Christians were appalled by the immorality of the plays presented in Roman theaters. They feared for the spiritual well-being of people who found this entertainment captivating, thereby leading a number of the early Church Fathers to speak out against it.

Origin of Roman Theater

Roman theater’s roots lay in Greek theater. Scholars cite Thespis (6th century BC), a Greek poet, as the father of the genre of tragedy, as it was he who stepped out of the chorus and introduced audiences to one sole actor, called the protagonist, who related a story to them. The word “thespian,” used as a synonym for “actor,” comes from his name.

The Greek playwright, Aeschylus (c. 525 – c. 455 BC), added a second character, called the antagonist, with other playwrights expanding the number of players as time passed.

The first plays were performed at the spring religious festival of the god Dionysus (called Bacchus by the Romans) in Athens at the Acropolis. They included sacrifices made to the god. In fact, most of the dramas presented by the Greeks focused on mythological stories with their deities at the center of them.

Comedies related to mythological stories as well, but they did not revere the gods. The presentations were lewd, crude, and were usually sexual in nature, with the actors’ costumes exaggerating their sexual organs.

This is the theater that the Romans inherited and adopted for themselves. Whether comic or dramatic, all the plays were tied to religion in one way or another. By Christ’s time in the 1st century AD, two popular genres had emerged. The mime offered ridiculous stories, told with lots of sexual innuendo and was profane in both content and language. The pantomime was a presentation of mythological stories acted out in dance and music. However, it was not just the immorality and lewdness of the plays that offended the Church Fathers, it was the fact that some of these plays ridiculed Christians and Christianity outright.

Clement of Alexandria: Theater as Cesspool

Clement of Alexandria (c. 150 – c. 215 AD) was the first early Church Father to weigh in on the issue. In his treatise, Exhortation to the Greeks (a term used for pagans), he condemned the plays that were based, as he put it, on “the cesspool” of mythology retold by “drunken poets.” He noted that these stories drew people into “the company of demons.”

Tertullian: Church of the Devil

Tertullian (c. 155 – c. 220 AD) did not mince words either when it came to his criticism of Roman theater. He wrote, “How despicable it is to go from the church of God to the church of the devil . . . to raise your hands to God, and then to wear them out clapping for an actor.” He exhorted Christians to abstain from theater-going, citing the first verse of Psalm 1, which states that “blessed is the man who has not gone into the assembly of the impious, nor stood in the way of sinners, nor sat in the seat of scorners.”

Tertullian stated that God, the Bible, and the Church offered experiences far superior to anything the theater might present. “What nobler than to tread underfoot the gods of the nations — to exorcise evil spirits — to perform cures — to seek divine revealing — to live to God?” he opined.

John Chrysostom: Is Your Body Made of Stone?

The fact that the theater was so spectacular became a problem for the Church, one that John of Antioch, nicknamed Chrysostom (c. 347 – 407 AD), identified, noting that people who attended the theater came to church expecting to be amused. “They sit there like critics,” he said, demanding “tragedies and musical entertainment.”

His nickname, Chrysostom, literally means “Golden Mouth,” and it was given to him because he was a particularly fine orator. Yet, he felt embarrassed when people praised his preaching, not wanting to be compared at all to the actors in the theater and their eloquence. The true theater is spiritual, he noted, and the greatest story ever told is that of Jesus Christ and the good news of the salvation he offers to humankind. Yet, he noted, people chose to go to the theater rather than church, even on Good Friday.

Chrysostom was most concerned about how plays could provoke sexual lust, writing about a prostitute who was “finely dressed” and “flirted seductively with the audience.” He said he could not see how the men in attendance could not be aroused by this, writing, “Is your body made of stone? Or iron? . . . If someone lights a fire in his lap, will he not burn his clothing?”

He concluded by saying that “each man takes home with him much of what he has seen there, so it sticks to him like the infection of a plague.”

Augustine: Shameful Insanity

If any of the Church Fathers understood immorality and debauchery, it was Augustine (354–430 AD). He lived a licentious lifestyle before his conversion in 386 AD. The morality of the Christians, which he saw was rooted in the love of the Lord, impressed him greatly, and he became ashamed of his own moral failures.

In his Confessions, Augustine noted that he had wasted a lot of time attending theatrical performances in his younger years and had been negatively aroused to sinful passions because of them. For this reason, he spoke out against them, saying that they would take people away from God, rather than to him. Ultimately, Augustine condemned the plays presented in Roman theaters as “shameful insanity.”

Greek and Roman Moralists and Philosophers Weigh In

Christians were not the only people appalled by the debauchery of popular theater. Greek and Roman philosophers and moralists spoke out against them as well. For example, Aelius Aristides (117–181 BC), a noted Greek orator, wrote a letter to the leaders of the city of Sparta condemning dancers as morally bereft and a bad influence on the public.

Actors were considered the lowest of the low in Roman society, not just by Christians, but by pagans as well. Actors were, for the most part, either foreigners or slaves, and were dismissed as sexually immoral.

A Christian liturgical work from the 3rd century AD, entitled The Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus of Rome, reveals that actors had to give up their livelihood if they wished to be baptized and join the Church. Notably, they were listed along with prostitutes, astrologers, craftsmen who made idols, gladiators, and soldiers.

Genesius of Rome: An Actor’s Conversion Story

Legend has it that one Genesius of Rome (4th century AD), an actor, came to Christ through his appearance in a play he wrote that ridiculed the Christian sacraments. During the performance in which he presented baptism as a ludicrous practice, he fell to the floor of the stage, pretending to be sick. He called for water with which to be baptized because he feared he was dying. The audience included Emperor Diocletian, and the crowd roared with laughter at the farce.

However, at the moment when an actor poured water over his head, Genesius stood up and declared his faith in Jesus Christ. The other actors thought their fellow thespian was adlibbing and continued to mock Christians and the sacrament of baptism. But Genesius was sincere in his newfound belief, and when Diocletian realized this, he ordered the actor’s clothes to be ripped from him, calling for him to be whipped and beaten right then and there to make him change his mind.

Genesius refused to do so, and the emperor had him thrown into prison where, as the story goes, he was tortured daily, enduring the rack, as well as being torn with iron hooks and burned with torch flames. However, he did not acquiesce, and he was beheaded in 303 AD.

The Church designated Genesius the patron saint of actors as well as clowns, comedians, musicians, dancers, lawyers, epileptics, printers, and victims of torture; an interesting mix, to be sure.

Other Spectacles Considered Offensive

Christians abhorred other forms of Roman entertainment as well, including gladiatorial games, chariot races, and the contests between man and beast in the arena. They condemned the violence, the cruelty, and the bloodshed in these events, events over which the crowds went wild. Tertullian condemned them all, saying, “Everything in the pagan spectacles is idolatry.”

Anyone associated with these events, whether they be gladiators and their instructors or the men who tended the horses and other animals used in the games, had to renounce these occupations before being baptized into the Church. Everything that they stood for went against what Christ taught and, therefore, had to be abandoned.

Why Christians Did Not Create Their Own Theater?

It is noteworthy that the Jews were a literary people. They emphasized the hearing and memorization of God’s Word. This non-visual tradition worked against any attempt to produce Christian theater.

However, the main reason that Christians did not create their own theatrical presentations came from the command in Exodus 20:4 that said, “You shall not make for yourself a carved image—any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.” The pagans made idols of animals and birds as well as humans and their various gods, but the followers of God would not make a mask of him and portray him in a play.

Conclusion

It would be many centuries before Christians began to realize that they, too, could put on plays, ones that would honor God, encourage and teach Christ’s followers, and preach the good news of salvation. The first known Christian play was performed in the 10th century AD. It consisted of a religious dialogue performed during an Easter mass in which Mary Magdalene and two other women found Christ’s tomb empty. The trope is called Quem Quaeritis, Latin for “whom do you seek?” The question an angel asked of the women when they arrived.

By the Middle Ages, performances of dramas based on Biblical stories such as Daniel in the lion’s den and Moses leading the Israelites out of captivity in Egypt, miracle plays that focused on the lives of the saints and Mary, the mother of Jesus, and passion plays about the death and resurrection of Christ were standard fare.

While most people will say their faith is not based on or dependent on facts, there is certainly value in determining the historical claims and eyewitness accounts surrounding the life, ministry, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Focusing on the resurrection is not just a theological concept, but a piece of mysterious and intriguing history. Most Easter celebrations and Bible-believing Christians focus on the ascension of Christ, forgetting the forty days that came between the resurrection and his ultimate ascension to heaven.

