Loading...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. So, where do we now stand on the issue, some 90 years 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, in this latter camp. It was when I was in graduate school, as a committed evangelical myself, but as one who was moving away from my conservativism based on my detailed research into the New Testament and the history of the early Christian movement, that I first encountered Bauer.
My Doktorvater, Bruce Metzger, recognized the importance of Bauer, and had all his students read his significant tome. Metzger was famous for asking, as one question on a student’s five-hour “History of Early Christianity” PhD exam, to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of Bauer’s thesis. And so, in preparation for my PhD exams, I worked through Bauer very carefully. Moreover, I read a book Metzger strongly suggested as a “counter” to Bauer, a book by H. E. W. Turner, The Pattern of Christian Truth: A Study of the Relations Between Orthodoxy and Heresy in the Early Church.
Metzger found the latter book
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!
There have been no new discoveries that could be convincingly argued to have been an earlier form of christianity than the letters of Paul.
That’s right. The evidence of it comes from old discoveries. (The writings of the New Testament.)
Doesn’t Paul our earliest Christian writer make it clear that already in his day there were competing teachings, and the early church was beset with “heresy”: Galatians 2:4, 2 Corinthians 11:13, Philippians 3:2. Even the pseudepigraphic 2 Peter 2:1. I suppose one could argue the heretics were a small minority but I think it’s naive to see the diversity in Christianity today and think the early Christians were significantly different in this regard.
Yup, everywhere he turns he has committed Christians who think that he has gotten it all wrong. He seems to have more enemies than friends.
I am loving this!
Doesn’t it seem, though, that very soon after the resurrection appearances, followers agreed on a view that salvation was offered by Jesus’s death and resurrection? Isn’t that the core of the orthodox view? Paul thought that very early on. Although nuanced, the synoptics proclaim the importance of repentence, the human Jesus’s death, and his miraculous resurrection.
Seems the earliest contrary views, such as gnostic ideas that Jesus only appeared to be human and didn’t really suffer and die, came considerably later when Jesus didn’t return and more philosophically-minded, educated people had joined the movement and tried to make sense of the situation, writing their own gospels.
It does seem there was competition about beliefs as the 2nd century dawned. But in the end, the winners were those who retained the original core belief in the salvation offered by Jesus’s death and resurrection.
Or am I oversimplifying to the degree that I am losing important distinctions?
I, for one, agree with your assessment and don’t think you are oversimplifying things. Paul’s letters suggest a developed, complex, “orthodox” movement very early on. Besides the items you mention, Paul referred to Jesus Christ as Lord, Son of God, descendant of David, born of a woman, in the form of God, potential equality to God (Philippians 2:6), the Lord’s Super on the same night he was betrayed, communion of bread and wine as body and blood, miracles associated with the movement, references to the Holy Spirit, baptism, negative views towards Mosaic Law (Galatians 2:19, 3:13), speaking in tongues, death on a cross, burial, and resurrection on third day, appearing live, in body, to multiple people afterward – mostly consistent with information in the Synoptic Gospels, except the Synoptics didn’t state Jesus was God, which in my mind paints an image of the movement earlier than Paul?
Yes, my view is that the authors of the Synoptics did think of Jesus as a divine being, but ont in the same way as Paul and John, say (who also have differences). The earliest followers of Jesus appear to have thought that he was made a divine being at his resurrection; Mark and Luke (originally) may place it at his baptism; Matthew and (a later form of Luke) at his conception. I deal with this issue at length in my book How Jesus Became God.
disabledupes{a832b58ffb9c113568f4cff07666aa12}disabledupes
As a follow up to my previous comment, these concepts, still prevalent today, were at complete odds with Judaic monotheism. It’s easy to see how consternations, complications, and schisms developed when early Christian theologians attempted to explain these concepts and still keep the primary foundation of Judaic monotheism. The Gnostics simply went off the deep end but made no more or less sense than the “orthodox” theologians.
Paul’s letters appear to regurgitate existing concepts of the early Jesus movement, which must have been based on existing written and/or oral sources. I think the complexity and remarkable consistency with the Synoptic Gospels suggest written sources from that time – maybe predecessors to the Synoptics that no longer exist? I don’t believe there are seriously accepted theories that Paul invented the concepts in his letters.
