Loading...Are Christian “heresy” (that is, “false belief”) and “orthodoxy” (“right belief”) products of developments within Christianity after the New Testament? Or can they be detected in the New Testament itself? I’m not asking if the New Testament literally has false teachings. As per my definitions, I’m asking whether it contains views that disagree with one another, only some of which later came to be seen as acceptable.
In getting to that answer I have been discussing the views of Walter Bauer, in his classic work, Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity, who maintained that from the earliest of times, so far as we can tell from our surviving records, Christianity was not a single unitary thing with one set of doctrines that everyone believed (orthodoxy), except for occasional groups that sprang up as followers of false teachers who corrupted the truth that they had inherited (heresies).
Instead, as far back as we can trace the history of theology, Christianity was always a widely disparate collection of various beliefs (and practices). In the struggle for converts, one form of the Christian faith ended up becoming dominant. When it did so, it declared itself orthodox and all other forms of the faith heretical; and then it rewrote the history of the engagement, claiming that it had always been the principal form of Christianity, starting with Jesus himself and the disciples.
I have also explained
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!
This series as well as your last Misquoting Jesus has been fascinating. I’m enthralled.
Wow. Your views on this seem very hard to argue with.
But let me ask this. Even if, from a historical-critical perspective, Jesus himself did not teach atonement/forgiveness of sin through his passion, aren’t there good (historical-critical) reasons to think that doctrine goes back to the very first Christians? Even if there’s a lot more to Christianity-both orthodox and heretical-than that doctrine, would it be correct to say that almost all versions agree on that? Or maybe Jesus’s brother James and the Ebionites never did adopt that doctrine? Or maybe the original sources of what became Luke/Acts never adopted it either.
I’m not saying that undercuts the argument made by Bauer and supported by you.
Yes, I think the idea that Jesus’ death of atonement arose almost directly as soon as his followers believed he had been raised from the dead. They had to explain why then God would have him crucified, and they immediately came to think he must have been some kind of sacrifice for the sins of others. That’s the beginning of Christianity.
How do the defenders of an original orthodoxy deal with the (obviously) very strong influence of Greek ideas/philosophy on orthodoxy? Some of that (the seeds?) is probably present in the NT. But didn’t that Greek influence ultimately, by the third century, make Christianity substantially different from the NT—or if not quite contradictory of the NT, add a quite large, new dimension not to be found in the NT?
Different proponents would argue different things. For example, that God was using these ideas for his own purposes. Or that the ideas were logical, not “Greek” — just as today people think the “law of non-contradiction” is simply commonsense, not Aristotelian.
Paul in Galatians says he presented his gospel to the pillars of the church in Jerusalem and they added nothing to his message.
He says that Cephas used to eat with, and live like, the gentiles; that he only drew back from them for fear of the the circumcision group; and he says the only reason this group compels people to be circumcised is to avoid persecution for the cross of christ.
Given that James, one of the pillars, was executed by the sanhedrin as a breaker of the law, we know that Paul’s story checks out.
So Paul gives the impression in Galatians of a theologically orthodox and united early leadership of the church which is under stress from violent outside influence.
I would be really interested to know what Professor Bart’s view of this defence of Orthodoxy proposed by brenmcg here. If I interpret him correctly, he is saying Paul, Peter and James (hence the Church of Jerusalem) were in agreement but some less influential Christians in Galatia disagreed which doesn’t matter much?
According to Acts they were all in agreement. I think Paul’s pretty clear in Galatians 1-2 that they were not.
Didn’t Paul himself in Galatians mention that Peter agreed with him but was only changing his behaviour to not offend James men?
Also more importantly, doesn’t Paul in Galatians say that they (probably James and his men) only do this to avoid prosecution by the Jews not as a matter of real division of belief?
Yes, that’s when they started to disagree on whether Jewish followers of Jesus could associate at meaals with gentile follower sof Jesus. The rift became severe and they had a heated public breakup over it.
Thank!
Too bad Jesus was probably illiterate and didn’t write an autobiography, explaining precisely what He wanted His followers to believe and practice. Hopefully, He would not have required circumcision. Ouch.
In her book Revelations, Dr. Pagels argues that the author of Revelation had as one of his enemies the Pauline-style converts, who did not become observant Jews. Prof. Ehrman’s book on Revelation does not directly address Pagels.
I am wondering whether Dr. Ehrman agrees or disagrees with Dr. Pagels on this.
