A reader writes:
Firstly I’ve noticed that Jerry Usher hasn’t been on Catholic Answers
Live much lately. I hope things are okay.
Oh, yeah. Everything’s fine. Jerry was just helping local radio stations with their pledge drives. I was filling in as host some while he was gone. He’s back now, though (until his next round of helping stations).
Anyway, I have recently read that some early Christian writers felt
that on the basis of the narrative in Acts 5 in which the Rabban
Gamaliel defended Peter and others before the Sanhendrin that Gamaliel
was baptized and was to be considered a saint.Needless to say as a Jew I find this rather disturbing. Gamaliel is
probably on of the more revered scholars of the Second Temple period
(right up there with his grandfather Hillel) and is quoted at length
in Talmud.So my question is, what actually is the Church position on Gamaliel’s
alleged baptism and sainthood?
The Church doesn’t have a position on either.
Being a saint, of course, means being in heaven (in this sense of the term), and the Church would certainly hope that Gamaliel’s there (like it hopes for everyone), but Gamaliel is not a canonized saint. Neither is he included in the current edition of the Roman Martyrology, which–in addition to saints canonized by popes–also includes many individuals listed as saints due to popular acclaim in earlier ages of the Church.
As the reader may be aware, in the early centuries of the Church, individuals were designated saints by popular acclaim. That is, if enough people regarded them as saints, they came to be officially so-regarded. (Much like Mother Theresa would be if the Church didn’t now have an official canonization process.) Eventually, bishops got in the act of regulating this popular devotion to individuals who had passed on, and in the fullness of time the pope got involved, as well. There was thus a migration upwards from popular acclaim to papal canonization as the criterion for recognition as someone who made it into heaven.
The thing about papal canonizations is that they are infallible, whereas merely episcopal acts or popular acclaim is not. The other thing about papal canonizations is that they are much slooooooower, and so since the popes took control of the process of designating saints, there have been a lot less of them. The vast majority of individuals listed in the Roman Martyrology (the Church’s official book of saints and blesseds) got there by popular acclaim rather than papal canonization.
Now, the thing is, the reader is correct that there was in early (but not first century) times a devotion to Gamaliel as a saint. This was, no doubt, based on his tolerant attitude towards the early Christian movement, as recorded in the book of Acts, and so some in the post-apostolic age concluded that he must have been a secret Christian, like Nicodemus was, which would also mean that he was baptized and–since he was a figure mentioned in the New Testament and someone who was opposed to the persecution of the early Church–that led to the inference that he must also have made it to heaven, and he came to be regarded as a saint.
That’s not enough, of course. The historical evidence is too thin to make such claims.
For a start, Gamaliel is not stated in the New Testament to be a disciple of Jesus (as Nicodemus was stated to be). He crops up twice (once when he counsels against persecuting the Church and once when he is mentioned as the teacher of St. Paul), and in neither case are we given to understand that he was a disciple of Christ–secret or otherwise. In the absence of other evidence, he should be taken as what the New Testament presents him as: a non-Christian Jewish individual who, though not a believer in Jesus as the Messiah, had a tolerant attitude toward Christians.
Now, it would be possible for someone to show up in the New Testament and not be mentioned as a Christian even though he became one (for example, after the writing of the book–Acts–that mentions him), and knowledge of that situation could have been passed down and then recorded in the writings of the post-apostolic age, but this is not at all likely in the case of Gamaliel.
The reason is that Gamaliel was a Jewish religious leader of note, and if he had become a Christian then it would be quite unlikely that he is handled the way he is in the Talmud. It would be much more probable that he would have been listed as someone who became a heretic.
Indeed, Gamaliel is recorded as having "a certain disciple" who is presented in the Talmud as scoffing at Gamaliel’s teaching. This student student is often thought to be a veiled reference to St. Paul (though it may not be). If so, it would apply at least a later deagreement between the two doctrinally.
In any event, if Gamaliel had become a Christian, we’d know about it from Jewish sources.
This line of reasoning, however, was not appreciated in the early centuries, when the two communities weren’t on the best of terms–and when the Internet hadn’t been invented, making looking stuff up a problem–and so the Christians who came to regard Gamaliel as a saint may be seen as making a human–though flawed–inference about him.
The number of them was great enough that Gamaliel was listed as a saint for a time in the Roman Martyrology, and as recently as 1956 (SEE HERE FOR THE 1956 EDITION’S MENTION OF HIM), but he was subsequently de-listed, and the present edition of the Roman Martyrology does not mention him.
One of the reasons for that, no doubt, was a greater sensitivity to the kind of concern that the reader expresses, though that by itself wouldn’t have been enough to get him de-listed. If there was solid evidence he became a Christian then the Church would have kept him as a saint, despite it being a potential sore spot interreligiously. The bottom line, though, is that the evidence does not point to Gamaliel having become a Christian, and that’s the controlling factor.
“The thing about papal canonizations is that they are infallible, whereas merely episcopal acts or popular acclaim is not.”
