Eastern Orthodox church as holy Empress Helen, and she also is called the equal of the apostles. But while many of Constantine's achievements as emperor were impressive (administratively, financially, socially, and militarily), the nature and character of his spirituality appear to leave much to be desired.

Constantine won a decisive victory at the famous Battle of the Milvian Bridge in the year 312, making him sole ruler of the western half of the empire. According to legend, during the preceding night he had a dream in which he was commanded to place a sign of Christ on the shields of his soldiers, and he would be victorious. Accordingly the Chi Ro was placed either on the shields, or on the battle standards (there are variants to this story, but that is the essence). Following this victory, he apparently became a believer, though again there are opinions that he had been a Christian since childhood, or that he really didn't become a Christian until near the end of his life. In any event, he declared that the church was going to have the full backing of the state. Most of the favours which he then bestowed upon the Christian church coincidentally benefited his personal grip on the empire. The empire had been rife with revolution and strife, and he was convinced that Christianity could be a unifying force. That seems to have been his primary motivation. But he found to his dismay that there was also a lack of unity within the church. To help resolve this, he called together bishops from throughout the empire to the Council of Nicaea in 325, which we'll get to in a moment.

But first, I must sketch out a few of the reasons for doubting Constantine's motives. Here was a man who, as "Christian" emperor, ordered his father-in-law to commit suicide. He was also responsible for the murders of three brothers-in-law, one nephew, his eldest son, and his wife...all for the cause of maintaining sole control of the Roman empire. In particular the murders of his son and wife shocked even the pagans in the empire. Incidentally his remaining sons learned well from him; he raised a basketful of vipers, as historian and podcaster Mike Duncan said. He suggested it took about seven seconds for them to turn on each other once the old man was gone. Constantine apparently allowed himself to be called divine (not an uncommon thing for an emperor). And he wasn't even baptized until on his deathbed, apparently so that he could be cleansed of all his sins just before dying (he didn't kill any more of his family members after that). He died at 65 years of age, on May 22 in the year 337, and had been emperor for almost 31 years. Though the ending of persecution was a relief, Constantine's support was a mixed blessing to the church. He, and later emperors, used the church as an instrument of imperial power and policy, imposed upon it the imperial ideology, and thus deprived it of much of the independence it had previously enjoyed. In some aspects it became almost unrecognizable from the early church that was derived from Christ's teachings.

From a Christian perspective, many of Constantine's secular policies were notably contrary to Christ's teachings. His tax policies lead to the super-rich becoming self-sufficient, and therefore because they didn't have to buy, sell or trade, they didn't have to pay taxes. Inequality in the general population increased greatly during Constantine's time, with many people having to sell their children into slavery in order to pay the additional taxes required to make up for the taxes which the rich had previously paid (sounds a bit familiar).

Council of Nicaea (A.D. 325)

From a Christian standpoint, one of Constantine's major "accomplishments" was arranging for the Council of Nicaea in the year 325. This has been referred to as The First World Council of the Church. Although Constantine purported to support neither party in the Arian/Nicene controversy, in the end his implicit support for Athanasius of Alexandria (the man Sir Isaac Newton called the greatest villain of Christianity) was probably the reason why the western Christian church followed the Nicene interpretation of the Godhead, while the eastern part, which was not influenced by Constantine, largely followed the Arian interpretation. During the Council, Arius was reportedly physically assaulted by his Nicene opponents. Nicene Christians were notorious for persecuting those with whom they did not share beliefs. Not only Arian Christians, but Jews also fell victim to the Nicenes, with many Jewish synagogues being torn down. It is these brazen "unchristian" actions of the Nicene Christians that reinforce my suspicion that the Arians had the correct view on the Godhead. Going in, all Constantine wanted from the Christian bishops was unity - he didn't really care which side won. In the end the Nicenes were victorious, but the controversy was not to be settled for many hundreds of years, as different emperors sided with opposing views regarding the Godhead. Ironically, it would be an Arian priest that Constantine asked to baptize him, shortly before his death.

The mid-fourth century

Constantine's three sons held power, to varying degrees, from 337-361. This was a bloody time politically, the details of which I will not delve into. Suffice to say that Constantius II (337-361), Constantine's dominant son, adhered to the Arian view of Christ as had his father in the end. Julian "the Apostate" led a short-lived pagan renewal from 351-363, but Jovian (363, 364) restored the Christian faith. Valens, eastern emperor from 364-378, and Valentinian II (western emperor 375-392) were also Arian believers. The main problem of switching between Arian and Nicene emperors was that whereas in early times the empire had persecuted Christians, now Christians were persecuting each other. Outside of the empire, the "barbarian" tribes were converted during this time. Among them, the Vandals in North Africa, Visigoths in Spain, and Lombards all initially embraced Arian Christianity, but were gradually assimilated by the Nicenes after the fall of the western empire in 476.

During this time Christendom had come to be largely dominated by five religious centres: Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem and Alexandria. Bishops of these centres were referred to as Patriachs, of equal authority one with another, and each having full control of his own province. After the split of the Roman Empire in 325, the Patriarchs of Antioch, Jerusalem and Alexandria gradually came together to acknowledge the leadership of Constantinople. From that point on, the struggle for leadership of Christendom coincided with the capitals of the two parts of the empire: Rome and Constantinople.

Theodosius the Great

Theodosius ruled from 379-393, made Christianity the legal state religion in 380, and made membership in the church compulsory. According to Halley, this was the worst calamity that has ever befallen the church. The emperor, aided and abetted by Christians, also undertook forcible suppression of all other religions. Heathen temples were torn down by mobs of Christians, and there was much bloodshed. The spiritual emphasis of Christ regarding salvation through love and witness had been transformed to conform with, and be identical to the militarism of the empire. People were essentially forced to accept the faith.