The Roman Guard and the Witness of the Enemy

The Bible is full of humor and irony. Jesus Christ himself often “cracked a joke.” One such example is found in considering who was present at the tomb where Jesus was resurrected.

The tomb was guarded by Roman soldiers (“custodia”) tasked with preventing the theft of the body. Why? Because Jesus predicted his resurrection many times (John 2:19), and if someone could steal his body, they’d prove his message was true.

Yet before anybody had the chance to attempt such a theft, an angel came down with a violent earthquake: “going to the tomb, (he) rolled back the stone and sat on it. His appearance was like lightning, and his clothes were white as snow. The guards were so afraid of him that they shook and became like dead men.” (Matthew 28:2-4)

The guards, the enemies of Christ, shared what they witnessed with their leaders, and they were bribed to keep quiet. But the guards were not the only ones who saw the empty tomb.

Mary Magdalene and the Scandal of Female Testimony

Jesus was (in)famous for putting outcasts central in his ministry. Sinners, widows, children, and women were often at the receiving end of his mercy. It is fascinating that all four Gospels place women at the tomb first, despite the 1st-century Jewish legal reality where a woman’s testimony was often inadmissible in court.

In an eyewitness account, the “Criterion of Embarrassment” assesses how awkward, seemingly out-of-place details are more likely to be true. Critics and scholars of the Bible have surmised that if the story were a fabrication, women would never have been the primary witnesses.

“So the women hurried away from the tomb, afraid yet filled with joy, and ran to tell his disciples. Suddenly Jesus met them. “Greetings,” he said. They came to him, clasped his feet and worshiped him.” – Matthew 28:8-9

Peter and the Inner Circle

Earlier, when Jesus was betrayed by his disciple, Judas Iscariot, and arrested in the olive grove, all of his disciples deserted him. They went into hiding at this point, denying they knew him, and watching from afar as he was crucified.

Peter famously denied Jesus three times before the rooster crowed for the morning, just as Jesus predicted he would.

Upon resurrecting from the dead, Jesus is not upset with them, though. He appears to the Twelve on numerous occasions, showing them the marks in his hands and feet, and even allowing those who doubted— like Thomas— to touch his body.

Now that these men saw their rabbi in the flesh, a major psychological shift is evident. They go from hiding in fear to public proclamation, witnessing sincerely that he rose from the dead.

The Road to Emmaus and the Mystery of the Two Travelers

Yet Jesus did not only show himself to the famous Apostles. He also appeared to ordinary followers whose names were preserved for historical verification.

On the Emmaus Road, Cleopas and his companion were walking and discussing everything that had happened in the days that had passed. A man joined them and talked with them about how all these events relate to the Scriptures they know so well; how Jesus Christ fulfilled the law and the words of the prophets and defeated death.

They invited him to dinner, and it was only when he broke the bread that they suddenly recognized him as the Christ; then he disappeared from their midst before they could do anything more.

Sharing this sort of encounter with others was not only embarrassing but also dangerous.

The Five Hundred and the Power of Mass Testimony

These appearances are all between one and a maximum of 12 people seeing the risen Jesus. Yet there’s a very interesting verse found in 1 Corinthians 15:6:

“…he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep.”

This verse has a ‘public’ nature. When Paul wrote it, many of these five hundred were still alive. He was effectively challenging his readers to go and interview them.

So many of those who believed in Jesus saw him after his resurrection.

The Witness of the Skeptic: James, the Brother of Jesus

Of all the people who might have found it challenging to believe that Jesus was the promised Messiah, it was probably hardest for his siblings. Imagine your brother claiming that he is the chosen one— Joseph in the Old Testament is evidence of how that usually goes, and he was sold into slavery by his brothers!

Yet, after Jesus rose from the dead, he also appeared to his brother, James (1 Cor 15). The conversion of James into a leader of the Jerusalem Church is one of the strongest “hostile witness” arguments. He even wrote the Book of James, which is now included in the Bible.

The Empty Tomb in the History of Art

Suppose you are an artist inspired to try to depict the resurrection of Jesus— it’s surely not an easy task. One minor detail of the resurrection that has received a lot of attention in art is a phrase the resurrected Christ says to Mary Magdalene: “Noli Me Tangere” (Touch Me Not).

Despite all that has been said in this article, this must be clear: The rising of Jesus was mostly “unseen.” Nobody saw the moment the corpse drew a breath… This unseen nature of the resurrection is especially evident in art.

During the Renaissance, the scenes are dramatic and dominated by light, while the Byzantine period focuses on the eerily quiet empty tomb.

Scholars and skeptics alike have been surprised by the diverse nature of the witnesses— men, women, soldiers, skeptics, and crowds. All seem to tell the same story.

The strength of the resurrection story historically relies on the “embarrassment” of its witnesses and their willingness to die for their testimony. The soldiers were bribed to keep quiet (Matthew 28), and the women were suspected of speaking nonsense (Luke 24:11). Many of those who claimed to have seen the risen Christ died a martyr’s death soon thereafter.

“After his suffering, he presented himself to them and gave many convincing proofs that he was alive. He appeared to them over a period of forty days and spoke about the kingdom of God.” – Acts 1:3

Visit any museum housing ancient statues, and you will notice that many of them no longer have noses. It is possible that some of them have simply fallen forward, and the noses were broken off. However, it is also possible that Christians destroyed their noses in an attack against the pagan idols that they believed were demonic. This iconoclasm, that is, the destruction of religious images, came into play in the 4th century AD when the Emperor Constantine the Great made Christianity an official religion, thereby ending almost two centuries of intermittent persecution of it.

How Greeks and Romans Viewed Their Statues

Most ancient statues were made of either bronze or one of many varieties of marbles. Some people believed that they embodied the gods that they portrayed. In other words, they saw them as the gods themselves. People placed these divine images in prominent places at weddings and public festivals. Ancient accounts state that people carried the statues through the streets, where onlookers pressed through crowds just to touch them, crying over them, embracing them, and giving them offerings.

Caretakers tended to the idols, washing, dressing, and perfuming them as if they were real. One manuscript describes a scene in Magnesia, where statues of the twelve Olympian gods, clothed in the finest of garments, were positioned around a large dining table, as if enjoying a divine banquet.

Another account describes how people would bring offerings to the statue of Asclepios, god of medicine, to request his intervention for the ill or wounded. And when someone recovered, people would bring, as offerings, casts of the body parts that had been healed, including hands, feet, and even internal organs, in thanks.

Additionally, pagans would often revere sculptures of military figures and political leaders as if they were gods. We see this with the Romans and their Imperial Cult, wherein emperors were deified, sometimes in life as well as in death.

However, many people saw the statues, whether of a god or human hero, as man-made works of art, aesthetically pleasing, but nothing more. The Phoenician philosopher, Porphyry (c. AD 234 – c. 305), disdained the belief that the deities actually inhabited the sculptures, saying that only the “light-minded” would believe such a ridiculous idea.

How Christians Viewed the Statues

Some Early Christian Fathers, including Clement of Alexandria (c. 150 to 115-220 AD), Tertullian (55/160 to c. 220/240 AD), and Athanagoras of Athens (133 to 190 AD), considered statues to be demonic representations of false gods that enticed people away from Christ. In John 14:6, Jesus stated clearly that he was the one and only way to eternal life, and to Christians, this meant that the pagans, in worshiping their idols, would be separated from God for eternity if they continued to be deceived by the devil. Hence, the attack on pagan beliefs, rituals, and statues.

Bishop Gregory of Nyssa (c. 335 to 394) put it this way: “The pagan who is devoted to the vanity of idols is transformed into the stone he looks upon and becomes other than human.” His statement harks back to Psalm 115:8, which states that those who make idols become like them as do their worshipers. In other words, the pagans would become, spiritually, as dead and powerless as the stone statues they revered.

Christians mocked the very idea that a god could exist in the form of a man-made piece of art. The unknown author of the Epistle to Diognetus, a 2nd-century Christian apologetic work, wrote, “What makes a stone statue any different from the stones we walk on?” And Athanasius (c. 296 to 373), in his Against the Heathen, ridiculed the pagans who did not realize that the idols they worshiped were mere “carver’s art.”

The Politics of Destroying Statues

Destroying and defacing statues was never a policy of the Christian Church. Politically, however, it was a different story. Constantine the Great (272 to 337) was the first Roman leader to interfere noticeably with pagans and their rituals when he made Christianity a legal religion with the Edict of Milan in 313.