Jimmy, where do you get this?
All of my reading about this issue indicates that it is the act of “raising to the altars of the universal church” that makes for the infallibly dependable sanctity of someone, not the process by which they got there.
In other words, we have a feast day for St. Jerome that is celebrated universally by all the faithful. The Church would not COMMAND us to venerate such a person and ask their intercession at Mass–God would not ALLOW such a command–unless they really were in heaven.
Do you really think that we can depend on the intercession of St. Vincent de Paul in a way that we cannot depend on the intercession of Sts. Felicity and Perpetua? Or am I somehow misunderstanding you?
Apparently there IS pious tradition that Gamaliel was baptized. There is also an Orthodox tradition of veneration an archangel of the same name.
http://conversiaddominum.blogspot.com/2006/08/st-gamaliel.html
http://monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?t=2743
It is a little bothersome to me that the author of this question to Jimmy finds it “Needless to say as a Jew I find this rather disturbing. Gamaliel is probably on of the more revered scholars of the Second Temple period (right up there with his grandfather Hillel) and is quoted at length in Talmud. “
Why is it disturbing? Is Gamaliel LESS of a scholar or less of a personage to be honored and admired in Judaism?
Because, from the Jewish point of view, if Gamaliel had become a Christian, he would be a heretic. It would be wrong to venerate a heretic. We don’t do it, either.
Bill,
What about Sts. Peter and Paul? they’re ‘heretics,’ and yet we venerate them.
Never mind. re-read your post, this time in context.
Jimmy, that’s really fascinating history. I hadn’t known that there was such speculation (whether correct or not) about Gamaliel in the early church, but I can certainly see why.
I was just reading that part of Acts the other day and remembered that Gamaliel’s logic in dissuading the Sanhedrin was critiqued in the theologian Gordon H. Clark’s book, _Logic_. Clark doesn’t think much of his reasoning here, but William Barclay’s _Daily Study Bible_ commentary keeps it in context and defends the logic well.
The Ethiopian Orthodox considers Pontius Pilate a Saint, the story is that he converted and was martyred. This seems to go beck to the 6th Century.
It’s nice that such an important figure in Judaism is portrayed in a positive light in the Bible. This could be something to bring up when people claim the Bible is anti-semitic.
The Ethiopian Orthodox considers Pontius Pilate a Saint, the story is that he converted and was martyred. This seems to go beck to the 6th Century.
Dr. Eric:
Were you being serious here or pulling our legs (i.e., Belated April Fools)?
St. Pontius Pilate, Pray For Us.
— Doesn’t quite have a nice ring to it.
From what I’ve read it’s true.
The Orthodox have Canonized his wife Procula.
They’ve (EO) Canonized Constantine as well.
This was a long time ago mind you.
WHOA!
Learned something new!
For a minute there, I thought that comment was meant only in jest! ;^)
Thanks, Dr. Eric!
Of course, many patriarchs, prophets, et al are on the list of saints. But I would guess that this doesn’t go in the same pile, because they died before Christ’s death, descent into hell, and bringing out of the patriarchs, et al.
(Although obviously Moses, Elijah, and Enoch are in another category – the assumed folks.)
can we assume Moses was assumed?
If you can, you can.
can we assume Moses was assumed?
Only Elijah and Mary were assumed into Heaven.
The former according to Old Testament Scripture whereas the latter according to Christian Tradition.
What about Enoch?
Gn 5:23-24
23And all the days of Enoch were three hundred and sixty-five years. 24And he walked with God, and was seen no more: because God took him. (DRC)
DJ:
When Scripture says that Enoch lived a total of 365 years and then God took him away, it means he died.
However, in regards to Elijah, it actually says:
2 KINGS 2:11
11 And as they went on, walking and talking together, behold, a fiery chariot and fiery horses parted them both asunder: and Elias went up by a whirlwind into heaven.
Esau, there’s a Jewish tradition that when Moses died, an angel and a devil fought for his body, and then Moses’s body was taken to heaven. It’s mentioned in the New Testament.
Jude 9- Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.
I might add that the assumption of Moses actually makes a lot of sense, as well as Elijah, given that the apostles witness them glorified in conversation with the glorified Christ in the Transfiguration. So it’s got biblical support on two counts.
Eileen R.
Thanks for that info!!!
Esau, do you have documentation on the idea that Enoch died? I never heard that. A traditional Catholic belief that a priest on the EWTN Q&A forum insisted very vigorously on is that Enoch and Elijah were both assumed into an earthy paradise and will return and be martyred before the end of history.
Moses would be a different case because he actually died, but Enoch and Elijah never died so apparently they still need to.
Esau — if “Then Enoch walked with God, and he was no longer here, for God took him.” meant that he died, it is rather odd that for every other man in that chapter of Genesis, we are told that “The whole lifetime of N was n years; then he died.”
At the very least, something odd happened about Enoch.
