Loading...In recent posts I gave brief overviews of issues from the earliest centuries of Christianity that would take (and have taken) entire books to cover in adequate length — Christian relations with Jews and their relationship to hostile outsiders (persecutions). In this post I deal with the third key antagonistic social situation that arose early on in the faith, the relationship of “orthodox” Christians with “heretics.”
For long-time readers of the blog, this will probably be more familiar territory — I’ve dealt with related issues a lot; but whether you have a firm grasp on the matter or no grasp at all, here is a nutshell discussion to provide some of the basics one should probably know.
Again, this is
Get access to Dr. Ehrman's library of 4,000+ articles plus five new articles per week about the New Testament and early Christianity. It costs as little as $2.99/mth and every cent goes to charity!
Unlock 4,000+ Articles Like This!
Hello Bart. I find that your recent posts on persecution and now on heresy are somewhat related. The persecuted became the persecutors to put it bluntly. The Albigensian Crusades might be an example although they were some 900 years after the period you are describing. Was this level of persecution a medieval phenomenon or did it begin earlier on a smaller scale? Did the early church fathers have anything to say about how to treat (or convert) heretics? Thanks.
Oh yes. False teachers have been around as long as “True” (?) teachers. Normally they are argued with and disproven — going back to Paul on to Ignatius, to Irenaeus, Terutullian, Origen, … and away we go! Theodosius I, emperor at the end of the fourth century, more or less outlawed all Xty except Nicene Christianity, which did lead to persecutions. The insistence on one correct truth became intense (as the debates became more specific, narrow, and focused) and … well, eventually it led to the Inquisitions.
“apostolic succession” means more than a mere transmission of powers. It is succession in a church which witnesses to the apostolic faith, in communion with the other churches, witnesses of the same apostolic faith. The “see plays an important role in inserting the bishop into the heart of ecclesial apostolicity”, but once ordained, the bishop becomes in his church the guarantor of apostolicity and becomes a successor of the apostles.
Ignatius wrote 107AD:
See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Ignatius:Smyrnaeans,8:1
Unlike today, a person couldn’t say I have a scripture therefore I’m going to start a church. They absolutely had to be chosen/ordained by succeeding lineage from the apostles and serve a probationary period. This insured consistency in doctrine and tradition(Baptism and Eucharist).
Irenaeus(Against Heresies:bk.III,ch.1-4)and Tertullian(Prescription Against Heretics,ch.20,21) declared that if a person or their teaching can’t be traced to the Apostles then it is “Ipso Facto False.” That was the litmus test.
I totally get your point about the victors re-wiring history, but don’t think it applies here.
Early, early, early Christianity was tasked with preserving apostolic teaching and defending the gospel against heretics(Philippians 1:7,17). Paul wrote, “if anyone, even an angel, preach a different gospel from the one we gave you, let them be accursed”(Galatians 1:6-9). John addressed the Gnostic claim that Jesus didn’t have a material/physical body(1st John 1:1-3), and that there is no such thing as sin (1st John 1:7-10). Heretics were called out by name(Acts8:8-24, 1st Timothy 1:18-20, 2nd Timothy 2:17,18). The church was delegated with identifying heretics and avoiding them(Romans 16:17,18, Titus 1:10,11, 3:10,11), and emphasizing to teach “No other doctrine” than apostolic doctrine(1st Timothy1:3,10, 4:1,2,6,13,16, 5:17, 6:1,3, 2nd Timothy 4:2-4). The church was called to “Earnestly contend for the faith”(Jude1:3). Ignatius confirmed this, and all of this was centuries before Eusebius.
Again, the litmus test was always, “If a teaching can’t be traced to the apostles [via apostolic succession] then it is Ipso Facto False.”
Yes, that was the standard, but unsupportable, test. When we see the significant number of ‘apostolic teachings’ that directly conflict with each other, there is no useful test for heresy.
Could part of a teaching ‘traced to an apostle’ be considered heretical in some of the conflicting teachings? Determinations of which gospels/books/letters were ‘apostolic’ were largely opinion-based and Rome’s influences (and selective inclusions/exclusions of bishops in councils), over time, became difficult to argue against (see Ramsey MacMullen’s “Voting About God in Early Church Councils”.)
Was the “Gospel of Peter” and/or Thomas’ Sayings Gospel apostolic teachings?? They certainly were for a time in some places. Can we ‘prove’ that any of the four gospels in the NT can be traced directly to a specific apostle source? Or might some of the gospel teachings have been built upon the memories of the faithful women followers or from later personalized interpretations? Difficult questions.
Rezubler you said, “the significant number of ‘apostolic teachings’ that directly conflict with each other.” I’d like to know what those “significant number” of conflicting teachings are? Are they essential tenants or peripheral issues?
Remember that G-Peter, G-T, Ignatius, Hermas, Didache, Polycarp, Barnabas, Clement and other ancient writings were kept and taught from in the founding churches, but were never considered scripture (Polycarp to the Philippians 13:2 shows how they collected writings considered of value).
