Program / Course 21: Liturgical Theology / Lesson 7.3
What you will learn
- Apply the five-question method to five cases from different traditions.
- Distinguish a pious legend from a forgery and from a magical formula.
- Recognize that unsupported claims occur in Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant circles.
- Write a careful verdict that states the limits of the evidence.
The big idea
The method of the last lesson is learned by use. This lesson applies it to five cases: a letter said to be from Jesus to a king, icons said to be painted by Luke, a forged donation of land to the pope, a letter said to have fallen from heaven and a Baptist claim of unbroken succession. Some cases are pious legends, some are forgeries and some are history written to serve a cause. Each shows how a claim looks when its sources are checked. The cases come from several traditions on purpose, since no tradition is free of them.
Key terms
- Apocryphal
- Of doubtful authorship or authority. Used of writings and stories that claim a connection to Scripture or the apostles without support.
- Pious legend
- A story told to honor a saint or a practice, without historical proof, and often sincerely believed.
- Forgery
- A document made with the intention to deceive about its author or date.
- Pseudepigraphy
- The practice of writing under another person’s name.
- Successionism
- The claim that a particular group has existed in an unbroken line since the apostles.
- Provenance
- The recorded history of where a document or object has been and who has held it.
- Charm
- A formula or object used to gain protection or other effects without relying on God’s will.
Background
Every religious tradition gathers stories about its beginnings, and Christians are no exception. Some stories rest on solid sources. Others are legends that grew with time, and some are deliberate fabrications. Historians have learned to separate these categories, and church scholars have often led the way. The humanist Lorenzo Valla’s exposure of a forged papal document in the fifteenth century, for instance, was done by a Catholic scholar, who later worked in the papal service.
The cases below are summaries. A reader who wants to rely on a conclusion should check the sources named, since the points are simplified here. Each case ends with a verdict in the form the method suggests.
Step-by-step explanation
Step 1: The letter of Jesus to Abgar
Eusebius of Caesarea, in his Church History written in the early fourth century, reports an exchange of letters between King Abgar of Edessa and Jesus, in which Abgar asks Jesus to heal him and Jesus promises to send a disciple. Eusebius says he translated the letters from Syriac records in Edessa. Source: Eusebius, with an older Syriac text possibly behind it. Date: the letters may belong to the late second or third century. Doctrine: none in conflict. Authority: not a canonical text. Verdict: most historians regard the letters as a later composition, not a genuine letter of Jesus. The Edessa tradition is nevertheless important in Eastern devotion, and later tradition connected it with an image of Christ. It is a pious legend with an early literary form.
Step 2: Icons painted by Luke
A tradition in the Orthodox world holds that Luke the evangelist painted icons of Mary and Christ. Source: the tradition is not found in the New Testament and appears in Byzantine writers from about the sixth to eighth centuries, after the controversy about images began to need ancient support. Date: later than the apostolic age by centuries. Doctrine: the church’s defense of icons rests on the Incarnation, not on this claim. Authority: honored in the tradition. Verdict: a pious tradition that cannot be proved and that the theology of icons does not need. Many Orthodox writers state that the dogma does not depend on it.
Step 3: The Donation of Constantine
A document, said to be a decree of Emperor Constantine, gave Pope Sylvester and his successors authority over Rome and the western empire. It was cited in the Middle Ages in support of papal claims. Source: the text appears in the eighth or ninth century. Date: not fourth century. Doctrine: it supports a political claim, not a teaching of the creed. Authority: used by medieval popes. Verdict: a forgery. Nicholas of Cusa and Lorenzo Valla showed in the fifteenth century, on the basis of its language and anachronisms, that it could not be from Constantine’s age. Catholic scholars today accept this. The case shows that the church’s own scholars can expose fabrications.
Step 4: The letter fallen from heaven
From late antiquity there circulated texts claiming to be letters written by Christ and sent down from heaven, often demanding Sunday rest and promising protection to those who copied or carried them. Source: copies from the sixth century onward, in many languages. Church authorities, such as a Roman synod of 745, condemned such letters, and later bishops and Protestant pastors did so as well. Doctrine: they claim a guarantee of protection that no church teaches. Authority: none. Consequence: they appeal to fear and spread by copying. Verdict: an unsupported claim of the magical kind, which has appeared in many forms, including modern chain prayers.
Step 5: The Baptist trail of succession
In the early twentieth century some Baptist writers, such as J. M. Carroll in a pamphlet called The Trail of Blood, claimed that Baptist churches had existed in an unbroken line from the time of Jesus through groups such as Montanists, Novatianists, Waldensians and Anabaptists. Source: the claim relies on selective readings of these groups. Date: Baptists as a distinct body appear in the early seventeenth century. Doctrine: the line links groups that differed widely in belief. Authority: popular among some Baptists, rejected by most historians, including many Baptist historians. Verdict: an invented history. Many Baptists hold their beliefs on biblical grounds without it. Catholic and Orthodox claims of succession rest on a different kind of argument, with documentary lists of bishops, which historians test in their own way.