While he did forbid public sacrifices by pagans and ordered the destruction of several key temples, including the Temple of Aphrodite and the Temple of Jupiter in Jerusalem, he did not issue a proclamation demanding that all pagan temples be closed or destroyed. Nor did he order the eradication of Greek and Roman idols.

Theodosius the Great, who came to power as emperor of the Eastern Roman Empire in AD 379, was the political leader who officially banned pagan religions and their rituals and sacrifices with the introduction of his Theodosian Code. Given that statues were part and parcel of religious events, they were included in the banishment. Theodosius commanded the destruction of some temples, such as that of Serapis in Alexandria in AD 391-392. However, he had some of the buildings repurposed. The Temple of Dionysus in Alexandria, for example, was converted into a church.

This practice of taking pagan temples and making churches of them continued for some time. The famous Parthenon in Athens, once the temple of Athena, the Greek goddess of wisdom, war, and handicraft, became a Christian church dedicated to the Virgin Mary in the late 6th century and remained so until it was converted into a mosque by the Ottomans in 1458.

What About Reliefs, Paintings, and Icons?

Pagans believed that the gods could also inhabit reliefs. A relief is a work of art wherein the figures project from a supporting background. Christians took exception to them along with statues. Notably, however, they did not attack paintings, frescoes, mosaics, and the like, even if they did present mythological deities. Scholars suggest that the three-dimensionality of statues and reliefs allowed for the embodiment of a god or a demon, whereas a flat picture did not in the minds of their audiences.

It should also be noted that Christians themselves made their own religious paintings called icons. The earliest examples we have are found in the Roman catacombs from the late 2nd and 3rd centuries. Later, they appeared in churches. However, Christians are quick to point out that there is no worship involved with Christian images. They are venerated, meaning that they hold an honored position of respect as they reflect back on Christ and notable figures of the faith, but nothing more. Today, Eastern Orthodox Christians and Roman Catholics employ them. Protestants rarely do so.

So What About Those Noses?

Christians were not the only ones to practice iconoclasm. It was particularly common in Egypt. In fact, you could find examples of it throughout the entire Roman Empire, especially in times of invasion when outsiders wanted to destroy foreign gods to assert their power over a conquered people.

If you believed that a statue embodied a god, and you wanted to destroy that statue’s power, you would smash or mutilate it. Hacking off ears meant the statue would no longer be able to hear supplications and prayers. If you removed its arms, it could not accept the sacrifices brought to it. Without feet, the god could not move. Damaging the lips prevented it from speaking. And, most importantly, to break off the nose was to take away the breath of life from it; in essence, killing it.

The Christians who attacked statues went one step further. They did not just smash a nose or remove ears from a work of art; they would often carve or chisel a cross into the forehead of a statue or over its eyes. And they did not commit these deeds surreptitiously. They wanted the pagans to see the vandalism as a demonstration that their God was more powerful than their mythological deities.

The Christian historian, Rufinus, describes how Christians knocked off the head of the statue of Serapis when they destroyed his temple in Alexandria. They chopped off its arms and legs as well. Then they took the torso to the city’s amphitheater and set it on fire for everyone to witness.

Of course, not every statue missing a nose, limbs, or head was vandalized. There are many natural reasons that some works of art are missing body parts. One lies in the fact that the Mediterranean area was prone to earthquakes and other natural disasters, which would have toppled over many a statue, resulting in breakages. One example is that of the Colossus, a 32-meter (104 feet) high bronze statue of Helios, the sun god, located in Rhodes, that snapped off at the knees during an earthquake. And it was not unusual to find statues missing heads simply because necks were fragile, as were arms, especially if outstretched.

Conclusion

To some Christians, destroying and defacing statues and repurposing or dismantling the pagan temples that housed them provided visual proof that Christianity had triumphed over paganism. It is true that many of these religions fell out of practice, and many of their adherents entered the Christian fold in the centuries following Constantine’s edict, making Christianity a legal religion that spread quickly and widely.

We often view controversy and internal strife as a sign of weakness, but conflict can also make us look inward to more firmly define our beliefs. Such was the case with early Christianity, and it was one of the reasons the New Testament was written.

What Were the Earliest Christian Theological Controversies During the Biblical period?

In the first century, controversies among Christians were behind why much of the New Testament was written, and the reason behind the first recorded church council in the book of Acts. The Apostle Paul addresses various controversies in new churches in several of his epistles, particularly the influence of Judaism among believers and the growing effects of what became known as Gnosticism.

In Acts 15, Paul and Barnabas come into conflict with Jewish believers who believed that circumcision was necessary for Gentiles (non-Jews) to come into the new faith. At its conclusion, James announced:

“19 Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God, 20 but should write to them to abstain from the things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood.” —Acts 15:19-20

Paul, Barnabas, and others were then sent out to deliver the judgment to the new churches that were springing up, many of which were in Jewish synagogues.

The Rise of Gnosticism

Gnosticism is a general description of beliefs that arose around the same time as Christianity (if not before), heavily influenced by Greek philosophy. Primarily, it is the thought that the physical world is inherently evil. When applied to Christianity, it takes on the belief that Jesus Christ, the Son of God and God incarnate, did not come in a physical form, because the physical world is evil.  

The Apostle Paul confronted proto-Gnosticism in several books, affirming that the physical world was not evil and that Jesus Christ came in the flesh:

I Tim 3:16 “Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of godliness: He was manifested in the flesh, vindicated by the Spirit, seen by angels, proclaimed among the nations, believed on in the world, taken up in glory.”

While various groups in early Christianity, following the New Testament period, attempted to use some of Paul’s writings to prove their point, they were often either misquoted or out of context

What Controversies Followed the Biblical Period?

After the New Testament was completed, various controversies arose regarding the meaning behind what many apostles wrote. Various forms of Gnosticism also came into more prominence following the New Testament period. Valentinianism and Marcionism were among the most prominent and well-defined forms of Christian Gnosticism, which church fathers such as Irenaeus wrote against.

Many of the “lost gospels” often promoted by conspiracy theorists come from the period following the New Testament. Few, if any, were written during the lifetime of any of the Apostles, and many directly contradict New Testament writings. The Gnostic writings often oppose the idea that Jesus Christ came in physical form, and reject his humanity.

How Did the Church Resolve the Controversies?

Many of the writings of early church fathers were against Gnosticism. Irenaeus wrote Against Heresies opposing Valentinian around 180 AD. He joined Justin Martyr and Tertullian in opposing Marcionism in the second century as well. Church leadership was effective in refuting the Gnostic heresies and removing much of its influence in the early church.

The writings opposing Gnosticism helped Christianity cement the concept that Jesus Christ was both human and divine. By the end of the second century, most of the Gnostic ideas had lost their serious influence within Christianity, and many of the Gnostic works were destroyed or hidden. 

While the celebration was in full swing at the typical ancient Near Eastern wedding party, disaster suddenly struck—a true social catastrophe that would still fit the bill of a “wedding crisis” today: There was no more wine. This unexpected, awkward space is where Jesus Christ chose to perform his first public sign, which many would consider to be the most important.

The First Sign: More Than Just a Miracle

When reading the Gospel of John, one finds different actions of Jesus that are considered miraculous. There are well-known feats that are wonders (teras), and then there are signs (semeion). Signs do not look at the miracle itself but rather focus on the major ripple effects that follow.

The Wedding at Cana—water into wine—in John chapter 2, from verse 1 onward, is the first action in Jesus’ ministry. Being the first gives architectural importance to everything that follows, like a foundation of a building (or, in Biblical terms, like the cornerstone).

Interestingly, the timing of this sign seemed to catch Jesus by surprise. He tells his mother in verse 3, “My hour has not yet come,” just before doing the miracle that initiates his public ministry.

The Symbolism of Water into Wine

6 Now there were six stone water jars there for the Jewish rites of purification, each holding twenty or thirty gallons. 7 Jesus said to the servants, “Fill the jars with water.” And they filled them up to the brim. 8 And he said to them, “Now draw some out and take it to the master of the feast. 

This miracle of Jesus shows profound symbolism: From the starting point of Jewish rituals—the water jars—Jesus bridges the divide and offers what is needed through His blood—the wine—at the wedding feast—God’s Kingdom come.

Jesus Christ brought a theological shift from external ritual law to internal transformation and abundance. Through his death on the cross, he became the sin offering demanded by the Old Testament law. He fulfilled the law.