Descent into apostasy

By the end of Theodosius' rule, the church had been made over into an image of the Roman Empire. It had become a political organization, and began what Halley called a nose-dive into a millennium of Papal abominations. Worship, at first very simple, was developed into elaborate, stately, imposing ceremonies having all the outward splendour that had belonged to heathen temples. Ministers became "priests," in contravention to I Peter 2:5 and 9 which says that all Christians constitute a holy priesthood. Pope Leo I (440-461) prohibited priests from marrying, and celibacy of priests became a law of the Roman church. We know where that has led.

Other theological milestones

The Council of Constantinople in 381 dealt with a heresy that Christ's human spirit was replaced by the Logos. The Council of Ephesus in 431 dealt with understanding the two natures of Christ. The Council of Chalcedon in 451 stated that Christ's two natures united in his one person. The Council of Constantinople in 553 dealt with the Monophysite controversy, which considered the nature of Christ after the incarnation. This caused a lasting schism between the western church and the Oriental Orthodox churches. There were also conflicts regarding divine grace, and the extent of human free will - issues which still persist today.

There were several notable Christian leaders during this time. Eusebius of Caesarea (264-340), the Father of Church History, wrote an account of the fortunes of the church in his day (323). Chrysostom the Golden Mouthed (345-407) was a great preacher and bishop of Constantinople. Jerome (340-420) translated the Latin Vulgate, which became the Bible of Christendom for more than a thousand years. Augustine of Hippo (354-430) was an outstanding theologian. His Confessions are considered to be classics in devotional literature.

In the early fifth century, as the western empire was rapidly collapsing, Augustine wrote his noteworthy work "The City of God." In it, he envisioned a universal Christian empire. This book had great influence in molding opinion favourable to a universal church hierarchy under one head, and promoted Rome's claim for primacy. The church was changing its nature, making itself over into the image of the Roman Empire.

Rise of the Papacy

The fall of the western empire took place in 476, due mostly to a huge inflow of "barbarians" from the north. This led to a period commonly referred to as the Dark Ages, during which the Roman Catholic Church essentially took control of the region. The title "Pope" is Italian for Father, and it had been applied to all western bishops during the fifth century. But by 500 it began to refer to "universal bishop" based on the Roman doctrine of apostolic succession and the primacy of Peter. Leo I (440-461) had obtained recognition as primate of all bishops from the Roman Emperor Valentinian III in 445. So the Papacy was essentially granted its legitimacy by a secular Roman emperor. Along with his successor Hilarus (456-468), Leo I advocated an exclusive universal papacy. After the fall of the western empire, popes were free to make advantageous alliances with various new barbarian rulers. During the late fifth through sixth centuries the authority of the popes increased greatly, preparing the way for the medieval and modern papacy.

Monasticism

The period from 250 to 590 also saw the rise of monasticism, with monasteries spreading throughout the empire. Their aim was holiness by isolation from the world. While this was not in accordance with Christ's teachings, monks living monastical lives maintained and developed education, learning, literature and farming during a time when civilized life and culture were otherwise in rapid decline.

Beyond the empire

Less well documented in history is the fact that missionaries made their way to the barbarians who eventually migrated into the western empire as it collapsed. We know this because many of them were Christian, though very often supporters of the Arian variant. These people included the Vandals from North Africa, Visgoths from Spain, and the Germanic Lombards. All these established Arian-Christian kingdoms after the fall of Rome, though they gradually became assimilated into the Nicene church over the course of a couple of centuries.

Conclusions

The question that comes to the forefront in my mind as I consider the transformation of the early church is How could God have allowed this to happen? The church at the end of the sixth century was SO different, in nearly all aspects, from the church of the first century that it is almost unrecognizable in structure, focus, purpose, and emphasis. Clearly God has been allowing people to exercise their free will. In all aspects of human existence, this freedom has been abused by those who strive for their own power, wealth and influence. This is what led to Christian militarism in the days of Constantine, the Crusades of the Dark Ages, and the dominating, mean-spirited political control of the popes leading up to the Protestant Reformation, which had prohibited believers from reading the Bible on their own. This they did, instead of remaining mindful of what Christ taught: Love of God is the great commandment, and the second after it is love of one's neighbour. Christ said that his followers should be known for their love, and especially for their love of one another. And Christ told his disciples to be fishers of men, not soldiers of the cross. Clearly the church has failed, big-time. Yet there has always been a remnant of true believers who have focused on the teachings of Christ. This still remains true today.

I end this essay with the question: Did early Christians understand the finer theological concepts that later divided the Church? Despite the assertions of Church leaders throughout the ensuing centuries, I think not. I choose to echo the words of the reformer Martin Luther when church authorities demanded that he recant his beliefs. He responded that he would not, " unless I am convinced by the testimony of the Scriptures or by clear reason, for I trust not the pope or the councils, since it is well known that they have often erred and contradicted themselves." I am convinced that a simple acceptance in the basics of Christ's teaching of salvation by faith, as a gift from God, is all that is required. Christians need to acknowledge that there are many things we are uncertain about, but being wrong about them will not result in our damnation. What Christ is really looking for, I am sure, is how we relate to those with whom we disagree. Do we really love them, and demonstrate that love through our actions? These are questions relevant to Judgement Day, not whether or not we have a perfect and correct understanding of all the doctrinal issues which have, regrettably, so divided the church.

References

(1) Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiae, 352-356
(2) Lactantius, De Mortibus Persecutorum 33
Credits: Biblical History title graphic from Eerdmans' Handbook to the Bible, 1973