I disagree on that. Revelation does not insist that followers of Jesus become observant Jews.
Dr. Ehrman- I imagine that if I lived in Galatia and was looking into converting religions, I would probably be a little biased towards one of the sects that didn’t require me to take a knife to my foreskin. Any insight on how much people’s desire to keep their genitalia intact led them to pick Paul’s version of Christianity over that being preached in Jerusalem or others requiring ritual circumcision?
I wish I knew! But it seems pretty sensible to me!
Are there theories about why Jesus’s brother James and close disciples such as Peter would have settled in Jerusalem rather than going back to support their families in Galilee as farmers or fisherman, etc.? How would they have supported themselves in Jerusalem?
I don’t see a direct response. And that is OK.
My sense is that, if you take the gospels as historical, the disciples had already been away from families for 3 years, so much of the familial affiliation could already have expired.
However, the real question is why they returned to Jerusalem to establish a church. I don’t have any musings about that.
Personally, I think the synoptic gospels are mythical rather than historical. The fact that Matthew, Luke and John gospels exist, post Mark, equals disagreement among hellenistic Jews and christians of all doctrinal positions, so that the mythical meanings are shifted to emphasize those points of view.
Oh also, a historical yeshua and disciples could lead to mythical stories about them which can include stories that may have some basis in reality. Bart has written and commented on such stories.
They seem to have found a way to make a living in Jerusalem rather than farm or fish in the countryside. I wonder if they were waiting for Jesus to imminently return?
Paul references disciples being married in 1 Corinthians 9:5 when he says he has a right to marry a *believing* woman because Peter, Jesus’ brothers, and other apostles had married.
I don’t get the sense the disciples were in Jerusalem without their wives and probably children. But maybe so.
Bart, I agree with the notion that the NT itself, specifically Paul’s letters, prove that there was always tension regarding unity in the Church… (ie. 1 Corinthians 1:10-13), but even though the book of John was written later, John 17:20-26 displays Yeshua praying for unity amongst believers as if He already knew we’d be divided (which is predictable since divisive opinions is basic human nature).
With that said,
1. I’m wondering if you would agree that a strict orthodox view was never the objective for the early apostles (ie. Peter’s realization of accepting gentiles in Acts 11:16-18) – and instead, as taught in 1 Corinthians 12:12-31, a gradual understanding of unity within diversity under “one body” has been a crucial key component to the Christian faith that has been overlooked and underestimated for 2K+ years thanks to the tyrannical creeds of the Catholic church?
2. Do you think it’s possible to simplify an updated “creed” for today’s time where a non-negotiable list of doctrine can be agreed upon *amongst all denominations,* while acknowledging “debatable differences” as lesser importance? If so, what would be your humble opinion of a non-negotiable list of doctrine that can be agreed upon amongst all denominations?
1. I would think that the early apostles were concerned that everyone had the “right understanding” of Jesus, but they were not thinking of doctrinal unity so much as community cohesion. It’s not clear how close various views had to be in order to be acceptible to them.
2. No, I don’t think you’ll find much common ground among all denominations. But some things could surely be worked out: there’s one God, the creator; Christ is his son; Christ brought salvation; faith should affect your life; etc.
Yep, point #1 makes sense… since Paul himself never imagined that his letters would become scripture so the idea of a NT doctrine and variations of it was not even considered. But, as we notice in the timeline writings of each book (ie. dates for Paul’s epistles vs the gospel dates), it’s evident that the gospel was always a gradual solidification of the faith ya know? For example, Paul admonishing Peter in Galatians 2:11-14 shows the disciples still ironing out the foundation of their unified faith .. Which is a justified scenario considering how Yeshua Himself was constantly expressing frustration or disappointment with His disciples’ lack of understanding (ie. Mark 8:17-18 and Matthew 15:16) …
and regarding point #2, your list is exactly what I was referring to so seems like we’re on the same page regarding what that common ground would be… like you said, there isn’t much common ground (hence the multitude of sects), but there is SOME, which is what I wanted to focus on… I’m curious what else would you add since you stopped short with “etc.” if you don’t mind elaborating a bit further? 🤔🧐🙏
Wll, probably that the Bible important in some way; that God ultimatly loves people; that love of others is important. Many of these points would relate to other religions as well, of course.