Again, please see my earlier point,
“Irenaeus(Against Heresies:bk.III,ch.1-4)and Tertullian(Prescription Against Heretics,ch.20,21) declared that if a person or their teaching can’t be traced to the Apostles then it is “Ipso Facto False.” That was the litmus test.”
Read Irenaeus(Against Heresies:bk.III, 4:1
“Since therefore we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek the truth among others which it is easy to obtain from the Church; since the apostles, like a rich man depositing his money in a bank, lodged in her hands most copiously all things pertaining to the truth: so that every man, whosoever will, can draw from her the water of life.” Are we more insightful than them 1,800 years later?
“This “Eusebian” view was accepted for many centuries because the groups that supported other perspectives were squashed by the winning group by the time the Roman Empire converted to Christianity.”
I’d be interested to hear more about this squashing. Was it a propaganda war? Do we know of cases where it turned violent?
There began to be legislation against heretical groups by the time of Theodosius I, end of fourth century. Ultimately, this sense that there wsa only ONE Christian truth is what led a millenium later to the Inquisitions.
The most glaring historical censorship that I see is the edict of Constantine to burn and destroy all of the writings of Arius (325ad). And what about Porphyry? Who decided that his work “Against the Christians” needed to be eliminated? (270ad) However, I don’t think this censoring distorts the truth. The early credal statements in Paul and the earliest creeds simplify the truth for the ancient and modern inquisitive. They confirm what was always embraced through apostolic succession. Study Christian orthodoxy history; Antiochian, Coptic, Greek Orthodox churches etc…. they confirm apostolic doctrine long before the battle for orthodoxy against heresy heated up.
Remember, Paul’s writings were considered scripture by the Muratorian document 150-170ad, Polycarp to the Philippians, 12:1 107ad, and 2nd Peter 3:15,16 (before his death 64ad). Also, Rome didn’t force it’s religion on Christians, Christianity pursueded Rome about its beliefs.
Where did you find a decree of Constantine ordering the burning of Arius’s writings?
I revisited your blog:
You Call *This* a Heresy? The Views of Arius
April 25, 2021
Rowan Williams notes that Constantine ordered “that Arius’s works be treated like those of Porphyry: they are to be burnt[‘handed over to the flames’], and anyone who does not surrender copies in his possession is to be executed.”
Answering your question about source information:
Socrates Scholasticus, Ecclesiastical History
(Book 1, Chapter 9):This is the primary and most cited source for the text of Constantine’s edict. Socrates, a 5th-century historian, preserved the letter’s text, which explicitly commands that Arius’s books be “handed over to the flames” and threatens the “penalty of death” for those who hide them.
Athanasius of Alexandria, De decretis Nicaenae synodi
(39.1–2): Athanasius, a contemporary of Constantine and the chief opponent of Arius, also refers to these imperial actions and preserves fragments of the edict.
Gelasius of Cyzicus, Syntagma
(2.36.1): This later 5th-century work also contains a copy of the edict.
This seems logical and highly likely to me, seeing that most(all?) of Arius’ writings, which were extremely well known, didn’t survive(Thalia).
Thanks.
Thank you Dr Ehrman. I (and friends of mine) have often wondered what the original Christianity actually was? It probably wasn’t Gnosticism and couldn’t have been Marcionitism. So was it Jewish Christianity, or perhaps Pauline Christianity? Paul was pretty early but can we be sure that his letters say what they originally said? In another post, you said that high Christologies may have occurred early on (or words to that effect) so that rules out the low Christology of the Ebionites. So can we ever know what really was the original Christianity?
It wsa none of the above. Christianity was originally, around 30 CE or so, a small group of Jews who came to believe that Jesus was the messiah who was crucified for the sins of the world and raised from the dead. All other Christian groups go back to this Jewish sect.
Just. Thought… but, it strikes me as .. ironic (?).. that early Hebrew tradition/Judaism seems to use Abraham to justify turning away from human sacrifice and those early Jesus sect Jews return to it to , l guess, explain why God allowed the crucifixion….
What you believe does matter, and there are many limiting beliefs in different religions and the bible (old & new) along with empowering beliefs.
I changed my beliefs. I believe in reincarnation (rising from the dead) and I don’t think I am the only one who can rise from the dead (both in this life by changing beliefs and rise in my next life ). Resurrection of the body could be changing your beliefs while alive and reincarnation could be your soul being reborn in the future, different body.
I don’t think I believed I was the only one.
“Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 19:14)
One set of beliefs that will empower you. Other beliefs you learn disempower you,
You have the ability to renew your mind and change your learned limiting beliefs to empowering ones.
