(14 votes, average: 4.93 out of 5)
Loading...In my last post I started discussing the terms “orthodoxy” and “heresy,” pointing out that their traditional/etymological meanings are not very helpful for historians. “Orthodoxy” literally means the “right belief” about God, Christ, the world and so on. That means it is a theological term about religious truth. But historians are not theologians who can tell you what is theologically true; they are scholars who try to establish what happened in the past. And so how can a historian, acting as a historian, say that one group of believers is right and that another is wrong?
The problem with the two terms came to particular expression in a book written in 1934 by a German scholar named Walter Bauer. The book was auf Deutsch, but its English title is Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity. For my money, this was the most important book on early Christianity written in the 20th century. It completely revolutionized how we are to understand the theological controversies that were wracking the Christian church in its early years.
If you recall,
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!
Excellent essay, Dr. B.
Yes, I’m completely off-topic but I couldn’t find the right place to post this comment. Around Christmas and Easter or whenever there’s a conflict between Israel and Palestine a Christian clergy incorrectly says Jesus was a Palestinian. He wasn’t a Palestinian. Rome conquered the Jewish kingdom of Judea and renamed the whole region they conquered Syria Palestina. Palestine is a Latin word. Jesus was a Jew. To say otherwise is to erase Jewish history.
It’s hard to know what to call the area comprising Galilee, Samaria, and Judea in the time of Jesus. I used to call it Palestine as well just out of convention, just because that became its name. I then started calling it “the Jewish homeland” but that was too cumbersome. These days I just call it Israel, even though it wasn’t called that. Suggestions of better options are welcome!
I think the best convention is to use whatever name the ruling power of that particular geographic location used at the time we’re talking about, recognizing that boundaries were fluid at best, and that the ruling powers changed from time to time. (Under this guideline, I should call it Yehud during the Babylonian and Persian periods, but that one is too obscure, so I called Judaea.) So I only use the name “Palestine” starting after 135 CE, when the Romans changed the name.
Yes, makes sense. But if you want to speak of the place(s) where Jews were dominantly living in the promised land in Jesus’ day (Galilee and Judea together) what do you call it?
I would call it “Herod’s kingdom” while he was alive. I see the difficulty that you have after that, and I suppose there’s no ideal solution. “Galilee and Judaea” (or Judea) is probably the most neutral, certainly better than “promised land” or “Holy Land,” which have complications.
Yup, no good solution.
It is both comical and sad that every church thinks it is the “right” (orthodox) church. The Roman Catholic church believes it is the true church. The Greek Orthodox church thinks it is the one that goes back to the apostles. Of course Luther thought the Catholics had some stuff wrong and tried to reform it. I used to be part of the Restoration Churches here in America that thought they all got it wrong and tried to go back to (restore) the “original” teachings of the New Testament. No church is willing to admit that there is no way to know what is truly the “correct” religion (if any). And they continue to fight about it, sometimes literally. I’m glad I no longer have a dog in the fight, as they say.
I’d say more liberal mainline Protestant churches are much more loose on whether they have “the truth” and the “only truth.”
On the other side, my dad had a business associate who claimed that if you weren’t baptized in his own church you couldn’t br saved. And he didn’t mean his denomination. He mean his own local church….disabledupes{e80746435eb85077c2d3d261057e48ae}disabledupes
out of my unlearned, I refer to the region as Palestine.
I was baptized twice. the church I grew up in. & someone of some heft agrees that I was screwed since I began in elementary school to undergrad. but the only way to heaven in through that Darby based church. Exactly what happened to the more faithful believers than us.
The 2nd “church” baptized in undergrad 1year, dissolved in 1989. I was glad I was not part of the masses then.
Other churches were more concerned of their being better than being wholly for God which I am.
Please correct me if I am not correct but I heard HEARD ON FRESH AIR https://www.npr.org/2015/03/30/396365659/how-one-nation-didnt-become-under-god-until-the-50s-religious-revival KEVIN KRUSE How ‘One Nation’ Didn’t Become ‘Under God’ Until The ’50s Religious Revival
MARCH 30, 20153:29 PM ET
Yes, my understanding is that “Under God” was inserted (interpolated!) into the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954 to make sure it clearly stood against the “Godless Communists”.
But the pledge itself was not adopted officially by Congress until 1942, during WWII, even though versions of it had been circulating and popular since the 1880s (“One nation, indivisible” is clearly a post-Civil War, Unionist credo!).