Eileen R writes: “I might add that the assumption of Moses actually makes a lot of sense, as well as Elijah, given that the apostles witness them glorified in conversation with the glorified Christ in the Transfiguration. So it’s got biblical support on two counts.”
This of course is the Transfiguration. The Eastern take on the significance of it is that Elijah came down from the heavens and Moses came up from the “limbo of the Fathers” giving an iconic representation of what was to be – The living God was the God of the Living – death did not destroy that.
In and of itself, Moses’ appearance does not indicate that he was assumed into heaven.
“Because, from the Jewish point of view, if Gamaliel had become a Christian, he would be a heretic. It would be wrong to venerate a heretic. We don’t do it, either. “
“Either” being operative.
Jewish folks don’t have a status comparable to saint to venerate.
The Epistle to the Hebrews teaches that Enoch did not die. It provides the interpretion to the passage in discussion:
“By faith Enoch was taken up so that he should not see death; and he was not found, because God had taken him.” Hebrews 11:5
Consider also:
“Enoch pleased the Lord, and was taken up;
he was an example of repentance to all generations.” Sirach 44:16
“No one like Enoch has been created on earth,
for he was taken up from the earth.” Sirach 49:14
It’s hard to see how this is true if Enoch died like all the other patriarchs. His experience is spoken of as extraordinary, and the obvious sense is that he didn’t undergo the normal process of dying, but was preserved by the Lord and taken away somehwere.
Because, from the Jewish point of view, if Gamaliel had become a Christian, he would be a heretic. It would be wrong to venerate a heretic. We don’t do it, either.
Not that this furthers the conversation any, but Tertullian is an example of someone we don’t venerate as a saint, but would have if not for his falling into heresy(IMO.)
We here in Dallas are VERY grateful for Jerry Usher being here, a few wks ago, for our first official pledge drive for KATH, our brand-new EWTN station!
Thank you!!
Gang:
Sorry to burst Jimmy’s bubble, but Saint Gamaliel is still a Catholic saint. All of the 20+ Eastern Catholic Churches of the Byzantine Rite commemorate him on August 2.
A saint for one Catholic Church is a Saint of the entire Church, and so Gamaliel is indeed a Catholic Saint.
Pontius Pilate, BTW, was one of those saints removed from the Ethiopian calendar when the Ethiopian Catholic Church (Alexandrian Rite) came into existence some centuries ago. The Ethiopian Orthodox continue to venerate Pilate.
I don’t know if this legend is related, but there is a cross on a peak of Mount Pilatus in Switzerland, which is named for Pilate. When I was there, I was told that there was a legend that he eventually realized what he’d done and, suffering pangs of guilt, threw himself off the mountain on that spot.
Tim H., there was once this legend that Pilate commited suicide in Vienne. His corpse was thrown in the Tiber but the water wastroubled by evil spirits. Next they threw him in the Rhone but the waters also rejected him. Next to a lake in Lausanne, then to a mountain called Pilatus (Actually a corruption of the mountain’s real name ‘Pileatus’, ‘cloud-capped’)
Every Good Friday, Pilate’s corpse is said to reappear from the waters and wash its hands.
OOOOOOOOOOOH! Spooky!
I know this is an older topic, but, I HIGHLY suggest Anne Wroe’s book on Pontius Pilate, called “Pontius Pilate.” It’s really an amazing biography in my estimation, and, of course, functions in an oblique way as a study of Christ. I read it every year during Holy Week.
She mentions his sainthood in the East and many stories of his life A.D.
I know this is an older topic, but, I HIGHLY suggest Anne Wroe’s book on Pontius Pilate, called “Pontius Pilate.” It’s really an amazing biography in my estimation, and, of course, functions in an oblique way as a study of Christ. I read it every year during Holy Week.
She mentions his sainthood in the East and many stories of his life A.D.
Stephen:
I’m curious about this ‘stuff’ being said about Pontius Pilate since, to me, it doesn’t really make sense (at least, historically).
In fact, when Dr. Eric first mentioned it above, this was the very first time I had heard of it.
The reason why it strikes me as odd is because of the life Pilate had lead according to Roman record.
It was said that Pilate (presumably after having condemned Jesus to Crucifixion), he had actually massacred people in Samaria.
This is inconsistent with a saint who actually experienced conversion and shapes his life according to the Gospels (as St. Paul had).
I am actually curious if whether the massacre at Samaria was actually addressed in the book you read.
Thanks!
Esau,
St. Paul did lots of terrible stuff before his conversion. That doesn’t prevent him from being a great saint. If Pontius Pilate had been converted, even at his deathbed, that would have been an astounding victory for Christ which we should rejoice at. If it was not on his deathbed but rather some time before and he lived a holy life for his last years why not proclaim him a saint?
On the other hand this seems like it is just a baseless Ethiopian legend. That is unfortunate of course but it does help us fight charges of anti-semitism by having a gentile to condemn in the direct crucifixion of Jesus.