Yes, but what I find interesting is one of the points you stated once in one of your lectures, comparing Christianity with other religions, and you contrasted the difference of how the Golden Rule is applied… you said Christianity was the first religion to apply it positively (DO onto others what you want done to you) vs negatively (DONT do to others what you dont want done to you.) …this was a fascinating little fun fact that I jotted down in my notes after hearing you explain that, it’s such a small detail with huge implications of the expected results on society ya know? So with that in mind, sure there are some “loving” principles that seem similar but isn’t it inaccurate to compare the views of other religions as parallels to Christianity when the task given to believers are so significantly different?
(as always, thank you for your time!)
I’m not sure if Jesus was the first to give the golden rule in the positive sense. I mayhave misspoken in my lecture. But I think the Greek orator Isocrates (three centuries earlier) said it positively, “You should deal with others the way you expect me to deal with you” But it is true that almost all the other expresssions of it are negative (don’t do what…)
Jewish thinkers sometimes like to point out that it is always possible to observe the negative version of the golden rule, but not always possible to observe the positive. You would not, for example, want to do unto the surgeon as you would have him to do unto you.
Maybe in the days of Jesus the two were not so different….
Hmm… upon checking that myself, apparently there aren’t any writings attributed to Isocrates that state the quote you mentioned, but I also tried searching if perhaps a copy of his quoted writings that mentions that quote survived, and I still couldn’t find any results. The closest quote I found that is similar is:
τοιοῦτος γίγνου περὶ τοὺς γονεῖς, οἵους ἂν εὔξαιο περὶ σεαυτὸν γενέσθαι τοὺς σεαυτοῦ παῖδας. (Be the kind of children to your parents as you would have your children be to you.)
Though that is indeed a very similar teaching stated in the positive, it’s amongst parents and children so that limits the task to the household versus to your neighbor/stranger ya know?
On the contrary, I did find a confirmed quote of his that implies the exact opposite:
“It is right to deal with bad men in the same manner in which they deal with good men.”
– which sounds like an “eye for an eye” which Yeshua corrected in Matthew 5:38-39
So if you don’t mind, can you please cite a source that I can refer to that’ll show me where Isocrates stated that? Or is what I found pretty much it? Thanks again.
Apologies, I’m out of the country and don’t have my books with me, so I don’t know the reference. Maybe someone else on the blog can fill us in?
Just for fun, here’s my list of a non-negotiable doctrine and debatable doctrine, curious on your feedback of it’s universal practicality?
Christian Non-negotiable Essentials:
• Love God first, then Love your neighbor as yourself.
• Yeshua is God’s only begotten Son who, according to the Father’s will, created all things, was incarnated via a virgin birth, and was martyred as the Messiah to redeem mankind through His resurrection.
• Discipline in the gospel is a reliable manual for life as God’s inspired Word – whether inerrant or errant, history proves its authenticity is as objectively verified as any other timeless secular resource that society respects (Plato, Aristotle, etc.).
• We are saved from hell and perishing by faith in Yeshua alone, no other requirement is needed. True faith is evident in one’s walk (works), but because of faith we’re already forgiven whenever we sincerely fall (grace).
Debatable Doctrine
• The Trinity is a divine sovereign family of Father, Son and Holy Spirit working in unison (Elohim = plural). How this triune relationship is understood is where Nicene Trinitarians and Arianism differ.
• Baptism & the Eucharist are vital *symbolic* traditions for remaining in the vine.
• The Great Commission is a Postmillennial mission.
I don’t think all denominatoins will agree with that. Many Christians no longer believe in hell or in the necessity to believe in Christ, e.g. (that is, many Christians think that people who have “never heard” of Christ are not necessarily going to be punished for it). Many Christians don’t believe in the literal virgin birth or a physical resurrection. My view is that Christianity is massively diverse. And if you say that “those people aren’t really Christian” (as many people say!) then there’s not much chance of reconciling the diversity.
When you say, “Many Christians no longer believe in hell”, can you tell me what denominations dismiss the idea of hell? From my understanding, the only difference in views regarding Hell is whether or not you’ll burn eternally vs an eventual perishing of existence (Annihilationists) – so there’s different understandings of how the experience of Hell will be, but I’m not aware of any sect that dismisses the idea of Hell entirely if you can clarify that?
Regarding the “necessity to believe in Christ” considering those who genuinely never heard of Him, I can understand the notion behind that since Romans 2:14-15 teaches how such a scenario would be judged… so there’s that angle.