This is my issue as well, ESPECIALLY as someone who still “identifies” as Christian. I keep trying to figure out how/why EVERYONE is SO convinced that their “way” is 100% correct? It is a source of GREAT consternation for me! The elitism, in group/out group, us vs them dynamics gives me quite the headache. One of the questions that I have pondered (and queried friends about) is this: Why wouldn’t God simply fix the problems of interpretation, linguistics, translations, etc. to ensure that everyone was ACTUALLY getting the EXACT same message?
“Authors like Eusebius produced histories of early Christianity in which they claimed that the views they supported had always been the majority Christian view everywhere since the beginning, that in fact their views were those pronounced by Jesus and his apostles. ”
What can we say about the anti-marcionite christians and early church fathers? Did money and power play a big role in exposing what they deemed heresy?
Eventually when Constantine converted it became clear which side the church’s bread was buttered on (the kind of Christianity constantine held) and by the end of the fourth century Theodosius I legislated against non-Nicean forms of Christianity. But early on it was really a matter of argument and persuasion, and such power as was ceded to leaders who may not have had much money or secular power. It does appear, though, that a church like Rome did (as Bauer argue) begin to assert its views on other churches already by the beginning of the second century.
-But early on it was really a matter of argument and persuasion
Quote:
. When you read these authors, the clear impression given is that at least some of the factions they’re combatting were quite widespread, numerous, and influential. And if you think about it, why else would these writers be expending so much argumentative ammunition against them, if they weren’t? In Against Heresies, Irenaeus describes the heterodox as “multitudes”, “many persons”, who have propagated their belief systems “with wretched success”, so much so that
End quote
Is it correct that proto orthodox were not persuasive enough?
They ended up being persuasive enough. But as we can see today in matters religious and political, it’s not easy to convince convinced people that your convictions are more convincing.
“Orthodoxy was not the original form of Christianity. Originally it was one of many competing forms.”
Originally it was just a couple of dozen followers led by Peter so it cant have been made up of many competing forms.
Whatever the original was must have been extremely close to Paul’s view, whom himself holds what later came to be called orthodoxy.
Are you saying that these 24 people could not have different views of Jesus? I think you must hang out with different kinds of people than I do.
Extraordinarily helpful. Maybe that’s why “Christianity” seems to be a corruption of Jesus’s words? (Although the other “heresies” may suffer from the same criticism). The victors write history. The United States was ordained by God. Etc.
Since 1 Clement was likely composed as early as some of the Gospels and presented itself as authoritative, why was it not included in the final canon of the NT?
Because it clearly wasn’t written by an apostle. Apostolic authorship became one of the major requirements.
That’s probably right, though you could say the same thing about Mark and Luke.
Thank you for the clarification. It is refreshing and places Eusebius in his proper historical context.
I am amused at the modern forms of heresy vs. orthodoxy. I breakfasted yesterday with three friends who are committed members of various Christian denominations (myself being the Catholic turned heathen). As a result, I spend a lot of my time listening intently to what is being said as I’d rather butter my toast in peace than argue. Yesterday’s diatribe centered on “progressive” churches changing all masculine references to the divine to gender-neutral terms. My “orthodox” friends are all aghast at this development, but I sat there thinking, “Well, as I remember it, God the creator appears in the OT as a burning bush and a cloud; he does not appear in the NT. Are bushes and clouds masculine? (Nope, not going with any jokes there.) What I found striking was not the adherence to a traditional religious view, but the absolute conviction that a new language approach was WRONG! It was as if God had been emasculated – although I will say I don’t know why any woman would want to view the vengeful, militant, impulsive God of the OT to be feminine. Hey, “Our way is right” continues.
Hi Bart, This question does not relate to any recent post, but I hope you can help me. I understand that when most of the time New Testament (NT) writers quoted the Old Testament (OT), they quote the Septuagint. I want to know the following:
1. What other translations of the OT were quoted in the NT?
2. Did any NT writer translate Hebrew or Aramaic OT manuscripts on the spot?
1. Only the Greek (but there wsan’t ONE Greek translation, despite the legends of the origins of “the” Septuagint). 2. It’s possible but not possible to know. My view is that none of the NT writers knew Hebrew.
Is there a theory of atonement (or maybe just of salvation and/or justification) in which humanity is freed from the power of sin, suffering, Satan, and death simply by the fact that God and/or Jesus overcame/defeated those forces through the combination of the crucifixion and resurrection? You might say that they were overcome in principle or as an irreversible beginning.