Even the use of the term evangelion (translated to gospel in Old English) is an interesting commonality between Paul’s letters and the Synoptic Gospels. The Synoptics quote Jesus speaking the term, and Paul used it many times in his seven letters. However, it was never used in the Hebrew Bible, and I don’t believe it was a common term in Jewish writings (please correct me if I am wrong). Evangelion is Greek for “good news” and was a Greco-Roman political term to announce the birth of a new heir to the throne, or victory in battle – similar, I dare say to today’s political term MAGA. On the surface, the words seem innocent enough, but in today’s context conjure deep political emotions.
Of course, Jesus probably did not speak Greek, but he could have used a foreign term, similar to how we might say “que sera sera” without knowing Spanish/Italian. Do the earliest Greek manuscripts offer a clue to the actual term/phrase Jesus and/or Paul might have used?
Evangelion and its verbal form does occur in the Septuagint, mainly in 2 Kings and in some of the prophets, but not often. The Hebrew root-term it is translating is BSR.
I think the use of evangelion in the Synoptic Gospels and Paul’s letters offer a clue as to the earliness and similar time period of their writings/sources. By the time the Gospel of John is written (generally accepted to be decades later) the term is completely missing.
Possibly, but the word continues to be used later, even in the NT (Revelation) and is common throughout the writings of the church fathers, starting with the Apostolic Fathers (I can’t remember if you know Greek, but if you do, check out the extensive citaitons in Lampe’s Patristic Greek Lexicon).
As I understand Paul, he didn’t think anyone could perfectly (or adequately) follow the OT law. So all were condemned (to eternal destruction or torment). Until Jesus’s sacrifice obtained forgiveness of sins. I take it that the first Christians also believed something like this.
But isn’t this very different from the dominant or widespread Jewish view out of which Jesus, the first Christians, and Paul emerged? I don’t know whether such Jews thought the law could be followed perfectly. But they did believe that animal sacrifices could atone for sin, didn’t they?
Consequently, for those Jews who believed in the resurrection, were mostly law-compliant, and who were forgiven through atoning sacrifices, couldn’t they be “saved” or “rewarded” even if they hadn’t been perfect?
Where did Paul and the first Christians get the idea that these other atoning sacrifices were not enough and that people couldn’t be saved except through Jesus’s atoning sacrifice? Just because otherwise there would have been no reason for Jesus to suffer and die?
Paul and the first Christians seem to have been extremely perfectionistic about the catastrophic consequences of the slightest deviation from OT Law even when combined with atoning animal sacrifices. This seems very unreasonable.
I don’t think I would put it quite that way. Paul himself indicates, about his life prior to belieiving in Christ, that “with respect to the righteousness found in the law, I was blameless” (Phil. 3:6). I think he meant it. He could and did keep the law exactly. the problem was that the “righteousness of the law” was excrement (his word) in comparison with the “righteousness of Christ.” The law’s righteousness was not adequate for a right standing before God. Otherwise God would never have sent Christ to die and be raised from the dead.
That’s an interesting distinction/clarification regarding Paul’s view (though I think maybe I read something somewhere to the effect that Paul (must have?) attributed part of his “blamelessness” to atoning animal sacrifices rather than entirely to perfect compliance with the law)
But Jesus and Jews in general who believed in the resurrection did not think that perfect compliance with the law was necessary in order to be saved, did they?
Salvation within Judaism comes to God’s chosen ones because they are his chosen ones, not because they have somehow earned it by keeping the law. But just as you obey your parents because you love them, you obey God because you love and are chosen by him.
Hi Bart more of philisophical question. Was just wondering what your thoughts were on the different authors of the Bible’s opinions on free will was and whether it was possible they had multiple different opinions on this subject and whether some of them even took a more deterministic view of the universe (I assume your familiar with the free will debate.) As I recently read Sam Harris’ book on Free Will (also called Free Will) and found it quite compelling yet it doesn’t seem to be compatible with the stereotypical evangelical view that we are all responsible for the actions (good or bad) that we do . I do know thought that quite a lot of the views evangelicals hold I know you think (correct me if I’m wrong) differ quite a lot from what certain authors of the Bible actually thought or said e.g. Jesus’ divinity etc. So would be interesting to hear your thoughts on the subject?
