Loading...In order to get to the question of what motivated my book The Orthdox Corruption of Scripture, and to explain more fully what the book was about, I have spent three posts talking about the terms “orthodoxy” and “heresy” and why they are problematic; in doing so I have been explaining both the traditional view of the relationship of orthodoxy and heresy (as found, for example, in the writings of Eusebius) and the view set forth, in opposition, by Walter Bauer. Several readers have asked where we now stand on the issue, some 80years after Bauer’s intervention.
As I indicated in my last post, there are some problems with Bauer’s analysis, but also much positive to say about it. Conservative scholars continue to hold to a more traditional view (e.g., conservative Roman Catholic and evangelical scholars); others find it *basically* convincing, even if they would write the details up very differently from Bauer.
I am very much, and rather enthusiastically ….
THE REST OF THIS POST IS FOR MEMBERS ONLY. If you don’t belong yet, JOIN UP!!! You will be eternally grateful!
I would dearly love to discover is whole manuscripts (if I had the health, money, &education/experience!) t1st century writings from the earliest of years. I wonder how different they would be to our N T writings & the various sources that we know about, e.g. “Q” & ones we don’t know about!
Have you read Andreas Kostenberger and Michael Kruger’s, “The Heresy of Orthodoxy”? I read part of it and recall them going into depth in regards to Egypt, other locations and whatnot.
I’ve only read parts of it (and they didn’t say anything unexpected)
hello bart
was there any sect or group of christians who believed mother of jesus to be god because i read some are saying
Maryamites were heretics sect who took mary as god
thank you
None that I know of.
Suggestion for those interested: “Heretics: The Creation of Christianity from the Gnostics to the Modern Church” by Jonathan Wright 2011 Houghton Mifflin Harcourt
And, to a previous commenter to the July 3 posting: Elaine Pagels’ book “Revelations: Visions, Prophecy, and Politics in the Book of Revelation” (2012) indeed is terrific.
Well, yes, I can easily imagine that, “There are almost NEVER discoveries of previously *unknown* [emphasis added] orthodox writings.” To my mind though, that would not necessarily support Bauer’s thesis over Eusibius’s. I’m certainly open to Bauer’s thesis. But, since I presume that orthodox (or, if you prefer, proto-orthodox) manuscripts have been better preserved, I would think the comparison should be between the discovery of orthodox and heretical manuscripts, whether or not the writings were previously unknown.
Many thanks, Bart! 🙂
You’ve mentioned a lot of heresiologists arguing against the positions in writings they didn’t agree with, but how actively would the Proto-orthodox church have been in the actual destruction of texts they found objectionable? For example, when Serapion did his about face on the Gospel of Peter?
We don’t have a record of any book burnings by Xn leaders before the fourth century, that I can think of off th etop of my head.
Philo of Alexandria, born 25 BCE, died 50 CE. I’m sorry but an early Christianity should have shown up from 30 – 49 CE in Philo’s world. No oral tradition, no Christian Gnostic text get’s on Philo’s radar–even with you saying books could make it to Alexandria in weeks. And why wouldn’t Paul go to Alexandria?
I think if you will read Philo you will notice that he does not talk about lots, lots, and lots of things going on in his day. And I’m afraid we don’t know what motivated Paul to develop the itinerary as he did, but my guess is that he wanted to go to urban locations in close proximity to one another to reach the most people possible.
Thank you.
What about the first century? Next post I guess.
Hey Professor Ehrman 🙂
Citing The Heresy of Orthodoxy (http://www.amazon.com/The-Heresy-Orthodoxy-Contemporary-Understanding/dp/1433501430), a friend of mine stated:
“If you’re presenting Ehrman as part of a critique against the reliability of the New Testament, then you have no basis for the reliability of ANY text before the invention of the printing press.
Further, if you don’t apply Ehrman’s demands to other texts from antiquity, then you’re simply misreading Ehrman. You aren’t properly applying his demands of the New Testament to any other text of antiquity, but then Ehrman doesn’t do this either.”
How would you respond to this?
Love your work!
Kind wishes 🙂
Yes, this critic is absolutely right: if you depend on knowing exactly what the words of ancient book were (the way conservative Christians rely on knowing exactly what hte words of the Bible were), you’re out of luck. What is true of the Bible is true of all ancient books. Scholars realize that we simply cannot know for certainty the author’s own words in places, sometimes lots of places. So yes, you absolutely have to apply the same criteria to every text of the ancient world. For real scholars, this goes without saying.
An acquaintance of mine gave me a book to read called Truth Matters. I wasn’t aware when he handed it to me that it’s mainly about the (insinuating biased and unethical) methods you use in the classroom that impress upon young minds. It states in the beginning it’s not about you, but your name is brought up at least a dozen times so far, and I’m just starting chapter 2! Ha! Since one of the authors, Kostenberger, congratulated his daughter on graduating from Chapel Hill, I’m thinking she took your class.
Anyway, the ironic thing is that when I was 19 years old, no one could persuade me of anything when it came to my faith. I was very stubborn about it. I actually attempted to take a class that was an introduction to the Old Testament when I was 18, and as soon as the professor said the story of Jonah was fiction, I thought he was deceived by Satan. He also went on and on about ABABAB…I have no idea what he was talking about. It was too far over my head. I dropped the class because I thought he was Satan incarnated. Such a shame because he was probably a very good teacher now that I look back on it.
How funny. I have not heard of the book!
Is “The Orthodox Corruption…” a trade book? If not, is it suitable for non-advanced students?
No, it’s a scholarly book. But I wrote it so that non-experts could read parts of it (I explain what to read in the Preface) without having to get down into the weeds. The Introduction, Conclusion, and intro and conclusion of each chapter work perfectly well for someone doesn’t know Greek or textual criticism.