(For a better understanding of this, read Galatians 3 and Luke 5:33-39).

Mary’s Role and the Domestic Context

3 When the wine ran out, the mother of Jesus said to him, “They have no wine.” 4 And Jesus said to her, “Woman, what does this have to do with me? My hour has not yet come.” 5 His mother said to the servants, “Do whatever he tells you.”

Before the miracle, there’s an interesting dialogue between Jesus and his mother, Mary. In this, we see her influence, and yet Jesus only did what God told him to do. Through a literary lens, the domestic setting of a wedding, as the location of the first sign, helps us see the importance of human relationships and celebration in God’s divine work.

The Wedding at Cana in Masterpieces: From Giotto to Veronese

This pivotal miracle of Jesus has also inspired many to pick up a paintbrush. The scene of the wedding, the water, and the wine have often been used to showcase opulence, perspective, and theology. From somber depictions of the wedding in the Byzantine period to the modern day, the subject has been treated with detailed reverence.

Two of the most famous examples include Giotto’s early 14th-century depiction of an enclosed scene with Jesus and Mary as members of the bridal party, and the largest painting in the Louvre, The Wedding at Cana by Paolo Veronese. The latter, painted in 1563 is a canvas of 267 x 391 inches (or 677 x 994 cm), showing a much bigger, lavish scene, bustling with activity and bursting with color.

Historical and Archaeological Context of Cana

Today, there are two sites competing for the name of “Cana” (Khirbet Qana— archaeologists’ preferred spot—vs Kafr Kanna— the traditional pilgrimage destination).

With miraculous tales such as this one, it can be easy to imagine the Bible as a made-up story… Yet the archaeological and socio-cultural facts seem to be accurate—stone jars as described in this story have been excavated, grounding the elements in historical reality.

Despite the fact that this event is omitted from the synoptic Gospels, what happened at Cana was not just another one of the many miraculous signs that Jesus Christ did during his time on Earth; in many ways, it was the most important. In this seemingly simple miracle, the whole Gospel message is embodied. For Christians, it is about transformation and allowing Jesus to change one’s very nature.

Mary’s words are a message ringing out to generations of followers:  “Do whatever he tells you,” as their discipleship is still defined by obeying his teachings, even today.

The Sadducees were a political and religious sect of Jewish leaders, particularly in Jerusalem, during the second Temple period, lasting from around 200 BC to about 70 AD, until the second Temple’s destruction. They had a powerful impact on early Judaism, shaping how much of Jewish life and worship was controlled.

Origins of the Sadducees

No definite beginning period for the Sadducees exists, but the group developed sometime around the period following the death of Alexander the Great in 323 BC, when his followers were fighting over his succession. Jerusalem was generally under Greek control at this time, and the Sadducees arose sometime during the period of the Hasmonean Kingdom, whose rulers operated under Seleucid control until the Romans took over in the first century BC. The Sadducees were a more aristocratic class than their main opponents, the Pharisees, and they controlled and administered the Temple. Thus, it is from their ranks that the priestly class was drawn. 

What the Sadducees Believed

As there are no surviving writings from the Sadducees, very little is known about their beliefs, and what we do know is from their detractors. The Sadducees believed strictly in the first five books of the Old Testament, called the Torah. They rejected any oral traditions, as opposed to the Pharisees, who accepted oral tradition. They also rejected the ideas of an immortal soul and resurrection of the dead, and they disbelieved in spiritual beings, such as angels.

Literature on the Sadducees

In the Gospels, Jesus Christ had various encounters with the Sadducees and Pharisees together, as they tended to oppose his ministry. The Apostle Paul also had a significant encounter with them in Jerusalem:

“6 Now when Paul perceived that one part were Sadducees and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, “Brothers, I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees. It is with respect to the hope and the resurrection of the dead that I am on trial.” 7 And when he had said this, a dissension arose between the Pharisees and the Sadducees, and the assembly was divided. 8 For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, nor angel, nor spirit, but the Pharisees acknowledge them all.” – Acts 25:6-7

Prominent Sadducees

John Hyrcanus was High Priest of Israel from 134 BC to 104 BC.  He was related to Judas Maccabeus, who led a Jewish revolt in 167-160 BC. John led the Jewish people against the Seleucid Empire’s attempts to establish control over them. At first, he was unsuccessful, being defeated in a siege of Jerusalem by the Seleucids, but he was able to eventually re-establish Jewish control over Judea until it was absorbed into the Roman Empire. John was a former Pharisee who became a Sadducee later in his reign.

Annas and Caiaphas were the High Priests in Jesus’ time, mentioned at various points in the Gospels. While nothing is explicitly written as to their affiliation, they were likely Sadducees, as most of the High Priests came from that sect. Caiaphas was prominently behind the plot to put Jesus Christ to death.

What Happened to the Sadducees?

After the destruction of the Second Temple in Jerusalem in 70 AD, the Sadducees faded away in history. Their sect was intimately tied to Temple worship, as they believed that true worship occurred in the Temple with its practices. While the Pharisees and the synagogue system survived due to their belief that worship was in the reading of God’s word, the Sadducees (many of whom also likely died in the siege of Jerusalem at that time) went away with the Temple.

Throughout the Middle Ages, the papacy claimed that the legitimacy of its temporal and spiritual power originated from the so-called Donation of Constantine. According to this document, Constantine conferred the Roman archbishop with supremacy over the world’s churches. Most importantly, he granted the pope temporal authority over Italy and the Western World. Proven to be a forgery in the 15th century, the Donation of Constantine had a profound impact on the religious and political affairs of medieval Europe, especially in the often uneasy relations between the papacy and the empire.

What Was the Donation of Constantine?

The exact date of the composition of the Donation of Constantine is still unknown; however, scholars generally date the document back to the 750s or 760s. Its author was probably a cleric of the Lateran in Rome, who wrote the Donation possibly with the consent of Pope Stephen II (or III).

The text of the Donation of Constantine is based on the Legenda S. Silvestri (The Legend of St. Sylvester). According to this 5th-century myth, Roman Emperor Constantine I converted to Christianity after Pope Sylvester I miraculously cured him of leprosy: “And so, on the first day after receiving the mystery of the holy baptism, and after the cure of my body from the squalor of the leprosy, I recognized that there was no other God save the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit; whom the most blessed Sylvester the pope doth preach; a trinity in one, a unity in three.”

The grateful Constantine then repaid the pope who baptized him by issuing a document that bestowed upon Sylvester and his successors spiritual supremacy over all other archbishoprics and de facto temporal authority. In particular, the forged donation alleged that the first Christian Roman emperor granted to the pope administrative rights over the estates donated to the church, and, most importantly, control of the territories of the Western Empire:

“In imitation of our own power, in order that for that cause the supreme pontificate may not deteriorate, but may rather be adorned with power and glory even more than is the dignity of an earthly rule: behold we-giving over to the oft-mentioned most blessed pontiff, our father Sylvester the universal pope, as well our palace, as has been said, as also the city of Rome and all the provinces, districts and cities of Italy or of the western regions; and relinquishing them, by our inviolable gift, to the power and sway of himself or the pontiffs his successors-do decree, by this our godlike charter and imperial constitution, that it shall be (so) arranged; and do concede that they (the palaces, provinces etc.) shall lawfully remain with the holy Roman church.”

Given the extensive rights conferred upon Pope Sylvester, it is not surprising that the donation became the legal basis for the papacy’s temporal authority and its claims of supremacy. Moreover, the fact that Constantine allegedly granted the archbishop of Rome control over the western territories came to imply that the pope had the right to appoint secular rulers in Europe.

Throughout the Middle Ages, the political impact of this claim was extensive, especially as the papacy vied for power against the Holy Roman Empire and its rulers (more on that later). The unknown forger, however, could have hardly imagined the long-term effects of his handiwork. Indeed, the Donation of Constantine can be best understood as a product of the papacy’s efforts to secure independence from the Byzantine Empire in the 8th century through an alliance with the Carolingian rulers.

Setting the Stage: The Papacy & Italy in the Early Middle Ages

In the 5th century, the large-scale migration of the Germanic peoples (also referred to as “barbaric invasions”) into the western territories of the Roman Empire inaugurated a period of chaos. The final collapse of the empire (476 AD) and the disintegration of its administrative structures left a political vacuum in the West, where the constant warfare had already caused widespread disruption to agriculture, trade, and urban life.

