Last week, in this post, I started laying out the foundation of a few thoughts on the early Church and why traditional Churches reverence the Theotokos. Now, as I said then I’m not a theologian nor do I present this in any way, shape, or form as definitive or incisive. To quote: “…rather, it is an opportunity to lay out for your edification and my clarification some points about early Christianity and traditional faiths and how they differ from non-traditional Christianity. Given how many people there are out there today for whom history begins and ends with their own lifetime, it is good to review real history and how a number of things developed within it.”
In a very short recap, the early Christian Church was based on oral tradition, not written. This actually continued up well past 1,000 AD and on some levels continued well into the 1800s with the memorization of verses, songs, and other traditional elements of worship.
For an example of the difference between a written focus and and oral focus, look to the difference between the Gospel of Luke and the Gospel of Mark. The former was written by a very literate and well-educated man (who actually met with the Theotokos in gathering information for his work) who, while familiar with the oral tradition, was also brought up in and on the written word. As a result, the Gospel of Luke is the most literary of the Gospels included in the New Testament. The latter is built on a clearly oral tradition using both repetition and kai parataxis (the use of “and” to link elements together). This makes it easier to memorize and to chant/sing.
Now, oral tradition does not entirely rule out the use of the written word. “Cheat Sheets” probably were developed about the time of the first written language. Fragments of such exist from early history, and the writings of the Apostolic Fathers not only fill volumes, but there is a wealth of those fragments out there. Often missing context or the information scientists and theologians would give portions of their anatomies for, but they do exist. Keep this in mind, it is on the quiz later.
Just as the New Testament did not come into existence (as we know it) for several hundred years, a unified liturgy for the Church took even longer in many respects. At first, there was no set service and a ‘day of worship’ could mean all day and into the night. Some services were so long that food and drink were provided during breaks in the service. A number of traditional Churches will echo and honor this tradition during Pascha (Easter for you heathens out there *smile*) with nuts and dates, along with a small bit of wine, being offered to participants of one particular service.
Keep in mind that I am, in many respects, just starting to study the history of the liturgy, so this is likely to be a bit sparse and jump around a bit. I would say it was noted early on, even by the Disciples and first Apostles, that it would be nice to have a consistent liturgy. It would help ensure that the right things were said and done, guard against heresy, and make services a bit more timely and manageable.
Complete aside: one of the more interesting things about the early services was that at first, confession was done in public and round-robin. X stood up and confessed their sins before all, sat down, and then next in line/row/whatever Y did the same. While this does provide a strong incentive for one to change one’s ways (so as to avoid embarrassment and such), it does have a tendency (given human psychology) towards incomplete confessions. It also tends to cause a good deal of strife, especially if X stands up and admits an affair with W’s wife. Which is why the Church moved with surprising rapidity (change being frowned upon then and now in traditional venues) to having the priests hear confessions on behalf of the congregation. It’s why in Orthodox Churches it is done at a designated space (often to one side) that is technically in public but offers some degree of privacy to the participants. The current Roman Catholic confessional came, I am told, from the Irish. Keep in mind that while confessions need to be complete, you also don’t want or need to provide such a level of detail that you could lead your priest into sin. Maybe a topic for another day.
Now, back to the topic at hand. One of the first people that we know worked on developing a unified liturgy (worship service) for the Church was no less than James, the half-brother of Christ (more on that later in the series). While he got a good bit done, his martyrdom probably prevented him from doing as much on it as he would have liked.
Not an aside, it is worth noting that James was also known as “James the Just” for several reasons, including references to his ensuring that Mary and Jesus got their just portion of the estate when Joseph entered repose. Again, not in the Gospels, but in Church tradition and some of the writings I’ve mentioned. There is more to come on James and perhaps a few others. Especially since the man who took his work and created the basic service still in use today in Orthodox (and other) churches, St. John Chrysostom, is also noted in Marian issues. I also need to mention St. Basil the Great, as the liturgy he developed is still used on special feast days within the Church and does, in my opinion, tie into the topic. For some of the structure of the liturgy, along with that of a type of hymn/prayer, are things we need to consider in the upcoming posts.
As a final little bit for today, I also want to call out the Greek word for woman. In particular, I am referring to the word presented as γύναι or Γύναι which has the very literal and limited translation as “woman” (gynai, root of gynecology, etc.). It is the non-extremely literal translation I want to get into later, as the use of the particular word in question sheds some interesting lights on scripture and it’s interpretation as it is only used about three times in the entire Bible. Yet one more reason I think trying to interpret scripture entirely on your own and in isolation from everything else is far more an idiocy than a heresy (as discussed last week).
I had hoped to get into a bit more today, but this is a good place to finish some of the foundation for future discussion. There is more to come, and while some may not be definitive, remember that Faith is built on Divinity, not the lack of definity (no, not going to apologize for the word play).
Posts In This Series:
Thoughts On A Theological Smugging
Thoughts On A Theological Smugging, Part II