Of course this liberation might still be dependent on repentance and/or faith and/or good works. And people still have to put up with these evils until after they die or until the general resurrection. But atoning sacrifice with all its tortured reasoning would not enter into it.
This seems like a much more simple and straightforward way of looking at crucifixion/resurrection and why they were necessary for salvation to occur. And there’s still the poignancy of Jesus suffering and dying in order to save us.
Yes, you can find this theme in early Christianity, especially in some of the Harrowing of Hell traditions in later Gospels, where Christ clears out all of Hades simply because he is more powerful than the devil and Hades itself, and so brings salvation to all. I discuss this in my book Journeys to Heaven and Hell, and maybe should post on it.
Are there any novels about the life of Jesus that you would recommend? I’m looking for something more or less consistent with what we know about the historical Jesus but doesn’t limit itself to that. I’m thinking of an explicitly and consciously imaginative portrait that, among other things, tries to construct what Jesus was like as a person, ie, psychology and personality. In filling out an imaginative portrait of Jesus it might well use gospel material that can’t be established as historical because such material would be familiar to the reader.
Again I’m not looking for something historical but for something fictional that could also be plausible given what we do know about the historical Jesus combined with what many have imagined Jesus was like.
Possible examples might be the Last Temptation of Christ and, though not novels, Godspell and Jesus Christ Superstar. I’m also trying to think of examples of historical novels about other historical figures that portray compelling characters but are admittedly highly fictionalized. Maybe something like Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar and his other historical plays?
Last Temptatoin would be the place to start. But I’m afraid I don’t read Jesus novels (can’t bring myself to do it): I’m sure others on the Blog will be able to name their favorites. You readers: any suggestions?
Great overview of the meaning of “orthodoxy” (i.e., straight as a plumb bob) and the formation of the Roman Catholic Church in your last two posts, Bart. And thanks for your responses to my comments on your Nov. 8 post. Now, please enlighten us with your take on the significance of Eusebius of Caesaria to the creation of Christianity as we know it. In my studies, his role as advisor and panegyrist (spin-doctor) for Emperor Constantine I seems pivotal. After all, it was he who led Emperess Helena (Constantine’s subsequently sainted mom who had started life as a bar maid and likely prostitute) to the current site of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher and supposedly to what remained of the True Cross.
I don’t think Eusebius was an actual advisor to Constantine or in fact knew him very well. But he was hugely significant in the formation of Christian orthodoxy, not so much as a theologian (many of his views were not successful) but because of his Church History — the first written account of Christianity’s first three hundred years used by nearly all subsequent church historians as simply giving a descriptive account of what really happened down to the 20th century. In fact, the history seriously slants the events of Christian history in line with an orthodox understanding of the power of God, the work of hte Spirit, the impact of the apostles, the unity of the church, the nature of the persecutions, and the stamping out of those pestiferous heretics. These views became common sense for most of Christian history afterward.
Is it fair to say though that what became “orthodoxy” seems much more in line with the 4 Gospels than the “heresies,” Gnosticism in particular? Can we assume that the other forms of Christianity gave more weight to different sources?
Well, yes and no. We ourselves have inherited our practices of interpreting these books from orthodox Christianity, so what seems “common sense” in understanding the books is the view we’ve inherited, even when we think we’re reading them “objectively.” It would be pretty easy to use John to show that Jesus was not really a human for example, and that he was not fully God; or to use Mark and Luke to show that Jesus became the adopted son of God at his baptism, etc. Gnosticism seems so weird to us because we weren’t raised in it; but the first commentary ever written on John was by Heracleon, a Valentinian Gnostic, whose commonsensical reading makes no sense to us, just as ours makes no sense to him! My view is that Gnostics did get their views from other sources, just as the orthodox did. Today people read Matthew through the lense of the Nicene Creed, and that’s no better than the Gnostic options when it comes to understanding what matthew is actually talking about.
HaHa! So Eusebius, like many religious leaders after him, was a liar! He ‘Lied for Jesus’© (but actually, just like today, they actually lie for power).
Bart,
Did Bauer (or any subsequent scholar) consider the possibility that in addition to quashing competing beliefs, the ultimately successful (Rome-based) group may have also co-opted or adopted or altered some of its own beliefs slightly in order to fold in a powerful alternate group?
In other words, in your description, you say “The orthodox” set of beliefs was originally ONE of many (my emphasis). Is there any possibility that in fact it is the merging of a few groups’ adjacent-enough beliefs on the way to quashing all the rest?
I don’t know that anyone has suggested that, but who knows. I also can’t think of any evidence of it though.