In the general instability, one entity emerged as the only guarantor of order: the Roman Church. During the first decades of the early medieval period, churchmen—some of the few remaining members of the Roman elite—took up most of the legal and administrative duties of the imperial bureaucracy. As Germanic tribes repeatedly poured into Italy, the archbishops of Rome (the popes) were the ones who dealt with the invading forces.

By the 6th century, the papacy had secured its authority over Italy, and Rome, once the city of emperors, became known as the city of popes. In the 8th century, however, the Roman Church felt its power threatened by the Lombards, a Germanic tribe who invaded vast parts of northern Italy toward the end of the previous century. The Lombards soon eroded the Byzantine presence in the Italian peninsula, settled in Pavia, and, from there, began to expand.

The popes, still nominally under the control of the Byzantine Empire, feared for their safety, feeling that the emperor in Constantinople could no longer be relied upon to provide assistance. The situation worsened in the 750s, when Pope Stephen II (or III) was forced to flee from Rome following a round of unsuccessful negotiations with Aistulf, the Lombard king. It was time to find a new protector and claim independence from the Byzantine Empire.

New Alliances: The Donation of Pippin & the Donation of Constantine

In 753, Pope Stephen crossed the Alps to reach Gaul, where Pippin III, the son of Charles Martel, had become the king of the Franks. Pope Zacharias, Stephen’s predecessor, had approved the move, and, in 751, Archbishop Boniface anointed Pippin as king. Now it was Stephen’s turn to anoint the Frankish monarch alongside his sons and heirs, Charles and Carloman.

During his stay in present-day France, Stephen secured Pippin’s military assistance against the Lombards. In 754, the Frankish forces invaded Italy, besieging the Lombard king at Pavia. It would take Pippin a second campaign, launched in 756, to finally subdue King Aistuff and his forces. It was around this time that the Frankish king, during a meeting at Quierzy, promised Pope Stephen that he would restore to the papacy the lands taken by the Lombards.

Known as the Donation of Pippin, the oral (or written) agreement is commonly regarded as the event marking the establishment of the Papal States. Having finally severed ties with the Byzantine Empire, Stephen was thus the first pope to rule as a temporal sovereign over the papacy’s territories.

What Was the Impact of the Donation of Constantine?

Papal accounts of the meeting at Quierzy declare that Pippin III granted Pope Stephen II the exarchate of Ravenna (previously part of the Byzantine Empire), the districts of Venetia and Istria, and the duchy of Rome. The Frankish monarch, however, had no legal claim to much of the territories he promised to “restore” to the papacy, as they were under the jurisdiction of the emperor in Constantinople.

As the Donation of Constantine, most probably forged around this time, maintained that Constantine had already bestowed upon the Roman Church control of Rome and the Western Empire, Pippin was simply restoring the status quo. At the same time, the document provided legal confirmation to a situation that had been developing since the 5th century: the emergence of the papacy as the political and administrative heir to the Roman Empire. Indeed, alongside statements of papal primacy, the unknown cleric who penned the document emphasized how Pope Sylverster was granted “imperial honors, the imperial palace, and imperial power.”

The Donation of Pippin cemented the alliance between the papacy and the Carolingians. In 778 and 817, his successors, Charlemagne and Louis the Pious, confirmed the anti-Lombard agreement, which was also later cited by the Roman Church as proof of the authenticity of the Donation of Constantine. The document’s vast impact on the political and religious affairs of medieval Europe, however, would emerge only later on.

Indeed, the first pope to cite the Donation of Constantine in an official act was Leo IX (1049-1054). Determined to transform the papacy into an international power and make his primacy as the “successor of St. Peter” real, he took a strong stance in his quarrel against Michael I Cerularius, the patriarch of Constantinople. In a vitriolic attack against the patriarch, Cardinal Hubert directly quoted from the 8th-century forgery. The dispute eventually led to the Great Schism of 1054 between the Western and Eastern Churches.

Church and State, Papacy and Empire

After Leo IX’s pontificate, subsequent popes relied upon the Donation of Constantine in the long struggle with the Holy Roman emperors and other secular leaders. According to a popular medieval theory, probably originating with Pope Gelasius I (492-496), two swords (or powers) had been created by God to rule over humankind: the church and the state. Over the years, however, the theory came to mean that the papacy held both powers: the spiritual and the secular.

As the 8th-century alliance between the papacy and the Franks created a new tension, popes and secular rulers vied for primacy. Emperor Charlemagne, for example, claimed the right to appoint bishops. In subsequent centuries, secular rulers continued to involve themselves in ecclesiastical affairs, leading to a series of struggles culminating in the Investiture Controversy, a conflict pitting Pope Gregory VII against Henry IV.

While a 1122 compromise ended the controversy, tensions between popes and emperors remained high until the mid-13th century, intermittently leading to open conflict. Despite various challenges, the papacy managed to maintain sovereignty over the Papal States and even expanded its territories. Meanwhile, as the papacy vied for supremacy with the secular authorities, the Donation of Constantine served as the centerpiece of the papal anti-imperial rhetoric.

When & How Was the Donation of Constantine Revealed to Be a Forgery?

For a long time, the authenticity of the Donation of Constantine was not challenged. In his Divine Comedy, Dante, believing its truthfulness, referred to the “dowry” as the root cause for the corruption of the church (Inferno, 19.115-7) during his meeting with Pope Boniface VIII. By then, the Donation of Constantine had become a key part of the papal political propaganda backing the papacy’s involvement in the 14th-century Guelph-Ghibelline conflicts.

It was only a century later that Italian humanist Lorenzo Valla exposed the donation as a forgery, turning the most well-known piece of papal propaganda into a cornerstone of antipapal rhetoric. In his 1440 Declamatio (“Treatise of Lorenzo Valla on the Donation of Constantine”), Valla, a biting critic of medieval traditions, listed the “anachronism, inconsistencies, and misunderstandings of the piece,” providing a detailed analysis of documentary proofs.

At the time, Valla was a royal secretary and historian at the court of Alfonso of Aragon, King of Naples. As King Alfonso was enmeshed in a territorial dispute against Pope Eugenius IV, Valla’s harsh attack on the very basis of the papacy’s authority was particularly convenient. The Declamatio, however, was first formally printed only in 1517, the same year that Martin Luther affixed his Ninety-Five Theses, setting in motion what would become the Protestant Reformation.

By then, Valla’s text had already been widely circulated and read. It was not only Valla’s revelation of the Donation of Constantine as a forgery to create a scandal around his 1440 oration, but also the violence of his language. “O thou scoundrel, thou villain!” wrote the Italian humanist addressing the unknown forger. And then doubled down: “Numskull, blockhead!”

What had once been the cornerstone of the papacy’s claims for temporal power now contributed to the outcry against the moral bankruptcy and corruption of the Church of Rome.

David was ancient Israel’s most beloved king. But the tragic story of his top military commander invites an exploration into the hazards of extreme loyalty. Tasked with protecting David personally as well as the interests of his kingdom, Joab ruthlessly eliminated threats to the throne. But though his loyalty never wavered, when David began issuing commands that were clearly against his own kingdom’s interests, Joab’s obedience did. On his deathbed, David called for the general who had served him devotedly for more than four decades to be executed. 

Joab Joined David When He Was Running From Saul

The story of David begins when the prophet Samuel surreptitiously anoints him as king in his family’s home, setting in motion a conflict with Israel’s reigning king that would later burgeon into a civil war. 

David famously came under Saul’s employ as his musician and personal armor bearer as a young man. But when Saul’s jealousy and fear of David’s influence become murderous, David is forced to flee into the wilderness. 

David spent over a decade as King Saul’s fugitive. The Bible says that, early in this period of his life, a ragtag band of followers formed around him composed mostly of other fugitives. Members of David’s family, who were also surely in danger of Saul’s wrath, also joined David. Among these were David’s three nephews by his paternal aunt Zeruiah: Joab, Abishai, and Asahel. All three became fearless and dependable warriors for David during his fugitive years, and stayed in his service after he was crowned king. 

Joab’s Brother Asahel Was Killed by Abner, Saul’s General

Saul had set up his capital in the Benjamite city of Gibeah, north of Jerusalem. But when he loses to the Philistines and dies in battle, his surviving family is forced across the Jordan River. According to the Bible, Abner, who had been Saul’s general, establishes one of Saul’s surviving sons, who is named Ish-Bosheth, as Israel’s king in the city of Mahanaim, in the region of Gilead. David, meanwhile, is enthroned in Hebron, in Judah, and a civil war ensues. 

