In the years after Paul, factionalism increased. Since the churches in Rome were isolated, there was little control on doctrine. Individual teachers were free to interpret whatever scripture they had in whatever way they saw fit. The factionalism we discussed in a previous post could result in creative theology, for good or bad.
A positive example is Justin, who held meetings in a room above a bathhouse. Justin is well known from Apology, Dialogue with Trypho, and the Acts of Justin’s Martyrdom. He was a philosopher, although his education was not excellent – he began with a Stoic teacher, followed a peripatetic teacher until he demanded pay, then he failed an exam to be a student of a Pythagorian. He has a general, eclectic education, cites various poets and philosophers, but has some geographical and historical problems. Literary style is good, but not great. He seems to have had philosophical lectures rather than rhetorical lessons. He arrived in Rome in 135 and converted to Christianity. His Dialogue claims to take place during the Bar Kohkba rebellion in 135. He had rooms above a bathhouse where he instructed students, and maintained the pallium, “mantle of a philosopher” until his martyrdom.
Justin tried to present Christianity as a philosophy, “Christians worship God with their intellects” (Di. 1.6.2, 12.8, etc.) That Christianity was a philosophy was accepted by no less that Galen, although Celsus refused to use the word for Christianity (it was sofiva to Celsus, and Christians were sophists, usually a pejorative use of the word.) For the most part Justin was treated as a philosopher by Romans, but few (if any) philosophers investigated the claims of Christianity.
Justin’s influence was to encourage a philosophical strain in the theology of the second century, Tatian and Euelpistus both were (neo) platonic in perspective. While present day theologians debate whether this is a good thing, in the second century it had the positive effect of making Christianity more acceptable to the educated and higher social classes.
A negative example are the Valentinians. Valentinus (c100-c160) was in Rome for 15 years, (as early as 136, as late as 166) and was considered for the position of bishop about 143 (according to Tertullian, Ad. Val iv). He was born in Egypt and educated in Alexandria; he died on Cyprus after having left Rome. He was a highly educated man with a brilliant mind; we wrote in a beautiful poetic language. Lampe (295) finds his style parallel to Plato. His philosophy is generally platonic. He seems to know Timaeus well, and interprets this work in the style of the neo-paltonists.
Two inscriptions found in Via Latina indicate that there was at least one Valentinain congregation in this affluent suburb. This indicates (for Lampe) that there was a house church in Via Lampe which was Valentinian in orientation; no other traces of Valentinian house churches appear elsewhere in the city. The marble inscription uses imagery which must be Christian (praising the father and son) and likely Valentinian (entry into the bridal chamber, a sacred meal, baptism, etc.) A gravestone inscription was also found in Via Latina which also uses Valentinain imagery (again, the bridal chamber, washings, the “angel the great counsel”)
Valentinian theology was quite esoteric and obviously gnostic. Highly dualistic, they saw the world as evil, the believer was by nature alienated from the world. This sort of early gnosticism is an attempt to support Christianity with a philosophical foundation, but in doing so, Valentinus moved away from scripture. Marcion, on the other hand, represents a sort of “back to the Bible” movement — in an extremely negative sense! More on Marcion next time.