Now for the “the literal virgin birth or a physical resurrection” part, frankly, how can anyone call themselves a Christian and deny this? When Paul asserts the importance of this tenet in 1 Corinthians 15:12-14, 1 Corinthians 15:17, and verses like Romans 8:11 point to mortality which is a physical trait, and if this wasn’t clear enough we also have 1 Corinthians 15:26 which emphasizes the victory over death…lol so to be fair, respectfully, wouldn’t you agree that anyone who denies these tenets shouldn’t even be considered Christian?
I don’t know of denominations that reject the teachings of hell, since most denominations don’t make doctrinal statements a policy to be followed by all their members. But a grwoing percentage of individual Christians of various denominatoins do, including, increasingly, evangelical Christians. You may want to check out my book Heaven Nd Hell where I have a disussion for this.
As to the virgin birth: Paul hinself says nothing of it, so there’s nothing to suggest he (or any NT author than Matthew and Luke)heard of it. As to the *physical* resurrection, Paul in 1 Corinthians is arguing against Christians who thought Jesus’ resurrection was spiritual, not physical. He thinks these people are dead wrong, but he never indicates they weren’t Christians.
My concerns are the modern academics disagree vehemently notably on historicity! They tend to be generous in some spaces and far less so in defining the entry points into the “interpretation of the faith”. For instance, where Christianity and Judaism touch the religions of Old, of the time, contemporaneous with Christianity, the faiths of the nearby empires and a few slightly far away, they are far less generous. At a fundamental level John 1 and Mark 1 actually tell the same thing and it is necessary to parse to differentiate out both as very different. The Trinity did not begin at Nicaea but with John 1 and Mark 1. Specifically questions of “Was Mark a Trinitarian?”, “Was Paul a Trinitarian?” is often glaringly left unexumed. Dennis McDonald is sidelined. The interplay of Roman and Parthian politics be it in the context of the New Testament including John is history but its left outside the historical framework. When we ask about John the Baptist in Mark, Matthew and Luke, we recognize the central play of the interpretations. “The Elijah who is to come” is not clearly explained in the Roman and Parthian context, nor is Robert Price’s interpretation given a thought.
I’d say that modern academics vary widely, one to the other. It certainly would not be true that most have never asked wheter Mark or Paul was a Trinitarian. On the contrary, that kind of thing is explored all the time. Almost everyone who explores it historically says no. But not because they haven’t explored it. And I very much do not think John 1 and Mark 1 are saying basically the same thing. I have no horse in that race; it wouldn’t affectd a single thing about what I personally believe about God, Christ, the Bible, or anything else. But I think the standard view, when looked at seriousy and honestly, is simply right: they are fundamentally on different pages.
Mark 1 “9 At that time Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan. 10 Just as Jesus was coming up out of the water, he saw heaven being torn open and the Spirit descending on him like a dove. 11 And a voice came from heaven: “You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased.” One notes the Holy Spirit, God’s Voice and Jesus as the Son thus making a Trinity.
John 1 “The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world. 30 This is he of whom I said, After me cometh a man which is preferred before me: for he was before me. 31 And I knew him not: but that he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water.32 And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him.”
They are mostly same. Representing new syncretic Christianity promising salvation through Baptism by Trinity, like Eastern Religions. Romans 8 is Trinitarian — https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/58822955.pdf.
See https://www.esv.org/resources/esv-global-study-bible/chart-45-03/
The doctrine of the Trinity is not merely the mention of Father, Son, and Spirit. Every proto-orthodox Christain in the early centuries agreed that the three were in some sense divine. The doctrine of the Trinity involves HOW they can all three be divine, how they can be *equal* (one not subordinate to another), how they can be of exactly the same substance, co-eternal, omiscient, omnipotent (each of them, not one of them), and different persons and yet a single God. That formulation cannot be found in the NT. Non-trinitarians in antiquity knew these same passages and agree that all three were divine. But they rejected the eventual docrine of the trinity.
Prof. Ehrman, I understand, but again your definition I argue is a neologosism. Augustus, MarkAntony and Lepidus were a Triumvir. Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva form the Hindu Trinity. Genesis which is also a Creation and Flood Myth story like its Hindu counterpart introduces God and Holy Spirit; and in Christianity Jesus is introduced as a Third element of the Triad. In Mark 1 we see Jesus mentioned with the Father and the Holy Spirit in the context of salvation by bathing in the River(at Al-Maghtas!) and having Sins removed. By introducing “In the Beginning” John 1 draws the Third Element into Genesis. In the Hindu Trinity, Brahma(married to Saraswathi) is the Father, Isha(Shiva) is the son. The Canaanites had El as Father, and then Baal and maybe once Nahar. Baal in Sanskrit means son. Kumbh (or Magh) Mela is when people take the holy bath to rid themselves of sin and for this you need a Trinity. And that is the idea in Mark 1 and John 1. And also in Luke 3! (Which you believe should be Luke 1) Christianity grew syncretically expanding to include Baal/Dionysus/Isha/Dushara as a dying and rising third Deity in Triumvirate.
