Early Christian Literature: Christ and Culture in the Second and Third Centuries (review)

In this book Professor Rhee offers an informative discussion of how the authors of three genres of early Christian writings (the apologies, the apocryphal acts of the apostles, and the pre-Decian acts of the martyrs) dealt with three fundamental issues shaping Christian identity within the context of Greco-Roman society: the superiority of Christian monotheism, the excellence of Christian sexual morality, and the abiding loyalty of Christians to the Roman Empire. Rhee's systematic analysis provides a thoughtful introduction to major themes in the early church as expressed in these genres. Less successfully executed are her arguments about the "triangular relationship" among the sources "in their approach to the dominant culture and their reception by the Great Church" (4, 8) and her correlation of the genres with three of Richard Niebuhr's types from Christ and Culture (1951): "The Apologies represent the 'Christ of culture' and 'Christ above culture type,' while the Apocryphal Acts and Martyr Acts to some extent represent the 'Christ against culture type'" (5). The strength of the book lies apart from these superstructures in the author's canny synthesis of existing scholarship and her thorough, if not exhaustive, bibliography. For these intelligent discussions, advanced undergraduates and graduate students will find her book a useful starting point for further studies.

Rhee's interest is literary; she privileges genre and deemphasizes historical change. She views the genres as synchronic and geographically uniform—a rough truth rendered rougher when writers as diverse as Clement and Tertullian are lumped in the same genre of apologists and discussed only in that genre even though both had considerable amounts to say about martyrdom. While fundamental beliefs are shared by the writers of all genres, critical differences arise on those key questions centering on monotheism, asceticism, and loyalty to empire. Genre, it seems, is determinative. The purpose of the apology is propagandistic—to defend and explain Christianity. The apocrypha may be likened to Hellenistic novels: all share a similar plot line and message of abstinence and continence. Martyrs' acts derive from the historical trial of the martyr while the passions are accounts of the last days and the death of the martyr, and both show ascetic martyrs willing to break family and social ties. These martyr stories, as well as the apocrypha, are didactic and serve to edify Christian communities (2–4).

Each genre supports monotheism although differently, and Rhee describes how the "accommodationist" sensibilities of the apologists account for their application of pagan philosophical concepts to describe the Christian God of "true philosophy," a strategy that allows apologists to label polytheists as the true atheists. The author characterizes apocrypha and martyrology as "rejectionist." In the apocrypha Christianity is validated by the "true power" of God demonstrated in miracles while in martyr stories the "true piety" of the martyrs' voluntary self-sacrifice proves the truth of Christianity.

Rhee follows the same tripartite approach when considering sexual morality and loyalty to empire. In the apologies continence is continuous with enkrateia of classical philosophy while a more radical dualism explains the rejection of sexuality and family life in the apocrypha as well as in martyr stories. While apologists insist they are loyal to the empire, writers of the apocrypha and martyr stories are hostile to this world. For them Caesar is in competition with Christ either as head of a rival patronage system or as pretender to divinity.

Rhee's title, Christ and Culture in the Second and Third Centuries, is rather too ambitious, considering her omission of Origen and Irenaeus, both of whom defend and define Christianity against gnosticism. These omissions are unfortunate, given her interest in the "triangular relationship," which seems to mean simply that identity is defined "in view of 'others,' within and without" (189). On this point and many others Rhee will find hearty agreement.