During the first battle, Asahel tries to kill Abner. But Abner brutally slays Asahel instead, using the blunt end of his spear. Joab fails to overtake Abner as he and his army flee and, thus, must postpone revenge for his brother.  

Israel continues as two separate, battling kingdoms for the next seven and a half years, with David reigning over Judah and Ish-Bosheth reigning over the remainder of Israel that had kept its loyalty for the house of Saul. 

Joab Is Avenged of His Brother’s Killing

The Bible says that, as David’s kingdom grew stronger, Ish-Bosheth’s grew weaker as time went on.  Though Abner had been deeply loyal to Saul, his dedication was not without limit. When Ish-Bosheth accuses Abner of having intercourse with one of Saul’s previous wives—which would constitute an act of rebellion—Abner decides to defect to David’s side and vows to help him subsume all of Israel under his rule. When Abner arrives in Hebron, David receives him with a welcome feast, celebrating their new alliance. But Joab is not present. 

When Joab returns, he is furious with David for having let the brilliant general of his nemesis go free. Persuaded that Abner had manipulated David and secretly intended to overthrow him, Joab sends messengers to call Abner back to Hebron. As he arrives, Joab lures him aside, then summarily stabs his brother’s killer in the stomach. David curses Joab for this but, nevertheless, retains him in his army.    

Joab Was Frustrated By David’s Relationship with His Sons

Joab’s loyalty, drive, and unparalleled skill as a military leader had been demonstrated clearly enough during his many years of service to David that, by the time David finally established himself as king over a united Israel, Joab was made chief commander of his entire army. According to the Bible, Joab went on to lead Israel alongside David in stunning victories over Philistine, Syrian, Moabite, Edomite, and other enemy forces. 

But Joab’s successes against David’s foreign enemies would be quickly overshadowed by his inability to navigate David’s dangerously tumultuous family relationships. 

When David’s oldest son Amnon rapes his half-sister Tamar, Absalom, David’s third son by another wife and the full brother of Tamar, leads his other brothers in murdering Amnon in revenge. Absalom flees. But Joab (perhaps empathizing with Absalom, being himself a stickler for street justice), cleverly persuades David to allow Absalom to return to the palace. However, David refuses to speak with his son for two years. 

Absalom Became a Thorn in Joab’s Side

With ambitions to be the next king, Absalom knew that it must appear to the Israelites that he and his father were on good terms. But with David refusing to speak with him, he decided to bet on Joab’s influence to force an invitation into the palace. To get Joab’s attention, who by this time was also ignoring him, Absalom orders his servants to set one of Joab’s barley fields on fire. Joab appreciates the depth of Absalom’s resolve, and asks David to relent.  

But Absalom’s motive in meeting with David, as the story is told, is merely for the sake of appearance. As soon as he leaves his father’s presence, he begins to build himself a following by cultivating the people’s grievances with David and promising justice under his own rule. Finally, he declares himself king in Hebron, and appoints Amasa, another of David’s nephews, commander over the army instead of Joab. 

Joab Killed Absalom

Ironically, Absalom’s coup forced David and all who remained loyal to him to flee from Jerusalem to Mahanaim, the very place his former rival Ish-Bosheth had been enthroned. 

Joab, as the leader of David’s army, was obliged to seek David’s return to power in Jerusalem. But he was put in a difficult position when David commanded him not to harm Absalom. As the saga unfolds, the armies of Absalom and David meet in a forest of Ephraim. But as Absalom is riding through the forest, his flowing hair—a complement to his striking good looks—gets caught in the branches of a tree. His frightened mule leaves him hanging there, where Joab’s men find him.  

Dutifully aware of David’s command not to harm Absalom, the men report to Joab that Absalom is stuck by his hair in a tree. Joab declares his intention to ignore David’s command, and thrusts three javelins through the prince’s dangling body.  

David Advised Solomon to Execute Joab

With Absalom dead, David was able to return to Jerusalem. But while David was eager to bring the conflict to an end, Joab saw Amasa as a threat. Once again in defiance of David’s wishes yet with David’s protection in mind, Joab called Amasa aside and, just like he had done to Abner, pulled a sword without warning and killed him. 

Despite Joab’s lifelong commitment to David, David had grown resentful toward him by the end of his life. On his deathbed, he advises Solomon to put his life to an end. 

The story of the end of David’s life is full of intrigue. Joab seems to assume that David’s son Adonijah, who was older than Solomon, would succeed him as on the throne, and therefore joins in the celebration when Adonijah is declared king as David lies dying. But Adonijah was actually a usurper. To the surprise of all outside the palace, David endorses Solomon as king instead.

Joab Is Killed Inside the Tabernacle

Due to David’s choice of Solomon, Joab’s support for Adonijah becomes an act of rebellion, giving Solomon the excuse he needs to have Joab killed. Solomon sends a man named Benaiah, later to become his own general, to summon Joab to answer for himself. 

Knowing his fate, Joab desperately runs into the Tabernacle, Israel’s place of sacrifice and worship, and clings to the horns that decorate the edges of its huge altar, perhaps hoping that fear of defiling the holy place would save his life. When the report reaches Solomon, however, he tells Benaiah to simply slay Joab there, at the base of the altar. 

David had no more loyal subject than Joab. Joab, in fact, even helped David commit the crime of having Uriah killed. But in the end, David could not overlook Joab’s penchant for taking vengeance into his own hands. He wanted a type of obedience that was unlikely to come from a passionate character like Joab.

The New Testament’s depiction of Jesus’s disciple Thomas has given him the nickname “Doubting Thomas.” Yet, ironically, according to church tradition Thomas’s faith in the risen Christ drove him to evangelize a greater distance from Palestine than even the Apostle Paul reached in his storied missionary journeys in Anatolia and Europe. Thomas may have gone as far as South India with the Christian gospel, establishing multiple churches along the way and eventually dying as a martyr on Indian soil.

Various Sources Claim that Thomas Went to India

When reconstructing the histories of ancient Christian figures like Thomas, historians often must rely on sources that contain legendary material. This is partly why it is customary to qualify historical claims with phrases like “according to tradition.” 

A key source for the life of Thomas is an early third-century work entitled The Acts of Thomas. This work is counted among the many pseudepigraphical narratives about the infancy years of Christianity, which tend to contain accounts deemed unreliable by modern historiographical standards. While The Acts of Thomas’s historical value is compromised as a result, the fact that a document about Thomas’s activities in India was being read in the third century suggests that both Thomas’s ministry and the backstory of the church in India were of interest to Christians in the early church. Ancient Christian writers from diverse areas also wrote of Thomas’s ministry in India.

Thomas May Have Journeyed Multiple Times to the Indian Subcontinent

Due to lack of detail, the textual sources on their own cannot establish that Thomas actually made it to modern South India. Still, some historians cautiously believe that Thomas may indeed have preached in this area.

It is possible that, like the Apostle Paul, Thomas made multiple missionary journeys. He may have first crossed the Parthian Empire, arriving in what is now northern Pakistan. Then, it is possible that he returned to Jerusalem, from whence he was then sent out again to the Malabar Coast on the southwestern shore of India in what is now the state of Kerala. A living tradition in this region claims that he planted seven churches before departing to the other side of the Indian Peninsula.

Tradition Says that He Died in India

The hypothesis that Thomas went to the Indian Subcontinent (which includes modern Pakistan) more than once is derived by reconstructing the pieces from Eusebius’s Church History, The Acts of Thomas, and the living folk tradition in South India. However, it is difficult to corroborate details. Some traditions also have Thomas preaching in Africa. 

According to folk tradition, Thomas is said to have continued from Kerala to Madras, now Chennai in the state of Tamil Nadu on India’s eastern coast, to evangelize further. There, however, he was forced to flee to a cave outside of the district of Mylapore to hide and pray. When local leaders send a posse in pursuit, Thomas runs to the top of a small mountain. But he is found, stoned, and then killed with a javelin. 

Versions of this tale conflict in their details, but all end with Thomas’s execution. The mountain where this is said to have happened is now known by his name.  

Santhome Basilica Marks St. Thomas’s Tomb in Chennai

When Portuguese missionaries arrived in Madras in the 1520s, they requested sponsorship from the Portuguese King, John III, to build a church over Thomas’s tomb. Though an ancient church stood over Thomas’s tomb at that time, it had apparently been sorely neglected and was deteriorating beyond repair. 