What we think of as “free will” and the philosophical problems (not to mention neurological) related to it are all products of the Enlightenment. Biblical authors naturally thought that we could decide how to act and what to do, and some certainly thought God was ultimately sovereign over all things, possibly even our fates, but they did not have the post-enlightenment debates that were taken up by philosophers and now by neurologists about the conflict between divine sovereingty and human freedom. The Bible authors never discuss “How can we have free will if it is all pre-determined by God” or “How can God but *completely* sovereign if we have free will” Modern people read those debates BACK INTO the bibical narratives (starting with Adam and Eve) simply on the unexamined premise that these issues must have been preoccupying (or simply lying behind) the biblical narratives.
wpoe54, I offer some comments before BDE (Blog Doktorvater Ehrman) gives the official response to your question. I think you are oversimplifying it. Paul’s letters indicate that Christian churches in different places were worshipping differently and incorrectly, even within a few years of him starting those churches. For a more specific example, Matthew says that salvation is through being charitable (sheep/goats) and following the Jewish law better than a Pharisee. That may not not be the “Ebionite” position per se, but is fairly consistent with the Ebionite view that gentiles had to convert to Jewish laws before becoming a real Christian. Or maybe I am oversimplifying it.
Eastern Orthodox clergy apologists respond to this by simply saying that those small scattered orthodox groups were the true Orthodox and all the rest were heretics, no matter how numerous or dominant they were. It’s just another example of Satan trying to deceive the early Christians, sometimes even apparently gaining the upper hand, but the Orthodox groups graced by the Holy Spirit still prevailing in the long run. In short: no Christianities. Just Christianity. Checkmate 19th-early 20th Century German theologians and modern librul bible scholars!
Thanks for the post, great read as always!
Somewhat off-topic, except your mention of spread of texts in antiquity at the end. I’ve read that some think that Mark was first composed in Rome itself, though Antioch and other places are suggested. Understanding of course we cannot actually know, do you have any understanding as to what is the basis for the belief that Rome was the spot of composition (e.g. Gentile audience, reference to temple destruction)? I’ve tried to look into what this claim is based on, without much success.
Any thoughts would be appreciated!
I think there’s no way to know. One of the common arguments is that Mark has numerous Latinisms in it (Latin expressions in a Greek composition). And hey, that shows he wrote from Rome, right? (Kind of like saying that if a French novel has English expressoins in it it was probably written in New York City (as opposed, say, to San Francisco!)
“Not simply one BIG orthodoxy and occasional little heretical offshoots”
The great effort made by “orthodox” authors like Ireneus in “fighting” heresies also point to the fact that indeed were not just simple little offshoots.
I’m interested in what Bart has to say about this, of course, but my impression is that the first generation of Christians — most of whom still regarded themselves as Jews — saw the resurrection as divine proof of Jesus’s status as Messiah and understood “salvation” less in terms of Jesus’s death as a propitiatory sacrifice for our sins and more as Jesus’s anticipated return in glory to establish his Messianic kingdom and where the true believers would be honored co-rulers with him. I think gnosticism responds to this (perhaps, as you suggest, as reaction to the fact that Jesus’s triumphant return to establish that Messianic kingdom seemed to be taking a while) by flipping that expectation on its head and imagining Jesus teaching that the “kingdom of God” is in fact inside each of us, waiting to be discovered through mystical awakening.
My view of this changed some years ago. I think at nearly the moment Jesus’ followers came to believe he was raised from the dead they thoguht *BOTH* that this showed he was coming back to bring the kingdom right away *AND* that God must have ahd a reason for making him crucified and landed immedicately on the idea that it must have been necessary for salvation (an atonement).
You have in other posts presented solid evidence that Romans did not remove crucified victims, but those victims remained hoisted until they were eaten and/or decomposed. There was no burial and resurrection.
Do you know of any evidence that the earliest christians developed what came to be classified heterodox beliefs because they saw jesus’ body remain hanging and decomposing? That is, gnostic beliefs that the truths are hidden in mystery. Marcionite and Ebionite beliefs. The real son of god would not have experienced that level of suffering. God or the holy spirit must have exited the body before crucifixion or death. Any number of explanations for the contrast between witnessing a dead and decomposing body versus what they expected from Jesus.
I have tried to understand these heterodox beliefs origins, and this is the best I can conceptualize. Certainly, whatever actual oral knowledge Jesus share with his disciples was so unspecific or incomplete that such heterodox beliefs formed based on something of substance.
I don’t think any of Jesus’ followers could have seen himhanging and decomposing. They had fled. No one in jerusalem probably realized that hte person left there on the cross (among all the others left on crosses) would soon be declared the Son of God, the risen Lord of the world.
I myself don’t have a hard time imagining the rise of heterodox beliefs in ealry Christianity. As far back as we can trace the religion there are different views, and even today new views spring up all the time. Even the disciples may well have had different views. People today in the same church have different views (not to mention in the same political party, e.g.)