“The king rose, and with him the governor and Bernice and those sitting with them.” Acts 26:30
“To the one who is victorious, I will give the right to eat from the tree of life, which is in the paradise of God.” Revelation 2:7
Thank you,
Bernice (Victorious)
Hello, Bernice. I invite you to read (again with “fresh” eyes) the second (2nd) chapter of Romans. It is about a curious phenomenon called “imparting righteousness”. The latter half of the chapter describes GOD “imparting righteousness” to unbelievers because of their “acceptable service”. The flip side of that coin is that GOD is not “imparting righteousness” to believers because of their “unacceptable service”. Paul called it the NEW COVENANT. It was “new” in being revealed, but it was not new in application. Paul called it “good news”. Scholars have called it “the Finished Work of the Cross”. The New Covenant superseded and transcended SPACE and TIME. Evangelism is unnecessary. The Plan of Salvation is unnecessary. The Sinner’s Prayer is unnecessary. The local “church” is unnecessary. DON’T COMMIT THE UNPARDONABLE SIN. DON’T BLASPHEME THE SPIRIT OF GOD. This is the criteria, not faith. Have a good day. God bless you.
Hey Bart, I have a question about James 4:5. The different translations of the verse seem to express differing ideas. For example, ESV translates the verse to, “Or do you suppose it is to no purpose that the Scripture says, “He yearns jealously over the spirit that he has made to dwell in us”?” while KJV translates it to, “Do ye think that the scripture saith in vain, The spirit that dwelleth in us lusteth to envy?”.
I’ve read that the quote the author of James references isn’t actually found anywhere in scripture. What do scholars generally believe is meant by this verse? Thanks.
A literal transltion would b that “Or do you think that the Scripture says in vain, ‘He longs jealously for the spirit that dwells in you'”. And yes, we do not know which “Scripture” he is quoting. Based on the context, I think he is saying that God wants our spirit to be aligned with him rather than being in opposition to him by siding with “the world”
Hello Dr.Bart Erhman
Is it possible that Jesus did not die on a Friday but he died like on a Tuesday or something. Is it possible that Friday was just made up because it fitted the Tomb burrial story. The storytellers needed him to be burried and not left on the cross also i think it is very possible because times are the first to go in Oral tradision.
Any hypothesis would be possible and needs to be considered. As always, the question would be what the evidence is — that is, why should we think so. The hurried burial would work on any day, since the burial was to be done before sunset.
Hello, Karl. I heard that 20 years ago from three sources. There are two “Sabbaths”. There is the weekly “sabbath” and there are the five special days, the High “Sabbaths”. Jesus was crucified before Passover (a High Sabbath) and the resurrection was after the weekly sabbath. Have a good day. God bless you.
Were there any early heresies using Jeremiah 31:22 to claim Christ will come again in the form of a woman?
None that I know of.
Thinking about heresies got me thinking about traditional pictures of Jesus being considered heretical. It seems to me that the standard Christian picture of Jesus with long hair should be considered heretical among Christians since it contradicts 1 Corinthians 11. That raises the question as to why the popular portrayals of Jesus always have him with long hair. Is it because long hair is typically a feminine quality and Christians wanted to project an image of Jesus with the kind of love that women typically have but men don’t? Wikipedia says images of Jesus with long hair only started appearing after the edict of Milan in 313 CE. Bart, what are your thoughts on this and why do you think the long hair look came to dominate?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_look
Heresy normally has to do with doctrinal views rather than cultural practices. The earliest depictions are from the third century and show him with short hair (as in the Good Shepherd portrayals). I don’t think we have picture of him with long hair until a couple of centuries later. Seems like I used ot know why the long hair came into fashion — but now I can’t recall!
The doctrine in 1 Corinthians 11 is that men should have short hair. This is another example of Christian theology being defined in ways that contradict the New Testament.
Although I am a Christian, I do not personally hold a Trinitarian view. When I learned that the so-called Comma Johanneum in 1 John 5 is widely regarded as a later insertion, I felt that my intuition on that point might not have been entirely misplaced.
When I read the Gospels, I sometimes wonder whether the writings that eventually became part of the New Testament were preserved not only because certain theological positions came to dominate in the early church, but also because, among the literate and educated Christians who handled such texts, these Gospels simply appeared more reasonable or credible than other writings.
I understand that the formation of the canon was influenced by emerging majority views within early Christianity. Yet given the low literacy rates of the ancient world, might the process have reflected the judgment of a relatively small educated minority, rather than being merely the result of purely political or institutional struggles?
Yes, I think the decisions were made by and large by the church leaders who tended to be among the educated minority, but that is not necessarily at odds with their decisions being determined by a range of issues, theological, political, and institutional. “More reasonable” and “more credible” are themselves connected with theology for most Christians, I would say.
EXCELLENT! I commend you that you resist the social pressure. I accept the EMPTY TOMB. Everything else is details.
Ah, so ‘orthodox’ means US and ‘heretic’ means THEM? 😉
Yup. Orthodoxy is my doxy and heterodoxy is your doxy.
I was weak aug 1998 AKA spiritually dependent, but the S American preacher in HK exhibition hall wAS PURPOSLY pushing me down hard. FGBMFI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwMjiBIK2C4
what do you thinkof steve martin’s leap of faith- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Popoff
10:39 Peter Popoff
I’ve been persecuted, expelled & falsely accused by church leadership & I say nothing.