- What kind of claim is this: a legend, a forgery, a charm or an interpretation?
- Does the claim need to be true for the doctrine to stand?
- Who gains from the claim being believed?
- Was the claim exposed by outsiders or by the tradition’s own scholars?
- Does the tradition’s teaching depend on it?
- What would a respectful way of correcting the claim be?
Examples
A Catholic correction
Catholic historians today state plainly that the Donation of Constantine is a forgery and that papal authority does not rest on it. They treat it as an episode in the history of the Middle Ages, and not as a doctrine.
An Orthodox response
An Orthodox teacher explains that the claim that Luke painted icons is a venerable tradition, but that the church’s defense of icons at Nicaea II is based on the Incarnation and the church’s practice. She says that a person may honor the tradition without making it a test of faith.
A Protestant correction
A Baptist historian writes that Baptist churches arose in the early seventeenth century from English Separatists, and that it is a mistake to find them in earlier centuries. He holds that the New Testament, not an unbroken line, is the church’s authority.
Different perspectives
Catholic
The church distinguishes dogma from legend and has itself corrected legends in its calendar and its devotions, as with the removal of some saints from the universal calendar in 1969 for lack of historical evidence.
Orthodox
Tradition includes both what is essential to the faith and many pious accounts that the church honors without requiring belief. Teachers ask that the difference be kept clear.
Lutheran and Anglican
These traditions rejected many medieval legends in the Reformation and retained a historical sense of the church that values reliable sources. They also keep some pious customs in the calendar.
Reformed and Baptist
Claims are tested against Scripture, which encourages a critical approach to legend. Their own histories have sometimes been shaped by a wish to claim ancient roots, and honest scholars among them say so.
Scholarly
Historians treat legend, forgery and propaganda as different things, and they study each as evidence of what the people who made or believed it wanted.
Why it matters
Cases make the method concrete. They also show that none of the traditions has a monopoly on either accurate history or invention. A student who has seen a legend corrected in a familiar tradition is better prepared to accept correction in their own, and to speak with respect about the traditions of others.
Common misunderstandings
Misunderstanding: Only the opposing tradition has false legends.
Correction: Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant circles have all produced and believed doubtful stories. Fair study looks at all of them.
Misunderstanding: A legend is a lie.
Correction: Many legends are sincerely believed stories that grew over time. A forgery is different, because it is made to deceive.
Misunderstanding: If a story is false, the doctrine it was attached to is false.
Correction: Doctrines stand or fall on their own grounds. The defense of icons does not rest on a painting by Luke, nor papal authority on the Donation.
Misunderstanding: Scholars who expose legends are enemies of the church.
Correction: Several of the best-known exposures came from churchmen. Valla and Cusa were Catholic, and many Baptist historians have criticized the trail of blood.
Knowledge check
How was the Donation of Constantine shown to be a forgery?
In the fifteenth century Nicholas of Cusa and Lorenzo Valla showed from its language, anachronisms and lack of earlier witnesses that it could not come from the fourth century. Catholic scholars today accept this.
What is the status of the letter of Jesus to Abgar?
Eusebius reports it from Syriac records at Edessa, but most historians regard it as a later composition and not a genuine letter. It remains important in Eastern tradition as a pious legend.
Why do church authorities condemn letters said to be from heaven?
They claim a guarantee of protection that no church teaches, spread by copying and fear, and a Roman synod of 745 condemned a letter of this kind. Modern chain prayers are similar.
What is wrong with the trail of blood claim?
It links groups that differed widely in belief into a single line, and Baptists as a body appear in the early seventeenth century. Most historians, including many Baptist ones, reject it.
Think it through
- Which of these cases do you find easiest to judge and which hardest?
- Is a pious legend harmful if it is not taken as dogma?
- Why do communities invent ancient roots for themselves?
- How would you correct a friend who believes one of these legends, without shaming them?
Independent assignment
A case of your own
In your own notebook, write 500 to 700 words on a claim about a practice or an object that you have heard, from any tradition. Apply the five questions with sources, identify the category (legend, forgery, charm or interpretation) and write a verdict that states what you know and do not know. Do not send this to anyone.
Further study
- Justo L. Gonzalez, The Story of Christianity Read for the background of the Middle Ages and the Reformation.
- Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine (5 volumes) Read selectively on legend and doctrine.
- Bruce M. Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament Read for an example of how scholars separate canonical from apocryphal writings.
- Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, eds., The Seven Ecumenical Councils (Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series 2, vol. 14) See how the defense of icons rested on the Incarnation.
- 2 Peter 1:16 Not cunningly devised fables.
- 1 Timothy 1:4 Fables and endless genealogies.
- Acts 17:11 Examining the Scriptures daily.