How Should we Responsibly Consider Early Documents?

A great deal of research has been conducted by contemporary church historians representing both sides of the Sabbath/Sunday debate. Both sides of the debate attempt the find conclusive evidence to support their claims regarding Sabbath-keeping or Sunday-keeping among the earliest Christian believers. So, early-century historical documents are carefully scrutinized in attempts to find indications about the worship practices of the Christians in the early centuries of the Christian Church. In light of these ongoing efforts, and in light of the purported results of this research, it remains for us to consider how we ought to view the claims made by church historians on both sides of the debate.

It is our responsibility as truth-seekers to be extremely careful and critical thinkers as we assess the merits of claims based upon the earliest church documents. So, let us consider some general principles of, and observations regarding, "fair use," if you will, for these early documents.

1) The earlier the document, the less corroborating evidence exists to support its points. This principle seems self-evidently true, but is, nevertheless, often overlooked. A single, obscure passage from a fragmented, first-century document cannot provide solid ground for any claim, since often no other documentation exists to support or deny the point of the passage. The possibility of misinterpretation of such passages is very high, and we often lack any other material by which to achieve a balanced understanding of the author's intentions.

2) The earliest documents are usually fragmented and use unusual or new terminology to describe events. This observation has the implication that we must be extremely careful in how we interpret the verbiage from these early passages. In light of the first principle, we are often completely unsure of what an author means by certain (often crucial) terminology; and such verbiage can be translated into English in a variety of ways, rendering very different interpretations of what the author intended to say.

3) It is never safe to base general claims on the writings of a single early-century observer. The first two points mentioned above should render this principle, again, almost self-evident. However, some additional points bear mentioning in this context. Individuals from any age are often unreliable observers. We tend to see events through our own biases, and we interpret what we observe in light of other observations that have, themselves, been run through our biased interpretations. So, as we describe what we have observed, it is impossible for even the most "objective" observer to render a completely accurate picture of the actual facts. This principle is why in court we seek to consider the observations of multiple witnesses, and any case is rendered more or less strong by whether there are more or fewer corroborating witnesses. Since it is often difficult or impossible to know the biases of the earliest Christian authors, and since we recognize that their observations must reflect a subset of all that was taking place in Christendom, we cannot reliably make general claims about early Christianity as a whole based only upon observations of one or two early observers.

4) It is never safe to base general claims regarding early Christian practice on the writings of observers living and writing exclusively in Rome or Alexandria. This is an absolutely crucial principle that is commonly overlooked by contemporary church historians today. In light of the foregoing points mentioned, I merely ask one question: How reliable can be, for example, the writings of Justin Martyr|0+| regarding general claims about events in early Christendom? He lived and wrote in Rome, during the middle of the second century. We know that Rome and Alexandria were early-century hotbeds of Christian compromise, corruption, and capitulation to pagan influences. It is certainly unsafe to base general conclusions about the beliefs and practices of Christendom in general upon limited observations of the beliefs and practices of Roman and Alexandrine Christians.

With these points in mind, let us consider the most common mistake seen today in the used of early-century documentation. The most common mistake we see is that an argument, say, in favor of early Christian Sunday-keeping will be based upon translated interpretations of obscure and/or fragmented passages that utilize unique and obscure verbiage, written by Roman or Alexandrine observers. These uncorroborated passages, which can usually, themselves, be interpreted in various other ways, are usually interpreted to show that Sunday-keeping was widespread throughout Christendom early in the second century AD. Yet, we have numerous later documents that demonstrate that Sunday-keeping was not widespread in Christendom, outside of Rome and Alexandria prior to the middle of the fourth century! The question must remain: Which early documents are most reliable, and which interpretations of them are most fair and corroborated by other early sources?

Since the debate rages endlessly about what early documents actual say, and what they actually indicate, let us consider two final principles specifically regarding the Sabbath/Sunday question:

5) Regardless of what the early documents say, whatever conclusions we may draw from them are probative and questionable. Contemporary church historians on either side of the Sabbath/Sunday debate must recognize that the earliest documents are incapable of giving conclusive support to either position. There remain too many interpretive, contextual, and translational concerns (not to mention issues of bias) to place much weight at all upon whatever position might seem to be indicated by this or that early-century document. So, we must beware of books, pamphlets, websites, or any other sorts of publications that attempt to prove either Sabbath-keeping or Sunday-keeping mostly or exclusively by appeal to early-century documents!

6) The ultimate authority regarding Christian practice and belief must remain the Scripture. Since Christ and His Apostles kept the Sabbath exclusively, and since there is zero Scriptural evidence that the Sabbath was either abrogated or that its solemnity was transferred to Sunday, it ultimately doesn't matter what early extra-Scriptural documents seem to show either way. Even if some early documents do seem to indicate that some Christians were keeping Sunday holy as early as the second century, the mere fact that some Christians were already compromising their practices with those of Roman pagans is hardly grounds to support the claim that the Sabbath was abrogated or that its solemnity was transferred to Sunday. Whatever theological devices are used by the likes of Barnabas|1+| or Justine Martyr|0+| to support Sunday-keeping, these remain theological devices in the absence of clear Scriptural injunctions! Especially Protestants hold the Bible and the Bible only as their rule of faith.