The new church, which was smaller than the old one, was finished in 1523 and called the Santhome (Saint Thomas) Basilica. Later in 1896, British colonists replaced the Portuguese building with a majestic Gothic-style cathedral. 

Many “Thomas Christians” Still Worship in India Today

While the details of the story of St. Thomas in India cannot be proven historically, and while some historians think Thomas was actually killed in Central Asia without ever reaching as far as South India, it is possible that Christianity was brought to India within the first two centuries of Jesus’s lifetime.

Today, Indian Christians who trace their faith back to Thomas are often called simply “Saint Thomas Christians.” Though some Thomas Christians have joined other Christian groups, most still worship in the ancient Syriac tradition that it shares with Syrian churches from Anatolia and Mesopotamia. They thus regularly animate a language that both Thomas and Jesus himself spoke. Formally, this ancient church is called the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church, but is popularly referred to as the Indian Orthodox Church. By some estimates, there are around two million followers of this tradition in the world, most of whom still live in Kerala.

Across Bosnia, Macedonia, Albania, and beyond, Sufi brotherhoods defined the religious landscape of the Ottoman Balkans. Khalwatiyyah and Bektashiyyah proved the most extensive, followed by Naqshbandiyyah, Qadiriyyah, and Rifa’iyyah. Others, such as Mawlawiyyah, Bayramiyyah, Sa’diyyah, Jalwatiyyah, Shadhiliyyah, and Badawiyyah, left lighter footprints. This article maps their centers, practices, and legacies.

Sufism Before Ottomans

As the Ottomans extended Islamic rule to the Balkans in the 15th and 16th centuries, Sufis and dervishes of various orders followed in their footsteps. These early Balkan Sufis often established zawiyas, or traveler’s quarters, that served as symbols of Ottoman supremacy and authority in the newly conquered territory, as well as centers from which Islam spread among the local population.

Two prominent zawiyas were founded in the Bosnian city of Sarajevo in 1463. Both were founded by Sheikhs of the Naqshbandi order and were built as endowments for local Ottoman dignitaries. Over time, as the imperial administration strengthened and the Islamic religious establishment further developed, tekkes, or Sufi meeting places, were constructed to meet the spiritual needs of the local population.

The Naqshbandi Order: Mainstream Sunni Sufism

The first Ottoman Sufis were almost exclusively from the Naqshbandi order, and their destinations between the 15th and 17th centuries included Bosnia and Macedonia. Firmly tied to the Sunni ulama, the Naqshbandi were among the most prominent supporters of “conventional” Islam in Bosnia and Herzegovina and urban centers throughout the Balkans.

The Iranian Sunni master Sayyid Baha-ud-Din Naqshband Bukhari founded the Naqshbandi Order, which spread throughout Asia, including the Far East. Its teachings include the “eleven Naqshbandi Principles”: Remembrance, restraint, watchfulness, recollection, awareness while breathing, journeying in one’s homeland, watching one’s step, solitude in the crowd, the temporal pause, the numerical pause, and the heart pause. A visible Eastern/Dharmic influence is noticeable, although Naqshbandi Sufism became a strong supporter of mainstream Sunni Islam.

Naqshbandi in the Balkans: Three Waves

Three different waves of Naqshbandi implantation in the Balkans during the Ottoman Era have been recorded. Several Sheikhs were prominent direct representatives of the Khalifah Khwajah’ Ubayd Allah Ahrar for the initial phase. The most significant among them were Mullah’ Abdullah Ilahi (d. 1491), who settled in Serez (Greece), and Shaykh Lutfullah, who founded the first Naqshbandi tekke in Skopje. Most likely, the two Naqshbandi “instructors” in Bosnia (Uryan Dede and Shemsi Dede) were in a relationship with the above-mentioned Sheikhs.

In the late 18th century, the Naqshbandi tariqa in Bosnia was rejuvenated by the exceptional work of ‘Abd al-Rahman Sirri Dede (d. 1847). Initiated in Istanbul, one of the oldest hereditary lines of the Naqshbandi, Sirri Dede, and his followers turned central Bosnia into a Naqshbandi stronghold. Their heirs and descendants still run tekkes in those regions. The third wave of Naqshbandi in the Balkans came shortly after the second. In the late 19th century, the Khalidi branch, founded by Khalid al-Baghdadi, expanded into the territory of central Bosnia, as well as parts of Kosovo and Macedonia.

The Khalwatiyyah Order: Sufism for the Powerful

Firmly rooted in the Ottoman ruling class in Istanbul, during the early 16th century, the Sheikhs of several branches of the Khalwatiyyah order sent their emissaries to various places in the Balkans. The Khalwatiyyah order was a popular and modern order that established literally hundreds of tekkes in almost every part of the peninsula.

In Arabic, khalwa is a method of withdrawal or isolation from the world for mystical purposes. The order is named after a mystic from Herat (Khorasan in modern-day Afghanistan), Umar al-Khalwati, but it was founded by his disciple, Yahya Shirvani. It is known for its emphasis on individual asceticism (zuhd) and retreat (khalwa), rare features among tariqas. Other practices, such as collective dhikr (repetitive prayer and invocation of Allah’s name), are similar to those found in other Sufi branches. Still, the order found many followers, particularly in the Ottoman Empire.

Khalwatiyyah Sub-Orders, Orthodoxy, and Regional Spread

A new wave of expansion for the Khalwatiyyah order occurred in the 17th century with the emergence of the sub-orders Jarrahiyyah, Karabaşiyyah, and Hayatiyyah. Those three sub-orders replaced the older branches and became the head of the Khalwatiyyah presence in Albania, Kosovo, and Macedonia. In the 18th and 19th centuries, members of the Jarrahiyyah order played a crucial role in re-establishing Muslim life in Morea and later in Bulgaria. The reformist Khalwatiyyah sub-order, Sha’baniyyah, spread in Bosnia and Bulgaria during the 19th century and experienced significant, albeit short-lived, success.

Khalwatiyyah were defenders and protectors of conventional orthodoxy. Many of the most prominent Islamic scholars in the Balkans from the 16th to the 18th century were in some way connected with this tariqa. A notable example was the prominent Balkan Muslim theologian in Sofia Sofyali Bali Efendi (d. 1553), who, together with other Khalwatiyyah Sheikhs, played an active role in the fight against the spread of nonconformist beliefs and practices, which took root among the Muslim and neo-Muslim population.

The Bektashi Order: Shi’a Sufism in the Balkans

During the 15th and 16th centuries, the Bektashiyyah or Bektashi order, which had long been closely associated with the Ottoman military establishment, had minimal influence among the Muslim population in this region. The first genuine attempt by the Bektashi to break through to the Balkans occurred with the establishment of tekkes in Kizil Dela and Thrace. From here, Balim Sultan (d. 1516), usually regarded as the reorganizer of the order, sent his disciples all over to the Balkans.

Even though the details of the activities of the early Bektashi Babas (literally “Dads,” a title for Bektashi Sheikhs) are largely unknown, several cemeteries have been preserved to this day in Macedonia (Sersem Ali Baba in Tetovo), Bulgaria (Demir Baba near Razgrad), and Albania (in and around Kruja). Until the 17th century, the Bektashi had not achieved significant success in their attempts to penetrate the Balkans, primarily due to the efforts of Ottoman authorities to eradicate every trace of the tariqa.

Bektashi Beliefs and Rural Spread

The Bektashi’s beliefs are unique in the Balkans. They follow Twelve Imams, just like Shi’a Muslims do, but also the Fourteen Innocents, who died with Imam Hussain. In addition to five daily prayers, Bektashi Muslims have another two specific prayers. Otherwise, they share similar aspects with other Sufi orders, apart from being devout Shi’a followers who practice the commemoration of Ashura and the celebration of Nowruz. Their mystical interpretation of Islam is somewhat syncretistic, as they include ritual meals and the yearly confession of sins to a spiritual leader, which are not a part of Islamic tradition.

The Bektashi order formed the “left-wing” of the Sufi spectrum in the Balkans. A persistent pro-Shia attitude and usually very hostile attitude towards the authority of their Sheikhs (babas) helped them to gain influence in rural and suburban areas throughout Greece, southern Albania, and Macedonia. Broad-mindedness and the ability to absorb local customs are two qualities that enabled the Bektashi dervishes to draw in the rustic elements of the population with whom they easily connected. Like them, the Bulgarian Kizilbash (descendants of heterodox Shiite Turkmen clans who fled from Anatolia and settled in Bulgaria) quickly incorporated many Bektashi holy men into their holy auspices.