I’m afraid it’s what the term Trinity has meant for many, many centuries. If a Christian says they believe in the Trinity, that’s what they mean. You can certainly use it for other things that involves threes as well, of course.
We disagree because Trinity and “Doctrine of Trinity” are distinguished.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logos#Christianity
“In Christology, the Logos (Koinē Greek: Λόγος, lit. ’word, discourse, or reason’)[2] is a name or title of Jesus Christ, seen as the pre-existent second person of the Trinity. The concept derives from John 1:1”.
The Sumerian Creation and Flood Myth had a Trinity — Anu, Ea and Enlil. The Armenians and the Hindus had a Trinity. Judaism has God(the Father) and Holy Spirit. Christianity introduces the Son for Trinity. Matthew 2 produces a Son(of God) out of Egypt who is born to Joseph.
Mark 1 and John 1 introduce the Trinity. Matthew 3 and Luke 3 also introduce the key Baptism via the Trinitarian line — “As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting on him. And a voice from heaven said, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.”
Christians baptize using the Great Commission – Matthew 28 — “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost”
As a Christian keeping company with what I loosely call “new age” communities and others on the political left, I’ve found that many who have a disdain for Christians are vested in an orthodox view of Christianity. If I’d say, for instance, “I don’t believe in hell or the blood atonement,” they have responded, “Then you’re not a Christian.” Of course, I’ve heard that judgment from truly orthodox Christians as well. I suppose whether it’s love or hate, people like absolutes.
Yup, that’s absolutely right. It’s because fundamentalists have succeeded in convincing the rest of the world what it “really” means to be a Christian.
there was a group In the USA praying 24/7/365 making intercession for the nation.
since I’ve been booted from almost every church I went to in the Pacific rim, I no longer go to church in the USA. I learnt from S African Andrew Murray and an English editor, compiler & translator of Watchman Nee’s convention’s lecture notes that followers of God are supposed to take Jesus’s cross- deny our desired and blood- take up Jesus’s redeeming blood from the cross over our unknown sins, to be worthy of God.
Aug 2016, one of my mother’s prayer partners Taiwanese who graduated from UCBerkeley but resides nearby accused me of being too political bringing up some well known crimes.
x-ian leaders such as Franklin Graham need to repent for his own decorum, and pray for the nation. We are not the chosen nation as Reagan spouted.
God bless America, OK. But I lived in China during its modernization & God had NO hand in improving the lives of billions. So with the Pandemic, did God lie down to the prayers of his most obedient!
So your view is that Paul is not honest in Galatians when he says that James and his men only did this for fear of prosecution, not genuine theological belief?
If so, do we have any evidence? I am asking because James being executed by the Jews for not following the law seems to give some credibility to Paul’s words.
Thanks a lot for taking the time to respond!
I was a fundamentalist Muslim, became liberal with time then an Agnostic a year ago. I know a lot about early Islam (for a non-scholar of course) and developed a recent interest in early Christianity as history, not a religion.
I don’t think that’s what I said and I know it’s not my view! Paul, for example, may have really thought that they did do it for fear of persecution, if that’s not they themselves would have said. They may well have believed it.disabledupes{d6444ee1081c91f9cf6262e644082a0e}disabledupes
1) Do we know how many of Jesus’s disciples continued to preach Jesus’s teachings after his crucifixion?
2) Do you believe Jesus’s disciples disagreed with each other as much as other early Christians disagreed with each other?
3) Why does Paul seem to contradict many of Jesus’s teachings when Paul personally met some of Jesus’s disciples?
1. No. 2. I don’t know if “as much as,” but they certainly didn’t agree on everytihng. 3. Why do people contradict me when they know some of my students?
3) Why does Paul seem to contradict many of Jesus’s teachings when Paul personally met some of Jesus’s disciples?
St paul didn’t walk as the 12 did. it’s something about living with & EXPERiencing the same as opposed to his contrived notion of ‘meeting Jesus’. St Paul was the smartest & MOST PRODuctive doesn’t means he was spewing jesus’ message.