I thought that yesterday I had made a comment asking for your recommendation as to which of Geza Vermes’ books about the historical Jesus would be best for general readers.
Now I don’t see the comment. I don’t know if at the end I failed to actually post it or it disappeared into cyberspace or what?
Anyway I still want to ask the question even at the risk of asking a duplicate.
Part of my uncertainty about Vermes’ books is that there are 5 or 6 about the Jewishness of Jesus that all sound pretty much alike.
As a default, maybe, if I only intend to read one of them, I should start with the most recently published?
Yes, that’s probably the best approach. I”m afraid I’ve never thought of how best to order them and it’s been so many years since I read them that … I’m not sure. I also don’t know where your comment went, but apparently into the strastosphere (I’ve taken some days off from the blog…)
Professor, apologize for going off topic… but considering orthodoxy in terms of conservative/fundamentalist theology today…. And brought up by the Gaza war…. Was the predicate of an extant Jewish Israel for the apocalypse to occur from Revelations, Daniel or something not explicit in the NT ?
Wondering if the Apocalypse of John the Devine had not made it in the NT, would conservative Christianity be so pro Israel…?
I deal with this in my most recent book Armageddon. It arose originally in the 1830s in England with the sense that the OT prophets predicting the return of Israel to the land were referring to the modern day. Then Daniel and Revelation kicked in and eventually 2 Thess. 2:2 (where the temple has to be rebuilt before the anti-Christ can arise). As it turns out, there wsa serious Christian Zionism before there was Zionism. The evangelical support of Israel is rooted in tihs understanding of the Bible (esp. Revelation). Anyway, I have a full discussio nof it in my book.disabledupes{fbb6cd300cd91253effcca7ca1098545}disabledupes
A bit off topic but ties in. It occurred to me that Jesus himself as depicted in the canonical gospels continually painted “the Jews” as insincere, sinister, out of touch, old fashioned, incorrect , and I can go on.
Then Paul turns on “the Jews” and creates his particular form of Judaism.
After that the early Christians created other layers but many fingers point back to the Jews as being all the negative and wrong things someone can imagine and list.
My point is the roots of antisemitism lie in the hands of Jesus and the historical Christians.
God punished the Jews many times before JC for breaking his rules. I find it ironic that JC expected them to break rules at the risk of punishment but break them else be punished.
I’m thinking these thoughts due to the rise of antisemitism once again. The Jewish people are under siege today.
*the Jews=priests and others who didn’t go along with JC and Christian philosophy
I’d say a very major issue is whether these sayings of Jesus in the Gospels go back to Jesus or are the views of hte Gospel writers. I think the latter in almost all cases. Jesus’ conflicts with other Jewish teachers were simply inter-Jewish debates, not debates of someone hating Jews.
Your perspective is consistent with R.G. Price as presented in The Gospel of Mark As Reaction and Allegory.
Price presents the author of Mark as a Hellenized Jew who wrote post 70 CE presenting Jesus as an allegorical figure representing the failure of Jewish religion and resistance to Rome evidenced by Rome’s destruction of the temple in 70 CE.
Bart has mentioned Price previously as someone who doubts Jesus actually existed. I happen to agree with Bart but, I think Price’s allegorical treatment can still hold even with Jesus being historical.
Would you clarify what you and other scholars mean when you say “early” Christianity? I have always assumed it referenced the developments of the first century but since so many changes took place in the second and third centuries I can see where that might be too restricted.
thanks
Most people use it fairly loosely, but most folk I know would use it to refer to Christianity from Jesus to Constantine.
Bart, how can one reasonably argue that Christian “orthodoxy” was what Jesus taught to his disciples, who then taught it to others who passed it on until the present day? Upon Jesus alleged resurrection, the disciples immediately created thwir main message about Jesus’ death and resurrection. That is not what Jesus had taught them. Jesus’ message didn’t survive even five years, let alone 2,000 years.
Yes, that’s the modern historical view and for those of us who agree with it, teh views of Jesus’ followers after his death differ significantly fro those of Jesus himself. (The subject of my online course: Jesus and Paul: the Great Divide)
It seems likely to me, since Jesus was the thinker in the group, that in the final hours, Jesus realized he would be arrested and likely killed, and it was he that told the disciples to prepare, that he would become a sacrificial lamb as the price he had to pay in order to return as the Son of Man. I’m sure scholars have proposed such an idea? Anyone you know Dr. Ehrman? The disciples expected to see Jesus soon after his death, and so they did.