Bektashi in Cities, Janissary Networks, and the Albanian Heartland

The Bektashi order found little interest in other parts of the Balkans, such as Bosnia and Herzegovina, and large urban centers. Their activities in these areas were significantly reduced by the supremacy of the parent streams of the religious authorities and were mostly limited to the Janissary barracks. The tekkes, established because of the Ottoman presence, began to disappear after the “beginning of the end,” just after 1683. Several prominent tekkes existed in Budapest (home to the tomb of their founder, Gül Baba, which remains standing and open to visitors), Eger (also in Hungary, whose buildings still evoke their former glory), Belgrade, and Banja Luka.

Despite the retreat from Hungary and Slavonia, the Bektashi order strengthened its foundations in Albania and Greece after the abolition of the janissary corps and the outlawing of the tariqas in 1826. Many Bektashi nuns and dervishes fled to the border and sheltered in areas of the Balkans, far from Ottoman rule. During that period (especially after the decree abolishing all Bektashi activities in 1860), the tariqa established itself mainly in southern Albania. By the end of Ottoman rule in 1912, there were approximately one hundred Bektashi tekkes in the central and western Balkans, predominantly in Albanian areas.

Qadiriyya in the Balkans: Arrival and Early Spread

At the beginning of the 17th century, two more tariqas, the Qadiriyya and the Mawlawiyyah, arrived in the Balkans, and both would play a vital role in the spiritual life of the region. The Qadiriyah order began its activities from its “base” in Istanbul at the initiative of Shaykh Isma’il Rumi (d. 1631). Until 1660, it was possible to find Qadiri in Prizren (the tekke of Kuril, Sheikh Hassan Khorasani), in Berat (the tekke of Sheikh Ahmed), in Skopje (the tekke of Aldi Sultan), in Sarajevo (the tekke of Haji Sinan), in Gasoutna (the tekke of Delikli Baba), and in other large urban centers.

Qadiriyya in Bosnia: Tekkes, Scholars, and 19th-Century Revival

The Qadiriyya order took deep root in Bosnia thanks to the work of Sheikh Hasan Qa’imi Baba (d. 1691). This prolific writer and man of distinguished wit and intellect was the head of at least two Qadiri tekke in Sarajevo before his open involvement in local political issues, which led to his expulsion from the city. The Qadiriyya order continued to function throughout the entire Ottoman Sultanate, and its activity experienced an additional boost at the end of the 19th century.

At that time, two prominent and notable Sheikhs, Mehmed Sezai and Haji Kadri (both Albanians and highly educated scholars), revitalized the order in Kosovo, Bosnia, and to a lesser extent, Macedonia. After their return from studying Shari’ah in Istanbul, Haji Kadri (b. 1936), who received his ijazah (authority) in the Qadiriyah tariqa from the famous Turkish Sheikh Mehmed Emin Tarsusi, established a very well-connected network of his proxies throughout the entire area from Travnik in Bosnia to Peshkopi in eastern Albania.

The Qadiriyyah Order is renowned in Northern and Western Africa, but it lacks a central authority. Every regional Quadiriyyah order is free to interpret traditions and practices as it sees fit. They follow certain spiritual chains, but these are also primarily individual. Thus, Qadiriyyah in the Balkans may look quite different from the historical experiences of Qadiriyyah tekkes elsewhere in the Muslim world.

Mawlawiyyah: Urban Appeal, Sema, and Decline

Brotherhoods following the teachings of the great mystic Jalaluddin Rumi also arrived at the same time. In only fifty years, the Mawlawiyyah order established noteworthy tekkes in Plovdiv, Serres, Thessaloniki, Elbasan, Skopje, Belgrade, Pécs, and Sarajevo. Thanks to this tariqa’s highly sophisticated external manifestations, its appeal remained limited mainly to urban areas and the cultural elite.

World famous for its whirling dervishes, this tariqa is dedicated to the study of the Qur’an and the poet Rumi’s works, as well as unification with God, initiation conversations led by a Sheikh, the whirling ceremony (sema), dhikr, and the development of courtesy and mindfulness.

During the Ottoman era, numerous Balkan Mawlawi dervishes and Sheikhs were among the finest literati of the Sultanate. Personalities like Habib Deda (b. 1643), Fevzi Mostarac (b. 1707), and Fazil Pasha Šerifović (b. 1882) left a lasting mark on Ottoman religious literature. In addition to all that, due to the limited appeal of the order, the Mawlawiyyah disappeared from the Balkans soon after the Ottomans left the area. The few remaining Mawlawiyyah were under attack after Atatürk ordered the closure of their center in Konya. The last functioning Mevlevi establishment in the Balkans was located in the city of Skopje, Macedonia. It was destroyed in 1950 after its previous Sheikh, Hakkı Dede, left for Turkey.

Smaller Orders: The Sufism That Once Was

During the Ottoman Era, several smaller tariqas established their organizations, but certainly on a much smaller scale. The brotherhood of Haji-Bayram Veli (d. 1430) built its tekkes throughout the Balkans in places like Skopje, Sofia, and Shkodra. Like them, two offshoots of the Bayramiyyah, Jalwatiyyah, and Malamiyyah orders achieved almost the same success. In the late 19th century, Malamiyyah achieved some success in Kosovo and Macedonia, thanks to the efforts and charisma of the Egyptian Sheikh Muhammad Nur ul-‘Arabi (d. 1897).

The Hamzawiyyah Movement and Its Suppression

Much earlier than the mentioned offshoots, the Bayramiyyah order was founded by the Bosnian Sheikh Hamza Bali (d. 1573). Through his advocacy of what appears to have been a highly nonconformist interpretation of Islam, and under the strong influence of Hurufi doctrines, he gained broad support throughout the entire eastern Bosnia region along the Drina River valley. This movement caused understandable alarm among conventional religious authorities and the Ottoman administration.

As a result, the Balkan “ulama” began to show undisguised hostility towards the Hamzawiyyah. Finally, Hamza Bali’s open criticism of the Ottoman government increased the disquiet of the regime. Based on the instructions of the fatwa issued for this movement, Hamza Bali was arrested, taken to Istanbul for trial, and sentenced to death. His followers were forced into some form of illegal activity, while the remaining Sheikhs and leading men were executed or exiled to remote parts of the Sultanate.

Sa’diyyah in the Balkans

Sa’diyyah tariqa, founded by Sheikh Sa’d al-Din Jibawi (d. 1330), first appeared in the Balkans in the second half of the 17th century, primarily thanks to the efforts of Sheikh Ajizi Baba, who was originally an Albanian from northern Albania. He built the central tekke in Prizren, where the Sa’diyyah spread throughout Albania. The Sa’diyyah are still active in this part of the Balkan Peninsula. However, their apparent manifestations in the modern era are reminiscent of, and indeed have been eclipsed by, the more numerous and influential Bektashi and their rites and customs.

Rifa’iyyah, Shadhiliyyah, and Badawiyya: Sufism with Arabic Origins

Another tariqa of Arab origin, Rifa’iyyah, arrived in the Balkans in two separate waves. The first, in the late 1700s, was limited only to the territory of Macedonia and Bulgaria and was the result of the efforts of numerous Arab Sheikhs. The second wave arrived in the second half of the 19th century. Only then was this tariqa established on solid foundations as an order with an essential spiritual influence in the Balkans.

Founded by Ahmed ar-Rifa’i in southern Iraq, this tariqa includes some unusual practices, such as the penetration of the face with needles. Their dhikr includes playing with fire, and some include live snakes in their ceremonies.

This appearance of the Rifa’iyyah resulted from the activities of Sheikh Musa Muslih al-Din from Kosovo (d. 1917). During his life, a strong network of followers and tekkes was established, both in his native Kosovo and in northern Albania. Like the Qadiri Sheikh Haji Kadri, Sheikh Musa maintained close contacts and ties with the Muslims of Bosnia and Herzegovina at the time when it was under the Austro-Hungarian occupation and even managed to establish a small Rifa’i community in Sarajevo.

The other two Arab tariqas, Shadhiliyyah (famous for its diverse spiritual chains deriving from Prophet Muhammad’s grandsons Hassan and Hussain) and Badawiyyah (stemming from Egypt), remained attached to one tekke each in Kosovo and Bulgaria and have almost completely disappeared from this area, although one Badawi tekke branch is still active today in Sarajevo under the leadership of Sheikh Zakir Bektić, who acquired his expertise while living in North Africa.